May 13, 2003

silhouette3.JPG From the desk of Jane Galt:

Department of Egregious Idiocy

It looks like New York is exploring alternative avenues to raising revenue: fining small business owners for having awnings with too many words on them.

Posted by Jane Galt at May 13, 2003 12:11 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Comments
Posted by: Hermetic on May 13, 2003 12:16 PM

Perhaps Bloomberg should have NYC apply for EU membership.

Posted by: James Joyner on May 13, 2003 12:34 PM

A bizarre story. One wonders if there isn't more to it? Even in an over-regulated megalopolis, fines of that amount on small businesses for a minor violation strike me as implausible.

Posted by: jack on May 13, 2003 2:29 PM

blooberg is a liberal. he got into office because he saw that people, despite CW, liked Guiliani--and the Republican policies that were bringing the city back to life. This just could NOT be allowed to happen.

So, after becoming the Republican candidate, and later mayor, he set about systematically making sure that no one in New York would ever vote for a Republican again.

Tell, me, do YOU think he'll get re-elected? The Democrats could run livestock against him and win.

Posted by: David Thomson on May 13, 2003 5:04 PM

“A bizarre story. One wonders if there isn't more to it? Even in an over-regulated megalopolis, fines of that amount on small businesses for a minor violation strike me as implausible”

We must not forget that New York City revolves around its public sector workers. Private entrepreneurs are treated as second class citizens. They are to be jacked around and plundered. This has been going on for years.

Why is this sad state of affairs not better known? That’s easy to explain. The lying New York Times has long been slanting the truth and deceiving the public. One cannot dichotomize New York City’s economic crisis and the shabby reporting of the Times. The latter has done everything in its power to advocate for ultraliberal spending programs. Alas, the piper now has to be paid.

Posted by: Jane Galt on May 13, 2003 5:15 PM

I'm not sure the entire 12,500 was for the awning, but the day before ran an article about a guy who was out $2,400 for a fine and a new awning -- which was better than the $2,500 he'd have to pay if he didn't replace the awning. It sounds like a moneymaking scam to me.

Comments are Closed.