MICHAEL O. ALLEN

Menu
Tag

City Council

PUSH TO LIFT TATTOO BAN; City Council votes for body art

By Homepage, New York Daily NewsNo Comments

February 26, 1997

by MICHAEL O. ALLEN, Daily News Staff Writer

New Yorkers may soon be able to get openly what they’ve been getting illegally for 35 years — tattoos.

The City Council yesterday passed a law that would lift the official though little-enforced 1962 ban on tattooing.

Councilwoman Kathryn Freed (D-Manhattan), who sponsored the law, said it was absurd for the city to continue pretending that the increasingly popular trend of body art did not exist.

“This way we actually put in regulations so that the artists are protected, and the public at large is protected,” Freed said. “People are going to do it, so you might as well regulate it to safeguard the public.”

The city enacted the ban amid fear that the needles used in tattooing could trigger a hepatitis epidemic. Despite the law, tattoo parlors have continued to operate and city health officials have looked the other way.

The City Council measure, which requires mayoral approval, would replace the ban with a new licensing system.

Before setting up shop, tattoo artists would be required to take a city Health Department course on infectious disease prevention. They would also have to pass a Health Department exam before they would qualify for a license. The license, good for two years, would cost $100.

Tattoo artists found guilty of operating illegally would face fines ranging from $300 to $1,000.

Tattoo artists at the Council meeting, where the proposed licensing system passed by a 38-to-7 vote, said they were happy to gain municipal legitimacy. But some contended that the licensing system would not safeguard the tattoo-craving public.

East Village tattoo artist Tom Murphy complained that the law will not require inspections of tattooing parlors to make sure that they use sanitary and safe body-decorating procedures.

The city Health Department, while endorsing the move to lift the ban, opposed mandatory inspections. Health officials said inspections would be too expensive and time consuming at a time when the city faces more serious health threats.

Health Department spokesman Fred Winters said agency officials would also prefer regulating the tattoo industry through the health code instead of through an amendment of city administrative laws.

Mayor Giuliani said he would consider all sides in the debate before deciding whether to sign the law.

Original Story Date: 022697

February 26, 1997
Love0

Free Parking Bill Is Meter Made

By Homepage, New York Daily NewsNo Comments

December 6, 1996

by MICHAEL O. ALLEN, Daily News Staff Writer
The City Council wants to give you something for nothing: 10 free minutes at parking meters everywhere except midtown Manhattan.

But there’s a catch. As the city giveth, it taketh away: A quarter in that same meter would then get you only 20 minutes more.

The free meter plan was introduced yesterday by Bronx Councilman Michael DeMarco as a way to ease motorists’ pain when they stop to make a fast phone call or grab a cup of coffee.

Instead of double-parking, drivers could pull into a legal space without fishing for change to feed the meter.

“All they have to do is flip the meter and get 10 minutes,” DeMarco said.

But for somebody who wants to stick around longer, pumping in a quarter will push the meter up only an additional 20 minutes — 10 minutes less than what a quarter usually gets.

If you put a quarter in without flipping, you’ll still get 30 minutes.

Still, business leaders and drivers said they’ll take what they can get.

“The impact on business will be favorable,” said John Dell’Olio, president of the Westchester Square Merchants Association in the Bronx. “The meter will not be an enemy to the motorists.”

“Motorists shouldn’t have to pay just to run in to get a cup of coffee or pick up their dry cleaning,” agreed Marta Genovese of the New York chapter of the American Automobile Associaton.

Randy Barretto of Brooklyn said he could have used the plan yesterday, as he stopped in lower Manhattan to make a quick phone call.

He waved to an approaching police officer, miming that he was moments away from moving his car.

“I’m an outside salesman,” Barretto said. “I constantly have to stop and make quick phone calls, and I’m always pleading with police officers and meter maids not to give me tickets.”

This time, he was successful.

Typical of the city, the meter plan actually is geared toward making money.

DeMarco said it has been so successful in Yonkers and other municipalities that it has increased parking revenues 25%.

But Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro said it’s an interesting idea whose time may have passed.

In three years, the city will have phased out its mechanical meters, switching to electronic devices. You won’t be able to flip for the free 10 on them.

“Technology is changing so quickly it may be impossible to go this route, even if everyone agrees,” Mastro said.

About 20% of the city’s 68,000 meters are already electronic, he added.

Meanwhile, Staten Island Councilman Jerome O’Donovan wants to give freebies to commuters from his borough. In a new bill, he called for free ferry fares for passengers transferring from a bus or subway.

It will be up to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the city to approve free transfers.

The MTA will have free transfers between buses and subways, starting in July.

Original Story Date: 12/06/96

December 6, 1996
Love0

MEGASTORES OK’D; Fight looms for planners

By Homepage, New York Daily NewsNo Comments

Friday, October 25, 1996

by MICHAEL O. ALLEN and PETER GRANT, Daily News Staff Writers

In one of the most sweeping zoning changes in 35 years, the city Planning Commission yesterday approved Mayor Giuliani’s plan to open up the city to massive superstores.

But the unusually close 8-to-5 vote set the stage for what promises to be a bruising City Council battle over the measure, one of the cornerstones of the mayor’s economic strategy.

Opponents vowed yesterday to push for major changes in the plan to protect small businesses and neighborhood shopping areas.

Critics say that small businesses would be devastated by an invasion of as many as 57 superstores like Kmart.

Even Planning Commission Chairman Joe Rose, who has been spearheading the proposal, acknowledged that the administration faces strong opposition. “It’s going to be a tough battle, no question about it,” he said.

In yesterday’s vote, the commissioners selected by Mayor Giuliani and Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari voted in favor of the plan. Appointees of the other borough presidents and the public advocate were opposed.

Giuliani’s plan would allow construction, without review by the public, of superstores of up to 200,000 square feet on the hundreds of acres of underused manufacturing land in the city. Such developments now require a lengthy approval process.

Supporters contend the city loses some $1.5 billion a year in retail sales to the suburbs, where superstores abound.

They predict the rezoning would mean $50 million in additional sales tax and about 13,600 jobs.

But opponents claim that the lengthy approval process should be preserved so that the stores do not destroy neighborhoods.

“Superstores can be bad neighbors,” said Commissioner Amanda Burden, who voted against the plan.

To placate critics, the Planning Commission modified the proposal yesterday. Communities were given greater ability to review superstore plans and make suggestions on how they would be designed and how traffic would be routed. The changes also exclude five streets from the manufacturing zones covered by the proposal and would block megastore development in areas saturated with the so-called big boxes.

But opponents said the changes do not give community groups or elected officials ways to block unpopular plans.

Critics also charged that the excluded streets — such as Metropolitan Ave. in Queens — were picked because those areas voted heavily for Giuliani.

City officials denied the charge and said the areas were excluded because the plan is limited to sites on wide streets and the excluded streets do not meet that definition.

The Council will vote on the proposal before the end of the year. More than 20 of its 51 members have said they will vote against it unless it is changed dramatically.

Original Story Date: 10/25/96

October 25, 1996
Love0