Could This Be the End of the Party in Dimes Square?
Like hundreds of restaurateurs across the city, Jon Neidich, an owner of Le Dive, applied for a permit last year for sidewalk seating outside of his buzzy wine bar on the Lower East Side of Manhattan.
Under ordinary circumstances, his application would have been approved or rejected by the Department of Transportation, and never even considered by the City Council. Instead, Christopher Marte, a Council member who represents the area, brought it before the full Council for a vote — an unusual move given support from Le Dive's community board.
The Council rejected it.
'Le Dive has demonstrated a continuous disregard for sidewalk cafe regulation,' Mr. Marte said during a committee meeting before the vote, 'and at this time cannot be trusted to be a good steward of this program and must be held accountable.'
These kind of permits are being debated across the city. But there's something about one quarter-mile stretch of Canal Street.
This expanse between Chinatown and the Lower East Side has become known as 'Dimes Square,' a destination for hip, young New Yorkers. During the pandemic, fast and loose enforcement of sidewalk and street dining solidified Dimes Square as a subculture and a micro-neighborhood, even briefly appearing on Google Maps.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
NY attorney general sues Zelle's parent company
NEW YORK -- New York's attorney general on Wednesday sued the parent company of the Zelle payment platform, months after the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau abandoned a similar case as the Trump administration was gutting the agency. Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, sued Early Warning Services in New York state court, alleging that the company, which is owned by a group of U.S. banks, had failed to protect users from fraud by not including critical safety features in Zelle's design. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau earlier this year dropped a similar case after President Donald Trump fired the agency's leader and his administration halted nearly all the bureau's work, closed its headquarters and moved to fire many of its workers. In a statement, James' office noted that its suit was filed after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau abandoned its lawsuit following a 'change in the federal administration.' 'No one should be left to fend for themselves after falling victim to a scam,' James said in a statement. 'I look forward to getting justice for the New Yorkers who suffered because of Zelle's security failures.' James has been a leading antagonist of Trump, a Republican, and has sued him dozens of times. Last week, The Associated Press and other news outlets reported that the Justice Department has subpoenaed James as part of an investigation into whether she violated Trump's civil rights, according to people familiar with the matter. James' case against Early Warning Services alleged that Zelle, which allows users to send and receive near-instant money transfers, failed to include adequate verification processes. Her office said scammers were able to access peoples' accounts or trick users into sending money to bogus accounts that posed as official businesses. In one instance cited by the attorney general's office, a Zelle user got a call from someone posing as an employee of the utility company Con Edison who told the user that his electricity was going to be shut off unless he sent them money through Zelle. The user then transferred about $1,500 to a Zelle account named 'Coned Billing" and then realized he had been scammed but was told by his bank that he could not get his money back, James' office said. In a statement issued through a spokesperson, Zelle called James' lawsuit 'a political stunt to generate press, not progress.' 'The Attorney General should focus on the hard facts, stopping criminal activity and adherence to the law, not overreach and meritless claims,' the statement said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Google Finds Workaround for Lobbying Rules That Omits Big Bosses
(Bloomberg) — It was the end of 2018, and Google's leaders were tired of being Number One. For the second year in a row, federal records showed the search giant had spent more than any other individual company on lobbying in Washington. Executives in Mountain View were sick of seeing that mentioned in the press. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion The US-Canadian Road Safety Gap Is Getting Wider To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets Then Google apparently found a workaround. A new analysis of federal lobbying data by the nonprofit Tech Transparency Project shows that Google and its parent company, Alphabet Inc. used an internal reorganization to exclude the value of lobbying by its senior executives from disclosures. The move helped keep Google off the top of the lobbying charts even as it maintained a robust network of advocates pushing its interests in the capital, during federal challenges to its dominance in search and advertising and the beginnings of artificial intelligence regulation. The findings, which were confirmed by a Bloomberg analysis of lobbying records, show that the effect of the accounting change was to lower the amount that Google reported spending to influence the federal government, likely by millions of dollars. The reorganization 'has allowed the company to shield a significant portion of its lobbying expenditures from public view,' the Tech Transparency Project said in its report. A Google spokesperson, José Castañeda, disputed the report and said the company has followed all relevant disclosure laws. 'These are inaccurate claims about a technical change that simply brought us in line with how many other companies report their lobbying activities,' he said. 'Our lobbying expenditures began decreasing in 2018, after we restructured our government affairs team and cut spending on consultants.' Internal Reshuffle Starting in 2019, Google began cutting ties with some of its external lobbying firms, a move it acknowledged publicly as part of an overhaul of its Washington operations. But the shuffling of external lobbying firms doesn't explain the whole of the decline in Google's reported lobbying expenses, which fell from more than $22 million in 2018 to $8.9 million in the Covid-disrupted year of 2020, and have subsequently remained well below pre-pandemic levels. There's been another, quieter change: in early 2020, Google moved its in-house lobbyists into a new subsidiary, called Google Client Services LLC. It's that unit which now files spending disclosures for Google's lobbying activities. The reorganization meant that the parent companies Google and Alphabet no longer directly employed any lobbyists – defined under federal disclosure law as people spending at least 20% of their time on influencing Congress or the executive branch. Companies that file lobbying disclosure reports are supposed to also account for the time that other senior executives — those who don't meet the 20% threshold – devote to lobbying, according to legal experts and the compliance guide for the Lobbying Disclosure Act published by Congressional leaders. That generally involves prorating their annual compensation to account for the days they spend influencing the government. But since Google moved lobbyists into the Google Client Services subsidiary, the parent company no longer meets the threshold for filing disclosures under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, according to the TTP analysis. That means Google no longer reports the lobbying expenses of high-ranking managers who aren't part of the Client Services unit — like Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai and chief legal officer Kent Walker — to the public, as it once did. As a result, in 2020 Google dropped out of the top 20 in corporate lobbying expenses for the first time in nearly a decade, the TTP analysis found. While Google's reported annual spending has since edged back up again, it hasn't come close to the No.1 slot in the company lobbying rankings that it used to occupy. For the past five years, that position has alternated between two other tech giants: Meta Platforms Inc. and Inc. Antitrust Challenge There's been plenty going in in Washington over the period that was crucial for Google's business. For one thing, the company — like many peers — is betting heavily on AI, a field where decisions in the US capital will shape the commercial landscape. Google has also been under assault from antitrust authorities over its dominance in search and digital advertising. The company has maintained in those lawsuits that its success is down to consumer choice and superior innovation, rather than a result of its power to shape laws and regulations. Publicity around its lobbying spending has the potential to undercut such arguments and alienate regulators. When executives are as highly paid as many in Silicon Valley, the prorated amounts can add up to millions — even for just a few days' worth of lobbying. Google reported total compensation for Pichai of more than $225 million in 2022, thanks to grants of stock. His total compensation was $10.7 million in 2024. Walker's total compensation was more than $30 million last year, the company reported. Some say the new structure Google is employing flouts the spirit of the federal disclosure law – if not the letter itself. 'This is just too cute by half,' said William Luneburg, a professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and the co-editor of the manual for lobbying compliance published by the American Bar Association. 'On the face of it, it's wrong,' he said. 'They have to report all of their expenses, which would include the time of officers and directors and other employees that spend their time engaging in lobbying activity.' 'We always comply with disclosure laws and any suggestion of improper reporting is false,' said Castañeda, the Google spokesperson. TTP said it examined lobbying disclosures of several other companies that filed reports via a similar subsidiary model, but didn't find any that had used the structure to remove executive lobbying from their disclosures. —With assistance from Davey Alba and Sarah Frier. Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist A $340 Million New York Office Makeover Is Converting Boardrooms to Bedrooms ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNET
2 hours ago
- CNET
ChatGPT-5 Gives You Real Choices After All. Here's a Quick Breakdown
The biggest pushback after OpenAI announced its new GPT-5 model for ChatGPT came from devotees of older models who felt the new generative AI chatbot lacked the panache of its predecessors. Now you have more choices of pre-GPT-5 models (although you'll have to hunt for some of them) and better control over which components of GPT-5 handle your questions. OpenAI is still sorting through a somewhat rocky launch of GPT-5, led by complaints about the lack of model choices. The model has been anticipated for more than two years and comes as competitors like Anthropic and Google have released powerful new versions of their AI models this year. (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, CNET's parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.) OpenAI planned for one model that could handle everything: GPT-5 includes two different modes, one fast and lean for simple tasks and one aimed at reasoning for complicated ones. A routing program would decide which model handled a given prompt. That's still the default in ChatGPT, but it's not your only option. Here's a look at the menu: Watch this: ChatGPT Users Want the Old Models Back, Intel CEO Goes to the White House & More | Tech Today 03:03 Choices of GPT-5 models There are a few different modes of GPT-5 you can select between if you want to use OpenAI's newest technology. Here's a quick rundown: Enlarge Image This is what your choices will look like if you don't enable legacy models in settings. Screenshot by Jon Reed/CNET Auto: This mode allows the switching program built into GPT-5 to decide whether your query is handled by a lighter, faster large language model or a bigger, slower reasoning model. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman posted on X that this will be the best fit for most people. This mode allows the switching program built into GPT-5 to decide whether your query is handled by a lighter, faster large language model or a bigger, slower reasoning model. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman posted on X that this will be the best fit for most people. Fast: Your query will go straight to the fastest, lightest model. Expect quick, basic answers, but not the in-depth research you'd get from a reasoning model. Your query will go straight to the fastest, lightest model. Expect quick, basic answers, but not the in-depth research you'd get from a reasoning model. Thinking: This is a reasoning model, meaning it'll try to answer your question over several steps. It might use web searches and other tools, or it might go back and redo its past steps to try to get the right answer. There are some limits on how much you can use this model (3,000 messages per week right now). This is a reasoning model, meaning it'll try to answer your question over several steps. It might use web searches and other tools, or it might go back and redo its past steps to try to get the right answer. There are some limits on how much you can use this model (3,000 messages per week right now). Thinking mini: This is a lighter, faster version of the Thinking model. If you hit the usage limit on Thinking, you'll be stuck with Thinking mini. You can access it on your own if you enable more model options (more on that below). This is a lighter, faster version of the Thinking model. If you hit the usage limit on Thinking, you'll be stuck with Thinking mini. You can access it on your own if you enable more model options (more on that below). Pro: The most powerful reasoning model in the fleet, this is only available at the moment for Pro users, who pay $200 per month. (Although Altman did tease giving Plus users, who pay $20 a month, a very limited number of queries as a taste.) Again, sticking with Auto is probably easiest for most users. Think of it like driving a car with an automatic transmission instead of having to change gears manually. Sure, people who are really into cars might prefer the stick shift, but most people should probably just let the machine handle it. How to get the older OpenAI models Everyone with a paid ChatGPT subscription can access the older GPT-4o model directly in the same menu where you can choose your flavor of GPT-5. This model received the most clamor from users after it was removed, and Altman said if OpenAI ever decides to take it away permanently, "we will give plenty of notice." But 4o isn't your only choice (if you're a paid user). You just have to know where to look. To access GPT-4.1, 4o-mini and 3o, along with GPT-5 Thinking mini, you'll have to go into your Settings and toggle on "Show additional models."
