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.