By Josh Rogers

My head says the Giants won’t win the Super Bowl this Sunday. It’s not that I’m one of those doom and gloom Giants fans, although admittedly I was raised by one. No matter how bleak things look at the beginning of the season, I usually go in with the attitude of “Hey, if things break right this year, we could win it all.”

It didn’t start that way. The Giants were terrible my first few years watching football. To me, they were the team to root for at the beginning of the season, before teams like Dallas and Pittsburgh marched through the playoffs. I don’t ever remember thinking—or even hoping—the Giants would make the postseason.

That all changed after Lawrence Taylor came to the Giants and they started making the playoffs somewhat regularly. For the team’s past Super Bowls, my head and heart said they could win each time.

This year, it feels like a win so soon after the Giants shocked everyone and denied the Patriots’ bid for perfection is asking too much. Of course the Pats would play hard, regardless of their opponent. Yes, they’re not as seemingly invincible as they were four years ago, and yes, they have had a lot of turnover since then.

But when you get a win as sweet as Super Bowl XLII, human nature says you can’t help but expect some payback—at least, my human nature does. I understand that there are people out there who always expect to be on top and are almost never disappointed. I’m an optimist: I think you can get more good than bad, but there have to be some limits.

Beating the Patriots again may be over the line.

The 2008 game was not only the most satisfying one to me and undoubtedly most other Giant fans Fox Sports has just ranked that game as the greatest of all 45 Super Bowls.

After a frustrating 2007 season, the Giants barely limped into the playoffs with no reason to think they could make the big game, let alone beat a team they had just lost to, a team with a perfect record that appeared to be about to make history. But Eli Manning outplayed Tom Brady, escaped that rush at the end and heaved that ball that David Tyree pinned to his helmet to set up the winning touchdown.

If they win this time, Eli would finally get his due as being as good or better than any other quarterback playing now. After a career spent underrated, he’d probably spend the rest of it getting as much or more credit than he deserved.
But then there’s that damned and beloved heart talking again.

It’ll do what it can. It’ll make sure my body wears no Giants paraphernalia on game day because—to state the obvious—that would bring bad luck.

Such subtlety is lost on my 2-year-old son, who, like you, will be unlikely to even understand it when he’s an adult. He’ll do what he did for last week’s championship game. He’ll wear his Giants pajamas the night before, and while the game is presumably far from decided, he’ll wear them again and hopefully Daddy will be happy in the morning.

We’re doing what we can, including writing this column.

If I thought there were strong arguments suggesting the Giants were very likely to win, I would certainly not write them down. That’d be a jinx. Saying I think they’ll lose might work as a reverse jinx.

It’s all I can do. Go Big Blue.

Josh Rogers, contributing editor at Manhattan Media, is a lifelong New Yorker. Follow him @JoshRogersNYC.

By Bette Dewing

Hey, journalists Jeff Greenfield and Mark Barabak, don’t call yourself “old fogies” because you think that televised debate audiences shouldn’t react verbally, and chuck that ageist label. It implies that decorous behavior in an era of loud mouths is somehow regressive.

This comment was made in reference to Newt Gingrich benefiting from strong audience reaction in one debate but not in another where the audience was told to hush up. Gingrich is a never-at-a-loss-for-words facile speaker, and we fallible humans often value style over content.

Although I have countless ideas, words often fail me, especially when speaking in public. My Norwegian-dominant ancestry and being born left-handed likely account for my nonverbal right brain dominance. Ah, but right-brainers are very intuitive. They also see the big picture more clearly than left-brainers—and don’t we need that!

Well, I surely see the big picture on safety. Although my traffic safety “trailblazing” was officially recognized in 2006 by Upper East Side federal, state and city elected officials, I’m never consulted. Nope, the bicycling group Transportation Alternatives is the chief adviser for the city, even on planning safe streets for seniors.

No matter that TA members don’t know the elder experience or worry that bicyclists’ strong aversion to the laws of the road is what scares these vulnerable walkers the most. And why isn’t the most deadly traffic crime, motorists’ failing to yield when turning into a crosswalk, a TA priority? And if it’s true, why doesn’t TA protest how the Daily News, with its new British editor, seems to be slighting local traffic tragedy news.

Ah, but I don’t have a big mouth, charisma or chutzpah. And my anti-ageism work hasn’t yet reduced the bias against my being old. Anyway, my generation was taught that hogging the talk was selfish and boorish. Now it’s de rigeur if you want your ideas to be heeded—or even heard!

But please, you who agree with me, never call yourselves “old fogies” or “old-fashioned,” but rather recount how countless civil, common-sense and democratic ways of life were tossed out with the bathwater of ill-advised change—mostly by those without big-picture vision.

Remember my inaugural column’s quote from Ogden Nash’s New York magazine piece: “Progress was all right once, but in my lifetime, too much seems headed in the wrong direction. I think it started in Kitty Hawk when two Wrights made a wrong.”

Consider how that “wrong” sure did uproot us and ripped up the train tracks that safely connected every city and town. Traffic tragedies soared as private wheels became the land travel norm. So here’s to ordering our leaders to lower the speed limit pronto and giving all-out support for the infinitely safer and more democratic mass transit.

And while I mostly assail terrorist wheeling, kamikaze walking has got to go; thus this respectful reproach to Lorraine Duffy Merkl:

Your last column told how happy you were that your favorite wallet was eventually returned (albeit without any money) after it had slipped from your purse as you crossed a busy intersection wearing earphones. Dear Ms. Merkl, you have a mother, a daughter and a husband who need you. You also influence readers. The next time you go walking, unplug those ears. Need music? Then whistle or sing, and join my safe traveling brigade!

dewingbetter@aol.com.

1) The effect on traffic. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) admittedly did not perform a traffic feasibility analysis. Currently, traffic often backs up onto the FDR Drive in either direction. Currently, traffic backs up onto the Queensboro Bridge. This will worsen considerably.

Consider this: MSKCC’s building will have no garage, only a driveway. Post-operative patients, by law, must be accompanied out of the building by someone. Do you think they will walk with their escort up the hill to the subway? No! Someone will be waiting for them in a car, probably on York Avenue.

2) MSKCC’s unwillingness to even talk to its neighbors. MSKCC filed its request for variances (allowances to build beyond what New York City code allows) and fast-tracked approval just as the holiday season began. Perhaps our all-volunteer board was remiss, but the residents of the building learned of the Community Board 8 meeting with only a week’s notice.

3) Our building supports a MSKCC facility here. This is what prompted me to write this letter. Overwhelmingly, the people who spoke that night clearly stated that they had no problem with MSKCC building next door. They only wanted MSKCC to respect previous agreements negotiated with the help of Community Board 8.

Many current and former MSKCC employees live in this building. Several people living here are patients of the hospital. They merely want the building to fit into the neighborhood.

4) While residents of the affected building learned of MSKCC’s plans only a week before the community board meeting, somehow, a patient managed to show up with a prepared speech, a speech that had nothing to do with the debate or even with reality. The speech cast my building’s residents as rich people trying to deny convenient medical care to poor people like him. This is a ridiculous and insulting lie.

Your paper purports to serve the Upper East Side. Sadly, you missed the points that affect this community, namely a neverending traffic nightmare foisted on us by an uncaring, rich organization that indeed has alternatives. MSKCC has 20 other sites and presumably other “sleeper” sites like the one under discussion. Surely, a wiser location can be found.

Steve Edelstein
440 E. 62nd St.

Letters have been edited for clarity, style and brevity.

In politics, there is an old saying: “First you have to win.” A corollary is “Winning is everything.” Another companion idiom in American politics is “There are no co-winners.”

I was speaking with someone the other day who said that in the American presidency, Democrats get the chance to be either Jimmy Carter, a man with integrity who lost, or Bill Clinton, who was all about winning. With that in mind, let’s take a look at President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address and just a few of its implications for New York State and its voters.

A lot of people voted for Obama when he said, “Yes we can!” They thought he meant, “Yes we can [fill in the blank].” Many of them were disappointed when he showed that he’d rather be a Clinton winner than a Carter loser; he had the center left, and they weren’t going anywhere. He needed to win the folks in the middle and those who held the purse strings in the skewed economic system in which we live.

You need money to win. You can call these people the 1 Percenters. If you are not taking from their pot, they might actually let you live. There were many folks who wanted to punish the bankers whose antics left so many people with homes that were underwater, but many of those in key economic positions around Obama were way too close to the bad guys in the great American economic disaster.

If you examine the State of the Union message, you can see two Obamas.

One is the progressive president. He tells the college-aged that he is with them when it comes to how much their education is costing them and their families. This is the group of people who helped put Obama over the top in the last election and he needs them back. He needs their passion. By telling young people that the federal government will punish states and colleges that raise tuition, he re-energizes those kids to get out and vote and work for him.

On the other hand, in New York, State University Chancellor Nancy Zimpher, a ball of fire, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo came together with the Legislature in an agreement to save SUNY in this very tough economic climate. In order to do that, the University, which has always been a relative bargain, is raising tuition.

My bet is that the folks who fashioned that deal cannot be happy with what they heard from the president. To some degree, I imagine they thought they were being punched in the solar plexus.

They weren’t the only ones. There was the proposal by Obama that we move ahead with hydrofracking, a drilling process that employs dangerous chemicals to extract natural gas from shale. Here in New York, there has been so much passion appropriately raised about hydrofracking that Cuomo, thought by some to have been in favor of it, seems to have cooled on the idea. No matter how much politicians want the revenue and energy that hydrofracking might provide, they can’t seem to convince the people to accept a process that threatens to poison our drinking water.

So here we have just two of the many things that the president spoke about that may be good for his politics but not necessarily good for the people of New York State. Let’s face it: The president knows what he has to do to win. Under no circumstances will he lose New York State. He will get these electoral votes, so he doesn’t have to worry about New York the way he might about Florida or Ohio. It’s sort of like a wife who will always be there as opposed to a fickle mistress. Get the analogy?

Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

By Jeanne Martinet

As most savvy New York hosts know, when you throw a large cocktail party, you can expect approximately 60 percent of the invitees to attend. Of the 40 percent who don’t come, most have a scheduling conflict or illness and are truly sorry to be missing the affair.  So, what if you immediately offered these people an alternative—a kind of make-up party?
That’s exactly what my friends Ned and Donna did. They held a big cocktail party one Saturday night and invited the people who sent “regrets” to a smaller party the very next Saturday.

Now, Ned and Donna are people who do not entertain very much, so at first it sounded crazy to me that they would decide to have two parties in a row. But this nonhosting tendency on the part of this couple is in fact why the double party idea was perfect for them. Once they had managed to find the impetus to entertain, whipped their house into guest-ready shape (cleaning it from top to bottom, even rearranging the furniture) and stocked the larder with staples like soda, snacks and booze, the second, smaller party was a veritable snap for them. They even had leftover wine and supplies that the guests from the first party had brought them.

Having two parties in a row may sound exhausting, but it can be much more efficient than spreading them out. You can pay back everyone you owe an invitation in a spectacular one-two punch. Really, it’s like getting out all the painting equipment to paint a room and then deciding that, while you’re at it, you may as well paint another small room at the same time.

Also, having a second gathering is a great way for the hosts to soak up every bit of fun they can; after working hard to make a party happen, hosts can feel it is over too quickly. Most people I talk to who, for one reason or another, had dreaded hosting a party are so energized afterward they wonder why they don’t host more often. Might as well have another party while you are in the mood!

You can also employ a similar version of this kind of party clustering when you find you have more than one dinner party you need to give. Instead of hosting one dinner one month and one another month, have a dinner party weekend. Make one big pot of something hearty and fabulous—say, oxtail stew, boston butt or chili–then hold two dinner parties one after the other.

Contrary to what one might think, the second set of guests are not getting shortchanged, because by the second dinner you are probably more relaxed (having cleaned and shopped like a madwoman before the first one), and often the Italian pot roast you spent hours making is even better the second day.

Of course, in the case of back-to-back dinner parties, the guests must not know about each other at all. While a make-up cocktail party is like being offered a wonderful consolation prize, being part of a double dinner party weekend can seem more like a prize cut in half.

The one rule to follow when hosting consecutive parties is that you can never let the people at the second party get the idea that your first party was in any way more enjoyable than the one you are having with them right now. You want them to feel fortunate and much sought-after, as if you are going to extra trouble just for them—which, in a sense, you are.

The people who could not attend the primary event should feel flattered that you have gone out of your way to extend your hospitality to them. It’s as if you are saying to them, “I want to have you over so much I will even have a do-over just to get you here!” even though it is really a case of a relatively easy two-for-the-fuss-of-one for you.

Speaking of two for one, I somehow got to go to both of the lovely parties given by Ned and Donna. Not fair that they invited me to both? Hey, there’s got to be some perk to this whole Miss Mingle thing!

Jeanne Martinet, aka Miss Mingle, is the author of seven books on social interaction. Read her blog at MissMingle.com.

By Christopher Moore

Over many years, Charlie Rose spent a tremendous number of hours in my bedroom. Before discovering the life-altering advantages of the DVR, I often ended my day with Rose on public TV. So his move two weeks ago to the CBS morning program sent my routine into confusion.

Rose, an official Man About Town, did not just bring a new table and passion for run-on sentences to CBS This Morning. He also came with a couple of new cohosts: Gayle King, Oprah’s official best friend, and Erica Hill, who is not actually new—she’s a holdover from the prevous incarnation of the CBS morning show. The flaws of her new cohosts make Hill look better every day.

All of this is important to me because I’m addicted to morning TV. These days, I bounce from the media monster Today to the chatty Good Day New York and the clubby Morning Joe, but I go way back. I was a little kid who knew who David Hartman was.

As a fan of fake intimacy, I like watching morning anchors pretend to like each other. They desperately try to create a sense of community, often copying each other along the way. They sometimes insist they are a “family,” even though in these families, the members get tossed around from show to show with disconcerting speed.

Also fun: watching high-profile talents pretend to be interested in the range of topics they tackle. If there was anything more compelling on American television in the last few decades than watching Diane Sawyer appear in cooking segments during her Good Morning America days, well, I missed it.

So This Morning is right up my alley. Rose is known in Manhattan and D.C. for being an A-list party guest. Watching him in the morning, all sluggish mien and dead eyes, seems simultaneously hilarious and scary. By the end of week one, he had such a bad cold that it was painful to watch. If he were still alive, Dr. Kevorkian would be on speed dial over at CBS.

The new show opened with a thoughtful 90-second review of the news, Eye Opener. Most of the attention during the premier week, though, went to King’s interview with Michelle Obama. She insisted she was looking forward to campaigning for her husband, but failed to come up with any reason anyone would support him. As usual, the disengaged first lady took a pass on getting involved in important political matters. This is not Eleanor Roosevelt we’re talking about.
It takes two, though, to come up with an interview this bad. King was obsequious in talking to someone she described as a friend. Dismissive of Jodi Kantor’s new book, The Obamas, King did not, so far as I recall, bother to mention the extent of her support for the first family. According to a quick trip to Fundrace.HuffingtonPost.com, one of my favorite websites, King gave thousands of dollars last year to Obama Victory Fund 2012.

Obviously, it’s a new era in American journalism. We don’t even pretend to be objective any longer. Fine. Objectivity never really existed, but fairness could. So could full disclosure. Yes, I’ve wondered whether and which candidates deserve my financial support. But did CBS News really need to send King to interview her buddy the same week it ran ads about taking a fresh, hard-news approach on This Morning?

Couldn’t Rose have done this interview? Sure, sometimes he answers questions he himself has asked, but he could probably have handled the assignment.

Ah, I’m being cranky. King has a certain game presence, and I’m one of 17 people nationally who watched the show she did on OWN. She’s a TV personality; being a newswoman would be a separate matter.

King is a natural at fake intimacy. Sometimes, though, news judgment is called for—especially when the bosses are bragging that they have it.

Christopher Moore is a writer living in Manhattan. He is available by email at ccmnj@aol.com and is on Twitter
(@cmoorenyc).

Last Sunday, we marked the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that guarantees a woman’s right to choose. Reproductive freedom is at greater risk now than at any time since Roe was handed down in 1973, and family planning is under attack. Women can no longer afford to be silent.

Last year, Republicans passed an endless parade of legislation in the House regarding reproductive rights and family planning, and this year promises to be no better. Many of the Republican efforts go far beyond choice and would impact women’s access to birth control and basic health care, including cancer screenings. The number and variety of their attacks on reproductive care is more than simply breathtaking—it’s dangerous. Meanwhile, Republicans have offered zero substantive bills to create jobs, the No. 1 issue for the American people.

Early last year, Republicans zeroed out family planning funding in the 2011 omnibus government funding bill. This wasn’t funding for abortions—federal law already prohibits that—rather, it was aid for birth control, pre-natal care and other reproductive health services.

The bill also included the Pence Amendment, which specifically bars funding for Planned Parenthood. The vast majority of services provided by Planned Parenthood are family planning, cancer screening and other non-abortion-related care. This language would have impacted basic health care for millions of women. Fortunately, the Senate defeated it.
In May, the House voted to repeal health care reform and the Republicans approved an amendment that prohibited federal funding to train doctors to perform abortions, even if an abortion would save a woman’s life. The Senate has taken no action on this bill.

In October, the House considered the most dangerous bill of all, the so-called “Protect Life Act,” which many groups are calling the “Let Women Die Act” because it would let hospitals refuse to provide lifesaving care to women who need an abortion and allow them to refuse to transfer them to another institution that would provide care. It also denies women the right to buy insurance covering full reproductive care on the health care exchanges set up under health care reform. Fortunately, the Senate hasn’t taken it up either.

It has become a time-honored tradition to point out that Roe hangs by a thread in the Supreme Court; Whoever becomes president next year will likely determine whether the Constitution guarantees women the right to choose the timing and number of children they will bear. If any of the four Republicans remaining in the race win, they have promised to select Supreme Court candidates who will overturn Roe and have pledged to sign legislation that could restrict women’s access to basic health care.

If Roe falls, the issue will be turned back to the states. NARAL has identified 69 separate anti-choice measures adopted in the states in 2011, even with Roe. Five states have gone so far as to ban abortions entirely after 20 weeks, with no exception for rape or incest or to protect the health of the mother.

Fortunately, President Obama has made it clear that he supports choice and that he believes that reproductive health care needs to be protected and funded.

Last week, his administration reaffirmed that any organization that is not solely religious will have to comply with the preventive care provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including providing access to all FDA-approved birth control medication.

This year could prove pivotal in the fight to protect reproductive rights. For those of us who support Roe, silence is no longer a viable choice.

Carolyn Maloney represents the East Side of Manhattan and parts of Queens in the House of Representatives.

By Bette Dewing

“We often need as much to be reminded as to be informed” are among the wisest words ever spoken. Thank you, Dr. Samuel Johnson.

And we must remember Martin Luther King’s dream of a nation where content of character matters, not skin color.  Surely that means not valuing “physical attractiveness” over character. Recent research shows that so-called attractive members of Congress are the ones who get the most TV coverage (“Looks Matter as TV Covers Congress,” New York Times, Jan. 6). Once, the women’s movement denounced this general attractiveness bias, and I’m seeking others concerned that the now decades of related research stored in one of my file cabinets do not go to waste.

Indeed, I recently started going to the EIS Housing Resource Center’s organizing group because of decades of research on a number of frustrating crusades about public safety. How I wish you’d heard the January meeting’s powerful talk on fire prevention by Kevin Anderson, an FDNY Safety Education member. It takes an impassioned speaker like Anderson to effectively inform and remind.

“We must remember,” he said, that fireplace embers caused the fire that killed three little sisters and their grandparents. “It would likely not have turned deadly if smoke detectors had been working.” These foremost fire prevention tools must be placed up high and checked every month—and several are better than one.

Julie, a savvy business executive, marveled, “He said so much I didn’t know!” like the fact that carbon monoxide detectors must be replaced every five to seven years and extension cords should be used only temporarily, never for high power users like TVs and space heaters, and must be in mint condition and UL approved. I add: Make installing additional wall outlets affordable!

Power strips must be checked for capacity levels. Some lamps, too. Anderson fears screw-in-type fluorescent bulbs because their bases can dangerously overheat, another reason to support the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice bill! (A recent East End Avenue penthouse fire was reportedly lamp-related.)

“And use only battery-powered candles!” he implored.

Throw baking soda, never water, on small grease fires. Keep a large pot cover handy to smother small stove fires, but call 911 and get out with anything larger, especially in a non-fireproof building. No building is entirely fireproof, but those with steel beams and all-concrete walls and floors keep fire contained. Marble floors “crumble with heat.”

Use only fire department-approved window gates and never place anything on fire escapes.

Instructions for devising an escape plan and other vital information is found in the Fire Safety for Seniors brochure that was shared with our group.

“It’s for all ages,” said Anderson but, he stressed, “50 percent of fire victims are age 65 and over.” So let’s study and discuss this life-saving booklet, at least monthly, when we check our smoke detectors. Call 718-281-3870 for a copy.
Build we must on the unprecedented outpouring of public grief and nationwide media coverage of the deaths of Lily, Grace and Sarah Badger and their grandparents, Pauline and Lomer Johnson, to finally make fire prevention a top nationwide priority.

And now two deadly local fires: The Times’ “Fleeing a Fire, Only to Realize That One Child Was Left Behind” tragically reminds us that the family of the 7-year-old boy in Brooklyn did not have an escape plan. The death of a woman, age 38, in a fire in an abandoned Harlem building where she and a friend had reportedly taken shelter did not receive print coverage.

First we must be informed and then reminded, reminded, reminded!

dewingbetter@aol.com

By Lorraine Duffy Merkl

“They have your wallet over at The Mansion [Diner],” said my doorman last Monday morning.
He was referring to my new, blue, rectangular Michael Kors wallet that holds my life and that I thought I’d never see again.

The previous Saturday I had run errands, traveling light with only what I could fit in my pockets: my iPhone and trusty MK.

Earbuds in place, I powerwalked across 86th Street to the sound of my iTunes library.  Due to technical difficulties, I needed both hands to fiddle with the iPhone. So preoccupied did I become with my music that it took me a minute to acknowledge that my purse was sliding out of my coat.

I ripped my earbuds from their sockets and turned quickly, expecting to find it on the ground. It was nowhere. This is what baffled me: How could it not be on the sidewalk? It had fallen only seconds earlier.

I retraced my steps from the 86th Street side of The Viand Diner to Second Avenue in front of The Heidelberg. I went there and back at least 10 times, then along the whole stretch of 86th Street from First to Second. Nothing.

How could it disappear so fast? I couldn’t understand, unless someone hot on my heels had seen it drop and picked it up. “I think you got your pocket picked,” my husband, Neil, surmised. Either way, my stuff was gone.

Luckily, I’d made copies of the wallet’s contents so I knew what I was missing. I called credit card companies and the bank, as well as the credit monitors—Equifax, Experian and TransUnion—who help prevent identity theft. (FYI: Reporting to Equifax is enough, as they alert the other two.)

With this behind me, I had the rest of Saturday and Sunday to wait out so I could take care of the rest on Monday: Social Security card replacement and a new driver’s license. Plus the less crucial replacement of museum membership and library cards, et al. I suddenly went into mourning for my Duane Reade FlexRewards card.

Sunday afternoon, I took the advice of some credit card reps and reported the loss at my police precinct.
Even though I knew they wouldn’t dispatch the SWAT team in search of my possessions, it seemed like a good idea to have a record of the incident.

I’d never been inside a station house. I found two officers behind a rather tall desk. My neck started hurting from looking up to tell my tale of woe. I filled out a multipage form, then the officer had to copy what I wrote on to his own report, plus write down my story of what had happened. This took forever.

Sunday night I didn’t sleep, too anxious waiting to begin my rounds of calls, voice recordings and the dreaded trip to the DMV and Social Security office.

But the next morning, my doorman let me know a man had found my wallet. He had come by around midnight on his way to work his overnight shift. There was some mixup with the night doorman, who wasn’t sure if he should buzz up so late. The man said he’d come back before he went home at 8 a.m., but I couldn’t wait and ran over to the diner.

Everything was inside MK, except my money and MetroCard. (Note to whomever has both: Hope you are someone who truly needed them. Enjoy.  And thanks for ditching the rest.)

Of course, the big shout-out belongs to the man who returned my “life.” I always like to believe I can count on my fellow New Yorkers, and this one proved me right by working overtime.

Lorraine Duffy Merkl’s debut novel Fat Chick, from The Vineyard Press, is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com.

By Josh Rogers

Any green activist worth his weight in flowers has spent hours reading environmental impact statements (EIS). Even though the reports are typically prepared by agencies anxious to start work, they still have info that may derail or kill a project.

Some might even pity the applicant who leaves something out. Westway, the grand plan to develop the West Side on top of Hudson River landfill, was delayed fatally two decades ago because officials did not consider its effect on striped bass.
A traffic engineer I know who has prepared many environmental statements for the city and who has attacked others for neighborhood activists once told me that he could find holes in any EIS—including those he wrote.

The voluminous reports attempt to look at every possible effect of a project on the environment except one: What is the impact of printing environmental impact statements?

The final EIS for the Second Avenue Subway project is three volumes long and five and a half inches high when stacked up. Prior to the final report, there were draft versions, scoping documents and revisions to previous reports that were dutifully sent to community board offices, libraries, affected government agencies and others.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority sent out 400 copies of the final report and kept 100, said agency spokesperson Kevin Ortiz, who quite aptly calls it “one of the biggest public works project in the world.” He said putting reports online has lessened the demand for paper versions, which may mean that in the future, the MTA will take a softer line on printing so many hard copies.

Some of the previous reports are still in the Community Board 8 office, but the subway project is not even close to being the biggest one in terms of report size. That honor goes to the proposed East River waste transfer station near 91st Street. The bound volumes consume over 30 inches on one of the board’s bookcases.

“They haven’t sent anything for a year. I think they’re done,” said Latha Thompson, the board’s district manager, with hope in her voice.

The big environmental groups generally shy away from talking about the irony of killing trees as part of an effort to protect the environment.

Public policy analyst Charles Komanoff said the tree casualties are “pretty depressing” given that “gotcha moments” in environmental statements don’t come often. The original idea behind the creation of the EIS 40 years ago was to take the politics out of decisions, but the reports fail on that count, he said.

“It’s not a panacea,” said Komanoff, who works on reducing traffic. “At the end of the day, it’s only politics.”
The statements stay in the city archives long after boards and libraries get rid of them. Thompson said she has received conflicting information on how long she should hold onto an EIS, so she has settled on 10 years. That means she’ll be getting rid of the subway statements in 2014, long before the project is fully built—assuming, of course, that the day will in fact come.

Her West Side counterpart, Penny Ryan, does not have reports as long, so she’s not worried about storage space. But still, they do seem to take on lives of their own.

“You’re welcome to come visit them,” she offered.

Josh Rogers, a contributing editor at Manhattan media, is a lifelong New Yorker. Follow him on Twitter
@JoshRogersNYC.