Update: The Cost of Incarceration

As a follow-on to the 16 August 2013 posting, which notes that locking up an inmate at a Federal prison costs about $29 K annually, it has been brought to my attention that the average annual cost of keeping the same inmate at Riker's Island or some other New York City facility hits up the New York City taxpayers for $167,731.  And most of them are awaiting trial!  [Query:  What about the Rikers Island inmate who commits an assault, rape or murder while serving a sentence, and, while the sentence is still running, is charged for the crime?  How do they count him (or, sometimes, her)?  Is he/she among the "sentenced" or among the "awaiting trial?"].

And, inasmuch as New York City's budget is heavily subsidized, directly through state infusions and indirectly by lower realty taxes, as compared to fair market value, than the surrounding counties, the term "New York City taxpayers" includes those such as myself who live in the suburban counties.

One way to lower the costs to the taxpayers:  Put the worst of the inmates (read most costly to incarcerate) on some derelict barges.  Tow the barges out west of Staten Island by the Jersey oil refineries but still in New York City's territorial waters, and then throw a lit cigarette into the Arthur Kill.

Buying the Election only if He Wins

In 1898, the City of New York was formed from five counties, to wit, Richmond, Bronx, New York (Manhattan) Queens and Kings (Brooklyn). The eastern towns in Queens were loath to go along with the deal, so, following approval by the New York State Legislature, they broke off and became Nassau County.

Today, Nassau County is one of the wealthiest in the United States. It is also one of the most inefficiently run. So inefficiently, that in 2000, the New York State Legislature, itself no paragon of governmental efficiency, created the Nassau County Interim Finance Authority ("NIFA") as a nanny to oversee the County. NIFA has activated its nanny role by declaring a "control period," and now, the County government needs NIFA's approval when it decides how many sheets of toilet paper to tear off to wipe its toochas.

Nassau County owns a structure known as the Nassau Coliseum, which is, among other things, the home ice rink of the New York Islanders, and also a venue for various entertainment events and shows. But the Coliseum has, since its opening in 1972, deteriorated. There is no serious question that a complete rebuild would be more cost-effective than a massive large scale repair.

Charles Wang, the owner of the Islanders, has threatened to move the Islanders away from Long Island unless the Coliseum is rebuilt.

So now, the County proposes to float bonds for $200 Million to finance not only a new Coliseum, but also a major league ballpark. Such a bond issue must be approved by the voters, and also by NIFA. The electoral process for the vote would cost somewhere between $800,000 and $1,200,000.

Wang has said that he would reimburse the County for the cost of the election -- provided that the bond issue is approved by the voters.

I believe that the whole system of professional athletics is bass-ackward. I do not per se oppose professional athletics, but do not believe that the taxpayers should subsidize the business. This is particularly so in Nassau County, whose government has already demonstrated its fiscal incompetence.

Moreover, athletics at the high school level has similarly gotten to be too much of a burden on the taxpaying populace [Disclosure: I was a varsity letterman in high school.].

If the purpose of organized athletics at the high school level is to develop character of the athletes, then the high school teams do not need all of the expensive high end accoutrements which have become the norm. If, on the other hand, the purpose of organized athletics at the high school level is to develop professional athletes, then the big league professional athletes should subsidize the high schools' athletic budgets.

Meanwhile, Mr. Wang's conditional offer is, in my book, the equivalent of tendering a bribe.

Where Did All That Money Come From?

The New York State judiciary has been perceived by many as viewing itself above the need to share in the pain of the current budgetary crisis. Judges whine that their salaries are far below what they could earn in private law practice, never mind that they chose to run for the seat on the bench in the first place. The New York Court of Appeals is now completing, if it has not already completed, construction of luxury apartments for its judges to use while up in Albany. Many court personnel are where they are on account of political patronage, which wouldn't be so bad if so many of them were not so insolent towards the attorneys and members of the public whose circumstances compel dealings with the court system. And Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman did a lot of pouting and pissing and moaning before he grudgingly conceded the need for the judiciary to make some painful cuts in its budget.

But there is at least one judge who understands his duty to stand watch over the public purse. Justice Robert A. Ross, of the Nassau County Supreme Court (don't be too impressed by the "Supreme" terminology; the county Supreme Courts in New York are the lowest courts of general jurisdiction), has before him the matrimonial action of Felice Cohen against Eyal Cohen. In the course of the proceedings, Eyal had asserted that his income was approximately $10,000 per year and that he lived rent-free on Mom & Dad's dime, and, pleading poverty, was assigned counsel (i.e., on the taxpayers' dime).

Eyal apparently had been less than fully cooperative with the Court's directives, and a contempt hearing (not the first one) had been scheduled. Shortly before the scheduled contempt hearing, Felice and Eyal reached a settlement whereby Eyal would pay Felice a settlement of $45,000.

The numbers did not add up when Justice Ross crunched them. How would a person whose income is only $45,000 and who has few assets come up with $45,000? It is one thing to hide assets and income from your soon-to-be-ex spouse. But Eyal hid the assets and income from the Court, and, based upon Eyal's representations, the Court upheld Eyal's Constitutional right to counsel by dipping into the public fisc to engage an attorney for Eyal.

Judge Ross has now called upon Eyal to attend a hearing to explain the apparent discrepancy. In his order, the Judge gives Eyal the opportunity to file an amended Statement of Net Worth, and, to spare Felice's purse, has dispensed with the need for her to attend the hearing. Unless Eyal has a good and credible and documentable explanation, it seems that Judge Ross intends to make Eyal reimburse the State for paying the assigned counsel. And if Eyal did make a major misrepresentation to the Court, then his proper and honest filing of an amended Statement of New Worth would, in all likelihood, give Judge Ross a basis for not sending Eyal to the slammer.

After 20-something years, my own marriage is in no danger of going before Judge Ross or any of his colleagues on the bench. This good investment in my marriage has saved my wife and I lots of money that otherwise would go to the divorce lawyers. It also has saved the taxpayers of New York the expense of having another matrimonial action work its slow and convoluted way through the judicial system.