ON THE THRUWAY TOLLS

Not long ago, we heard from Congressman Brian Higgins that the tolls on the Niagara Thruway are not only unfair, they are “immoral.” More recently, Eliot Spitzer has promised to eliminate the tolls if elected governor. A closer look, however, makes one question whether the elimination of the tolls would really benefit the community as a whole.

The recent hysteria from our public officials should not be surprising. The issue of the tolls is perfect for a candidate in this era of dumbed-down politics. It is easy to understand and sure to be popular. No one likes paying a toll merely to drive on a highway. It allows a politician to pander for votes, presenting himself, or herself, as a friend of the little guy, while distracting the citizenry from the reality that nothing of consequence is being offered to address the real ills of the community.

The issue is also illustrative of the approach too often taken by politicians whose vision extends no further than the date of the next election. What is offered is the reduction of a tax, or the elimination of a fee, with no provision made to account for the lost revenue. The Niagara Thruway tolls are used to maintain highways. No one is talking about closing any highways, so those roads will still have to be maintained. Neither Higgins nor Spitzer has put forth a plan to recover the lost revenue, except for the elusive promise of “greater efficiency.” As most of us know, that greater efficiency never materializes, with the result that today’s costs are covered by borrowing. Thus, the eliminated tolls can take their place beside many other of today’s obligations—underfunded Social Security, an unfunded, elective war in Iraq and unaddressed environmental problems—bills that selfish baby-boomers will leave to be paid by their children and grandchildren.

In their book, The Elephant in the Bedroom: Automobile Dependence and Denial; Impacts on the Economy and Environment, authors Stanley Hart and Alvin Spivak point out that government subsidies for highways and parking amount to between eight and 10 percent of the US gross national product and represent the equivalent of a gasoline tax of $3.50 per gallon. In Suburban Nation, authors Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck discuss the fact that the costs of subsidizing automobile travel are paid by everyone, in the form of income, property and sales taxes, and as part of increased costs for goods and services. Of course, city dwellers, and those too old or too poor to own or drive a car, pay the highest price. Not only must they bear a share of the burden for the automobile subsidy, they also suffer the loss of funding for mass transit systems, which are unable to compete with heavily subsidized highways, and the destruction of city neighborhoods caused by highway construction designed to create easier commutes for suburban drivers. The proposal of Higgins and Spitzer to abolish the Niagara Thruway tolls is just one more instance of the city dweller taking it on the chin so that a benefit can be conferred on suburban commuters. You’ll notice that neither politician proposed eliminating or reducing bus or train fares. Well, if the imposition of a toll of 75 cents on a suburban driver for use of a highway is morally objectionable, why is it okay to charge a bus or train rider twice that amount for the use of public transportation?

Tolls are a corrective measure, and actually should be employed to a much greater extent than they are today. They reduce the subsidy enjoyed by highways and place the burden of the highways’ cost where it rightly belongs—on those who use them. It is odd that public transportation is always expected to pay for itself, with the burden being placed on those who have to use it. Meanwhile, everybody has to pay for highway costs, even those who don’t own cars. And God forbid that you force someone to slow down his SUV to contribute to the upkeep of the road.

Global warming is, of course, another undesirable effect of heavy reliance upon the automobile as the principal means of transportation in the US. Every measure taken to encourage use of the automobile, such as the elimination of a highway toll, reduces the likelihood that a commuter will take a more environmentally friendly mode of transportation, such as a train or bus, thus adding to the already heavy environmental cost of automobile use.

Clearly, part of the plan for elimination of the tolls, at least for some, is the expectation that the costs of highway maintenance will be placed upon taxpayers across the state, easing the burden on the Western New Yorkers who pay most of the tolls on the Niagara Thruway. But one ought to be very careful on that point. After all, if a toll on a Western New York commuter highway is an unfair “commuter tax,” isn’t that true downstate, as well? A commuter to Manhattan from the New Jersey suburbs pays a toll of $6 to cross the George Washington Bridge. Residents of New York’s boroughs of Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn pay tunnel and bridge tolls of $4.50 to enter Manhattan. If it is “immoral” for a resident of suburban Buffalo to have to pay 75 cents to take I-190 into downtown Buffalo, isn’t it even more “immoral” to require a New York City resident to pay six times that amount to travel from one section of the city to another? I’m sure that the New Yorkers burdened by those tolls would love to see them eliminated and the cost borne by taxpayers across the state, including those who reside here in Western New York. I wonder if Brian Higgins or Eliot Spitzer would be in favor of such measures.

The reality of the situation is that, in today’s world, there is no reason to eliminate any highway toll and further subsidize automobile travel, given the high societal cost of the reliance upon the automobile. If we are ever to get out of the environmental mess that exists in this country, we will have to reduce the amount of driving that people do and bring back the cities. That means imposing a cost on automobile travel, rather than subsidizing it. It will be unpleasant, involving more tolls, higher gasoline taxes and stricter environmental requirements upon vehicles. In today’s world, the quick fix of eliminating a toll is exactly the wrong way to go.

Michael Willett

Buffalo

IT’S THE CASINO, NOT THE SENECAS

Michael Niman’s writing in “Casinos, Canadians and Indians” is not up his usual standard (Artvoice v5n15). Mr. Niman seems to be having a hard time reconciling his understanding that casinos prey on the poor and ruin communities with his desire to be supportive of native peoples.

First: Anti-casino groups are not the same as anti-sovereignty groups. Upstate Citizens for Equality is an anti-sovereignty group—not an anti-casino group. Further, not all anti-casino groups are alike. Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County (CACGEC) is exactly what its name says: an organization that opposes a casino anywhere in Erie County. This organization would oppose any casino, native or not, in Buffalo or in the suburbs. Citizens for a Better Buffalo likewise opposes any casino in the city of Buffalo, regardless of its owner or operator. Coalition Against Gambling in New York opposes any form of gambling in New York State, including casinos and lotteries. Likewise, the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling works to defeat legalized gambling anywhere in the United States. There may well be Canadian groups opposing casinos, but United States casino opponents are uncomfortable telling a country outside of our borders how to govern themselves. (On the other hand, if the Canadians or any other government were to sign a compact with Governor Pataki allowing them to create casinos in New York State, we’d be protesting.)

Mr. Niman is mistaken in his assumption that the Seneca Nation had to establish a casino in order to reclaim its lost lands. The Salamanca Settlement Act provided the Seneca Nation $30 million with which they could buy back their ancestral lands—no casino required. So this is completely consistent with Congressman LaFalce’s statement that establishing casinos is not what the Salamanca Settlement Act authorized or intended.

It is also important to remember that not all Senecas approve of casinos. The Seneca Nation passed the compact authorizing casinos by a very slim margin. Senecas for Justice and Preservation, an organization composed of members of the Seneca Nation, views casinos as antithetical to the traditional Seneca religion and harmful to the spirit of the Seneca people. Likewise, the Tuscarora Senecas are opposed to gambling, and will have nothing to do with casinos.

As for the assumption that casinos are a good way to make restitution for past harms done to Native Americans, this is not borne out by the facts. A series of articles published in Time in 2002 shows that in more than two decades, while making non-Indian investors and a handful of Indian power-brokers incredibly wealthy, Indian-run casinos in the US have had a dismal record of improving the condition of the average Native American.

Finally: Mr. Niman suggests that it is up to those who oppose a casino to offer an alternative for Indian development. If one identifies a blight, it does not logically follow that he must propose a countervailing good before the blight can be eliminated. Casinos are a blight on our community. It is patronizing to imply that Native Americans, in order to restore their place in the world, must rely on this reprehensible strategy that exploits the poor. We have no doubt that the Seneca Nation can create for its people opportunities for economic development that will lead to prosperity for all its members consistent with traditional Seneca values.

Mary & John Bartley

CACGEC

Buffalo

THE IMMIGRATION BILL

As I fumbled through the radio stations I was surprised to hear commentary concerning immigrants on a pop radio station, KISS 98.5, which labels itself the hottest station in Western New York. As I began to listen to the caller’s opinions, I realized that, although there are many different views on immigration, the vile disdain for Hispanics in particular reverberated on the airways. I read about the tens of thousands of people that marched in California in reaction to the new immigration laws waiting to be passed and was proud of the turnout; I was proud that most of those marching were Hispanic.

Comments that saddened me: “The immigrants should not be taking our jobs.” The jobs that many immigrants obtain, especially Hispanic immigrants, are farm jobs, maids and nannies for the rich; they are paid less than minimum wage. How many Americans would stand in line for those jobs and wages? Another caller said, “I am not prejudiced but when they come to this country they need to speak English.” The fact that she said “but” says it all.

Janet Snyder, the DJ, said, “All I want is when the immigrants come to this country they should be as proud of America as I am.” How can anyone quantify someone’s pride over another’s? Most people who leave their country of origin do so because they were living a life of degradation and persecution. I can’t imagine surviving such atrocities, then to escape to the land of the free, without feeling a sense of pride. I am Cuban, born and raised in America; being an American is all I know and I would never want to give up my liberties.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers on how to deal with the undocumented immigrants in this country. What I do know is that we have to recognize that it is American big business that is outsourcing to third world countries to save a dollar, and it is Americans who are assisting in smuggling them in for a nominal fee. It is Americans who hire them to cook, clean and pick the grapes. Remember that this country was created off of the blood and sweat of immigrants and was taken from the native people.

Recently in Buffalo, a female bar owner was on trial for smuggling people from Ireland into the United States. That story never got wide media attention, and the slap-on-the-wrist sentence showed the covert racism that continues to exist in this country. Come one, come all, as long as you are not black or brown.

Toni Phillips

Buffalo