- Bus Shelter
- LED Mupi
- Light Box
- LCD Display
the shelter shenanigans
1981 this is a digital version of an article from The Times Print Archive, before it starts online in 1996.
To keep these articles as they appear initially, the Times will not change, edit, or update them.
There are occasional copywriting errors or other problems during the digitization process.
Please send a report of such issues to archid_feedback @ nytimes. com.
After reading New York City\'s survey of the dirty business of bus shelters, the smell of ashes left on the tongue.
People are almost eager for the simpler days of the Tweed boss, at least when the court was built, he was a profiteer.
According to the reasonable judgment of investigative Commissioner Lupkin, in addition to more bus shelters and the basis for further prosecution, the bus shelters project produced almost everything: indecent conduct misleading and false statements by the official and private sectors and blatant conflicts of interest.
To be sure, no official will try to enrich himself.
But the ambition of Auditor General Godin and his pursuit of campaign donations left a dubious ugly mark.
In this process, the public bidding policy for franchising
Sounds like an antidote to corruption.
A screen that becomes a tilt rule to benefit contributors.
Commitment to innovative entrepreneurs
Critical to Innovation government
If not betrayed, it will be tarnished.
Public morale may be encouraged on many street corners, but further damaged.
Lupkin\'s report made it clear that the French businessman, Willy Bouchara, had wanted to build a shelter for the city for free, but after the initial experiment, he expected
Although his residence was delayed for various reasons, it was quickly profitable and attracted other investors.
One of them is Sol Steinberg, who is trying to buy out the innovator, who could ruin the business if he is rejected.
Steinberg set up a rival company in 1978 and promised that the city would receive more revenue.
The advertising company then launched an ugly campaign to discredit Bouchara\'s performance and to demand bids in accordance with the terms that Steinberg group is most prepared to meet.
Who is it, sir?
Golding\'s office fully understands the pressure of lawyers and influence vendors --
Some are illegal.
It is not clear yet.
But at the same time, the same Sir
Steinberg was discovered for his great contribution.
Golding\'s campaign for the national auditor general;
What he gave was disguised by a middleman.
Advertising and competition have become so fierce and dirty that no one can get a franchise.
The most bitter taste comes from the contrast between Mr.
Golding\'s undignified campaign and his apparent talent, wisdom and dedication to the city.
The auditor really did not ask why
After a lunch, Steinberg hinted that it would raise up to $125,000.
Golding will have to defend his re-tender
Election this year
If he doesn\'t know Mr.
Steinberg\'s commercial interest in bus shelters, why not decide on the basis of his generosity? And if, as Mr.
Goldin believes that it is a common practice to solicit donations from people doing business with the city, and why do they disguise it?
Please click on the box to verify that you are not a robot.
The email address is invalid. Please re-enter.
You must select the newsletter you want to subscribe.
View all New York Times newsletters.
Like the federal grand jury, Commissioner Lupkin found that he could not prove that he had sold the favor directly.
But his \"improper and partial appearance\"
Golding\'s office is clear, even incomplete and barely testimony.
It is estimated that other members of the committee are not blameless in this matter.
If the franchise is granted by the Commission, it is better for them to know who is ultimately responsible for doing business in a timely and honest manner.
It is clear that a reform is orderly.
For example, $500 or more of the major campaign contributors should be asked to disclose their pending business with cities and states.
Any disguise or cleansing of these contributions should be a serious offence.
Even so, however, these bus shelters will not be built in the end.
If they have enough profit to attract all this rubbish, then the city itself can certainly build and serve them through private contractors.
Unless the New York government removes the impression that it cannot do simple things directly, such as installing a plastic box in a corner, the cloud will not dissipate.
A version of the editorial was printed on page A00022 of the National edition on August 6, 1981, with the title: Shelter prank.