The U.S. Open is exempt from city vaccine mandate and federal face mask guidelines

  

NY Post

Usually the U.S. Open is just about super tennis. Now it’s trying to avoid being a super spreader.

When the two-week tourney starts Monday in Flushing Meadows, health is going to be the priority, both mental and physical.

Players will get COVID-19 tests upon arrival, and again every four days with a positive result forcing a withdrawal.

Whereas Wimbledon required proof of negative tests and asked fans to wear masks around the grounds, the U.S. Open will do neither. Despite cases spiking due to the Delta variant, fans won’t have to be vaccinated or wear masks outdoors at Flushing Meadows.

With local vaccination rates around 70 percent, they’re banking on their protocols and common sense to keep the tourney from becoming a super-spreader.

“This is not a USTA decision or a U.S. Open decision, this is a decision made with New York City. Of course, we’ve been tracking what’s been happening at the baseball games and other events,” said Dr. Brian Hainline, a U.S. Tennis Association first vice president. “The goal is not to prevent a single infection: The goal is to prevent an outbreak and an uptick.

“We’re still relying on the goodwill of people. The unvaccinated, although it’s not going to be enforced, really should be wearing masks. … It’s like any other aspect of New York City, going to the baseball game, you make an informed decision. But based on all the data we have — we believe the current policy makes good sense in terms of avoiding any sort of a regional outbreak as a result of this event.”

Fans won’t have to wear masks in Arthur Ashe or Louis Armstrong even when the roofs are closed, because both are considered outdoor venues. Players won’t be sequestered like last year (although 75 percent will be at one of the two designated hotels) and the USTA had no figures on how many were vaccinated.

Beware of Cojo

NY Daily News

NYC Council members who voted against this year’s budget — which activists decried as failing to go far enough on police reform — got the short end of the stick on funding for their districts from Council Speaker Corey Johnson, the Daily News has found.

The 17 “no” votes each received an average of seven times less discretionary and capital funding from Johnson than 30 “yes” votes.

The more than $300 million in cash, which is buried in budget documents, goes to everything from local nonprofits to school auditoriums and is seen as a way for the speaker to reward allies and punish foes.

As the controversial budget passed at the end of June, Johnson took an apologetic tone. He noted shortcomings in answering demands that arose from recent anti-police-brutality protests sparked by the May 25 death of Black Minneapolis man George Floyd at the hands of a white police officer.

“To everyone who is disappointed that we did not go farther ... I am disappointed, as well,” he said. 

“But this budget process involves the mayor, who was not budging more than what we got, and 49 other Council members currently, many of whom were not open or supportive to the kind of cuts that I was pushing for.”

However, members who voted in favor of the budget received the biggest allocations from Johnson.

Councilwoman Adrienne Adams (D-Queens) got $21,697,000; Councilman Mark Treyger (D-Brooklyn), $18,395,000; and Council Majority Leader Laurie Cumbo (D-Brooklyn), $16,025,000.

The rebels, many of whose stances were known as Johnson’s office finalized the budget in the days before the vote, received far less. Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer (D-Queens) got $736,000; Councilwomen Carlina Rivera (D-Manhattan) and Helen Rosenthal (D-Manhattan), $225,000 each; and Councilman Brad Lander (D-Brooklyn), $125,000. Councilman Carlos Menchaca (D-Brooklyn) got a big fat zero from Johnson, though his name was on one line item shared with Councilman Antonio Reynoso (D-Brooklyn).

de Blasio rigging building permits to favor a EDC board member and reliable donor

 NY Daily News

A preservation group is accusing Mayor de Blasio of political patronage after one of his donors was allowed to build a controversial new hotel near Manhattan’s Union Square — and now the city is pushing to limit other new hotels from sprouting up nearby.

The city’s new proposal would require hotel builders to get a special permit for new projects in the area roughly between 14th and 9th Sts. and Third Ave. and University Place.

That initiative comes four years after David Lichtenstein, a donor to de Blasio’s political causes, secured the go-ahead from the city to tear down five historic buildings so he could erect the boutique Moxy Hotel on E. 11th St., within the bounds of the newly proposed restricted zone.

“It’s telling that this proposal is only moving forward after the mayor’s campaign donor and political ally David Lichtenstein got to build his Moxy Hotel,” said Andrew Berman, head of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation.

“If enacted, the plan will only protect Lichtenstein’s hotel from competition and allow tech office developers to swoop in and raze the remaining low-rise historic buildings in the area and develop those sites.”

The 286-room “millennial-focused” Moxy Hotel, part of the Marriott International chain, opened in September and boasts several upscale restaurants and bars. Each of the hotel’s 13 floors pays tribute to a different era in East Village history, creating a “vertical timeline.” Rates start at $179 per night.

About 100 protesters gathered outside the future site of the hotel in 2016 to decry the loss of the townhouses.

De Blasio appointed Lichtenstein to the city’s Economic Development Corporation’s board in 2015.

A Lichtenstein company, A&J Contracting, gave $50,000 to de Blasio allies in 2016 — one of several contributions that drew the attention of federal and state investigators.

“We make decisions based on the merits and all of these claims are ridiculous,” de Blasio spokeswoman Jane Meyer said of Berman’s accusations of patronage. “This hotel was built under existing zoning and didn’t require any special approval.”

What makes this especially interesting is that de Blasio felt all of sudden that there needed restrictions to prevent hotel over-development when it concerned one of his biggest donors, while hotels keep popping up like dandelions in Queens, which usually wind up as homeless shelters when they can't attract visitors to this city. With this favorable proposal benefiting Lichtenstein; just in case when the MOXY starts losing customers, it could easily be transformed into the biggest homeless hotel in the East Village. Then Lichy can also profit from this infinite homeless crisis. Hell it already looks like one:

 

And just to refresh everyone's memory, David Lichenstein is the person who compared Amazon bailing out of the L.I.C. HQ2 land grab to the terrorist attack on this nation on 9/11/01.