Auto bill is the collision of the Albany season

Daily Point

Are driverless cabs the next Uber issue?

Since Gov. Kathy Hochul's auto insurance proposal is drawing outsized attention in the current legislative session, so are the tactics and details of the relevant lobbying and ad campaigns for and against the bill. On one side are the trial attorneys who oppose narrowing the expensive legal liability for claims and accidents. On the other side putting up big money is Uber, the global company whose app lets millions of people hail cabs from independent drivers.

Hochul and other supporters of the measure promote it as a way to reduce insurance rates for New Yorkers, part of her "affordability" agenda. The New York State Trial Lawyers Association, whose members get fees based on the size of verdicts and settlements, has always held especially strong sway in the Democratic-controlled Assembly. The group attacks the campaign to reform auto coverage as an effort by Uber to dodge accountability for injuries in crashes and instances of assaults by drivers. The Uber-backed Citizens for Affordable Rates says it is tackling fraud and legal system abuse. And so the crossfire goes on as talks toward a state budget that was supposed to take effect on April 1 continue.

But some Albany observers, including lobbyists with no clear connection to the fray, are privately speculating about the implications of Uber's bankrolling and pushing for Hochul's proposal, which has reportedly cost upward of $10 million so far. For them, chatting about the levers of state power is trade talk. And they see the corporate support for Hochul as potentially helping Uber and other corporations in the same business build influence for another big priority — to authorize self-driving cabs.

Often in Albany, "there's no doubt that the thing you see them doing is often about the next thing," said one paid advocate. In this context, that means establishing an alliance that leads to administration openness to its latest priorities.

"Maybe they're going to find that this [insurance] effort, win or lose, will help them get something else they want, such as, oh, say, self-driving cars," added a New York City based lobbyist, noting that Hochul's bid for a second full term will top the November ballots.

Advocates on both sides of the auto insurance fight will always insist the merits of this issue stand separate from other ones. But when it comes to imposing and negotiating regulations, alignments of political and private interests can be multidimensional, those in the influence business say.

On its website, Uber is upbeat about the prospect of driverless vehicles despite the visceral scare this might put into people familiar with the hazards on roads in the metropolitan area.

The company posts this: "At Uber, it's our mission to reimagine the way the world moves for the better — and it's clear that AVs [autonomous vehicles] will play a part. While we have not launched self-driving rides in every market, we imagine a future where AVs and human drivers seamlessly work together to make transportation safer and more reliable, affordable, and sustainable."

How future AVs may be insured is anyone's guess.

For now the proposed auto insurance reforms — carried out in the name of both private motorists and drivers for hire — take center stage. Just this week the New York State Trial Lawyers Association is rolling out an ad to be seen "While You're Waiting" at Department of Motor Vehicles offices across the state opposing Hochul's insurance bill.

It's animated and negative, with a scary-looking blue Hochul rendition and sharp-toothed versions of what's apparently the Geico gecko. "Nearly half of all auto insurance claims are denied. Why? ... Greed ... Hochul's auto insurance plan unleashes mayhem for New Yorkers ..." The figures are drawn looming King Kong-like over urban streets.

If nothing else, it shows that expensive political attack ads are no longer limited to election season.

— Dan Janison dan.janison@newsday.com

Pencil Point

Constant shock

For more cartoons, visit www.newsday.com/nationalcartoons

Reference Point

The debate over state aid to local schools never gets old 

Budget disagreements and delays are clearly nothing new in New York State. On today's date 64 years ago, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller was pushing back over the same hot issue: high school taxes.

"Gov. Rockefeller has thrown up his hands as far as school aid is concerned," the Newsday editorial board lamented in 1962. Rockefeller had declared "the State of New York has gone about as far as it can, both financially and philosophically, in sharing the costs of education."

Months earlier in 1962, a retooling of school funding boosted state payments to schools to what the governor called "the absolute limit."

But the editorial board criticized that Rockefeller was "merely tinkering" and not working out an entirely new formula for state aid. The board challenged Rockefeller to work on a long-term solution that would guide school budgeting through the rest of the decade.

"It is up to him to lead. Such leadership would mean a complete re-evaluation of the tax picture, both statewide and locally," the board wrote. "On the local level, our citizens are up to their ears. Every year they pay more and more. They have reached the limit ... a tough and frank reappraisal is necessary and the governor should provide it."

The board also pressured schools and taxpayers to take a critical look at district spending.

"On the local level, our school boards and our taxpayers should look carefully at the costs of administration, operation and - in particular - construction," the board wrote. "Frills in building should be cut to a minimum, sales of school bonds and purchases of school equipment should be pooled. Shared services such as in the arts and technical training should be developed far more than they are now."

Sound familiar? Funding schools continues to be a tug of war, as districts wrestle with how to pay for costs through a combination of that state aid formula and taxes raised from residents, with the added factor of staying under the tax cap.

Decades later, Gov. Kathy Hochul's 2026-27 budget calls for a 3.6% increase in state aid to schools, which includes pre-kindergarten expansion mandates and full funding of universal school meals. At least seven Long Island districts are already seeking a tax cap override, citing shortfalls because of cost increases in transportation, healthcare and special education.

Ultimately, Rockefeller signed a bill the next year in 1963 that gave more aid to suburban districts in Nassau and Suffolk. The extra aid became available because a provision in the 1962 school aid formula proved to adversely affect certain districts.

As the board wrote in 1962, it's still true that "our schools are going to cost us," but also that New York always "must meet the needs of our schools."

— Amanda Fiscina-Wells amanda.fiscina-wells@newsday.com

Subscribe to The Point here and browse past editions of The Point here.