Hello, Stephen, thank you for your comment. This provision makes every attempt to prevent diversion of funds under any executive privilege, even in the case of emergency. Can you see any specific place where the provision might be lacking to this end?
Stephen, Good question. The requirement to maintain existing levels of funding does seem to cover the City, as well as the State. Historically, the State budget process has been the main place where transportation spending gets shortchanged, so it’s not clear that the Governor or other state officials would step in to apply pressure if the City budget process reduced transportation spending. Whether the state courts would hear a lawsuit to force maintenance of effort at either the State or the City level is an interesting (and complicated) legal question.
Hello, Stephen, thank you for your comment. This provision makes every attempt to prevent diversion of funds under any executive privilege, even in the case of emergency. Can you see any specific place where the provision might be lacking to this end?
View this comment in the discussion thread
Stephen, Good question. The requirement to maintain existing levels of funding does seem to cover the City, as well as the State. Historically, the State budget process has been the main place where transportation spending gets shortchanged, so it’s not clear that the Governor or other state officials would step in to apply pressure if the City budget process reduced transportation spending. Whether the state courts would hear a lawsuit to force maintenance of effort at either the State or the City level is an interesting (and complicated) legal question.
View this comment in the discussion thread