Submitted by Nick, Dec 13, 2006 12:20

It was the expansion of the subways -- which, at the time, were still fluctuating between public and private ownership as part of an ongoing debate led chiefly by Progressives looking to move control to Albany away from "the interests" of business and machine politics -- that drove the real estate boom that reached its apex in the 20s. As infrastructure reached out into Queens and Brooklyn and the Bronx, so did real estate speculation. The pattern of the city's growth changed and business centers developed.

I don't understand how you can say there hasn't been an improvement in the city since the boom of the 40s and 50s. The 60s through the 80s nationwide was a period of recovery where a lot of federal money was thrown at urban blight. Some of that money did good things and some did bad things, like splitting neighborhoods in half and choking the Manhattan waterfront with freeway viaducts. I'm astonished you'd say parks are bad. Being against parks is kind of like being against puppies and rainbows.

Yes, there were a lot of colossal misuses of money and planning in that time, but you're conflating public works with infrastructure, which is what Bloomberg's plan is all about. How can you call improved subways and roads -- which, more and more, we understand as major economic engines -- a stupid idea? How can you say Bloomberg is dumb for wanting to update the city's power grid? He's not talking about throwing money into housing projects or big, empty, City Beautiful plazas. This plan is about laying the pipes for the growth an the infill that's coming to our city -- like it or not. That's about as sound economic policy as you can get.

I don't know about the history lessons at Johns Hopkins and Harvard, but it sure sounds like the program needs an update wherever you went to school.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.