I wouldn't have a problem with GEICO sponsoring park admission for a day. Regarding implementation, it would be better for both GEICO and the state park service to negotiate a flat fee for the day. That way both GEICO and the park service could avoid paying people to work counting the cars admitted on Sunday. That said, I would probably avoid the park on Sunday, because I suspect it would be a lot more crowded.

"Nobody goes there anymore--it's too crowded." :)

NYers, instinctively statist? Add a grain of salt... or more...please. In a city like ours we all, more our less, see the need for some centralized gov't control over economic policy, but what you are forgetting is our well earned mistrust of our city and state gov'ts. Our city gov't appears mostly corrupt (and in the hands of Mayor Mike, completely indifferent to the average Joe -- though NOT our resident corporate behemouths), and our state gov't is corrupt, AND unresponsive to citizens and rank & file pols (see Brennan Center's 2004 Report). NYers will likely swallow the billboard deal for one of our city's most beautiful bridges, but will also likely suspect that it's the result of possibly criminal mismanagement by the Port Authority (at least as it operated during Pataki's reign), one of the most hated, mysterious and unaccountable to the public agencies known to NY. We have high expectations that operations at the PA will have more light shone upon them under our new governor.

Regarding public spaces. First of all I notice that in your state, citizens tolerate paying to use them--the charging of a parking fee stretches the limit of what a publc space is. There are NO fees or paid tickets required for entry to 'public spaces.'

Here in NYC, Mayor Bloomberg is stretching the limit of what a publc space is, and as a result, residents are fighting an ongoing war with the his Office, his Art Commission, and Adrian Benape of the Parks Dept.

I live blocks from Union Square Park, where residents and our Community Board has been fighting Bloomberg's plan to redesign yet again our beautiful newly redesigned park-- this time with a year-round restaurant at the north end. The mayor and parks commissioner argue that a pricey new restaurant will finance general maintenance of the park facilities. However, there's gonna be lot less park for the general public to use, and we already don't have a lot of green space in this neighborhood. And granting a long term lease to a restaurant for that space REDIFINES the meaning of 'public space.'

How else to finance general maintenance of a public space like Union Square Park? Rather than embark on publicly funding a private enterprise, let's re-examine tax breaks like the Dolan family's Madison Square Garden's $12 million tax-payer funded tax break per annum. That would cover running Union Square Park for a year, and then some. And like our elected local pols and community board, I'd also welcome small vendors operating kiosks that don't have such a giant footprint. But then the mayor's office leaves the community out of the equation.

As was also the case with Washington Square Park. The other problem we here in NYC experience concerning our public spaces is the over-large influence the private sector extends over them. Despite OVERWHELMING public disapproval --from residents, the community board, the Fine Arts Federation of New York, and local pols, Mayor Bloomberg's Art Commission voted to change the Washington Square Park's historic Frederick Law Olmsted design, likely at the behest of NYU which largely surrounds the park, judging by the Tisch family's $2.5 million gift for the fountain renovation.

It's now being held up while the courts try to sort out how process went forward.

Agreed, that the PA is, and like practically all authorities in NY, a textbook example of, at least, near-criminal negligence in mismanagement.

"There are NO fees or paid tickets required for entry to 'public spaces.'"

Then the tollbooth is not an entryway to a public space and there is no cause for complaint. (A nice distinction: the fee is for parking, not for entry, and the national parks charge much the same way.)

And as for the bulk of the NYC citizenry being instinctively statist--well, their support for public-sector unionization (the transit workers only barely overplayed their hand), tolerance of unbelievably high taxation, and belief that housing stock is created by the government amply prove my point that most NYCers look first to the government to supply a remedy for a public ill, justifiably or not.

SD

Ever wonder why we support unions here? Would you really want to work for the MTA without being in a union? Or even the graphics department of NBC TV?

Where do you get your info that NYers think the gov't should create housing stock? A public/private partnership has worked pretty well over the years to provide middle income housing for the city's workforce. And we had rent laws (12 years of George Pataki have mostly done away with them) that protected most tenants from NYC's landlord cartel. If anybody's interested in seeing Republicans scream for gov't regulation, I'll direct you to a message board where NYC un-regulated (Patakified) renters can discuss their 30% or more rent increases for a 1 year lease on $3,000 +/month two bedroom apartments. Really, it's amazing, though sometimes vulgur.

Back to the issue at hand. A highway is not a public space. I dare you to try putting a tollbooth in front of Central Park.

And I for sure quibble with your splitting of hairs. Paying to park at a 'public space' is a fee, and local, state, and federal parks that charge parking fees have redefined the term 'public space' to not include EVERYBODY.

"And we had rent laws (12 years of George Pataki have mostly done away with them) that protected most tenants from NYC's landlord cartel."

And which protected many neighborhoods from the scourges of maintenance and restoration. Hurrah for statism!

"Would you really want to work for the MTA without being in a union? Or even the graphics department of NBC TV? "

I would much rather, as a straphanger, that the MTA be allowed to reduce labor costs and introduce even basic upgrades to its switching equipment without sitting down to the bargaining table with the city's most overpaid, least productive workers. Without the--highly nonunion--financial industry, there wouldn't be the tax base to support the rest of NYC's (and NY state's) welfare state anyway.

SD

And which protected many neighborhoods from the scourges of maintenance and restoration. Hurrah for statism!

Quite the opposite has in fact happened. I see that you are unfamiliar with form RA-79, the one landlords file with the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (with members handpicked by way-overly-landlord-friendly Governor Patakit) to apply for rent increases based on Major Capital Improvements. I am still paying for a boiler room paint job 25 years later and will continue to pay for it in perpetuity. (And we've had a few paint jobs since then, too!) Tenants in our complex get adout three notices a year from the DHCR for applications to "improve" everything imaginable. It's a nice little loophole in the rent laws.

Reduce labor costs for the MTA? That always sounds good. But how exactly? Like no token booth clerk at the Chambers Street stop for the #1 train at 9:00 at night in an emergency and you're all by your lonesome? Remember the 'automated' L train -- the one with no drivers? Riders went batpoop crazy and that idea didn't last a week. Reduce costs? You bet. NYers are waiting for Spitzer to shed a little light on that crew (the MTA), too. As in open the books they refused to open for the last fare increase.

And talk abou "overpaid, least productive workers" -- how about that financial industry!