This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by psa188@xxxxxxxxx /-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\ Explore more of Starbucks at Starbucks.com. http://www.starbucks.com/default.asp?ci=1015 \----------------------------------------------------------/ Judge Orders Fare Increases Rescinded for New York City May 15, 2003 By RANDY KENNEDY A State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan ordered the Metropolitan Transportation Authority yesterday to rescind the transit and commuter fare increases that were approved two months ago, ruling that the authority violated state law by misleading the public about its finances. But the decision does not mean fares will be rolled back immediately - and if they are rolled back, it may not be permanent. The authority said it would appeal, and even if the ruling is upheld, the M.T.A. could vote again for higher fares. The judge, Louis B. York, found that 10 public hearings held by the authority in February to solicit riders' opinions about the proposed fare increases were "based on the false and misleading premise that the M.T.A. was in worse financial condition than it knew itself to be." Notices for the hearings, posted in hundreds of subway stations and at bus stops, said the authority faced a $2.8 billion shortfall over the next two years. But Justice York called that a "fictitious gap," and added that the misinformation "had a chilling effect on the public, discouraging an open and complete discussion of the proposals and foreclosing the presentation of creative alternatives." In the end, he wrote, the actions "undermined the public's confidence in the M.T.A." Tom Kelly, the authority's chief spokesman, declined yesterday to comment in detail on the decision, saying only that the authority disagreed with it and would appeal. At least for the next two weeks, riders will continue to pay the higher base subway and bus fare of $2. Justice York said he would allow the authority that amount of time to roll back the fares - a much more complex job in the age of the MetroCard. Lawyers for the Straphangers' Campaign, the riders' advocacy group that filed the suit, also said they expected M.T.A. officials to appeal immediately, leading most likely to a hearing today before the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Manhattan. In the end, even if the suit is successful, it will require the authority only to hold new public hearings, based on more accurate information. The authority, which has broad powers to determine fares, could vote to keep the increase in place. But lawyers for riders said yesterday that they considered the case much more about the principle of public accountability, and as such they saw the ruling as a huge victory. The winning side seemed almost taken off guard by the decision. "I'm happily surprised," said State Senator David A. Paterson of Manhattan, an originator of the lawsuit who was also listed as a plaintiff. Since the momentum for a fare increase began to build rapidly last November, shortly after the re-election of Gov. George E. Pataki, the authority's top officials have been widely criticized as being deceptive about the depth of their financial problems. No one has disputed that there are problems, as the system's operating expenses have increased and revenue has not kept pace. But many public officials questioned how the authority ended 2002 with a very small surplus when it had appeared earlier that it would end the year in much better shape. The authority's top leaders repeatedly, and often angrily, rebuffed the criticism. They argued that they had adequately explained how the arrangement of their finances led to a deficit of more than $200 million in 2003. They added that they had given the public more information than any prior M.T.A. administration. While the authority initially said it had a $2.8 billion deficit over two years, it later said it had been able to reduce that gap to about $1 billion: the more than $200 million in 2003, and the rest in 2004. But highly critical reports from both the city and state comptrollers last month accused the authority of essentially creating the appearance of a more pressing deficit by shifting money from 2002 to 2003 and 2004. More damningly, the comptrollers accused the authority of working hard to conceal that fact. In court over the past two weeks, the authority's lawyers never directly disputed that accusation. Instead they argued that state law gave them no obligation to provide a completely detailed accounting to the public. Gregg M. Mashberg, a lawyer representing the authority, said that the public hearings were not meant to be a "working session" with the public and added that the M.T.A. was not compelled by law to present "a financial plan it was not considering." But in his decision, Justice York ruled that the authority did not simply withhold details. It presented inaccurate information, he wrote. Previous cases have established that, under the Public Authorities Law, while the M.T.A. has the power to set fares, that power is subject to "certain safeguards" and can be exercised only "after a public hearing." If the court did not enforce the implicit requirement that those hearings be based on accurate information, Justice York wrote, "then it would greatly diminish the value of one of these crucial safeguards." He added: "If this court did not declare the notice and the vote invalid, it would exacerbate the harm - and undermine the public's confidence in the judiciary as well." State Senator Eric T. Schneiderman of Manhattan, one of the lawyers for the Straphangers Campaign, said after the ruling that it sent "a strong message to every public authority in this state that they are accountable." Whether that victory will translate into riders eventually keeping more money in their pockets is far from certain. In 1995, the last time fares were increased, to $1.50, a civil rights suit by the Straphangers to stop increases was unsuccessful. The suit claimed that the increases were racially discriminatory because fares for the subway and bus - most of whose riders are black or Hispanic - rose more steeply than fares for suburban commuter rail lines, most of whose riders are white. A federal judge in Manhattan blocked the fare increase before it went into effect. But a federal appeals court disagreed, and in a settlement before a trial, the fare increase was allowed to stay in place. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/nyregion/15FARE.html?ex=1054014968&ei=1&en=4178f6e0a64945da --------------------------------- Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like! Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here: http://www.nytimes.com/ads/nytcirc/index.html HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact onlinesales@xxxxxxxxxxx or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@xxxxxxxxxxxx Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company