DECEMBER
12, 2004 --
An
article in the Village Voice, last month, reported that The
New York Times sold its building on West 43rd Street
for $175 million. Apparently the paper will be
leasing the property back for three years, until its new home, a 52-storey
structure on Eighth Avenue, opposite the Port Authority bus terminal, is completed.
Here is the rub. The Village Voice article, by Paul
Moses, a freelancer and former city editor at Newsday, pointed out The
Times got the Eighth Avenue property, between 40th and 41st Streets,
through government intervention, not on the open market. Also that a tax subsidy
was involved.
And now, on top of the government intervention and tax subsidy, The
Times is making a lot of money on the sale of its present building, The
Village Voice noted.
This, of course, could explain why The New York Times is
a liberal paper. Liberals love government; it's Republicans they have difficulty
with.
Conservatives are concerned (or should be) about the exercise of power by government
-- whoever is in office. The story of what The Village Voice called "The
Times' sweetheart deal" on Eighth Avenue explains why powerful people
may be found on the liberal side -- with their clout, government is at their
service.
If they opposed activist government, they
couldn't have officials run interference for them.
Ever hear a liberal denounce management at The New York Times as "the
rich getting richer"? Accusations are for the perceived enemies of liberals.
One other thing: the liberal Times is strongly in
favor of higher taxes.
Why not, when you have the power to get subsidies and "sweetheart" deals
from the pols. Taxes for the people; tax subsidies for the liberals. |
|
|
The
New York Times building today.
|
|
This
property handed to the Times
for future use.
|
The
Times, of course, would not report the property tax manipulation
at the Dayton Seaside apartment buildings in Queens, that pushed the
buildings into
bankruptcy and forced out the ownership group (including this writer and members
of his family).
Could The Times have ignored the Dayton Seaside travesty
because of negotiations with Mayor Giuliani to have the Eighth Avenue property
fall into its hands? Why should The Times have been
interested in City Hall's abusive exercise of government in Rockaway, Queens,
when it could benefit from the same City Hall?
When The New York Times moves into its new buiilding,
it would be fitting if it changed its current, ignored, motto -- "'All the
News That's Fit to Print'" to "Power to the Powerful!"
|
|