Kelly's List

Appearing Monday before the New York City Council's hearing on the Department of Homeland Security's 40% reduction in counterterrorism aid to New York City (other cities experienced increases), Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly identified "17 chapters in New York City's recent history that the Department of Homeland Security may want to commit to memory" as follows:

November 5, 1990: El Sayyid Nosair shot Jewish Defense League leader Meir Kahane...

February 26, 1993: New York City sustained the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center...

February 23, 1997: Abu Kamel, a Palestinian residing in Florida, selected the Empire State Building...

July 31, 1997: the New York City Police Department stopped a plot at the last minute to bomb the subway...

September 11, 2001: The World Trade Center was destroyed by Al Qaeda with the loss of 2,700 lives.

October 2001: New York Post, NBC, CBS, and ABC News in New York City fall victim to anthrax attacks...

June 2002: Security personnel from Iran's Mission to the United Nations were observed by NYPD videotaping landmarks and infrastructure...

November 2003: security personnel assigned to Iran's Mission to the United Nations...

June 2004: two more security personnel from Iran's Mission to the United Nations were caught...

July 2004: laptop computer of an Al Qaeda operative overseas is recovered. On it are detailed reconnaissance plans that show Al Qaeda operatives had been in New York City to plan an attack on the New York Stock Exchange...

August 2004: A week before the convening of the Republican National Convention two Islamic radicals from Brooklyn were arrested...

You don't NEED to be in New York to conduct business on the Exchanges anymore. Where the exchange is, or where you are in relation to it, is no longer important with modern communications.

As to WHY they stay in New York, it has very little to do with actual business, per se. In a place like New York, you are guarenteed of finding the experienced, educated, driven, technically savvy work force that you need, whereas in a place like Bismark (for example), you won't (at least not in the numbers you need them).

So staying in New York is a compromise; you don't strictly need to be there to conduct business, but it is where you'll find your employees, in sufficient numbers and with the required credentials.

And who said anything about hiring private contractors? What I meant was that the brokers, bankers, etc could simply write a check to the City of New York and make up the Homeland Secutiy shortfall. Employing private firms would simply result in confusion, turf battles, duplication of effort, etc, and would defeat the purpose. Pay the NYPD/FDNY, not someone else,to do the job because they already can.

As far as it being an expensive proposition, these firms waste more cash on any given day having fresh fruit trucked into the Executive Dining Room than would be required to make up the shortfall. The trick, however, is to ensure that some Congresscritter from East Buttf*ck, Wyo. doesn't get it in his head that since Smith-Barney paid to train the NYPD in chemical response, that his tiny municipality should get the money the NYPD should have gotten from the feds, and to keep this from becoming a habit.

And why shouldn't they pay for it? The citizens of this city are paying to keep them here (with huge tax breaks), so why should this be a one-way street; NYC has bent over backwards for Walkl Street, Wall Street should take some responsibility (at least this once) for it's own protection.

NY taxes high? Sure they are, but the firms are stillpaying them, aren't they (for the reasons stated above)? If high taxes were a detriment to their business, they'd pull up stakes and move elsewhere (as many have). The vast majority have not, so that tells you what high taxes mean to their bottom line. They can absorb (or pass on) that cost in their stride.

I see this totally differently.

These wall street firms bring in huge revenues into the city coffers. That's why they are given tax breaks. Ever wonder why NYC was so rich under Giuliani? Because the market was so high and the tax revenues were rolling in. Even before 9/11 the market had slowed down and NYC was already having problems with its tax base and deficits.

The cost of business and taxes in NYC are so high (highest in the country I believe. Got a link somewhere) that incentives are given to keep wall street firms in NYC to feed the budget monster.

Many financial institutions have left particularly banks. But until the entire stock market becomes decentralized and spread through the country NYC is still the hub that requires protection.

Interesting that no one has addressed my repeated references to pork barrel spending of Homeland Security dollars elsewhere in the country. It is rampant.

I understand the anger at NY for its leftist politics and Schumer and Clinton. I'm angry too, and I live there. But it is still the most target rich and vulnerable place in the country.

I don't disagree with you on many points; I did walk away from 1 WTC on September, 11th, and I know that NY is atarget rich enviornment.

But so is Chicago. So Is Seattle. So is Dallas.

The government canot protect everyplace, and so, that money needs to be spread out some. That's only common sense. If it bothers Ray kelly so much (and trust me, my dad was NYPD for 24 years, I love the guy), then instead of crying about iot he needs to find a way to work around it. If he needs the money that badly, he has to find a way to get it (what he really needs is a way to pay OT without it killing his budget).

I don't see a problem with asking the Exchanges and major firms to shoulder some of the burden, at least this once. After all, they are benefitting from the excellent level of protection and response they would get from the city anyway. You can talk about lal the tax revenue these companies bring in, and they do bring in a ton of bucks for the city, but they also waste a tremendous amount of money on executive-inspired nonsense.

Asking Sandy Weil (for example) to give up his limo for six months and write a check to the City is not that big a deal for him, he can afford both. His firm can also afford it, and since Citi (this is just an example) makes a buttload of money because of the business it does with the city (bond issues, pensions, etc), it can afford to give some back. It should because ultimately, it's Citi that's being protected.

After escaping the WTC on 9/11, I remember sitting in a conference room and listening to our execs ask questions like "What did we lose?", "What do we still have?" (you'll notice the word WHO doesn't appear in those questions), and then breathe a sigh of relief because we're still trading (it happens automatically). Citi then produced (within a week!) a promotional video that bragged that it was the ONLY brokerage firm that continued trading that day.

In the midst of tragedy, they still turned a buck. A LOT OF BUCKS. That's what they care about; money, not people. A firm that can brag it makes money while 3,000 people burn, suffocate, get atomized or leap to their deaths, shouldn't get a free ride -- on ANYTHING.

And I'm POSITIVE that similar attitudes exist EVERYWHERE on Wall Street.

You can certainly ask Wall Street to chip in for it's own defense. It SHOULD chip in for it's own defense. If it offends some people's pro-business sentiments, too bad. Pack up and leav, then (and you know they won't despite what they say. If 9/11 didn't chase them, nothing will) because that's not the sort of corporate citizenship we want in this city.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.