HUD: You Are Getting Scammed By NYCHA. Time To Pay Attention!

/

  • A favorite subject of mine over the years has been the New York City Housing Authority, or NYCHA.

  • NYCHA operates hundreds of buildings housing some 500,000 people, in some 170,000 +/- apartments, mostly built from the 1950s to the 1970s. Organized on a pure socialist model of public ownership with heavily subsidized rents, NYCHA has followed the trajectory of all socialist schemes ever attempted, having gone from an excited beginning into a long, slow death spiral that has now been ongoing for at least two decades.

  • When NYCHA was building the buildings, everyone seems to have assumed that bricks and mortar just last forever; so nobody bothered to consider that at some point the capital investment would need to be renewed, or to plan for how that would be done.

  • By the 2010s, the buildings were turning 40, 50 and even 60 years old. In 2015 NYCHA announced that it had suddenly discovered a need for some $17 billion to fund urgently-needed repairs. Thereafter, the amounts claimed to be needed for such repairs escalated rapidly: by 2021 it was $32 billion; and by 2023 a new “audit” found the “need” to be $78 billion — about $460,000 per unit. And this is for “low income” housing. (For comparison, according to the most recent data from FRED, the median price of a single family house in the U.S. in the second quarter of 2025 was about $410,000.)

  • So what’s the plan now?

Read More

The Problem With A Regime That Criminalizes "Hate Speech"

/

  • “Hate speech.” The term calls to mind every sort of vile and disgusting insult and racial and ethnic slur.

  • Who could possibly be in favor of allowing that? Large numbers of people instinctively assume that hateful statements, particularly those based on racial, religious or ethnic categories, must surely be illegal.

  • But here in the U.S., such statements in general are not illegal, and not subject to criminal prosecution. A couple of weeks ago, our Attorney General Pam Bondi was recorded on a podcast saying that “We will absolutely . . . go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech . . . . You can’t have that hate speech in the world in which we live.” I, among many others, pointed out that Ms. Bondi had badly mis-stated U.S. law on the subject. Our Supreme Court has drawn a line under the First Amendment that makes almost all “hate speech” constitutionally protected, short of incitement to imminent violence.

  • If you think that that line might not make sense, consider the alternative. Over in the UK, they have seen fit to criminalize “hate speech.”

Read More

In The UK The Net Zero Consensus Has Crumbled

/

  • Here in the U.S., ever since the push to “de-carbonize” the energy system to “save the planet” from global warming got going in a big way 20 or so years ago, there has always been a critical mass of skeptics strongly pushing back. I count myself among them. Another prominent example is the CO2 Coalition, an organization of about 200 scientists and intellectuals who dissent from the climate orthodoxy. Large portions of our Republican Party — recently approaching near unanimity — have also joined the dissent from climate orthodoxy.

  • But over in Europe, the same has not been true at all; and it has particularly not been true in the UK. There, at least until very recently, there was a near total consensus across the political spectrum in favor of mandatory reductions in carbon emissions, with an ultimate goal of zero emissions.

  • Well, let’s take a look at where the UK finds itself today.

Read More

Biggest Hogwash Of The Week: Justice Department Independence From Politics

/

  • Late Friday afternoon (September 26) the U.S. Justice Department filed an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The indictment is extremely brief — barely one page of text — and focuses only on a single statement made by Comey in sworn Congressional testimony given on September 30, 2020, which statement is alleged in the indictment to be false.

  • Note that essentially every other commentator on this subject is in the same position that I am in of not being able to make a full analysis of the merits of the indictment. That has not prevented the usual suspects from criticizing President Trump for pushing for the indictment. To some degree, I agree with these criticisms, or at least I am sympathetic to them, to the extent that they criticize the President for seeking to use the justice system to get back at his political enemies.

  • But then, seemingly in each case, the critics go farther, and assert that with this indictment President Trump has done something totally new and different, and has entirely broken or transformed (or maybe “trampled on”) the former longstanding and proper norms of the Justice Department of never, ever abusing the justice system to attack political opponents. These assertions are not potentially appropriate criticism, but rather are complete hogwash.

Read More

Place Your Bet On The Future Of Energy: U.S. Or China

/
Place Your Bet On The Future Of Energy: U.S. Or China

  • The first eight months of the second Trump administration have seen a sea change in energy policy.

  • Previously, under Biden, the federal government had undertaken a blowout of hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies and incentives for so-called “renewable” energy sources, while simultaneously implementing dozens of regulations and restrictions to suppress the production and use of fossil fuels. President Trump has now reversed all of that.

  • However, please take note of an important distinction: although Trump and Congress have zeroed out nearly all subsidies and tax credits for wind and solar generation and for grid-scale batteries, they have not enacted comparable subsidies and incentives for fossil fuels. Instead, all sources of energy production now must stand or fall without subsidies, based on their ability to fulfill customer demand and to generate profit. All sources of energy are now on equal footing, and without subsidies.

  • Meanwhile, over in China, billions of dollars in subsidies have flowed for many years into developing the ability to produce the infrastructure for a wind/solar/storage energy system — things like polysilicon, solar panels, solar cells, wind turbine blades, wind turbine nacelles, and battery cells. As a result, China has become completely dominant in the world in manufacturing these and many related items.

  • So who is making the better energy bet?

Read More

Two Takes On The Progress Of New York's Energy Transformation

/
Two Takes On The Progress Of New York's Energy Transformation

  • In the real world, the climate scam is rapidly falling apart, along with the related government-subsidized schemes for worldwide energy transformation. So how should New York react? After all, we claim to have the ultimate program of “climate leadership” for showing everyone else how easy it is to do this energy transformation thing. We’ve started with mandating under our Climate Act an electricity system having 70% of its generation from “renewables” by 2030 (a mandate known as “70 x 30”). The deadline for 70 x 30 is now just over four years away.

  • So, is this really happening?

  • Fortunately, our Public Service Commission has just come out with a Report with the long title “NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE SECOND CLCPA [Climate Act] INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLIMATE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT, WITH CORRECTIONS,” bearing a date of September 23, 2025. Today, I will take a look at that to see what we can learn about New York’s progress toward its goals.

  • Separately, a different bureaucracy called the New York State Energy Planning Board a couple of months ago (July 25) issued something called the 2025 Draft Energy Plan for the state. I had a post discussing that document back on August 11 (“New York’s Official Energy Plan Is No Plan”). That Draft Energy Plan then became subject to a period for public comment, so I took the opportunity to submit my Comment on September 25.

  • Let’s say that the PSC’s Report and my Comment on the Energy Plan are two very different takes on the progress toward New York’s energy transformation.

Read More