To the Editor:
I was surprised to read Paul Krugman’s characterization of my opposition to New York’s congestion tax proposal as “An Act of Vehicular NIMBYism” (column, July 25).
The supposed goal of this plan is to keep vehicles out of Midtown and downtown Manhattan. So the proposal’s Manhattan-based supporters are the ones quite literally trying to keep vehicles out of their backyard. That sounds like vehicular NIMBYism to me.
Now, to be clear, I don’t begrudge Manhattan residents their desire to reduce congestion in their neighborhoods. That’s a laudable and legitimate goal. But unfortunately the proposal seeks to reduce congestion in Manhattan while increasing congestion in a number of North Jersey communities, especially those near the George Washington Bridge. How is that fair?
If New York officials had meaningfully engaged us as partners in developing this plan, which has significant impacts outside of New York, we would be in a completely different position today. Without a seat at the table, we were left with no choice but to file a lawsuit.
Philip Murphy
Middletown, N.J.
The writer is the governor of New Jersey.
To the Editor:
Paul Krugman is a tad shortsighted by stating that “when you drive into New York, you’re imposing large costs on other people,” and citing estimates that a round trip to the city during the morning and evening rush hours “creates congestion costs of well over $100.”
Really.
When I drive into New York, I pay tolls that support the operation and maintenance of New York’s infrastructure. I pay for parking; I pay for subway and/or bus fares; I help support restaurants and the cultural wonders of the city; I also usually shop and in the end not only pay sales taxes, but also help support perhaps dozens of people as they go about their work lives.
Car drivers don’t simply arrive, stay and leave in a vacuum when they venture into the city. On the contrary, we add to New York City’s economy.
Steven Morris
Mount Pleasant, S.C.
To the Editor:
Paul Krugman makes a good case for congestion pricing for vehicles entering Manhattan. He reasons that a tax is in order because each vehicle entering the city adds to the congestion.
I would suggest that the cost to all of us does not stop at traffic delays. Most of those vehicles entering the city and getting stuck in traffic run on fossil fuel. Now, when the climate crisis has built up to the point of endangering lives, is a good time for climate to be considered in policy decisions.
Congestion pricing? Good idea to relieve congestion and to limit carbon dioxide emissions.
Jill Hacker
Reston, Va.
To the Editor:
The real purpose of the congestion fee is to raise $1 billion annually for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Alleviating congestion is a byproduct.
If the congestion pricing successfully deters driving, the city won’t raise as much money for the M.T.A.
In addition, New York City functions 24/7. The nurse’s aide who comes to the city for the midnight-to-8 shift, the porter who starts work at 6 a.m., the restaurant manager who closes up at 1 a.m. — for many reasons the subway or bus is not an adequate option. These people will be punished.
This is not a NIMBY issue. Many of the people who will be seriously detrimentally affected are not the “affluent progressives” he cites but the people who keep our city running.
Barbara Mutterperl
New York
Jack Smith’s Case Against Trump Is ‘Problematic’
To the Editor:
I do not condone Donald Trump’s words and actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election. They were reprehensible and dangerous.
That said, Jack Smith’s indictment seems problematic. Conviction on these charges depends upon whether Mr. Trump actually knew he lost and took action to stay in office anyway. It’s not enough that people told him he lost fair and square, even if the people who told him he lost are people whom he should have believed. As far as I know, presidents are not legally obligated to believe their subordinates.
To get a conviction, what’s needed is actual evidence that Mr. Trump explicitly acknowledged that he knew he lost and then attempted to overturn the results of the election anyway. I saw nothing in the indictment to that effect.
If Mr. Trump believed (wrongly, yes, but believed nonetheless) that the election was fraudulent, I’m not sure what laws forbid him from trying to find evidence of the allegedly fraudulent activity.
If he actually broke laws in the actions he took in attempting to confront what he believed to be fraud, he can certainly be prosecuted for those actions. But in reading the indictment it was not clear to me which of his actions were illegal in and of themselves in the absence of a proven intent to defraud.
In short, I think the indictment may go a bit farther than the evidence supports.
Tim Graham
Anaheim, Calif.
The Mental Competency Test We Really Need
To the Editor:
Re “Haley Makes Nuts-and-Bolts Promises on the Trail” (news article, July 31):
Nikki Haley’s plan for mental health competency tests for members of Congress over the age of 75 would be laughable if it weren’t earnest. What might such tests show? That some members are slow at some tasks or liable to forget some things?
The late psychologist Leon Kamin demonstrated that speed, though rewarded on some tests, doesn’t correlate with actual intelligence. If Joe Biden is slower to execute some functions than the average 40-year-old, that doesn’t make him any less astute, as his negotiating skills and track record have ably shown.
And what of the real mental competency required to lead, like the ability to reason from premise to conclusion or the ability to tell truth from falsity? Maybe that’s the test we need, for members of all ages.
Susan Sugarman
Princeton, N.J.
The writer is a professor of psychology at Princeton University.
Barbie ‘Pink With a Wink’
To the Editor:
Re “Pink Is Everywhere. Can It Please Go Away?,” by Vanessa Friedman (Thursday Styles, July 27):
It makes sense that Ms. Friedman is over it. As the chief fashion critic for The Times, she’s endured “a full year of buildup” and her inbox has been taken over by “pinkalicious” “pink merch.” No wonder she feels “pinked out” and weary of “pinxploitation.”
But why yuck our yum? “Barbie” just opened, and most of us are still playing catch-up. I’ve loved seeing girls and women of all ages dressed in pink as they line up to watch a movie that is as entertaining as it is thought-provoking. So I’m all for wearing pink — and better still, pink with a wink.
Carol Weston
Armonk, N.Y.
The writer is a novelist and an advice columnist for girls.
George Santos’s Schemes
To the Editor:
Re “A Closer Look Into Santos’s Schemes to Get Rich Through Politics” (front page, July 28):
What Representative George Santos is doing is unexceptional for an elected politician. We have been hearing a lot about members of Congress carrying investments in areas of the economy over which they have influence or about which they have access to information. Mr. Santos is notable only for how inept and unsubtle he is about it.
Jonathan P. Levin
Northampton, Mass.