Earlier, we commented on the relative silence of the mayor on the proposed federal health care overhaul. To be fair, Bloomberg did comment to the NY Post this morning-and he did manage to avoid sounding too strident: "Mayor Bloomberg demurred when asked about how to pay for the plan, which is aimed at providing health coverage for people who can't afford it. "Throwing more money every time at the problem is not necessarily the right solution. And where that money comes from, that's something that will take a long time to be worked out between the House and the Senate," the billionaire mayor told CNN. "
How about a simple, "This plan sucks for NYC-as well as for the rest of the country." After all, the fact the Bloomberg has $100 million to lay out for his own campaign and doesn't need to be beholden to the special interests, should free him up for a little cold water tossing when a hair brained scheme to have the government micromanage health care is cooked up by the redistributors in Washington. Right?
And, while we're at it, how about the mayor taking the esteemed chair of the House Ways and Means to task for his cavalier foisting of even greater tax burdens on already over taxed New Yorkers? Here's Choo Choo Charlie's policy acumen on display: "The bill's top sponsor, Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel, asked whether the tax hike would squeeze New York's wealthy, replied, "New York [also] has a lot of poor people."
But the impoverished congressman isn't one of them-and, of course, insures his owm exemption from some of the plan's more cockamamie ideas that Betsy McCaughey outlines in the Post: "President Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests."
But it gets worse: "Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time."
But not Charlie; he and his colleagues, utilizing their exemption from the bill's mandates, will be able to continue to choose the Gold Plate Special. But Rangel should lead by example, as his colleague Congressman Fleming suggests: "As a physician, I am amazed at the number of my colleagues in Congress who are quick to claim a government-run health-care plan is the reform this country needs. So I've offered a bill, HR 615, to give them a chance to put their "health" where their mouth is: My resolution urges members of Congress who vote for this legislation to lead by example and enroll themselves in the public plan that their bill would create."
Charlie's queuing up as we speak. Right? And Rangel's allusion to New York's poor is patently offensive-as he continues to occupy multiple housing designed for moderate income folks. What about the city's tax base, Charlie? The workers in Paul Fernandez's supermarkets who may get laid off if your plan goes through certainly don't look forward to all of your misguided government "help."
Now, as many of you know, we've been beating up on the NY Post for quite a while on the mayoral control issue. But on health care, the paper has stepped up-something that the NY Times and the NY Daily News have not done. In fact the News buried the health care story yesterday in the middle of the paper and didn't mention the small business impacts-and neither did the Times, for that matter.
The NY Post, however, gets it right in their lead editorial today: "New clues emerged yesterday showing just how much damage the Democrats' health-care plans will do to America's economy. (Warning: This subject may make you, uh, sick -- and good luck finding a doctor if the plans pass.) Start with comments from Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office: The Senate's plan "significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs" -- even though President Obama and his fellow Dems claim to want to reduce costs. The CBO puts its price tag at some $600 billion over the next 10 years. The House scheme could run to $1.5 trillion."
Now, if only the Post-and the other local papers as well-would ratchet up the pressure on our elected officials to put the kibosh on this anti-New York City, anti-small business scheme. And the best place to start is with "Above Politics" Mike. If he is going to claim the mantle of leadership in these tough economic times, then he also must speak truth to the powers in the nation's capitol. Hey Mike, a little hint, this just may be a more important issue than continuing mayoral control of the schools.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Unhealthy Supermarket Plan
By now we all know that NYC is hemorrhaging supermarkets-having lost around 300 stores over the past eight years; and the Bloomberg administration, in office during the period of this mass exodus, is now looking for ways to attract news stores. But, as we have said over and over, the administration lacks any policy ideas that will stem the loss of the existing markets.
Why is this loss so important? Well, it speaks to the "food desert" concept that sees the dearth of supermarkets as a public health crisis because of the lack of access to fresh produce that people have in neighborhoods where supermarkets and green grocers are few and far between. The linkage here, of course, is between the city's obesity epidemic and this lack of access.
And in this context, along comes ObamaCare-a plan to enable, we suppose, Americans to have greater access to health care; an access to care that looks to insure healthier outcomes for all, but does so by taxing the life out of small businesses. But the road to Hell, well, you know the rest; because if the effort to insure greater access also accelerates the loss of small supermarkets and other neighborhood food stores, than we'll have what looks like great health coverage but, at the same time, even more expansive food deserts-along with a concomitant loss of neighborhood jobs. Salud!
Much of this analysis can be seen highlighted in this morning's NY Post, as the paper focuses in on the impact that the ObamaCare plan would have on the supermarkets of our good friend Paul Fernandez: "For grocer Paul Fernandez, a congressional plan to pay for health care by raising taxes will cost him so much bread he's not sure he'd be able to stay in business. "As it is, we're struggling to keep up with the cost of doing business, especially in the city of New York. This just simply adds to the cost, especially with rising rents and the commercial rent tax," said Fernandez."
Fernadez hits the nail on the head here, because it is the already high cost of doing business in NYC that lies directly behind the supermarket exodus in the first place-and why we have called the Bloomberg supermarket promotion plan, at best, a good answer to the wrong question. But the federal plan here-really an additional taxing of small business-will exacerbate our local problem of supermarket loss: "If they get their legislation through, Fernandez said lawmakers will create a new problem by forcing small firms to shut down or lay off workers. "The reality is that they are looking for a way to finance this, which I think is needed," Fernandez said of the push for health-care reform. "But to do something that will put a lot of businesses out of business is a very dangerous way to do it."
Which is why Mike Bloomberg needs to come out from under his desk on this health plan scheme. After all, he is so quick to proclaim the attributes of Judge Sotomayor. But will he have the menschlicheit to oppose ObamaCare? We'd be surprised since-post election 2008-the mayor has been acting as if he was the president's most enthusiastic supporter. But if he has any integrity, he needs to tell Charlie Rangel that his soak the small business health scheme is a disaster for New York.
And Bloomberg needs to state loud and clear that, if legislators like Rangel think a mandatory public health plan is the way to go, than the plan must also make it mandatory for all the members of Congress to enroll-something that Representative Fleming suggests in this morning's Post. Otherwise, Rangel and his band of merry bandits needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a health care proposal that leaves the city's small businesses alone and by doing so, follows the Hippocratic Oath: "Above all, do no harm"
Why is this loss so important? Well, it speaks to the "food desert" concept that sees the dearth of supermarkets as a public health crisis because of the lack of access to fresh produce that people have in neighborhoods where supermarkets and green grocers are few and far between. The linkage here, of course, is between the city's obesity epidemic and this lack of access.
And in this context, along comes ObamaCare-a plan to enable, we suppose, Americans to have greater access to health care; an access to care that looks to insure healthier outcomes for all, but does so by taxing the life out of small businesses. But the road to Hell, well, you know the rest; because if the effort to insure greater access also accelerates the loss of small supermarkets and other neighborhood food stores, than we'll have what looks like great health coverage but, at the same time, even more expansive food deserts-along with a concomitant loss of neighborhood jobs. Salud!
Much of this analysis can be seen highlighted in this morning's NY Post, as the paper focuses in on the impact that the ObamaCare plan would have on the supermarkets of our good friend Paul Fernandez: "For grocer Paul Fernandez, a congressional plan to pay for health care by raising taxes will cost him so much bread he's not sure he'd be able to stay in business. "As it is, we're struggling to keep up with the cost of doing business, especially in the city of New York. This just simply adds to the cost, especially with rising rents and the commercial rent tax," said Fernandez."
Fernadez hits the nail on the head here, because it is the already high cost of doing business in NYC that lies directly behind the supermarket exodus in the first place-and why we have called the Bloomberg supermarket promotion plan, at best, a good answer to the wrong question. But the federal plan here-really an additional taxing of small business-will exacerbate our local problem of supermarket loss: "If they get their legislation through, Fernandez said lawmakers will create a new problem by forcing small firms to shut down or lay off workers. "The reality is that they are looking for a way to finance this, which I think is needed," Fernandez said of the push for health-care reform. "But to do something that will put a lot of businesses out of business is a very dangerous way to do it."
Which is why Mike Bloomberg needs to come out from under his desk on this health plan scheme. After all, he is so quick to proclaim the attributes of Judge Sotomayor. But will he have the menschlicheit to oppose ObamaCare? We'd be surprised since-post election 2008-the mayor has been acting as if he was the president's most enthusiastic supporter. But if he has any integrity, he needs to tell Charlie Rangel that his soak the small business health scheme is a disaster for New York.
And Bloomberg needs to state loud and clear that, if legislators like Rangel think a mandatory public health plan is the way to go, than the plan must also make it mandatory for all the members of Congress to enroll-something that Representative Fleming suggests in this morning's Post. Otherwise, Rangel and his band of merry bandits needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a health care proposal that leaves the city's small businesses alone and by doing so, follows the Hippocratic Oath: "Above all, do no harm"
Fruitless Reporting
The Gotham Gazette has a post on what it describes as, the "drought" in the outer boroughs in regards to the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables: "Fruit stands are Manhattan's new hot dog vendor, minus the mustard and ketchup. Their street corner takeover has sparked some New Yorkers, like Upper East Sider Jamie Kayam, to carp that their neighborhood is oversaturated with apples, bananas and overly ripe white cherries. "In NYC, buying fruits and vegetables has never been easier!" Kayam wrote in an e-mail to Gotham Gazette and The Huffington Post. "When recently discussing life in the city with some friends, a key complaint that came up was that there are too many fruit stands in Manhattan!"
So, given the saturation of such vendors in Manhattan, did the GG think it might be wise to examine how these low overhead scavengers are: (1) Causing extreme congestion and overrunning certain neighborhoods; and, (2) Having a deleterious impact on the stores whose taxes keep the city budget balanced?
Apparently not, since the objective here is to, once again, hammer home the fact that, outside of Manhattan, veggie peddlers are scarce-as are the produce carrying supermarkets and other such food stores: "But out of Manhattan, greens get elusive. In the South Bronx, residents have about half of that supermarket space. In Brooklyn's Bedford Stuyvesant, 82 percent of retailers are unlikely to sell fresh fruits and vegetables, and in some areas of Upper Manhattan that number increases to 90 percent, according to city planning."
In the outer boroughs, over relying on stats from the Department of City Planning, the GG finds a, "produce desert." So, what's the underlying reason for this phenomenon? The authors of the post don't bother to explore any of the reasons for the neighborhood disparity. But, how about letting us do it for them?
Number one, is the question of demand. Where demand is high, peddlers flood an area in pursuit of the paying customers-and check out this confirmation from a recent NY Times story. And, in the process, they cannibalize business from stores that are paying exorbitant rents and confiscatory taxes. In addition, the level of health awareness in the produce deserts is lower-along with the incomes necessary to support a greater number of retail outlets.
Number two, is the income levels themselves. It's quite silly to compare supermarket density of low income and high income areas-and anyway, we are losing many of those markets from Manhattan as the cost of doing business-courtesy of the "luxury product" Bloomberg-continues to rise.
So, let's be clear here. Both the abundance, as well as the dearth of peddlers in certain nabes, has policy implications. But to see the issue solely through the lens of health, and not from a larger macro perspective, only will lead to silly initiatives like the Green Carts legislation. More care needs to be given to nurturing the health of the city's small business; or else we will end up-something accelerated by ObamaCare-with a fully health insured out of work populace.
So, given the saturation of such vendors in Manhattan, did the GG think it might be wise to examine how these low overhead scavengers are: (1) Causing extreme congestion and overrunning certain neighborhoods; and, (2) Having a deleterious impact on the stores whose taxes keep the city budget balanced?
Apparently not, since the objective here is to, once again, hammer home the fact that, outside of Manhattan, veggie peddlers are scarce-as are the produce carrying supermarkets and other such food stores: "But out of Manhattan, greens get elusive. In the South Bronx, residents have about half of that supermarket space. In Brooklyn's Bedford Stuyvesant, 82 percent of retailers are unlikely to sell fresh fruits and vegetables, and in some areas of Upper Manhattan that number increases to 90 percent, according to city planning."
In the outer boroughs, over relying on stats from the Department of City Planning, the GG finds a, "produce desert." So, what's the underlying reason for this phenomenon? The authors of the post don't bother to explore any of the reasons for the neighborhood disparity. But, how about letting us do it for them?
Number one, is the question of demand. Where demand is high, peddlers flood an area in pursuit of the paying customers-and check out this confirmation from a recent NY Times story. And, in the process, they cannibalize business from stores that are paying exorbitant rents and confiscatory taxes. In addition, the level of health awareness in the produce deserts is lower-along with the incomes necessary to support a greater number of retail outlets.
Number two, is the income levels themselves. It's quite silly to compare supermarket density of low income and high income areas-and anyway, we are losing many of those markets from Manhattan as the cost of doing business-courtesy of the "luxury product" Bloomberg-continues to rise.
So, let's be clear here. Both the abundance, as well as the dearth of peddlers in certain nabes, has policy implications. But to see the issue solely through the lens of health, and not from a larger macro perspective, only will lead to silly initiatives like the Green Carts legislation. More care needs to be given to nurturing the health of the city's small business; or else we will end up-something accelerated by ObamaCare-with a fully health insured out of work populace.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Linares Redux?
Well, well, right on the heels of Michael Jackson's demise-with all of the replaying of the great " "Thriller" video-comes the news that our old nemesis Guillermo Linaris is being resurrected from his political graveyard. Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat captures the ghoulishness of the disinterment: "Peace treaty or no, the assemblyman couldn't help himself from taking a few backhanded swipes and his old foe. "To recycle and go back is not the thing to do," Espaillat said during a telephone interview this afternoon...." Espaillat continued. "He served with distinction. I just think this is step backward for him. You left; you should continue to move forward instead of going backward."
And being Miguel Marinez's replacement part isn't a step forward in our view-and does the substitution choice count as an endorsement from the soon to be disgraced pol? But it gets worse when we read that Linaris himself isn't returning to elective politics with clean hands. As the NY Daily News reports: "The handpicked successor to disgraced City Councilman Miguel Martinez has ties to another scandal, the Daily News has learned. As Martinez prepares to plead guilty to corruption charges today, former Councilman Guillermo Linares plans to run for his Washington Heights seat with his blessing. Linares quit his job Wednesday as a top aide to Mayor Bloomberg to run. Earlier this year, a nonprofit group Linares organized to help immigrants, the Community Association of Progressive Dominicans, was found to have given a no-show job to a crony of Bronx state Sen. Efrain Gonzalez, records show."
And who was the director of the tarnished group? None other than Linares' own daughter: "The crony, Miguel Castanos, was on the payroll from 2004 through April 2006. He pleaded guilty to fraud charges this past April; Gonzalez followed suit in May. During the time Castanos was on the payroll, Linares' daughter Mayra was on the group's board of directors, 2005 tax forms show. She has since become the board's chairwoman. An employee of the Community Association of Progressive Dominicans said Wednesday the group had no comment."
When you have nothing good to say...well, you get what we're pointing out. But our real problem lies with Linares' history of betrayal. Back in 1995, Linares lead the opposition on behalf of dozens of Dominican-owned supermarkets to a tax subsidized Pathmark in East Harlem. Juan Gonzales captured this betrayal at the time: "In the middle of a sleepless night early Thursday morning, Guillermo Linares, the city councilman from Washington Heights, made the toughest decision of his life to become a politician. A few hours later, he walked into a meeting of the Manhattan Borough Board and shocked his closest supporters, the Dominican business community, by switching sides and casting the deciding vote for a $12 million Pathmark supermarket in East Harlem."
Benedicto Arnold: "Linares says he got concessions from Pathmark, including a fund of $150,000 over four years to assist East Harlem small businessmen. This made it worthwhile for him to switch sides. Killing it might have sparked boycotts against Dominican stores on the scale of the anti-Korean protests a few years back. To prevent further division, Linares claimed, he made a last-minute switch. To some, he is a hero. To others, he is just another lying politician."
The vote, of course, wasn't the main issue-it was the complete lack of honesty on the part of the first Dominican elected official in the United States; and the selling out of his own folks after pledging loyalty to small business owners who had revived the economies of East and Central Harlem. His return-under a cloud, no less-is no service to the good people of Washington Heights.
And being Miguel Marinez's replacement part isn't a step forward in our view-and does the substitution choice count as an endorsement from the soon to be disgraced pol? But it gets worse when we read that Linaris himself isn't returning to elective politics with clean hands. As the NY Daily News reports: "The handpicked successor to disgraced City Councilman Miguel Martinez has ties to another scandal, the Daily News has learned. As Martinez prepares to plead guilty to corruption charges today, former Councilman Guillermo Linares plans to run for his Washington Heights seat with his blessing. Linares quit his job Wednesday as a top aide to Mayor Bloomberg to run. Earlier this year, a nonprofit group Linares organized to help immigrants, the Community Association of Progressive Dominicans, was found to have given a no-show job to a crony of Bronx state Sen. Efrain Gonzalez, records show."
And who was the director of the tarnished group? None other than Linares' own daughter: "The crony, Miguel Castanos, was on the payroll from 2004 through April 2006. He pleaded guilty to fraud charges this past April; Gonzalez followed suit in May. During the time Castanos was on the payroll, Linares' daughter Mayra was on the group's board of directors, 2005 tax forms show. She has since become the board's chairwoman. An employee of the Community Association of Progressive Dominicans said Wednesday the group had no comment."
When you have nothing good to say...well, you get what we're pointing out. But our real problem lies with Linares' history of betrayal. Back in 1995, Linares lead the opposition on behalf of dozens of Dominican-owned supermarkets to a tax subsidized Pathmark in East Harlem. Juan Gonzales captured this betrayal at the time: "In the middle of a sleepless night early Thursday morning, Guillermo Linares, the city councilman from Washington Heights, made the toughest decision of his life to become a politician. A few hours later, he walked into a meeting of the Manhattan Borough Board and shocked his closest supporters, the Dominican business community, by switching sides and casting the deciding vote for a $12 million Pathmark supermarket in East Harlem."
Benedicto Arnold: "Linares says he got concessions from Pathmark, including a fund of $150,000 over four years to assist East Harlem small businessmen. This made it worthwhile for him to switch sides. Killing it might have sparked boycotts against Dominican stores on the scale of the anti-Korean protests a few years back. To prevent further division, Linares claimed, he made a last-minute switch. To some, he is a hero. To others, he is just another lying politician."
The vote, of course, wasn't the main issue-it was the complete lack of honesty on the part of the first Dominican elected official in the United States; and the selling out of his own folks after pledging loyalty to small business owners who had revived the economies of East and Central Harlem. His return-under a cloud, no less-is no service to the good people of Washington Heights.
E.J.Ecting ObamaCare
In this morning's NY Post, E. J. McMahon excoriates the health care overhaul plan winding its way through the halls of Congress: "NEW YORK'S economy and tax base, already sagging in a deep recession, would take another huge hit under Rep. Charles Rangel's plan to impose a surtax on high-income households to finance a new government-run health plan."
Echoing many of the things we have already said about the plan's small business impacts-but with greater expertise and detail-McMahon tells us: "For New York City residents, it would be closer to 59 percent, the highest in the nation. The impact wouldn't be limited to Park Avenue swells. Much of the taxable income in the highest brackets is reported by owners of and investors in small businesses. Higher income taxes will drain the working capital of small firms, sapping the resources they'll have to add jobs and recover from the recession. And small businesses who fail to offer health insurance to their employees will be slapped with another tax -- an 8 percent payroll tax -- under the House plan."
The question here is, how come Charlie Rangel-already under an ethical cloud-hasn't been run out of town on a rail? The Rangel mindset-frozen in stone in the Mesozoic Era-is the Kiss of Death for New York's already fragile economy: "While Rangel says his surtax on top brackets would represent "the least amount of pain on the least amount of people," the ripple effect of a shrinkage in the state and city tax base would be felt by many more New Yorkers. Because the Empire State is home to such a large concentration of successful and wealthy investors and business owners, its entire economy benefits when federal tax policy is focused on economic growth and wealth creation. By the same token, a policy geared to income redistribution will drain the resources needed to rebuild our own economy. By the middle of the next decade, many more New Yorkers may be receiving free subsidized health coverage -- while wondering what happened to their jobs."
Rangel's betrayal of New York is breathtaking in extremis; underscoring the perils of a seniority system that rewards placeholders without any real acumen. Perhaps Rangel was simply too busy seeking funds for his own City College memorial to ponder the dire impacts of what will-if passed-henceforth be known as "Rangel's Folly."
Echoing many of the things we have already said about the plan's small business impacts-but with greater expertise and detail-McMahon tells us: "For New York City residents, it would be closer to 59 percent, the highest in the nation. The impact wouldn't be limited to Park Avenue swells. Much of the taxable income in the highest brackets is reported by owners of and investors in small businesses. Higher income taxes will drain the working capital of small firms, sapping the resources they'll have to add jobs and recover from the recession. And small businesses who fail to offer health insurance to their employees will be slapped with another tax -- an 8 percent payroll tax -- under the House plan."
The question here is, how come Charlie Rangel-already under an ethical cloud-hasn't been run out of town on a rail? The Rangel mindset-frozen in stone in the Mesozoic Era-is the Kiss of Death for New York's already fragile economy: "While Rangel says his surtax on top brackets would represent "the least amount of pain on the least amount of people," the ripple effect of a shrinkage in the state and city tax base would be felt by many more New Yorkers. Because the Empire State is home to such a large concentration of successful and wealthy investors and business owners, its entire economy benefits when federal tax policy is focused on economic growth and wealth creation. By the same token, a policy geared to income redistribution will drain the resources needed to rebuild our own economy. By the middle of the next decade, many more New Yorkers may be receiving free subsidized health coverage -- while wondering what happened to their jobs."
Rangel's betrayal of New York is breathtaking in extremis; underscoring the perils of a seniority system that rewards placeholders without any real acumen. Perhaps Rangel was simply too busy seeking funds for his own City College memorial to ponder the dire impacts of what will-if passed-henceforth be known as "Rangel's Folly."
Supermarket Kerfluffle
The battle over the fate of the Kingsbridge Armory goes into its next phase-and we're hopeful that a more rational venue awaits as the community, along with beleaguered supermarket owners and their workers concerned about a possible mega food mart in the development, proceed to the upcoming hearing at the office of Bronx BP Ruben Diaz on July 27th.
And in this morning's NY Daily News, Albor Ruiz frames the problem from the vantage of two of the workers at Morton Williams Supermarkets: "From the time Giuliani was mayor to this day, the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx has elicited many different - and strong - opinions on what it should look like. But for Virginia Tribelli, there is one issue that is crystal-clear. "We don't want a big-box supermarket in the armory. We don't need it, and we are hoping that the community board votes against it," Tribelli said, referring to the nonbinding, largely symbolic vote by Bronx Community Board 7 that took place on Tuesday."
Tribelli, along with her co-worker Orlando Olave, have worked at the local store for years and have been-after being hired locally-promoted up the ranks into supervisory positions: "I did not know any English when I started," said Tribelli, an immigrant from Italy. "But this is a good company to work for and I worked my way up. I wouldn't know where to go if the store closes." She would not be the only one. Seventy workers from the store where she works would quickly find themselves without jobs. Sixty more who make their living at another Morton Williams a few blocks away would be unemployed soon after, she said. "Most of these people are from the community, they have roots in the community. It would be a nightmare," Tribelli said. "And not only for us; hundreds of other people would be affected, too."
And Olave, for his part, sees how such a mega store intrusion wouldn't just hurt Morton Williams: "Olave is certain that a big-box supermarket in the armory would wreak havoc with the neighborhood's already fragile economy. A father of three, he has worked for Morton Williams for 26 years, during which he moved up from floor-cleaner to supervisor."
But we're buoyed by the support from the area's local elected officials-particularly Council member Maria Baez who is gathering signatures on a petition opposing any big box food use in the Armory. And the community coalition rallied against the redevelopment scheme yesterday, attracting Bill Thompson as well as numerous other electeds. Given the growing groundswell of support the local businesses are hopeful that a more rational development plan emerges in the months ahead.
Update
Unfortunately, the Ruiz column got truncated in its on-line version; and left out the meat of his observations on the unfairness of the current proposed redevelopment scheme. Here's his citation of Olave's incisive remarks: ""We don't need a big box store," a concerned Olave said. It's not only us and the other supermarkets. I don't even want to think about what will happen to the mom-and-pop stores, the bodegas, the 99 cent discounts. Fordham Road businesses would be killed."
And then Ruiz finished with a flourish-getting to the heart of the inequity of using tax payer money for this plan: "The question people like Tribelli and Olave keep asking is why should the city give millions in subsidies to a project that, according to them, will compete with the community businesses and will result in greater unemployment and more "For Rent" signs in the neighborhood?"
This is the challenge facing the City Council. We're optimistic that they will be up to it.
And in this morning's NY Daily News, Albor Ruiz frames the problem from the vantage of two of the workers at Morton Williams Supermarkets: "From the time Giuliani was mayor to this day, the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx has elicited many different - and strong - opinions on what it should look like. But for Virginia Tribelli, there is one issue that is crystal-clear. "We don't want a big-box supermarket in the armory. We don't need it, and we are hoping that the community board votes against it," Tribelli said, referring to the nonbinding, largely symbolic vote by Bronx Community Board 7 that took place on Tuesday."
Tribelli, along with her co-worker Orlando Olave, have worked at the local store for years and have been-after being hired locally-promoted up the ranks into supervisory positions: "I did not know any English when I started," said Tribelli, an immigrant from Italy. "But this is a good company to work for and I worked my way up. I wouldn't know where to go if the store closes." She would not be the only one. Seventy workers from the store where she works would quickly find themselves without jobs. Sixty more who make their living at another Morton Williams a few blocks away would be unemployed soon after, she said. "Most of these people are from the community, they have roots in the community. It would be a nightmare," Tribelli said. "And not only for us; hundreds of other people would be affected, too."
And Olave, for his part, sees how such a mega store intrusion wouldn't just hurt Morton Williams: "Olave is certain that a big-box supermarket in the armory would wreak havoc with the neighborhood's already fragile economy. A father of three, he has worked for Morton Williams for 26 years, during which he moved up from floor-cleaner to supervisor."
But we're buoyed by the support from the area's local elected officials-particularly Council member Maria Baez who is gathering signatures on a petition opposing any big box food use in the Armory. And the community coalition rallied against the redevelopment scheme yesterday, attracting Bill Thompson as well as numerous other electeds. Given the growing groundswell of support the local businesses are hopeful that a more rational development plan emerges in the months ahead.
Update
Unfortunately, the Ruiz column got truncated in its on-line version; and left out the meat of his observations on the unfairness of the current proposed redevelopment scheme. Here's his citation of Olave's incisive remarks: ""We don't need a big box store," a concerned Olave said. It's not only us and the other supermarkets. I don't even want to think about what will happen to the mom-and-pop stores, the bodegas, the 99 cent discounts. Fordham Road businesses would be killed."
And then Ruiz finished with a flourish-getting to the heart of the inequity of using tax payer money for this plan: "The question people like Tribelli and Olave keep asking is why should the city give millions in subsidies to a project that, according to them, will compete with the community businesses and will result in greater unemployment and more "For Rent" signs in the neighborhood?"
This is the challenge facing the City Council. We're optimistic that they will be up to it.
Here's Not to Your Health
As if the plight of small business in New York wasn't severe enough, along comes President Obama and this Congressional cohort to make things worse-and they claim they're doing it all for your health! As the NY Post reports this morning-making Joe the Plumber into a prophet: "Congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul could have a job-killing effect on New York, creating a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for the state's top earners and possibly pressuring small-business owners to shed workers."
And, if small businesses are the engine that drives the economy, than the economy is about to be sent right off the rails. As we told the Post: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small stores and businesses in New York City, warned that "in the middle of a recession, it's a very strange way to legislate." According to what we've read, the House health-insurance plan would have a job-crippling impact on neighborhood stores and other small businesses because they put mandates on these businesses that would prevent them from hiring people because of the cost of the plan," Lipsky said."
How sick is that? It seems to us that Washington has failed to read the handwriting on the wall; and has anyone seen the unemployment rate in NYC, that has risen into the middle teens for the hardest hit minority groups? What Obama and his cohort of lemmings fails to realize is that the health of Americans encompasses the health of the businesses that keep folks employed and spending. With stimulation all the rage in Washington, few of the stimulators are taken cognizance of the impact of their schemes.
Higher taxes and more small business mandates are the death knell of a truly vibrant economy: "New York would become the third-most-hostile place for top earners to live under the proposed new surtaxes supported by House Democrats and championed by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). Also hit would be individuals earning $280,000 annually and families making $350,000 a year. The profits from small businesses would also be taxed on the back end."
The end result? A compelling invitation for the enterprising to get the hell out of New York in search of a less taxing environment to live and do business. And the Washington shenanigans has even got us right on the same page with the Partnership's Kathy Wylde: "If the House plan passes, Wylde said, "There literally, at this point, is very strong reason to relocate your family and your business outside New York."
But it's NY's small businesses that are really in the eye of this storm-and the House bill in particular is pernicious; and a good reason for Charlie Rangel to resign from office. How can this guy still claim to represent New York? We'll give the Business Council's Michael Moran the final word on this: "A lot of small businesses would be hit with the penalties for not insuring workers and get hit with the surtaxes, Moran warned. "Many small businesses file their business taxes under personal income," he said. "That's the way the tax law is written. Small business, which is really where most of the job creation takes place, could be hit hard."
And, if small businesses are the engine that drives the economy, than the economy is about to be sent right off the rails. As we told the Post: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small stores and businesses in New York City, warned that "in the middle of a recession, it's a very strange way to legislate." According to what we've read, the House health-insurance plan would have a job-crippling impact on neighborhood stores and other small businesses because they put mandates on these businesses that would prevent them from hiring people because of the cost of the plan," Lipsky said."
How sick is that? It seems to us that Washington has failed to read the handwriting on the wall; and has anyone seen the unemployment rate in NYC, that has risen into the middle teens for the hardest hit minority groups? What Obama and his cohort of lemmings fails to realize is that the health of Americans encompasses the health of the businesses that keep folks employed and spending. With stimulation all the rage in Washington, few of the stimulators are taken cognizance of the impact of their schemes.
Higher taxes and more small business mandates are the death knell of a truly vibrant economy: "New York would become the third-most-hostile place for top earners to live under the proposed new surtaxes supported by House Democrats and championed by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). Also hit would be individuals earning $280,000 annually and families making $350,000 a year. The profits from small businesses would also be taxed on the back end."
The end result? A compelling invitation for the enterprising to get the hell out of New York in search of a less taxing environment to live and do business. And the Washington shenanigans has even got us right on the same page with the Partnership's Kathy Wylde: "If the House plan passes, Wylde said, "There literally, at this point, is very strong reason to relocate your family and your business outside New York."
But it's NY's small businesses that are really in the eye of this storm-and the House bill in particular is pernicious; and a good reason for Charlie Rangel to resign from office. How can this guy still claim to represent New York? We'll give the Business Council's Michael Moran the final word on this: "A lot of small businesses would be hit with the penalties for not insuring workers and get hit with the surtaxes, Moran warned. "Many small businesses file their business taxes under personal income," he said. "That's the way the tax law is written. Small business, which is really where most of the job creation takes place, could be hit hard."
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Freddy Ferrer: Hypocrite
In a story in this week's Village Voice, Tom Robbins goes after Pedro Espada for his alleged avidity in the pursuit of member items for his district: "Freddy Ferrer, who served as Bronx borough president from 1987 to 2001, said Espada's recent antics didn't surprise him. "He always struck me as a Ramon Velez wannabe," said Ferrer. In fact, Espada singled out Velez, the late Bronx anti-poverty kingpin regularly cited for corruption, as a role model in the New York magazine article. "That's his thing," said Ferrer. "He has so distinguished himself with his lack of character, it's really stunning. I'm betting he'll flip back again. He says this is about empowerment? Come on."
What chutzpah! Here's someone whose entire career was built on the original promotional activity of one Ramon Velez-the person whose support was the impetus for Ferrer's appointment to a vacant city council seat. So now he's disparaging his mentor, and posturing as a good government notable?
One last point. Ferrer, once he was elevated to the council, proceeded to spit in his mentor's face; telling the fabled Fat Man-according to how we heard the exchange went, "Ramon, now I must represent all of the people." Ferrer's comments on Espada are tasteless, even for him.
What chutzpah! Here's someone whose entire career was built on the original promotional activity of one Ramon Velez-the person whose support was the impetus for Ferrer's appointment to a vacant city council seat. So now he's disparaging his mentor, and posturing as a good government notable?
One last point. Ferrer, once he was elevated to the council, proceeded to spit in his mentor's face; telling the fabled Fat Man-according to how we heard the exchange went, "Ramon, now I must represent all of the people." Ferrer's comments on Espada are tasteless, even for him.
Bill of Goods
According to our thesaurus, a bill of goods, is described as; "communication (written or spoken) that persuades someone to accept something untrue or undesirable; "they tried to sell me a bill of goods about a secondhand car" Which brings us to the selling of mayoral control of the schools-and the Abbot and Costello role that is being by Mike Bloomberg and the NY Post.
As the NY Daily News reports, all is not seashells and balloons when it comes to the performance of the schools under the mayor's watch. In particular, those vaunted test scores-as we have been arguing ad infinitum-need to be given a saliva test: "An apple for teacher? Mayor Bloomberg's controversial end to social promotion is being undermined by low testing standards."
Which is why, according to the News, the mayor's decision to end social promotion probably has been undermined: "To earn a promotion this year, however, elementary and middle school students in every grade needed fewer points on both the state math and reading exams than they did in 2006. "What appears to be happening in the last four years [is] the hurdle is getting lower," said Fred Smith, a Bloomberg administration critic and former testing analyst for the Board of Education."
Put in more simple and graphic terms, the tests are watered down, and all of the hoo ha over the "Bloomberg Miracle," needs to be given a cold shower: "In 2006, for example, third-graders had to get 44% of points on the math tests to earn a promotion, compared with 28% this year..."I have kids who really struggle as readers," said Claudia de Luna Castro, who teaches fourth and fifth grades at Harlem's Central Park East II and had no students who scored at level one. "It always makes me wonder when I see data that doesn't match my experience of my kids."
Which brings us to the NY Post's best seller, "The Selling of Mayoral Control." The paper has never bothered, unlike the Daily News, to ever examine the data that it-and eager partner Bloomberg-uncritically disseminates. These two vaudevillians are simply selling us, a bill of goods-and it's the people of New York that are suffering from this disinformation campaign. And we haven't even mentioned the fact that education spending has risen by billions of dollars; cost-benefit anyone?
Merryl Tisch hits it on the head: "State Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch said the tests were not rigorous enough. "You can equate tests," she said, "but if you're not demanding a high enough standard, what you're equating is a low-level test." "Ultimately, these children will struggle because they will find themselves in high school or somewhere they are not ready for," said Carol Boyd, a parent leader with the New York City Coalition for Educational Justice. "We're moving them along, but we're setting them up to fail."
All this for $20,000 a year per pupil? Where do we go to ask for our money back?
As the NY Daily News reports, all is not seashells and balloons when it comes to the performance of the schools under the mayor's watch. In particular, those vaunted test scores-as we have been arguing ad infinitum-need to be given a saliva test: "An apple for teacher? Mayor Bloomberg's controversial end to social promotion is being undermined by low testing standards."
Which is why, according to the News, the mayor's decision to end social promotion probably has been undermined: "To earn a promotion this year, however, elementary and middle school students in every grade needed fewer points on both the state math and reading exams than they did in 2006. "What appears to be happening in the last four years [is] the hurdle is getting lower," said Fred Smith, a Bloomberg administration critic and former testing analyst for the Board of Education."
Put in more simple and graphic terms, the tests are watered down, and all of the hoo ha over the "Bloomberg Miracle," needs to be given a cold shower: "In 2006, for example, third-graders had to get 44% of points on the math tests to earn a promotion, compared with 28% this year..."I have kids who really struggle as readers," said Claudia de Luna Castro, who teaches fourth and fifth grades at Harlem's Central Park East II and had no students who scored at level one. "It always makes me wonder when I see data that doesn't match my experience of my kids."
Which brings us to the NY Post's best seller, "The Selling of Mayoral Control." The paper has never bothered, unlike the Daily News, to ever examine the data that it-and eager partner Bloomberg-uncritically disseminates. These two vaudevillians are simply selling us, a bill of goods-and it's the people of New York that are suffering from this disinformation campaign. And we haven't even mentioned the fact that education spending has risen by billions of dollars; cost-benefit anyone?
Merryl Tisch hits it on the head: "State Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch said the tests were not rigorous enough. "You can equate tests," she said, "but if you're not demanding a high enough standard, what you're equating is a low-level test." "Ultimately, these children will struggle because they will find themselves in high school or somewhere they are not ready for," said Carol Boyd, a parent leader with the New York City Coalition for Educational Justice. "We're moving them along, but we're setting them up to fail."
All this for $20,000 a year per pupil? Where do we go to ask for our money back?
PostWatch
Yesterday we outlined the connection between the city's high black unemployment rate and Mike Bloomberg's fiscal and governing philosophy-and took the mayor to task for raising the salaries of city workers while so many others in the private sector were struggling. As we pointed out: "The city's vaunted Fiscal Steward has once again treated the city work force with great generosity-offering nice fat raises to scores of workers in the middle of what the NY Post...calls a "tax revenue meltdown."
At the same time we critiqued the manner in which the NY Post covered this story-or didn't cover it, as the case may be. We were particularly perturbed by the fact that public sector spending and bloated municipal budgets are normally a pet peeve of the paper. With Mike Bloomberg at the helm, however, the Poat's editorialists have contracted lockjaw.
So, when we opened the paper up this morning, we were pleasantly surprised to see an editorial on the city's job loss-with a reference to the mayor's opponent-the infrequently mentioned Bill Thompson-in the lead paragraph. We did though, quickly recover our lost balance when the editorial went in a completely different, and sadly predictable, direction.
Instead of making some of the Old Post-like linkages we had made yesterday, the paper linked the Thompson job report to, what else, mayoral control of the schools: "It's not definitively clear why the recession would hit blacks harder. But clues may lie in high-school graduation rates: Typically, whites finish school in higher percentages than blacks, even as employers increasingly demand a high-school diploma (at the very least). In 2005, just 40.1 percent of black kids made it through high school in four years, compared to 64 percent of whites. Some 18.5 percent of blacks dropped out; only 12.3 percent of whites did. Surely this black-white gap must have something to do with jobless trends. But here's some good news: While graduation rates have risen for kids of all races under mayoral control, it's climbed faster for blacks than for whites."
Now let's be clear, we do believe that a discussion of the city's disparate graduation rates along side of the reported high minority unemployment is definitely appropriate. But to elevate the graduation component to what amounts to an independent variable-and to leave out some more important factors that can be placed right at the mayor's door step-is to mislead the public and whitewash the Bloomberg Factor.
As we highlighted yesterday: "The fact remains, that the city is hemorrhaging private sector jobs-with minority unemployment at its worst in decades-and Mike Bloomberg fails to see the correlation between public sector bloat, higher taxes, and concomitant job loss in the private sector. And this is the fiscal genius we need to steward us through a recession?"
And, if you read the NY Times story on the unemployment struggles of minority workers, the central feature is the job loss experienced by people who held jobs already but who had been laid off-indicating the extent to which current economic variables are at play: "Economists said they were not certain why so many more blacks were losing their jobs in New York, especially when a large share of the layoffs in the city have been in fields where they are not well represented, like finance and professional services. But in those sectors, the economists suggested that blacks may have had less seniority when layoffs occurred. And black workers hold an outsize share of the jobs in retailing and other service industries that have been shrinking as consumers curtail their spending."
To the last point, the Post might have used this fact to link retail job loss with the city's high tax rate-and taken the opportunity to blast Bloomberg for his statement that he could afford to raise the salaries of city workers at this time because of the state senate's passage of the increase in the city's sales tax: "Now that it's passed, I feel a little more comfortable about our ability to pay..."
All of which is elided by the Post in what certainly looks like part of a massive cover up of the mayor's fiscal imprudence and incompetence. Graduating from high school is important if you're gonna have a better opportunity to find work-and it's good that more blacks and Hispanic students are doing so-leaving out for now that there's a massive remediation effort underway at the city's community colleges to improve the basic skills of the graduates of Mike Bloomberg's high schools.
But NYC's "tax revenue meltdown," while partially a consequence of larger national and global trends, is even more directly related to the fact that the city has one of the worst-if not the worst-climates for doing business. The NY Post knows this very well; and that it has decided to give it the under the rug treatment is shameful. The $15 billion question-pop quiz-that remains is, why has the Post strayed so far away from its core values?
At the same time we critiqued the manner in which the NY Post covered this story-or didn't cover it, as the case may be. We were particularly perturbed by the fact that public sector spending and bloated municipal budgets are normally a pet peeve of the paper. With Mike Bloomberg at the helm, however, the Poat's editorialists have contracted lockjaw.
So, when we opened the paper up this morning, we were pleasantly surprised to see an editorial on the city's job loss-with a reference to the mayor's opponent-the infrequently mentioned Bill Thompson-in the lead paragraph. We did though, quickly recover our lost balance when the editorial went in a completely different, and sadly predictable, direction.
Instead of making some of the Old Post-like linkages we had made yesterday, the paper linked the Thompson job report to, what else, mayoral control of the schools: "It's not definitively clear why the recession would hit blacks harder. But clues may lie in high-school graduation rates: Typically, whites finish school in higher percentages than blacks, even as employers increasingly demand a high-school diploma (at the very least). In 2005, just 40.1 percent of black kids made it through high school in four years, compared to 64 percent of whites. Some 18.5 percent of blacks dropped out; only 12.3 percent of whites did. Surely this black-white gap must have something to do with jobless trends. But here's some good news: While graduation rates have risen for kids of all races under mayoral control, it's climbed faster for blacks than for whites."
Now let's be clear, we do believe that a discussion of the city's disparate graduation rates along side of the reported high minority unemployment is definitely appropriate. But to elevate the graduation component to what amounts to an independent variable-and to leave out some more important factors that can be placed right at the mayor's door step-is to mislead the public and whitewash the Bloomberg Factor.
As we highlighted yesterday: "The fact remains, that the city is hemorrhaging private sector jobs-with minority unemployment at its worst in decades-and Mike Bloomberg fails to see the correlation between public sector bloat, higher taxes, and concomitant job loss in the private sector. And this is the fiscal genius we need to steward us through a recession?"
And, if you read the NY Times story on the unemployment struggles of minority workers, the central feature is the job loss experienced by people who held jobs already but who had been laid off-indicating the extent to which current economic variables are at play: "Economists said they were not certain why so many more blacks were losing their jobs in New York, especially when a large share of the layoffs in the city have been in fields where they are not well represented, like finance and professional services. But in those sectors, the economists suggested that blacks may have had less seniority when layoffs occurred. And black workers hold an outsize share of the jobs in retailing and other service industries that have been shrinking as consumers curtail their spending."
To the last point, the Post might have used this fact to link retail job loss with the city's high tax rate-and taken the opportunity to blast Bloomberg for his statement that he could afford to raise the salaries of city workers at this time because of the state senate's passage of the increase in the city's sales tax: "Now that it's passed, I feel a little more comfortable about our ability to pay..."
All of which is elided by the Post in what certainly looks like part of a massive cover up of the mayor's fiscal imprudence and incompetence. Graduating from high school is important if you're gonna have a better opportunity to find work-and it's good that more blacks and Hispanic students are doing so-leaving out for now that there's a massive remediation effort underway at the city's community colleges to improve the basic skills of the graduates of Mike Bloomberg's high schools.
But NYC's "tax revenue meltdown," while partially a consequence of larger national and global trends, is even more directly related to the fact that the city has one of the worst-if not the worst-climates for doing business. The NY Post knows this very well; and that it has decided to give it the under the rug treatment is shameful. The $15 billion question-pop quiz-that remains is, why has the Post strayed so far away from its core values?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Fruity Fighting
The fruit is flying over on Ninth Avenue-and that's not the only thing that's rotten there. Here's the City Room report: "Bulent Unal, 45, has piled his table high with apples, bananas and mangoes on the same bustling stretch of 9th Avenue for years now, weighing and bagging fruit at a frenetic pace for the tourists heading to Times Square and the office workers crowding the sidewalks between 42nd and 43rd Streets. Then, and he gets angry just thinking about it, that guy — he gestures with clenched fists and steaming eyes a short distance away — opened another fruit stand around the corner and down the block, on 43rd Street between 9th and 10th Avenues."
What this fight signifies is the fact that there appears to be little or no enforcement of any of the existing vending rules-and the need for a dramatic overhaul of the regulatory regime must be done soon; or the fists and not the fruit will be flying. But City Room ignores an even more salient fact.
While the vendors continue to duel, a Food Emporium a little more than two blocks away is having its business siphoned off by non rent paying peddlers who have none of the overhead that supermarkets must take care of. And what to make of the following? "In his opinion it violates every tenet of street vending decency. More importantly it was cutting into his business. So he demanded, first politely and then decidedly less so, that the new guy, Eyup Durmus, move on. Mr. Durmus refused, arguing that the two stands were out sight and almost on different avenues. And so the Midtown fruit battle escalated: Mr. Unal opened yet another fruit stand right next to the new guy."
Totally out of control-with one guy-or his family in this case-able to obtain a new cart and go to war with his etiquette violating neighbor: "While some street vendors have worked on the same corner going back decades, any claims to asphalt real estate are actually informal. On blocks open to street vending –- many are not –- the official restrictions are limited to the size of the table, blocking street traffic or standing too close to the entrance of a building or a fire hydrant. There are no prohibitions on setting up near another vendor, indeed even in their spot, though such conflicts are relatively rare."
And all are basically unenforced; and, of course, the street vendors see nothing wrong with setting up directly in front of a supermarket or green grocer-etiquette doesn't extend to the tax paying businesses: "Mr. Durmus, who struggled to generate enough business in previous locations in Greenwich Village, Chelsea and Columbus Circle, said that he was not going to move and was not responsible for the conflict. “All the time he wants to make trouble for us,” he said.
When he found the current spot six weeks ago -– a quieter stretch just off 10th Avenue in front of a Food Emporium — he finally started making good money, he said, until the new stand was set up. (The manager of the Food Emporium, Calvin Dixon, said he had filed a complaint with the city about the location of the new fruit stand, which he said was causing a mess and siphoning customers.)"
No outrage here apparently; but Durmas is nothing if not ironic: "“I’m staying here,” Mr. Durmus said. “I came here first. He came here to bother me.” And as the city's tax receipts continue to free fall, we wonder what the city is going to do to protect its tax base. If history is a guide, nothing at all. The supermarket owners and green grocers are left to wonder: "How do we get included in the Five Borough Economic Plan?"
What this fight signifies is the fact that there appears to be little or no enforcement of any of the existing vending rules-and the need for a dramatic overhaul of the regulatory regime must be done soon; or the fists and not the fruit will be flying. But City Room ignores an even more salient fact.
While the vendors continue to duel, a Food Emporium a little more than two blocks away is having its business siphoned off by non rent paying peddlers who have none of the overhead that supermarkets must take care of. And what to make of the following? "In his opinion it violates every tenet of street vending decency. More importantly it was cutting into his business. So he demanded, first politely and then decidedly less so, that the new guy, Eyup Durmus, move on. Mr. Durmus refused, arguing that the two stands were out sight and almost on different avenues. And so the Midtown fruit battle escalated: Mr. Unal opened yet another fruit stand right next to the new guy."
Totally out of control-with one guy-or his family in this case-able to obtain a new cart and go to war with his etiquette violating neighbor: "While some street vendors have worked on the same corner going back decades, any claims to asphalt real estate are actually informal. On blocks open to street vending –- many are not –- the official restrictions are limited to the size of the table, blocking street traffic or standing too close to the entrance of a building or a fire hydrant. There are no prohibitions on setting up near another vendor, indeed even in their spot, though such conflicts are relatively rare."
And all are basically unenforced; and, of course, the street vendors see nothing wrong with setting up directly in front of a supermarket or green grocer-etiquette doesn't extend to the tax paying businesses: "Mr. Durmus, who struggled to generate enough business in previous locations in Greenwich Village, Chelsea and Columbus Circle, said that he was not going to move and was not responsible for the conflict. “All the time he wants to make trouble for us,” he said.
When he found the current spot six weeks ago -– a quieter stretch just off 10th Avenue in front of a Food Emporium — he finally started making good money, he said, until the new stand was set up. (The manager of the Food Emporium, Calvin Dixon, said he had filed a complaint with the city about the location of the new fruit stand, which he said was causing a mess and siphoning customers.)"
No outrage here apparently; but Durmas is nothing if not ironic: "“I’m staying here,” Mr. Durmus said. “I came here first. He came here to bother me.” And as the city's tax receipts continue to free fall, we wonder what the city is going to do to protect its tax base. If history is a guide, nothing at all. The supermarket owners and green grocers are left to wonder: "How do we get included in the Five Borough Economic Plan?"
Eminently Qualified?
The controversy surrounding the nomination of Judge Sonya Sotomayor has focused on some of her remarks made out of court-as well as her decision in the New Haven firefighter case. But there's another issue that's more germane to many people in NYC; the use and abuse of eminent domain, and the SC's Kelo decision.
As the NY Times reported a few days ago: "Judge Sonia Sotomayor will doubtless be questioned about Kelo at her confirmation hearings next month. But her answers will be complicated by her participation in a 2006 decision applying and extending Kelo. Bart Didden, the property owner on the losing side of that decision, Didden v. Village of Port Chester, said in an interview that he had been contacted by aides to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who seemed eager to explore Judge Sotomayor’s views on property rights."
Now the Portchester case is something that we know a little about, since we represented a plastics manufacturer who-after moving his business to the Port Chester renewal area at the behest of the town's local development corporation-was told that his property would be condemned to make way for a redevelopment scheme. The irony here, at least as it pertains to Sotomoyar as the "Wise Latina," is that the plastics factory was wall to wall Latino-something which the diverse-adverse village didn't like all that much.
But the factory owner, unlike Didden, didn't want to fight-and sold his plant to Mexican firm; but the Didden case-and Stomayor's decision-is grist for the Judiciary Committee's mill: "The ruling in Didden is not popular among some property rights and constitutional law professors. Eight of them filed a brief in 2006 unsuccessfully urging the Supreme Court to hear an appeal. “This is the worst federal court takings decision since Kelo,” said Ilya Somin, who teaches property law at George Mason University and helped write the brief. “It’s very extreme, and it is significant as a window into Judge Sotomayor’s attitudes toward private property.”
But, of course, we have our own ED issues here in NYC that would benefit from a little disinfecting sunlight; and our friends at Willets Point are right there in the forefront. The Willets Point United group, with its capable attorney Michael Rikon, are challenging the city's efforts to remove them from their properties.
The key issue here-and the one that the senate should be questioning Stotomayor on-is when is a public use not a public use. Bart Didden certainly has some ideas on this:
"The case arose from a meeting in 2003 between Mr. Didden, who owned property in Port Chester, N.Y., and an executive of a company that had been designated by the village to develop a 27-acre urban renewal area that included part of the property. What happened at that meeting, Mr. Didden said, amounted to extortion. Mr. Didden had made arrangements to put a CVS drug store on his lot. At the meeting, the executive, Gregg Wasser, demanded $800,000 as the price for permission to proceed with that project, Mr. Didden said in court papers. The alternative, Mr. Wasser said, according to the papers, was to have the village condemn Mr. Didden’s property so that Mr. Wasser’s company could put a Walgreen’s in the same place. “Here is a private person standing in the shoes of the government with the power to condemn or not condemn,” Mr. Didden said. “The $800,000 wasn’t going to rehabilitate a public park or build a soccer stadium. It was going into his pocket.”
We hope that the senate probes this issue thoroughly. There's a great deal at stake.
As the NY Times reported a few days ago: "Judge Sonia Sotomayor will doubtless be questioned about Kelo at her confirmation hearings next month. But her answers will be complicated by her participation in a 2006 decision applying and extending Kelo. Bart Didden, the property owner on the losing side of that decision, Didden v. Village of Port Chester, said in an interview that he had been contacted by aides to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who seemed eager to explore Judge Sotomayor’s views on property rights."
Now the Portchester case is something that we know a little about, since we represented a plastics manufacturer who-after moving his business to the Port Chester renewal area at the behest of the town's local development corporation-was told that his property would be condemned to make way for a redevelopment scheme. The irony here, at least as it pertains to Sotomoyar as the "Wise Latina," is that the plastics factory was wall to wall Latino-something which the diverse-adverse village didn't like all that much.
But the factory owner, unlike Didden, didn't want to fight-and sold his plant to Mexican firm; but the Didden case-and Stomayor's decision-is grist for the Judiciary Committee's mill: "The ruling in Didden is not popular among some property rights and constitutional law professors. Eight of them filed a brief in 2006 unsuccessfully urging the Supreme Court to hear an appeal. “This is the worst federal court takings decision since Kelo,” said Ilya Somin, who teaches property law at George Mason University and helped write the brief. “It’s very extreme, and it is significant as a window into Judge Sotomayor’s attitudes toward private property.”
But, of course, we have our own ED issues here in NYC that would benefit from a little disinfecting sunlight; and our friends at Willets Point are right there in the forefront. The Willets Point United group, with its capable attorney Michael Rikon, are challenging the city's efforts to remove them from their properties.
The key issue here-and the one that the senate should be questioning Stotomayor on-is when is a public use not a public use. Bart Didden certainly has some ideas on this:
"The case arose from a meeting in 2003 between Mr. Didden, who owned property in Port Chester, N.Y., and an executive of a company that had been designated by the village to develop a 27-acre urban renewal area that included part of the property. What happened at that meeting, Mr. Didden said, amounted to extortion. Mr. Didden had made arrangements to put a CVS drug store on his lot. At the meeting, the executive, Gregg Wasser, demanded $800,000 as the price for permission to proceed with that project, Mr. Didden said in court papers. The alternative, Mr. Wasser said, according to the papers, was to have the village condemn Mr. Didden’s property so that Mr. Wasser’s company could put a Walgreen’s in the same place. “Here is a private person standing in the shoes of the government with the power to condemn or not condemn,” Mr. Didden said. “The $800,000 wasn’t going to rehabilitate a public park or build a soccer stadium. It was going into his pocket.”
We hope that the senate probes this issue thoroughly. There's a great deal at stake.
Pay As You Go
The city's vaunted Fiscal Steward has once again treated the city work force with great generosity-offering nice fat raises to scores of workers in the middle of what the NY Post (not here, but elsewhere) calls a "tax revenue meltdown." As the NY Times reports: "New York City’s top fiscal watchdog attacked Mayor R. Bloomberg on Monday for giving City Hall aides raises of up to $18,000 in the middle of the worst recession in decades, calling it “bad government” and “bad policy.”
And when did the city do this? Well, they announced the news last Friday, at the beginning of a summer weekend-not quite like the pride the mayor shows when a reading score goes up one tenth of a percent: "A little before 5 p.m. on Friday, when much of the City Hall press corps was headed home for the weekend, the Bloomberg administration disclosed the raises — 4 percent retroactive to March 3, 2008, and another 4 percent raise effective this past March 3."
The mayor's response, cited by Daily Politics, underscores the bankruptcy of his governing philosophy-note that he even tries to riff that the raises are helping middle class folks: "I didn’t give them the raises the last time, simply because the economy was so unknown or our tax revenues and we didn’t have the sales tax legislation pass," Bloomberg said. "Now that it's passed, I feel a little more comfortable about our ability to pay. And if we’re gonna have good people - remember most of these people, these 6,000, you know middle class people, they make from $45,000 on up - but you know in the middle price range of city workers, and they have to get the raises at the same time or you’ll not be able to attract good people and the amount of the raises is exactly the same. In fact, in some cases less than some of the union contracts that we negotiated that cover this period."
Two things to be noted here. First, the idea that you need to give raises to government workers in order to attract good people-and do so when the private sector is shedding jobs like Circuit City before declaring bankruptcy-is foolish. To have to do so in order to keep them on a par with the sweet union contracts he negotiated, is adding insult to injury. As Nicole Gelinas told the Times: "Financial watchdog groups, which have long criticized the mayor for giving generous pay increases to unionized city workers, said they were equally frustrated by his raises to nonunion workers. “They are not justified,” said Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative policy group. “Most people in the private sector, especially in New York City, are not expecting a 4 percent increase this year. They are happy to keep their jobs."
Second, note what the mayor is saying. He held off last fall because of budgetary uncertainty; but now that the budget is settled-and the sales tax revenue has passed-Bloomberg feels free to raise the payroll. Okay, so it's all right to whack New Yorkers with a regressive sales tax while many are out of work trying, in some cases, to keep hold of their homes, so we can hike the pay of city workers? Thompson is right to call Bloomberg out of touch; in fact, he's lost all tactile sense.
Which brings us to the Bloomberg Post. In the editorial cited above, the paper expresses some umbrage at the city council's profligacy. What is bothering them? Purchases like digital cameras and swivel chairs. And they end with this flourish: "We wonder: Has Council Speaker Christine Quinn told her members about the tax-revenue meltdown?"
So the NY Post, the paper that has been in the forefront of condemning public pension benefits and bloated municipal payrolls, avoids the opportunity to hold Bloomberg's hand to the fire so that it can excoriate what amounts to the council's nickle and dimming? And, of course, its lead editorial is another chapter in the Mayoral Control series. The Post did, however, cover this issue extensively in the so-called news sections-giving the honor to the AP-with an 83 word! blurb on the Thompson complaint.
The fact remains, that the city is hemorrhaging private sector jobs-with minority unemployment at its worst in decades-and Mike Bloomberg fails to see the correlation between public sector bloat, higher taxes, and concomitant job loss in the private sector. And this is the fiscal genius we need to steward us through a recession? Adding real high comedy to all of this, is that the Bloomberg campaign is seeking another party line called, get this, "Jobs and Education Party." Don't any of those high price consultants have a sense of irony?
What Bill Thompson needs to do now is connect the dots. It's not just that Mike Bloomberg is out of touch; it's also that he doesn't have a good grasp of how to govern prudently and enable the real economy to grow. There's a cause and effect embedded in the raises handed out and the accompanying reports of job loss. The purpose of a campaign is to dramatize this-and bell the Bloomberg cat.
And when did the city do this? Well, they announced the news last Friday, at the beginning of a summer weekend-not quite like the pride the mayor shows when a reading score goes up one tenth of a percent: "A little before 5 p.m. on Friday, when much of the City Hall press corps was headed home for the weekend, the Bloomberg administration disclosed the raises — 4 percent retroactive to March 3, 2008, and another 4 percent raise effective this past March 3."
The mayor's response, cited by Daily Politics, underscores the bankruptcy of his governing philosophy-note that he even tries to riff that the raises are helping middle class folks: "I didn’t give them the raises the last time, simply because the economy was so unknown or our tax revenues and we didn’t have the sales tax legislation pass," Bloomberg said. "Now that it's passed, I feel a little more comfortable about our ability to pay. And if we’re gonna have good people - remember most of these people, these 6,000, you know middle class people, they make from $45,000 on up - but you know in the middle price range of city workers, and they have to get the raises at the same time or you’ll not be able to attract good people and the amount of the raises is exactly the same. In fact, in some cases less than some of the union contracts that we negotiated that cover this period."
Two things to be noted here. First, the idea that you need to give raises to government workers in order to attract good people-and do so when the private sector is shedding jobs like Circuit City before declaring bankruptcy-is foolish. To have to do so in order to keep them on a par with the sweet union contracts he negotiated, is adding insult to injury. As Nicole Gelinas told the Times: "Financial watchdog groups, which have long criticized the mayor for giving generous pay increases to unionized city workers, said they were equally frustrated by his raises to nonunion workers. “They are not justified,” said Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative policy group. “Most people in the private sector, especially in New York City, are not expecting a 4 percent increase this year. They are happy to keep their jobs."
Second, note what the mayor is saying. He held off last fall because of budgetary uncertainty; but now that the budget is settled-and the sales tax revenue has passed-Bloomberg feels free to raise the payroll. Okay, so it's all right to whack New Yorkers with a regressive sales tax while many are out of work trying, in some cases, to keep hold of their homes, so we can hike the pay of city workers? Thompson is right to call Bloomberg out of touch; in fact, he's lost all tactile sense.
Which brings us to the Bloomberg Post. In the editorial cited above, the paper expresses some umbrage at the city council's profligacy. What is bothering them? Purchases like digital cameras and swivel chairs. And they end with this flourish: "We wonder: Has Council Speaker Christine Quinn told her members about the tax-revenue meltdown?"
So the NY Post, the paper that has been in the forefront of condemning public pension benefits and bloated municipal payrolls, avoids the opportunity to hold Bloomberg's hand to the fire so that it can excoriate what amounts to the council's nickle and dimming? And, of course, its lead editorial is another chapter in the Mayoral Control series. The Post did, however, cover this issue extensively in the so-called news sections-giving the honor to the AP-with an 83 word! blurb on the Thompson complaint.
The fact remains, that the city is hemorrhaging private sector jobs-with minority unemployment at its worst in decades-and Mike Bloomberg fails to see the correlation between public sector bloat, higher taxes, and concomitant job loss in the private sector. And this is the fiscal genius we need to steward us through a recession? Adding real high comedy to all of this, is that the Bloomberg campaign is seeking another party line called, get this, "Jobs and Education Party." Don't any of those high price consultants have a sense of irony?
What Bill Thompson needs to do now is connect the dots. It's not just that Mike Bloomberg is out of touch; it's also that he doesn't have a good grasp of how to govern prudently and enable the real economy to grow. There's a cause and effect embedded in the raises handed out and the accompanying reports of job loss. The purpose of a campaign is to dramatize this-and bell the Bloomberg cat.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Mayor and the Ant
Everyone knows the fable, attributed to Aesop, about the grasshopper and the ant. As Wikepedia tells us: "The fable concerns a grasshopper who has spent the warm months singing away while the ant (or ants in some editions) worked to store up food for winter. When winter arrives, the grasshopper finds itself dying of hunger, and upon asking the ant for food is only rebuked for its idleness. The story is used to teach the virtues of hard work and saving, and the perils of improvidence."
Mr. Grasshopper, meet cousin Mike Bloomberg. Mike, the same guy that has used all of his financial and political clout to hijack a third term has been idling away, spending, more and more of Wall Street's and the tax payer's hard earned money while, at the same time, growing the size of the government money pit.
Alas, Mr. Grasshopper-we mean Mr. Mayor-winter will be soon upon us, as the NY Daily News' Adam Lisberg warns: "When New York lost $60 million last week because of the Senate stalemate, Mayor Bloomberg's first reaction was to freeze city hiring. So what will be his reaction to plug the $5 billion deficit on the horizon? It's tough to imagine Bloomberg announcing big layoffs before Nov. 3, when he's up for re-election. If he wins, though, lots of people expect the sharp knives to come out. "The large options are associated with labor in various ways, because that's where the money is," said Ronnie Lowenstein, head of the Independent Budget Office."
But what has our keen fiscal steward been doing for the past eight years? And where is the incisive media analysis to act as a companion to the Lisberg story-you know the one about how Bloomberg padded the city's payroll like some frivolous grasshopper; with all of the attendant crippling pension consequences on top. This media silence is crucial because it bolsters-by om mission-the mayor's claim that the current fiscal crisis necessitates his continuation in office.
But Bloomberg continues to blithely pursue the same policies-acutely aware that the $5 billion winter shortfall will soon be upon us; as the Daily News reports: "Mayor Bloomberg's decision to dole out millions in raises to his top commissioners and staff proves he just doesn't get what the average New Yorker is going through, rival William Thompson said Saturday...On Friday, the mayor quietly authorized raises worth $69 million over two years for 6,692 of his managers and nonunion employees. The hikes match union workers' raises."
But it's not really about this recent decision to raise salaries=it's more about a governing philosophy that has exacerbated the current problems. This statement from a Bloomberg spokesman epitomizes this mindset: "Bloomberg spokesman Jason Post said the mayor "did the responsible thing" by aligning the raises of supervisors and their subordinates. "It's revealing that the comptroller is more interested in playing politics than making sure that the city government is functioning smoothly," Post said."
Ah, the smooth functioning of government, high up on the concerns of New Yorkers at a time when worries about home foreclosures and job losses-particularly among minority New Yorker-are preoccupying the multitudes. Mike Blomberg's concerns, however, have always been about the smooth functioning of an ever larger government; and the profligate tax and spend policies of his administration reflect that.
But Lisberg speaks the truth when he reports: "After the election, he's going to have to look at really serious workforce reductions unless the unions agree to freeze their 4% wage increases," said Carol Kellermann, head of the business-backed Citizens Budget Commission.
"Wait until after the election. Then hard decisions are going to have to be made."
But how come we haven't heard any of this sober analysis in the Bloomberg ad blitz? Nah, nah, nah-not now! Feed the populace hope and change-and use your own millions to run against your own failures. Quite a winning formula-as long as the Thompson campaign, aided and abetted by a supine commentariat-remains somnambulent.
The handwriting is on the wall-and it has the cursive signature of our own grasshopping chief executive. Just remember, we warned you. The sh#t gonna hit the fan come January-and the cool guy in the campaign ad will be transformed into our own less than lovable Mr. Hyde. At least we'll be able to get our first glimpse of the real Mike Bloomberg. Can't say we're looking forward to it.
Mr. Grasshopper, meet cousin Mike Bloomberg. Mike, the same guy that has used all of his financial and political clout to hijack a third term has been idling away, spending, more and more of Wall Street's and the tax payer's hard earned money while, at the same time, growing the size of the government money pit.
Alas, Mr. Grasshopper-we mean Mr. Mayor-winter will be soon upon us, as the NY Daily News' Adam Lisberg warns: "When New York lost $60 million last week because of the Senate stalemate, Mayor Bloomberg's first reaction was to freeze city hiring. So what will be his reaction to plug the $5 billion deficit on the horizon? It's tough to imagine Bloomberg announcing big layoffs before Nov. 3, when he's up for re-election. If he wins, though, lots of people expect the sharp knives to come out. "The large options are associated with labor in various ways, because that's where the money is," said Ronnie Lowenstein, head of the Independent Budget Office."
But what has our keen fiscal steward been doing for the past eight years? And where is the incisive media analysis to act as a companion to the Lisberg story-you know the one about how Bloomberg padded the city's payroll like some frivolous grasshopper; with all of the attendant crippling pension consequences on top. This media silence is crucial because it bolsters-by om mission-the mayor's claim that the current fiscal crisis necessitates his continuation in office.
But Bloomberg continues to blithely pursue the same policies-acutely aware that the $5 billion winter shortfall will soon be upon us; as the Daily News reports: "Mayor Bloomberg's decision to dole out millions in raises to his top commissioners and staff proves he just doesn't get what the average New Yorker is going through, rival William Thompson said Saturday...On Friday, the mayor quietly authorized raises worth $69 million over two years for 6,692 of his managers and nonunion employees. The hikes match union workers' raises."
But it's not really about this recent decision to raise salaries=it's more about a governing philosophy that has exacerbated the current problems. This statement from a Bloomberg spokesman epitomizes this mindset: "Bloomberg spokesman Jason Post said the mayor "did the responsible thing" by aligning the raises of supervisors and their subordinates. "It's revealing that the comptroller is more interested in playing politics than making sure that the city government is functioning smoothly," Post said."
Ah, the smooth functioning of government, high up on the concerns of New Yorkers at a time when worries about home foreclosures and job losses-particularly among minority New Yorker-are preoccupying the multitudes. Mike Blomberg's concerns, however, have always been about the smooth functioning of an ever larger government; and the profligate tax and spend policies of his administration reflect that.
But Lisberg speaks the truth when he reports: "After the election, he's going to have to look at really serious workforce reductions unless the unions agree to freeze their 4% wage increases," said Carol Kellermann, head of the business-backed Citizens Budget Commission.
"Wait until after the election. Then hard decisions are going to have to be made."
But how come we haven't heard any of this sober analysis in the Bloomberg ad blitz? Nah, nah, nah-not now! Feed the populace hope and change-and use your own millions to run against your own failures. Quite a winning formula-as long as the Thompson campaign, aided and abetted by a supine commentariat-remains somnambulent.
The handwriting is on the wall-and it has the cursive signature of our own grasshopping chief executive. Just remember, we warned you. The sh#t gonna hit the fan come January-and the cool guy in the campaign ad will be transformed into our own less than lovable Mr. Hyde. At least we'll be able to get our first glimpse of the real Mike Bloomberg. Can't say we're looking forward to it.
Above Politics: And Lost in a Cloud of Hypocrisy
We have heard, ad nauseum, how Mike Bloomberg's wealth allows him to remain above the tawdriness of politics; in particular, the pernicious influence of all of those nasty special interests. So what exactly was the mayor doing wheeling and dealing for the endorsement of the WFP the other night? In our view, the panoply of interests around that party are as special as any others (which underscores our view that the concept itself has little explanatory value).
And not only that, we got to witness the spectacle of the billionaire Bloomberg threatening the leader of a major union in the city-endorse, or face the consequences. So, here's Tom Robbins' version of Truth or Dare: "Just how ticked off was Team Bloomberg at losing last night's endorsement vote at the Working Families Party? Consider: One of those casting a crucial vote to give the party's nomination to city comptroller Bill Thompson was Stuart Appelbaum... president of the powerful Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union which represents some 40,000 workers here in the city. Appelbaum said he woke up this morning to a message from City Hall canceling a long-planned meeting in Washington that Bloomberg's office had arranged with Obama administration members to discuss ways to end international boycotts of Israel."
So Mike Bloomberg, in a fit of pique, uses the good folks of Israel as his sacrificial lamb: "No reason. Not postponed. Not delayed. Cancelled." said Appelbaum. "This is the morning after the vote." The labor leader said that when his staff checked, Obama administration officials told them that Bloomberg's office had called to say that the meeting "was no longer necessary."
Did the Bloombergistas man up? What do you think? "Bloomberg spokesmen said they knew nothing about it. "I didn't know we controlled the White House schedule," said one who said he'd look into the matter. Appelbaum, a top labor supporter for Israel, said the move is misdirected payback. "This is just punishing the people of Israel," he said. "It is outrageous."
Now this is the same Mike Bloomberg who, according to our sources, had never even visited Israel prior to his election; nor had he ever marched in the Israeli Day Parade that passed right by his window on Fifth Avenue. Now, however, we have visits to the country and large charitable contributions to Israeli medical facilities and hospitals-one of the few benefits, in our view, of the mayor's tenure.
So here's a guy waste deep in the big muddy of political special interest pandering-and getting numerous so-called progressive unions like the UFT and 32 BJ to vote to not endorse the Democrat Thompson against the patrician mayor dramatizes this observation. And, as an aside, have you noticed how the NY Post-the UFT's most strident critic-has toned down its rhetoric once Princess Randi endorsed mayoral control?
There's an expensive quid pro quo in that deal, for sure; but the Post has abdicated on that front even though the city spends four out of every ten dollars on education-not including the crippling pension obligations that accrue. So intent on the mayoral control fixation, the paper avoids the obvious-there's a teacher's contract to be negotiated; and a big chunk of the $20,000 per pupil expenditure goes to support the teacher cohort that has expanded to almost double the size it was in years passed.
So, as late as today, we get the Post editorializing for Randi the Magnificent to weigh in with Democratic state senators on mayoral control; with a pension warning from E.J. McMahon right along side as an Op-Ed. And the Post without even the decency to feel a little cognitive dissonance. No wonder the mayor is able to go full bore in his own obsessive quest-he's in good company.
But we digress. The entire education square dance does more to highlight how deft and nimble the mayor's political do-si-doing has become than any other recent phenomenon. But it also manifests itself along the entire spectrum of the mayor's tenure. Just ask Stuart Appelbaum.
And not only that, we got to witness the spectacle of the billionaire Bloomberg threatening the leader of a major union in the city-endorse, or face the consequences. So, here's Tom Robbins' version of Truth or Dare: "Just how ticked off was Team Bloomberg at losing last night's endorsement vote at the Working Families Party? Consider: One of those casting a crucial vote to give the party's nomination to city comptroller Bill Thompson was Stuart Appelbaum... president of the powerful Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union which represents some 40,000 workers here in the city. Appelbaum said he woke up this morning to a message from City Hall canceling a long-planned meeting in Washington that Bloomberg's office had arranged with Obama administration members to discuss ways to end international boycotts of Israel."
So Mike Bloomberg, in a fit of pique, uses the good folks of Israel as his sacrificial lamb: "No reason. Not postponed. Not delayed. Cancelled." said Appelbaum. "This is the morning after the vote." The labor leader said that when his staff checked, Obama administration officials told them that Bloomberg's office had called to say that the meeting "was no longer necessary."
Did the Bloombergistas man up? What do you think? "Bloomberg spokesmen said they knew nothing about it. "I didn't know we controlled the White House schedule," said one who said he'd look into the matter. Appelbaum, a top labor supporter for Israel, said the move is misdirected payback. "This is just punishing the people of Israel," he said. "It is outrageous."
Now this is the same Mike Bloomberg who, according to our sources, had never even visited Israel prior to his election; nor had he ever marched in the Israeli Day Parade that passed right by his window on Fifth Avenue. Now, however, we have visits to the country and large charitable contributions to Israeli medical facilities and hospitals-one of the few benefits, in our view, of the mayor's tenure.
So here's a guy waste deep in the big muddy of political special interest pandering-and getting numerous so-called progressive unions like the UFT and 32 BJ to vote to not endorse the Democrat Thompson against the patrician mayor dramatizes this observation. And, as an aside, have you noticed how the NY Post-the UFT's most strident critic-has toned down its rhetoric once Princess Randi endorsed mayoral control?
There's an expensive quid pro quo in that deal, for sure; but the Post has abdicated on that front even though the city spends four out of every ten dollars on education-not including the crippling pension obligations that accrue. So intent on the mayoral control fixation, the paper avoids the obvious-there's a teacher's contract to be negotiated; and a big chunk of the $20,000 per pupil expenditure goes to support the teacher cohort that has expanded to almost double the size it was in years passed.
So, as late as today, we get the Post editorializing for Randi the Magnificent to weigh in with Democratic state senators on mayoral control; with a pension warning from E.J. McMahon right along side as an Op-Ed. And the Post without even the decency to feel a little cognitive dissonance. No wonder the mayor is able to go full bore in his own obsessive quest-he's in good company.
But we digress. The entire education square dance does more to highlight how deft and nimble the mayor's political do-si-doing has become than any other recent phenomenon. But it also manifests itself along the entire spectrum of the mayor's tenure. Just ask Stuart Appelbaum.
PostWatch
We have always enjoyed the ongoing series of NY Post editorials labeled, "TimesWatch"-and the website of the same name that keeps tabs on the foibles and hypocrisies of the Grey Lady. But, given the NY Post's shameless shilling for the Billionaire Bloomberg, perhaps someone should start a PostWatch.
Our trigger for this public service need, has been the ongoing serialization of Educator Bloomberg-a lachrymose, and fictionalized account of the great strides that our educator-in-chief has made in uplifting NYC's poor school children. The ongoing saga, titled Keep Mayoral Control, has been running for over a year with at least 100 episodes in both editorial and news formats; the latest episode ran Saturday (check that, today)-and far outpaces anything that the Times has fixated on-like, for instance, gay marriage.
What's disturbing about all of this hoohah is that, aside from the mendacity of the continually unrebutted school claims, is that Mike Bloomberg is the kind of elected official who should be considered as the antithesis of what the Post usually sees as worthy of approbation. You know, higher taxes, bigger government and a Nanny State philosophy.
So with all of the cheer leading going on for the liberal statist mayor, you really need to ask: "What's up with that? Is this some kind of devil's bargain? What else can explain the paper's silence over that past year-post term limits extension that the Post endorsed with enthusiasm?
In that period it's been all home, home, on the range-and nary a discouraging word for the mayor; even while he spends record amounts of money on his re-election campaign, drowning out any potential countervailing information. This spending orgy and media blitzing is the kind of environment in desperate need of critique. Instead, in Saturday's Post the story on the mayor's spending runs two scant paragraphs-buried on the bottom of the second page, beneath the bigger piece on mayoral control.
And the story on the mayor's finances, and his vast fortune? Not worthy of the Post's attention. Even this nugget: "Despite his stock market losses, Mr. Bloomberg’s charitable donations increased over the last year, the documents showed. In 2007, he gave $205 million to 1,135 groups. In 2008, he gave $235 million to 1,221 organizations." Do you think that tracking these funds isn't newsworthy? Is there any correlation perhaps, between the mayor's generosity and his own personal political aggrandizement?
So, in our view, the NY Post needs to get a restraining order on itself, go on an introspective retreat-and refrain from the snarky coverage of the foibles of its competitors. The stones are too large, and the glass house way too delicately constructed.
Our trigger for this public service need, has been the ongoing serialization of Educator Bloomberg-a lachrymose, and fictionalized account of the great strides that our educator-in-chief has made in uplifting NYC's poor school children. The ongoing saga, titled Keep Mayoral Control, has been running for over a year with at least 100 episodes in both editorial and news formats; the latest episode ran Saturday (check that, today)-and far outpaces anything that the Times has fixated on-like, for instance, gay marriage.
What's disturbing about all of this hoohah is that, aside from the mendacity of the continually unrebutted school claims, is that Mike Bloomberg is the kind of elected official who should be considered as the antithesis of what the Post usually sees as worthy of approbation. You know, higher taxes, bigger government and a Nanny State philosophy.
So with all of the cheer leading going on for the liberal statist mayor, you really need to ask: "What's up with that? Is this some kind of devil's bargain? What else can explain the paper's silence over that past year-post term limits extension that the Post endorsed with enthusiasm?
In that period it's been all home, home, on the range-and nary a discouraging word for the mayor; even while he spends record amounts of money on his re-election campaign, drowning out any potential countervailing information. This spending orgy and media blitzing is the kind of environment in desperate need of critique. Instead, in Saturday's Post the story on the mayor's spending runs two scant paragraphs-buried on the bottom of the second page, beneath the bigger piece on mayoral control.
And the story on the mayor's finances, and his vast fortune? Not worthy of the Post's attention. Even this nugget: "Despite his stock market losses, Mr. Bloomberg’s charitable donations increased over the last year, the documents showed. In 2007, he gave $205 million to 1,135 groups. In 2008, he gave $235 million to 1,221 organizations." Do you think that tracking these funds isn't newsworthy? Is there any correlation perhaps, between the mayor's generosity and his own personal political aggrandizement?
So, in our view, the NY Post needs to get a restraining order on itself, go on an introspective retreat-and refrain from the snarky coverage of the foibles of its competitors. The stones are too large, and the glass house way too delicately constructed.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Hail, Hail, The Gang's All Here
Apparently, what goes around comes around-and we have, in Yogi Berra's words, "déjà vu all over again." The Gang of Four reigns supreme-after a month of turmoil and uncertainty. As the Politicker reports: "Malcolm Smith spoke first at a press conference announcing Democrats had regained control of the fractured State Senate, but the amigos spoke the longest. And the message was clear: They're in charge. "The four amigos stand here once again today, proud and tough, supporting our communities, but most importantly, in friendships that didn't even exist before Election Day," Senator Carl Kruger, the old ringleader of the renegade Democratic faction, said. "They've been strengthened, they've been hardened, they've been galvanized and they've been solidified. So today is a day when we can claim victory for all New Yorkers."
For how long, though? We been so battered and bruised by the tumult that we're getting gun shy. Imagine how the principals must feel? Maybe, just maybe, we can all get back to governing-and wasn't it fascinating last night to see a bill come to the floor, and be defeated? As Daily Politics tells us: "There was a rare occurrence in the Senate chamber late last night - something akin to an Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting. A bill was defeated. Yes, you read that right. Flat out defeated. Voted down, 28-34, with cooperation from senators on both sides of the aisle. The bill, as EJ McMahon described it, would have allowed local governments to amortize a potentially large portion of their pension contributions for six consecutive years, starting in 2011, as a means of off-setting what is expected to be a big hit."
So, maybe we get reform out of necessity; and a more open governing process that empowers more of the rank-and-file. As Senator George Winner commented: "I do think that's potentially a new state of events here," Winner said. "(The Democrats) have been talking about that all along in the new era of so-called reform, that when it comes to bringing bills to the floor it really shouldn't matter if something is guaranteed to pass or not."
But we'll see if this new day turns out to be something different when the majority gets its second wind. But right now we appreciate any semblance of normalcy-and even the strange sighting of the unusual. But who can predict what will happen next?
For how long, though? We been so battered and bruised by the tumult that we're getting gun shy. Imagine how the principals must feel? Maybe, just maybe, we can all get back to governing-and wasn't it fascinating last night to see a bill come to the floor, and be defeated? As Daily Politics tells us: "There was a rare occurrence in the Senate chamber late last night - something akin to an Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting. A bill was defeated. Yes, you read that right. Flat out defeated. Voted down, 28-34, with cooperation from senators on both sides of the aisle. The bill, as EJ McMahon described it, would have allowed local governments to amortize a potentially large portion of their pension contributions for six consecutive years, starting in 2011, as a means of off-setting what is expected to be a big hit."
So, maybe we get reform out of necessity; and a more open governing process that empowers more of the rank-and-file. As Senator George Winner commented: "I do think that's potentially a new state of events here," Winner said. "(The Democrats) have been talking about that all along in the new era of so-called reform, that when it comes to bringing bills to the floor it really shouldn't matter if something is guaranteed to pass or not."
But we'll see if this new day turns out to be something different when the majority gets its second wind. But right now we appreciate any semblance of normalcy-and even the strange sighting of the unusual. But who can predict what will happen next?
Supermarket Spat Continues at the Armory
As the final CB#7 vote on the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory approaches, the question of whether the project will include a 60,000 square foot supermarket remains unresolved; and the Norwood News covers this quite well this week: "Avi Kaner, vice president and part owner of the Morton Williams supermarket chain, picks up a box of Driscoll’s brand strawberries off the produce rack in the company’s Kingsbridge Road store and says, “Look, same as you get at Whole Foods in Manhattan.” Quality produce is just one reason why Kaner believes the city should do something to save Morton Williams from being crushed by an incoming big box supermarket at the redeveloped Kingsbridge Armory."
Not every one agrees, of course; and even though the board's land use committee did no include a recommendation for a supermarket, there's always a chance that the resolution could be amended at the full board meeting this Tuesday. Which would, in our view, be a mistake: "Kaner and Morton Williams President Morton Sloan say a new, giant supermarket, working with the help of city subsidies, would force them to close the two supermarkets they operate on Jerome Avenue — one just across the street from the Armory, the other just a few blocks down the road, closer to Fordham Road. Combined, the two stores are only about 50,000 square feet, Sloan says. “They would destroy us,” Sloan added."
And the Morton Williams stores wouldn't be the only ones impacted. There's a large green grocer right across the street from the Armory-and a C-Town and Pioneer Supermarket right down the block in both directions. In all, there are 45 supermarkets in the two mile trade area. But not to worry, the developer's environmental review tells us that the large market in the Armory would have no impact on any existing supermarket.
Kind of makes you wonder what else they have gotten wrong in their review. But, we were intrigued by a rebuttal comment to the Norwood News by our old friend Masyr: "But Lipsky says Morton Williams main position is that it’s unfair for a developer to use city tax breaks (which add up to almost $100 million total) to put them out of business, especially if the RFP explicitly says new businesses at the Armory shouldn’t compete with existing businesses.
If they were to follow that request to the letter, Masyr said the Armory would remain empty. “I can promise you that virtually everything we hope to sell, is probably going to be available somewhere else in Kingsbridge area,” he said."
Right on Jesse! Which is precisely why it is just bad public policy to use tax payer dollars to subsidize retail developments. Inevitably, it involves very little real job growth-and simply shifts jobs from existing local-and mostly minority owned-small business-to out of town chain stores. Exacerbating this poor policy push, is the fact that the developer and the city are resisting-to the point of the mayor standing firm at the endorsement session of the WFP on this issue-any living wage component in the proposed community benefits agreement.
We will undoubtedly hear the mayor soon crowing about the "job creation" at the Armory-but the real end result of this bait and switch is that locally owned retail stores will be further pushed into dire economic straights in the middle of a recession-and the proliferation of, "For Rent" signs, will be another indication of the success of Bloomberg five borough economic plan.
And a final point in surrebuttal to Masyr. There is a difference between supermarkets and other retailers. In the first place, the city has a policy of encouraging supermarket growth-something that the mega-market in the armory would actually stifle. Secondly, and as importantly, putting supermarkets at risk of closing has a ripple effect on all of the surrounding commercial strips where these markets attract customers to all the other neighborhood retailers.
The Armory project is flawed on a number of levels; and there is a growing recognition of this on the part of the entire Bronx delegation. As we have said in our action memo that has caused considerable stir: “We expect to have the support of the entire [Bronx] delegation which will put us in the right political position to insure the supermarket use [at the Armory] is excluded..."
The support of loyal local businesses and good living wages may be an anathema to the current administration; but the city council and, hopefully, a young and progressive new Bronx BP will take a different tack. If they do, this battle will be a real win for the Kingsbridge community.
Not every one agrees, of course; and even though the board's land use committee did no include a recommendation for a supermarket, there's always a chance that the resolution could be amended at the full board meeting this Tuesday. Which would, in our view, be a mistake: "Kaner and Morton Williams President Morton Sloan say a new, giant supermarket, working with the help of city subsidies, would force them to close the two supermarkets they operate on Jerome Avenue — one just across the street from the Armory, the other just a few blocks down the road, closer to Fordham Road. Combined, the two stores are only about 50,000 square feet, Sloan says. “They would destroy us,” Sloan added."
And the Morton Williams stores wouldn't be the only ones impacted. There's a large green grocer right across the street from the Armory-and a C-Town and Pioneer Supermarket right down the block in both directions. In all, there are 45 supermarkets in the two mile trade area. But not to worry, the developer's environmental review tells us that the large market in the Armory would have no impact on any existing supermarket.
Kind of makes you wonder what else they have gotten wrong in their review. But, we were intrigued by a rebuttal comment to the Norwood News by our old friend Masyr: "But Lipsky says Morton Williams main position is that it’s unfair for a developer to use city tax breaks (which add up to almost $100 million total) to put them out of business, especially if the RFP explicitly says new businesses at the Armory shouldn’t compete with existing businesses.
If they were to follow that request to the letter, Masyr said the Armory would remain empty. “I can promise you that virtually everything we hope to sell, is probably going to be available somewhere else in Kingsbridge area,” he said."
Right on Jesse! Which is precisely why it is just bad public policy to use tax payer dollars to subsidize retail developments. Inevitably, it involves very little real job growth-and simply shifts jobs from existing local-and mostly minority owned-small business-to out of town chain stores. Exacerbating this poor policy push, is the fact that the developer and the city are resisting-to the point of the mayor standing firm at the endorsement session of the WFP on this issue-any living wage component in the proposed community benefits agreement.
We will undoubtedly hear the mayor soon crowing about the "job creation" at the Armory-but the real end result of this bait and switch is that locally owned retail stores will be further pushed into dire economic straights in the middle of a recession-and the proliferation of, "For Rent" signs, will be another indication of the success of Bloomberg five borough economic plan.
And a final point in surrebuttal to Masyr. There is a difference between supermarkets and other retailers. In the first place, the city has a policy of encouraging supermarket growth-something that the mega-market in the armory would actually stifle. Secondly, and as importantly, putting supermarkets at risk of closing has a ripple effect on all of the surrounding commercial strips where these markets attract customers to all the other neighborhood retailers.
The Armory project is flawed on a number of levels; and there is a growing recognition of this on the part of the entire Bronx delegation. As we have said in our action memo that has caused considerable stir: “We expect to have the support of the entire [Bronx] delegation which will put us in the right political position to insure the supermarket use [at the Armory] is excluded..."
The support of loyal local businesses and good living wages may be an anathema to the current administration; but the city council and, hopefully, a young and progressive new Bronx BP will take a different tack. If they do, this battle will be a real win for the Kingsbridge community.
Meaning of the WFP Endorsement
According to Daily Politics, the WFP has thrown Bill Thompson a critical lifeline for his mayoral campign: "Comptroller Bill Thompson has landed the endorsement of the labor-backed Working Families Party - a significant victory for the Democratic mayoral hopeful's long-shot bid to unseat Mayor Bloomberg."
But this certainly wasn't easy by any means: "The WFP's coordinating council meeting lasted for more than two hours and was at times contentious. I'm told the vote was very close and turned on a few key unions, including the Teamsters (who have endorsed Bloomberg), RWDSU and PEF. Both sides had pushed very hard to get Row E. Team Bloomberg had hoped at the very least for a repeat of 2005 when the mayor blocked his Democratic opponent, Freddy Ferrer, from reaching the 2/3 threshold required for a full WFP endorsement."
Still, after leading the fight against the term limits extension-and given the mayor's haughtiness over his lavish spending-it would have been quite a sell out to see these folks do anything but endorse Thompson. That the fight was so contested speaks to, well, the power of the purse; and says less about Thompson than it does about the corrosive influence of the cash nexus.
We did get a tickle out of the comments from the Lead Vocalist of the Spinners, the falsetto-toned Howard Wolfson:"Today's outcome is hardly a surprise given that Bill Thompson ran on the WFP line in 2001 and 2005. What is a surprise is how hard Mr. Thompson had to work to get the line and how close the vote was. Hardly a show of strength for Mr. Thompson."
Perhaps not; but, as they say, a win is a win. And with this win, Thompson now has the resources and the energy of a very dedicated crew of folks to rely on. The hope here is that this will invigorate his laggard campaign effort since, in spite of all Bloomberg's spending, Thompson remains in striking distance; and Bloomberg is one major gaffe-or crisis-away from finding himself in a dog fight.
But this certainly wasn't easy by any means: "The WFP's coordinating council meeting lasted for more than two hours and was at times contentious. I'm told the vote was very close and turned on a few key unions, including the Teamsters (who have endorsed Bloomberg), RWDSU and PEF. Both sides had pushed very hard to get Row E. Team Bloomberg had hoped at the very least for a repeat of 2005 when the mayor blocked his Democratic opponent, Freddy Ferrer, from reaching the 2/3 threshold required for a full WFP endorsement."
Still, after leading the fight against the term limits extension-and given the mayor's haughtiness over his lavish spending-it would have been quite a sell out to see these folks do anything but endorse Thompson. That the fight was so contested speaks to, well, the power of the purse; and says less about Thompson than it does about the corrosive influence of the cash nexus.
We did get a tickle out of the comments from the Lead Vocalist of the Spinners, the falsetto-toned Howard Wolfson:"Today's outcome is hardly a surprise given that Bill Thompson ran on the WFP line in 2001 and 2005. What is a surprise is how hard Mr. Thompson had to work to get the line and how close the vote was. Hardly a show of strength for Mr. Thompson."
Perhaps not; but, as they say, a win is a win. And with this win, Thompson now has the resources and the energy of a very dedicated crew of folks to rely on. The hope here is that this will invigorate his laggard campaign effort since, in spite of all Bloomberg's spending, Thompson remains in striking distance; and Bloomberg is one major gaffe-or crisis-away from finding himself in a dog fight.
El Cacique!
He never ceases to both amaze us and confound us at the same time. There's simply no way that we expected Pedro Espada to be able to withstand the kind of withering pressure that he has been under for the past month-and to emerge with the majority leadership! Here's Daily Politics take: "A source who has been involved in the ongoing negotiations to end the Senate stalemate called in to report that a deal has been reached and Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. has agreed to return to the Democratic fold. "He's coming back," was all the source would say."
And to be able to overcome the intense enmity in his own conference? Kind of reminds us why Bob Kapstadter calls him the Wascally Wabbit-with everyone else left saying; "Which way did he go? Which way did he go?" As the NY Post reports: "Several Democratic senators have repeatedly insisted they would not accept Espada's return to their Conference because of a series of allegations of improper or illegal activities that his political opponents have leveled against him."
Still, Espada rises. And, after the dust settles, Espada reins as the El Cacique of the state senate: "Under the deal, Malcolm Smith will be the Senate president, several senators said. Espada (D-Bronx) would be majority leader and Democrat John Sampson will be leader of the Democratic conference. The deal was struck for Espada to return around midnight Thursday."
Or, as one commenter to the Daily Politics story said, disbelievingly: "...looks to me like Espada won after all." And he did, confounding all expectations. All of which leaves Juan Gonzales bitter, as well as dumbfounded: "Pedro Espada has back-stabbed his way to the top. Let's see how long it lasts. The turncoat senator from the South Bronx, whose defection to the Republican minority paralyzed action in the Senate on a raft of bills for an entire month, landed an even bigger reward yesterday with his sudden return to the Democratic fold. Meet Senate Majority Leader Espada."
Will reform be part of Pedro's resurrection? His comments to the Post would cast some doubt on that possibility: "Espada said, "Unfortunately, Dean rejected an opportunity to reach a compromise under which Republicans would have had equal access to all the resources of the Senate." Here's Liz's take: "Sampson said he has talked with Sen. Tom Libous about unspecified reforms that might be put in place by tomorrow. However, he also said "everything's under review" at this moment, and it could take as long as 60 days before real changes are made."
And, of course, all of the amigos were in the thick of this; with Carl Kruger and Hiram Monsrrate apparently the linchpins: "Espada said the "compromise" would have kept him as Senate president and made Democratic Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn the Senate majority leader, with Skelos "able to have whatever other title he would have liked." With Skelos' demurral, the way back to the fold was paved for Espada.
But, as the NY Times reports, Hiram's closeness to Espada helped keep the lines of communication open: "Senator Hiram Monserrate, a Queens Democrat who initially sided with the Republicans along with Mr. Espada, played a key role in persuading his colleagues to allow Mr. Espada to return."
All of this reminds us of what the political sociologist Roberto Michels once said: "The socialists may conquer, but socialism never will." Parties will continue to take advantage of their power, and principle will always be subordinated to that axiom. So, given these realities, Espada understood how to use his guile to position himself as indispensable-and those who abhorred his tactics, and defamed his character, had to meekly accept his return; along with his ascension to leadership.
And to be able to overcome the intense enmity in his own conference? Kind of reminds us why Bob Kapstadter calls him the Wascally Wabbit-with everyone else left saying; "Which way did he go? Which way did he go?" As the NY Post reports: "Several Democratic senators have repeatedly insisted they would not accept Espada's return to their Conference because of a series of allegations of improper or illegal activities that his political opponents have leveled against him."
Still, Espada rises. And, after the dust settles, Espada reins as the El Cacique of the state senate: "Under the deal, Malcolm Smith will be the Senate president, several senators said. Espada (D-Bronx) would be majority leader and Democrat John Sampson will be leader of the Democratic conference. The deal was struck for Espada to return around midnight Thursday."
Or, as one commenter to the Daily Politics story said, disbelievingly: "...looks to me like Espada won after all." And he did, confounding all expectations. All of which leaves Juan Gonzales bitter, as well as dumbfounded: "Pedro Espada has back-stabbed his way to the top. Let's see how long it lasts. The turncoat senator from the South Bronx, whose defection to the Republican minority paralyzed action in the Senate on a raft of bills for an entire month, landed an even bigger reward yesterday with his sudden return to the Democratic fold. Meet Senate Majority Leader Espada."
Will reform be part of Pedro's resurrection? His comments to the Post would cast some doubt on that possibility: "Espada said, "Unfortunately, Dean rejected an opportunity to reach a compromise under which Republicans would have had equal access to all the resources of the Senate." Here's Liz's take: "Sampson said he has talked with Sen. Tom Libous about unspecified reforms that might be put in place by tomorrow. However, he also said "everything's under review" at this moment, and it could take as long as 60 days before real changes are made."
And, of course, all of the amigos were in the thick of this; with Carl Kruger and Hiram Monsrrate apparently the linchpins: "Espada said the "compromise" would have kept him as Senate president and made Democratic Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn the Senate majority leader, with Skelos "able to have whatever other title he would have liked." With Skelos' demurral, the way back to the fold was paved for Espada.
But, as the NY Times reports, Hiram's closeness to Espada helped keep the lines of communication open: "Senator Hiram Monserrate, a Queens Democrat who initially sided with the Republicans along with Mr. Espada, played a key role in persuading his colleagues to allow Mr. Espada to return."
All of this reminds us of what the political sociologist Roberto Michels once said: "The socialists may conquer, but socialism never will." Parties will continue to take advantage of their power, and principle will always be subordinated to that axiom. So, given these realities, Espada understood how to use his guile to position himself as indispensable-and those who abhorred his tactics, and defamed his character, had to meekly accept his return; along with his ascension to leadership.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Observing a Malaise
The Mike Bloomberg express, trying to spin the impression of its inevitability even further, is planning an ambitious third term agenda to avoid the kind of malaise that typically envelops these less than charming thirds. And the Observer's Jason Horowitz obliges the campaign nicely with a story that, well, is less than incisive and probing about the underlying assumptions of the campaign.
As the Observer tells us: "Dispensing with any elaborate pretense about being in a competitive re-election contest, Mr. Bloomberg’s handlers have begun to use the mayor’s public appearances to address what happens after 2009. Their political task: to figure out a way of avoiding the historic curse of the complacent, unfocused and regrettable third term."
Of course, what's left out here by the obliging reporting, is the underlying rationale for this kind of future gazing-it not only presents the re-election as inevitable, but it also helps to obfuscate the fact that the previous eight years are certainly not above reproach. And the lead vocalist of the Spinners is nothing if not also obliging: “But that’s not why the mayor is running for a third term. There is still unfinished business, and then there is more that the mayor wants to accomplish in the third that will be new and innovative."
Like continuing with his tax and regulate wrecking ball that he's taken to the local economy? Of course, he's big on new initiatives that sound great-after all, with the kind of money he has to spend he can claim title to being the King of the Three Color Glossy. Yet to claim that your initiative to diversify the economy will somehow create 8,000 jobs (while the city invests around three million dollars, nice deal, huh?)-and wean us off of Wall Street dependence, elides the fact that the mayor's own policies, as Wall Street dependent as you can get, are prime sources of the economic predicament that we find ourselves in.
In Horowitz's long "analysis" we don't here any mention of taxes and regulations. Now, why is that? Do we need to be experts in semiotics to evaluate the following? "Of course, given the state of the economy—to say nothing of the malaise—the mayor’s greatest challenge in a third term may simply be to see to it that the city doesn’t fall to pieces on his watch. But the mayor’s campaign says that they intend to defy that script."
By adding more government workers and increasing the property and sales tax? How has that worked out for the city's expiring middle class? The campaign response? Non sequitors drenched in lavish brochures: " Mr. Bloomberg will focus on pre-Kindergarten programs and post high-school community colleges and trade schools in an effort to expand city-funded education. He’ll mandate that some employers provide their employees with sick-day benefits, and try, again, to wean the five boroughs off of cars by expanding public transportation to areas mostly ignored by bus, train and ferry. He’ll propose aggressive measures, both in the city and Albany, to fight foreclosures and keep people in their homes."
And do all this, with what tax base? We need to have more seasoned and skeptical folks stepping up to the plate when confronted with all of the Bloomberg bombast. And, you know, for all this malaising that needs to be addressed after November, there is still a campaign to run. But Wolfson's smart enough to try to get our attention focused elsewhere. A focus on the campaign is inevitably a focus on the Bloomberg record-one whose accomplishments are more than offset by policies that don't merit any third term coronation.
Correction
We inadvertently attributed the article to our good buddy Kornacki but, as Jason Horowitz reminds us, he's the culprit-so we regret the confusion.
As the Observer tells us: "Dispensing with any elaborate pretense about being in a competitive re-election contest, Mr. Bloomberg’s handlers have begun to use the mayor’s public appearances to address what happens after 2009. Their political task: to figure out a way of avoiding the historic curse of the complacent, unfocused and regrettable third term."
Of course, what's left out here by the obliging reporting, is the underlying rationale for this kind of future gazing-it not only presents the re-election as inevitable, but it also helps to obfuscate the fact that the previous eight years are certainly not above reproach. And the lead vocalist of the Spinners is nothing if not also obliging: “But that’s not why the mayor is running for a third term. There is still unfinished business, and then there is more that the mayor wants to accomplish in the third that will be new and innovative."
Like continuing with his tax and regulate wrecking ball that he's taken to the local economy? Of course, he's big on new initiatives that sound great-after all, with the kind of money he has to spend he can claim title to being the King of the Three Color Glossy. Yet to claim that your initiative to diversify the economy will somehow create 8,000 jobs (while the city invests around three million dollars, nice deal, huh?)-and wean us off of Wall Street dependence, elides the fact that the mayor's own policies, as Wall Street dependent as you can get, are prime sources of the economic predicament that we find ourselves in.
In Horowitz's long "analysis" we don't here any mention of taxes and regulations. Now, why is that? Do we need to be experts in semiotics to evaluate the following? "Of course, given the state of the economy—to say nothing of the malaise—the mayor’s greatest challenge in a third term may simply be to see to it that the city doesn’t fall to pieces on his watch. But the mayor’s campaign says that they intend to defy that script."
By adding more government workers and increasing the property and sales tax? How has that worked out for the city's expiring middle class? The campaign response? Non sequitors drenched in lavish brochures: " Mr. Bloomberg will focus on pre-Kindergarten programs and post high-school community colleges and trade schools in an effort to expand city-funded education. He’ll mandate that some employers provide their employees with sick-day benefits, and try, again, to wean the five boroughs off of cars by expanding public transportation to areas mostly ignored by bus, train and ferry. He’ll propose aggressive measures, both in the city and Albany, to fight foreclosures and keep people in their homes."
And do all this, with what tax base? We need to have more seasoned and skeptical folks stepping up to the plate when confronted with all of the Bloomberg bombast. And, you know, for all this malaising that needs to be addressed after November, there is still a campaign to run. But Wolfson's smart enough to try to get our attention focused elsewhere. A focus on the campaign is inevitably a focus on the Bloomberg record-one whose accomplishments are more than offset by policies that don't merit any third term coronation.
Correction
We inadvertently attributed the article to our good buddy Kornacki but, as Jason Horowitz reminds us, he's the culprit-so we regret the confusion.
After You My Dear Richard,
Well, you have to at least know that the governor really had nothing to lose here. With approval ratings approaching those of serial killers and child molesters, David Paterson threw a Hail Mary pass; which if it passes the constitutional test, will have a chance to restore some of the luster that a series of missteps and blunders have almost scrubbed clean from his tarnished image. As the NY Times reports: "Gov. David A. Paterson named Richard Ravitch, a Democratic lawyer with a career in government dating back a half century, as the state’s lieutenant governor on Wednesday. Mr. Paterson said Mr. Ravitch, 76, would bring stability to the capital and help him end what he called the “crisis in governance” that for more than a month has paralyzed the Senate during its 31-to-31 split."
Now comes the court test; because no one really knows if the move will be accepted as constitutional: "Mr. Paterson’s move was intended to end the turmoil in the capital, but it seemed chiefly to intensify it, drawing threats of legal challenges even before the governor announced his decision on television at 5 p.m. The lieutenant governor’s office has been vacant since Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned last year and Mr. Paterson succeeded him; the State Constitution does not provide for filling the office in the event of a vacancy."
So, it gets complicated, and rather than get bogged down in the minutia we will simply say to the governor that this better pan out; because if it doesn't, with apologies to Jimmy Breslin, Paterson-all by himself-will take on the persona of the, Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight. Our bet is that, given the governor's string of goofiness, this is all gonna blow right up in his face.
Already the long knives are out, and Gerson Borrerro is reporting that Pedro Espada and Dean Skelos have a temporary restraining order to halt Ravitch from stepping in to the vacant LG spot: "State Senator’s Pedro Espada, Jr. and Dean Skelos have just been informed by their attorney, John Ciampioli, Counsel for the New York State Senate Republican Campaign Committee, that a restraining order against Governor David A. Paterson and Richard Ravitch has been granted.“Not prom night yet for them,” Espada told The Borrero Report in a 1:25 AM telephone call."
So now we potentially have an even bigger snafu in Albany-with Paterson at the wheel of the clown car. And why would Ravitch do this? Shouldn't both he and the governor had waited-simply asked the courts before leaping-until a legal ruling was issued? All in all, an Laurel and Hardy moment in the making here; because even if the new LG can be seated, there's doubt that he could function to break ties in normal legislative procedures: "Perhaps most important, the Senate’s rules indicate that the lieutenant governor cannot be counted as part of a quorum, a key issue since neither faction has the 32 votes needed to constitute a quorum. “If he can’t vote on that, then the rest becomes moot,” said Gerald Benjamin, a professor of political science at the State University of New York at New Paltz."
And if he can't, the ball really hasn't advanced beyond the fact that it removes the possibility that Espada would be next in line to succeed the governor if he no longer was around. But, perhaps that would be enough to get the warring sides to agree to a power sharing arrangement. We'll see. But no one should be holding their breathe on this.
The one thing we know for sure is that we don't believe that the governor's stated rationale for taking this bold leap is credible. As the NY Daily News reports: "Paterson said he took the uncharted step because the ongoing paralysis in the Senate was starting to hurt localities dealing with the tanking economy. He cited Mayor Bloomberg's decision this week to enact a hiring freeze on police and firefighter jobs because the Senate did not pass a bill to authorize a hike in the city sales tax. Paterson also said that with state revenue having dropped by 36% over projections the past three months, the Senate and Assembly will soon be needed to make further cuts to the budget. "We cannot allow for any further exposure to uncertainty [and] risk at a time of unparalleled fiscal difficulties," he said."
No, Paterson did this to hopefully rescue his own slim chances of holding on to the office. The fact that the legislature is out-and unable to further damage the economy-is actually a plus for the citizens. Because when it was in session, all it did was make things worse-and the governor's lack of leadership saw taxes rise-with very little of the trimming that the governor claims will be necessary in the near term.
So while it is embarrassing to watch all of the hijinks in the state capitol, this isn't quite the crisis that Paterson claims it is. What it does underscore, is that the state is rudderless; and if the courts strike down the governor's latest gambit-clueless will be added to leaderless.
Now comes the court test; because no one really knows if the move will be accepted as constitutional: "Mr. Paterson’s move was intended to end the turmoil in the capital, but it seemed chiefly to intensify it, drawing threats of legal challenges even before the governor announced his decision on television at 5 p.m. The lieutenant governor’s office has been vacant since Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned last year and Mr. Paterson succeeded him; the State Constitution does not provide for filling the office in the event of a vacancy."
So, it gets complicated, and rather than get bogged down in the minutia we will simply say to the governor that this better pan out; because if it doesn't, with apologies to Jimmy Breslin, Paterson-all by himself-will take on the persona of the, Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight. Our bet is that, given the governor's string of goofiness, this is all gonna blow right up in his face.
Already the long knives are out, and Gerson Borrerro is reporting that Pedro Espada and Dean Skelos have a temporary restraining order to halt Ravitch from stepping in to the vacant LG spot: "State Senator’s Pedro Espada, Jr. and Dean Skelos have just been informed by their attorney, John Ciampioli, Counsel for the New York State Senate Republican Campaign Committee, that a restraining order against Governor David A. Paterson and Richard Ravitch has been granted.“Not prom night yet for them,” Espada told The Borrero Report in a 1:25 AM telephone call."
So now we potentially have an even bigger snafu in Albany-with Paterson at the wheel of the clown car. And why would Ravitch do this? Shouldn't both he and the governor had waited-simply asked the courts before leaping-until a legal ruling was issued? All in all, an Laurel and Hardy moment in the making here; because even if the new LG can be seated, there's doubt that he could function to break ties in normal legislative procedures: "Perhaps most important, the Senate’s rules indicate that the lieutenant governor cannot be counted as part of a quorum, a key issue since neither faction has the 32 votes needed to constitute a quorum. “If he can’t vote on that, then the rest becomes moot,” said Gerald Benjamin, a professor of political science at the State University of New York at New Paltz."
And if he can't, the ball really hasn't advanced beyond the fact that it removes the possibility that Espada would be next in line to succeed the governor if he no longer was around. But, perhaps that would be enough to get the warring sides to agree to a power sharing arrangement. We'll see. But no one should be holding their breathe on this.
The one thing we know for sure is that we don't believe that the governor's stated rationale for taking this bold leap is credible. As the NY Daily News reports: "Paterson said he took the uncharted step because the ongoing paralysis in the Senate was starting to hurt localities dealing with the tanking economy. He cited Mayor Bloomberg's decision this week to enact a hiring freeze on police and firefighter jobs because the Senate did not pass a bill to authorize a hike in the city sales tax. Paterson also said that with state revenue having dropped by 36% over projections the past three months, the Senate and Assembly will soon be needed to make further cuts to the budget. "We cannot allow for any further exposure to uncertainty [and] risk at a time of unparalleled fiscal difficulties," he said."
No, Paterson did this to hopefully rescue his own slim chances of holding on to the office. The fact that the legislature is out-and unable to further damage the economy-is actually a plus for the citizens. Because when it was in session, all it did was make things worse-and the governor's lack of leadership saw taxes rise-with very little of the trimming that the governor claims will be necessary in the near term.
So while it is embarrassing to watch all of the hijinks in the state capitol, this isn't quite the crisis that Paterson claims it is. What it does underscore, is that the state is rudderless; and if the courts strike down the governor's latest gambit-clueless will be added to leaderless.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Wolf Tickets
The just released Marist Poll is quite fascinating. As Daily Politics points out: "Today's Marist poll finds the race between Comptroller Bill Thompson and Mayor Bloomberg has tightened somewhat, with the mayor slipping under the 50 percent mark to lead his likely Democratic opponent 48-35 compared to 51-35 in May...Fifty-one percent of voters polled think it's time to oust Bloomberg from office and give someone else a chance. That's up from 48 percent in May."
51%! think it's time for a change-even after the, it's gotta be up to at least $25 million, obscene level of spending on behalf of the mayor's race against himself. What a colossal waste of money-or, maybe not. After all, if Bloomberg wasn't spending the money, where would he be today?
And Thompson, for his part, should be buoyed by the fact that he's only 13 point down-and in spite of being outspent by, say, around $25 million. Clearly, in spite of what the lead vocalist from the Spinners says, this is much closer than it should be.
As The Politicker reports: "The competitiveness of a race is, to some degree, a subjective notion, one which operatives on both sides try to manipulate. Case in point: Bloomberg's spokesman Howard Wolfson and today's Marist poll. Here's Wolfson on the poll results: “We continue to be pleased with a double-digit lead over both of our opponents and the fact that a large majority of New Yorkers approve of the mayor's leadership."We look forward to watching this competitive Democratic primary with interest."
And Azi responds, unwilling to be spun: "That "competitive primary" between Thompson and Avella is not so close. In a head-to-head match-up, Thompson leads Avella 47 to 18. Which is considerably less close than the head-to-head match-up between Bloomberg and Thompson: Bloomberg leads 48 to 35."
The question remaining here, is can Thompson capitalize on what is clearly a large cohort of voters who are simply tired of Bloomberg-even among those who think he's been okay? And will the saturation media bombing validate the economic law of diminishing returns? Something that is well described in the following definition: "The tendency for a continuing application of effort or skill toward a particular project or goal to decline in effectiveness after a certain level of result has been achieved."
All is food for thought-and why Howard continues to spew out expensive woof tickets. Baffle them with BS; and deflect attention from the fact that, like the love engine of the Master of the House in Les Miz; "there's not much there." All the spending and all of the taxing hasn't made Mike Bloomberg an incumbent that is deserving of re-election-let alone the overturning of the will of the people expressed in two referenda.
51%! think it's time for a change-even after the, it's gotta be up to at least $25 million, obscene level of spending on behalf of the mayor's race against himself. What a colossal waste of money-or, maybe not. After all, if Bloomberg wasn't spending the money, where would he be today?
And Thompson, for his part, should be buoyed by the fact that he's only 13 point down-and in spite of being outspent by, say, around $25 million. Clearly, in spite of what the lead vocalist from the Spinners says, this is much closer than it should be.
As The Politicker reports: "The competitiveness of a race is, to some degree, a subjective notion, one which operatives on both sides try to manipulate. Case in point: Bloomberg's spokesman Howard Wolfson and today's Marist poll. Here's Wolfson on the poll results: “We continue to be pleased with a double-digit lead over both of our opponents and the fact that a large majority of New Yorkers approve of the mayor's leadership."We look forward to watching this competitive Democratic primary with interest."
And Azi responds, unwilling to be spun: "That "competitive primary" between Thompson and Avella is not so close. In a head-to-head match-up, Thompson leads Avella 47 to 18. Which is considerably less close than the head-to-head match-up between Bloomberg and Thompson: Bloomberg leads 48 to 35."
The question remaining here, is can Thompson capitalize on what is clearly a large cohort of voters who are simply tired of Bloomberg-even among those who think he's been okay? And will the saturation media bombing validate the economic law of diminishing returns? Something that is well described in the following definition: "The tendency for a continuing application of effort or skill toward a particular project or goal to decline in effectiveness after a certain level of result has been achieved."
All is food for thought-and why Howard continues to spew out expensive woof tickets. Baffle them with BS; and deflect attention from the fact that, like the love engine of the Master of the House in Les Miz; "there's not much there." All the spending and all of the taxing hasn't made Mike Bloomberg an incumbent that is deserving of re-election-let alone the overturning of the will of the people expressed in two referenda.
Goodwin Gets Albany
Michael Goodwin, following up on our stalemate kudos of yesterday, looks at the bright side of a sidelined legislature: "The pols want a judge to end the Albany stalemate, but a shrink would be my choice. And not just to treat the buffoons in the Legislature. The public is acting crazy, too.
It's in the grip of an epidemic of Stockholm syndrome, a malady that causes hostages to identify with their captors. Since millions of New Yorkers are suffering, we're changing the name to Gotham Syndrome. The major symptom is a failure to recognize what's good for you. In this case, it means a failure to recognize that the first thing Albany will do when it gets back to work is raise the sales tax in the city by half a percent, to 8.875%. What's your hurry, folks? Can't wait to pay $900 million more in taxes? Now that's insane."
And Goodwin gets it exactly right-every day the senate stays out is money in our pockets-even if the mayor sees the "crisis" just like any three card monte dealer might-lost revenue from the marks: "Mayor Bloomberg, by saying the stalemate is "costing" the city $60 million a month and getting the public angry at Albany, has taken the art of the con to a dazzling new level. Any taxpayer in his right mind would realize that every day Albany dawdles is another day his taxes can't be raised. The $60 million the delay is "costing" the city is actually $60 million that stays in our pockets. That's a good thing."
Which gets us to the heart of the matter-something that we have already posted on this morning; the apparatus of government has grown way too large: "Never mind that the bloated government bureaucracies have hardly been scratched. All that matters is that fewer working people must pay higher taxes to keep them safe from the recession. "Any less revenues mean fewer employees, because the city's budget is basically hiring 300,000 of the best people that anybody's ever put together and paying them," Bloomberg said. Apparently we absolutely need every one of them, even though we're paying an average of $107,000 a year each in salary and benefits."
Bloomberg must be on crack! So, when he complains about pension costs that are mandated and out of the city's control, he wants us to ignore the fact that the more folks he hires, the greater is our already unmanageable pension liability. Oh, but look how well the schools are doing.
Sure, if you believe the watered down state test results-and the mayor's brutally honest campaign spots-we're on the right road to educational nirvana; with 80,000 teachers-up from the 40,000 we used to make do with-serving a school population that has decreased from the 1.1 million kids of a few years ago. Oh, and did we mention that the school budget is up 80% to a cool 23 billion dollars? That's about $20,000 per pupil. But, you get what you pay for, don't you?
So, Goodwin is right. We are suffering from a Gotham Syndrome. And pretty soon we will all be singing:
"California, here I come right back where I started from.
Where Bowers of flowers bloom in the spring.
Each morning at dawning, birdies sing an' everything.
A sunkist miss said, "Don't be late" that's why I can hardly wait.
Open up that Golden Gate,
California here I come."
It's in the grip of an epidemic of Stockholm syndrome, a malady that causes hostages to identify with their captors. Since millions of New Yorkers are suffering, we're changing the name to Gotham Syndrome. The major symptom is a failure to recognize what's good for you. In this case, it means a failure to recognize that the first thing Albany will do when it gets back to work is raise the sales tax in the city by half a percent, to 8.875%. What's your hurry, folks? Can't wait to pay $900 million more in taxes? Now that's insane."
And Goodwin gets it exactly right-every day the senate stays out is money in our pockets-even if the mayor sees the "crisis" just like any three card monte dealer might-lost revenue from the marks: "Mayor Bloomberg, by saying the stalemate is "costing" the city $60 million a month and getting the public angry at Albany, has taken the art of the con to a dazzling new level. Any taxpayer in his right mind would realize that every day Albany dawdles is another day his taxes can't be raised. The $60 million the delay is "costing" the city is actually $60 million that stays in our pockets. That's a good thing."
Which gets us to the heart of the matter-something that we have already posted on this morning; the apparatus of government has grown way too large: "Never mind that the bloated government bureaucracies have hardly been scratched. All that matters is that fewer working people must pay higher taxes to keep them safe from the recession. "Any less revenues mean fewer employees, because the city's budget is basically hiring 300,000 of the best people that anybody's ever put together and paying them," Bloomberg said. Apparently we absolutely need every one of them, even though we're paying an average of $107,000 a year each in salary and benefits."
Bloomberg must be on crack! So, when he complains about pension costs that are mandated and out of the city's control, he wants us to ignore the fact that the more folks he hires, the greater is our already unmanageable pension liability. Oh, but look how well the schools are doing.
Sure, if you believe the watered down state test results-and the mayor's brutally honest campaign spots-we're on the right road to educational nirvana; with 80,000 teachers-up from the 40,000 we used to make do with-serving a school population that has decreased from the 1.1 million kids of a few years ago. Oh, and did we mention that the school budget is up 80% to a cool 23 billion dollars? That's about $20,000 per pupil. But, you get what you pay for, don't you?
So, Goodwin is right. We are suffering from a Gotham Syndrome. And pretty soon we will all be singing:
"California, here I come right back where I started from.
Where Bowers of flowers bloom in the spring.
Each morning at dawning, birdies sing an' everything.
A sunkist miss said, "Don't be late" that's why I can hardly wait.
Open up that Golden Gate,
California here I come."
The Party's Over
The NY Times does a real public service this morning with its report on the pension black hole facing the State of New York in the coming years-obligations sharply on the rise, while revenues are swiftly shrinking: " Local governments in New York State face an unprecedented increase in pension costs that will force them to triple their contributions to the state pension system over the next six years, according to an analysis prepared by the comptroller’s office.By 2015, pension costs borne by local governments upstate, on Long Island and in New York City’s suburbs will exceed $8 billion a year, compared with $2.6 billion last year, under the analysis, which was circulated to legislative and county leaders and obtained by The New York Times this month."
So, where exactly will the new money be coming from? Hold on to your wallets everyone: “It is staggering,” said Peter Baynes, executive director of the New York Conference of Mayors. “The only way they’re going to deal with it is through property taxes and reductions in the work force.” Put that "fair share" in your pipe and smoke it!
The reality here is that the public payroll-and the concomitant pension benefits-have been spiralling out of control for years; and that holds true for NYC, the surrounding counties, and all of the towns throughout the state. All of this was brought home in a brilliant analysis given in a lecture we heard yesterday by E.J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute-riffing on his article in the latest City Journal (forthcoming).
The days of wine and roses are certainly over-and the dependence on an annual 8% return on investment (who doesn't wish for that?) has left public pension obligations seriously underfunded. But, in NYC, the situation was exacerbated by the fact that Mike Bloomberg kept hiring more workers; and each of the new hires is immediately integrated into the pension system and becomes an unavoidable obligation for the shlubs who foot the bill-the already beleaguered tax payers.
"Tax the wealthy," goes the cry of the WFP. How's that working out in California, where the state relies heavily on about 144,000 high net worth individuals who are-guess what?-out migrating to avoid getting hosed for a state work force that is unsustainable. But the out migration there is dwarfed by our own. We have lost over one and one half million higher taxed individuals over the past decade-with an accompanying drop of about one billion dollars in revenue.
In NYC, the shrewed businessman mayor-who has padded the city's payroll every year he's been in office-presides over a city whose tax obligations are 90% higher than any other municipality in the country; and Bloomberg has, thankfully, stopped smugly talking about how New York is some kind of "luxury item."
McMahon captured this last month in the following NY Post Op-Ed: "Because public pensions are guaranteed by the state constitution, they are a risk-free proposition for the employees who collect them. But these pensions are financed by investments that expose taxpayers to substantial financial risk -- as was illustrated vividly by the two sharp downturns in this decade. As recently as 1984, two-thirds of New York’s pension funds were invested in less-risky fixed-income investments -- bonds, commercial mortgages and cash. By 2008, the proportions had more than reversed. As the meltdown began, nearly 72 percent of the state’s pension-fund assets were in equities, including stocks, private equity and hedge-fund holdings. This was typical of the investment mix in public-pension systems across the country -- which is why they’re all about to dump bigger bills on taxpayers."
Funny, we didn't hear Mike Bloomberg's warning cry on this. But, Mr. Indispensable, is now needed to get us out of the mess that he bears a great degree of responsibility for-including the 80% increase in the education budget that now accounts for 4 out of every ten dollars the city spends. Is it any wonder that Randi Weingarten and the mayor were dancing cheek to cheek in last month's press conference on mayoral control? If your Weingarten, Mike Bloomberg has meant more teachers and more revenue for-why the UFT, of course.
And getting out won't be easy-especially when we are continuing to, "let it ride," on rising stock market fortune. As the Times tells us, our state comptroller has it all under control-perhaps not: "Mr. DiNapoli’s office cautioned that the figures it circulated represented only one possible chain of events, and depend in part on a healthy stock market recovery in the first half of the next decade. The analysis envisions a market rebound similar to the one after the crash of 1987, with a return of 1.5 percent in the current fiscal year, annual returns in excess of 13 percent in the next two years and more than 10 percent in the succeeding three years."
Don't we all wish. But the real elephant in the room here is the WFP-and the fact that the public employees are the majority faction that Madison warned us about. Although the Times hits us with this knee slapper: "If there is any silver lining, the trends appear to have somewhat curbed Albany’s appetite for extending pension enhancements to public employees to placate labor unions, which wield enormous clout and lobbying dollars in the capital. “I’m alarmed,” said Assemblyman Peter J. Abbate Jr., a Brooklyn Democrat and the chairman of the Assembly’s Labor Committee, who is one of the capital’s more reliable union allies. “Bluntly,” he said, “I’ve spoken to a lot of the union leaders and their lobbyists and said I don’t want to see bills that will cost the counties and the state millions of dollars.”
Yeah, sure. Before last year's crash, Wall Street accounted for 20% of the state's revenues-and that's much higher for the city. This year on the state level, we glommed about six billion dollars of federal stimulus money; something that McMahon rightfully calls the, "fiscal bridge to nowhere." The money was supposed to allay the need for any new local taxes. How did that turn out? $6.1 billion in new state taxes and fess were added by the legislature-and Bloomberg hiked up the city's sales tax.
Our pension obligations are simply symptoms of an even more serious malady. The belief that we can continue to grow government and keep forcing New Yorkers to pony up more. Now, with the Feds looking to expand health care and tax energy use-watch out! We are all heading down the California path-with New York City and State seemingly in the biggest rush to catch the bankrupt Golden State.
So, where exactly will the new money be coming from? Hold on to your wallets everyone: “It is staggering,” said Peter Baynes, executive director of the New York Conference of Mayors. “The only way they’re going to deal with it is through property taxes and reductions in the work force.” Put that "fair share" in your pipe and smoke it!
The reality here is that the public payroll-and the concomitant pension benefits-have been spiralling out of control for years; and that holds true for NYC, the surrounding counties, and all of the towns throughout the state. All of this was brought home in a brilliant analysis given in a lecture we heard yesterday by E.J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute-riffing on his article in the latest City Journal (forthcoming).
The days of wine and roses are certainly over-and the dependence on an annual 8% return on investment (who doesn't wish for that?) has left public pension obligations seriously underfunded. But, in NYC, the situation was exacerbated by the fact that Mike Bloomberg kept hiring more workers; and each of the new hires is immediately integrated into the pension system and becomes an unavoidable obligation for the shlubs who foot the bill-the already beleaguered tax payers.
"Tax the wealthy," goes the cry of the WFP. How's that working out in California, where the state relies heavily on about 144,000 high net worth individuals who are-guess what?-out migrating to avoid getting hosed for a state work force that is unsustainable. But the out migration there is dwarfed by our own. We have lost over one and one half million higher taxed individuals over the past decade-with an accompanying drop of about one billion dollars in revenue.
In NYC, the shrewed businessman mayor-who has padded the city's payroll every year he's been in office-presides over a city whose tax obligations are 90% higher than any other municipality in the country; and Bloomberg has, thankfully, stopped smugly talking about how New York is some kind of "luxury item."
McMahon captured this last month in the following NY Post Op-Ed: "Because public pensions are guaranteed by the state constitution, they are a risk-free proposition for the employees who collect them. But these pensions are financed by investments that expose taxpayers to substantial financial risk -- as was illustrated vividly by the two sharp downturns in this decade. As recently as 1984, two-thirds of New York’s pension funds were invested in less-risky fixed-income investments -- bonds, commercial mortgages and cash. By 2008, the proportions had more than reversed. As the meltdown began, nearly 72 percent of the state’s pension-fund assets were in equities, including stocks, private equity and hedge-fund holdings. This was typical of the investment mix in public-pension systems across the country -- which is why they’re all about to dump bigger bills on taxpayers."
Funny, we didn't hear Mike Bloomberg's warning cry on this. But, Mr. Indispensable, is now needed to get us out of the mess that he bears a great degree of responsibility for-including the 80% increase in the education budget that now accounts for 4 out of every ten dollars the city spends. Is it any wonder that Randi Weingarten and the mayor were dancing cheek to cheek in last month's press conference on mayoral control? If your Weingarten, Mike Bloomberg has meant more teachers and more revenue for-why the UFT, of course.
And getting out won't be easy-especially when we are continuing to, "let it ride," on rising stock market fortune. As the Times tells us, our state comptroller has it all under control-perhaps not: "Mr. DiNapoli’s office cautioned that the figures it circulated represented only one possible chain of events, and depend in part on a healthy stock market recovery in the first half of the next decade. The analysis envisions a market rebound similar to the one after the crash of 1987, with a return of 1.5 percent in the current fiscal year, annual returns in excess of 13 percent in the next two years and more than 10 percent in the succeeding three years."
Don't we all wish. But the real elephant in the room here is the WFP-and the fact that the public employees are the majority faction that Madison warned us about. Although the Times hits us with this knee slapper: "If there is any silver lining, the trends appear to have somewhat curbed Albany’s appetite for extending pension enhancements to public employees to placate labor unions, which wield enormous clout and lobbying dollars in the capital. “I’m alarmed,” said Assemblyman Peter J. Abbate Jr., a Brooklyn Democrat and the chairman of the Assembly’s Labor Committee, who is one of the capital’s more reliable union allies. “Bluntly,” he said, “I’ve spoken to a lot of the union leaders and their lobbyists and said I don’t want to see bills that will cost the counties and the state millions of dollars.”
Yeah, sure. Before last year's crash, Wall Street accounted for 20% of the state's revenues-and that's much higher for the city. This year on the state level, we glommed about six billion dollars of federal stimulus money; something that McMahon rightfully calls the, "fiscal bridge to nowhere." The money was supposed to allay the need for any new local taxes. How did that turn out? $6.1 billion in new state taxes and fess were added by the legislature-and Bloomberg hiked up the city's sales tax.
Our pension obligations are simply symptoms of an even more serious malady. The belief that we can continue to grow government and keep forcing New Yorkers to pony up more. Now, with the Feds looking to expand health care and tax energy use-watch out! We are all heading down the California path-with New York City and State seemingly in the biggest rush to catch the bankrupt Golden State.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Senate Stalemate Generates Good News
According to the Daily Politics, Mike Bloomberg is instituting a hiring freeze-and blaming it on warring state senators: "Mayor Bloomberg today again slammed the warring state senators for blowing the June 30 mayoral control deadline and is poised to announce their failure to pass the sales tax increase the city needs to balance its budget has pushed him to institute an immediate hiring freeze."
Well, hooray for the stalled senate; its gridlock has been able to achieve what Mike Bloomberg has been unable to do for seven years-begin to rein in the size of city government. Maybe the NY Post will get off of its mayoral butt mooching and take the time to offer kudos to the accidentally tax resistant body. Ah, we spoke too soon it appears.
Instead of seeing this as a golden opportunity to do more with less-or to simply let the shoppoers keep more of their own money, the Post uses this bogus freeze as another chance to praise Bloomberg and excoriate the state senators: "Mayor Mike yesterday ordered an immediate freeze of virtually all city hiring until the state Senate ends its unseemly civil war and passes legislation needed to keep Gotham on an even fiscal keel. Good for him. Sure, hiring freezes could escalate the tension. But that's a good thing. Something has to break the deadlock; fomenting a crisis could be just the ticket."
And no mention of the obvious tactics in play here. In typical city hall fashion, the proposed cuts targeted are for apple pie things like the 250 member police cadet class; as well as for 150 firefighters-all in an attempt to create a citizen outrage over the senate's stalemate. Nothing on all of the sundry extraneous crap that the city wastes the tax payers' money on; like housing the homeless in luxury digs.
Here's how Mayor Mike mischaracterizes the issue: "I urge Senators in both parties to put aside their political differences and approve the City’s revenue plan so we can move forward with providing the core services that New Yorkers rely on,” Bloomberg said in a public statement."
Core, as in, "rotten to..."
And, as the NY Times points out, the Bloomberg world view is on full display: "We’re losing roughly a couple million bucks a day,” he said. A statement that the mayor’s office issued later Monday said the city would resort to further spending reductions if the impasse continued." Of course, the city's loss in this case is the tax payers' gain-and Bloomberg effortlessly has glommed on to the concept that the city's lost revenue is his money.
But even Speaker Quinn, in as passive of voice as possible, gets the tactics and questions its necessity: "The Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, said that “our first responders are literally paying the price” for the impasse and that “stopping the police class would be completely at the bottom of my list” if it had been left to her." Ouch! Don't hit the mayor that hard, Chris.
Peter Vallone is more on point: "Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr., the chairman of the Public Safety Committee, said the freeze was painful and should not have been necessary. “Our first responders should never be first on the chopping block,” he said." But, he too, doesn 't want to pin this tale on the right donkey, saying: “Police recruits preparing to enter the academy this week are now being held hostage by the pathetic ineptitude in Albany.”
But maybe this will be the start of a beneficent trend; and the public, if not certain supine elected officials, will come to realize that the continual assault on their wallets isn't made necessary by the need to preserve, "essential services." And another potential collateral benefit here, is that New Yorkers can be made more aware of Bloomberg's expansionist philosophy; a tax and spend approach to governance that has dug the city into the deep hole that it currently finds itself in.
Well, hooray for the stalled senate; its gridlock has been able to achieve what Mike Bloomberg has been unable to do for seven years-begin to rein in the size of city government. Maybe the NY Post will get off of its mayoral butt mooching and take the time to offer kudos to the accidentally tax resistant body. Ah, we spoke too soon it appears.
Instead of seeing this as a golden opportunity to do more with less-or to simply let the shoppoers keep more of their own money, the Post uses this bogus freeze as another chance to praise Bloomberg and excoriate the state senators: "Mayor Mike yesterday ordered an immediate freeze of virtually all city hiring until the state Senate ends its unseemly civil war and passes legislation needed to keep Gotham on an even fiscal keel. Good for him. Sure, hiring freezes could escalate the tension. But that's a good thing. Something has to break the deadlock; fomenting a crisis could be just the ticket."
And no mention of the obvious tactics in play here. In typical city hall fashion, the proposed cuts targeted are for apple pie things like the 250 member police cadet class; as well as for 150 firefighters-all in an attempt to create a citizen outrage over the senate's stalemate. Nothing on all of the sundry extraneous crap that the city wastes the tax payers' money on; like housing the homeless in luxury digs.
Here's how Mayor Mike mischaracterizes the issue: "I urge Senators in both parties to put aside their political differences and approve the City’s revenue plan so we can move forward with providing the core services that New Yorkers rely on,” Bloomberg said in a public statement."
Core, as in, "rotten to..."
And, as the NY Times points out, the Bloomberg world view is on full display: "We’re losing roughly a couple million bucks a day,” he said. A statement that the mayor’s office issued later Monday said the city would resort to further spending reductions if the impasse continued." Of course, the city's loss in this case is the tax payers' gain-and Bloomberg effortlessly has glommed on to the concept that the city's lost revenue is his money.
But even Speaker Quinn, in as passive of voice as possible, gets the tactics and questions its necessity: "The Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, said that “our first responders are literally paying the price” for the impasse and that “stopping the police class would be completely at the bottom of my list” if it had been left to her." Ouch! Don't hit the mayor that hard, Chris.
Peter Vallone is more on point: "Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr., the chairman of the Public Safety Committee, said the freeze was painful and should not have been necessary. “Our first responders should never be first on the chopping block,” he said." But, he too, doesn 't want to pin this tale on the right donkey, saying: “Police recruits preparing to enter the academy this week are now being held hostage by the pathetic ineptitude in Albany.”
But maybe this will be the start of a beneficent trend; and the public, if not certain supine elected officials, will come to realize that the continual assault on their wallets isn't made necessary by the need to preserve, "essential services." And another potential collateral benefit here, is that New Yorkers can be made more aware of Bloomberg's expansionist philosophy; a tax and spend approach to governance that has dug the city into the deep hole that it currently finds itself in.
Monday, July 06, 2009
ECT For The Mayor?
The City Journal's Steve Malanga has a piece, excerpted in this morning's NY Post, on what Mike Bloomberg needs to do for the city's budget shortfall. In our view, what Malanga proposes to the mayor could only happen if Bloomberg underwent political ECT; it's simply not in the mayor's genetic make up to pursue the prudent path recommended: "MAYOR Bloomberg says that balancing the city's budget in tough times requires "shared sacrifice" -- meaning combined tax hikes and spending cuts. Yet (as is so often the case in New York), it's the taxpayers who get stuck with the lion's share of the sacrifice -- this time, nearly $1 billion in tax hikes on top of what is already the heaviest tax burden among major cities in the nation."
But what about Bloomberg's view of, "fair share?" "The city's budget-cutting, by contrast, is exceedingly modest. In fact, Bloomberg isn't really cutting the city's budget in the new fiscal year; he's merely slowing (slightly) its rate of growth. According to the Independent Budget Office, city-funded spending to provide services will grow $1.6 billion, to $46.9 billion, in the new year. That's a 3.3 percent rise, once you include outlays that the city has already paid with surplus funds from the Wall Street boom."
It is, what we have been saying for some time-Mike Bloomberg came into the job of mayor with little experience; and was also limited by a philosophy that viewed large government as a benign phenomenon. We are paying for his failings now: "Of course, city spending has grown significantly faster than inflation throughout the Bloomberg era. But this year is different: Facing the possibility of a long-term Wall Street decline, the mayor will need to consider real budget-cutting and restructuring of city services."
Which bring us to the ECT speculation. As sound as Malanga's analysis and prescriptions are-and we believe he's definitely on the right track-it's still hard to see Bloomberg going heavily into this kind of course correction; not with the mayor's penchant for payroll padding: "SINCE 2003, the city payroll has grown by some 41,000 workers, including over 16,000 paraprofessionals made full-timers at the Department of Education and the Department of Parks. At an average cost of more than $100,000 per worker in salaries and benefits, workforce size matters."
And even more unlikely to be considered is the Malanga reinvention of government suggestion: "In refusing to consider competitive bidding for services now handled by public employees, the mayor has removed a valuable bargaining chip with the unions -- which is one reason he's struggled to win productivity gains when negotiating contracts. In his first year in office, Giuliani used the threat of privatizing residential-garbage collection to gain productivity concessions that saved the city $300 million a year. Bloomberg has achieved nothing to compare."
Upon entering office, Mike Bloomberg immediately demonstrated that he was little more than a richer version of John V. Lindsay-raising taxes immediately; and embracing an expansive government ethos that would better enable him to implement his health conscious behavior modification plans. To expect him to change now is pretty silly.
What the Malanga article does suggest, however, is that Mike Bloomberg's failures do not merit being rewarded with re-election. Not when the current fiscal meltdown can be seen to have been exacerbated by Bloomberg's, "Grasshopper and the Ant," nonfeasance; a tenure that has left the city over burdened by taxes-and run by a politically sclerotic mind ill-equipped to take up the current challenges.
But what about Bloomberg's view of, "fair share?" "The city's budget-cutting, by contrast, is exceedingly modest. In fact, Bloomberg isn't really cutting the city's budget in the new fiscal year; he's merely slowing (slightly) its rate of growth. According to the Independent Budget Office, city-funded spending to provide services will grow $1.6 billion, to $46.9 billion, in the new year. That's a 3.3 percent rise, once you include outlays that the city has already paid with surplus funds from the Wall Street boom."
It is, what we have been saying for some time-Mike Bloomberg came into the job of mayor with little experience; and was also limited by a philosophy that viewed large government as a benign phenomenon. We are paying for his failings now: "Of course, city spending has grown significantly faster than inflation throughout the Bloomberg era. But this year is different: Facing the possibility of a long-term Wall Street decline, the mayor will need to consider real budget-cutting and restructuring of city services."
Which bring us to the ECT speculation. As sound as Malanga's analysis and prescriptions are-and we believe he's definitely on the right track-it's still hard to see Bloomberg going heavily into this kind of course correction; not with the mayor's penchant for payroll padding: "SINCE 2003, the city payroll has grown by some 41,000 workers, including over 16,000 paraprofessionals made full-timers at the Department of Education and the Department of Parks. At an average cost of more than $100,000 per worker in salaries and benefits, workforce size matters."
And even more unlikely to be considered is the Malanga reinvention of government suggestion: "In refusing to consider competitive bidding for services now handled by public employees, the mayor has removed a valuable bargaining chip with the unions -- which is one reason he's struggled to win productivity gains when negotiating contracts. In his first year in office, Giuliani used the threat of privatizing residential-garbage collection to gain productivity concessions that saved the city $300 million a year. Bloomberg has achieved nothing to compare."
Upon entering office, Mike Bloomberg immediately demonstrated that he was little more than a richer version of John V. Lindsay-raising taxes immediately; and embracing an expansive government ethos that would better enable him to implement his health conscious behavior modification plans. To expect him to change now is pretty silly.
What the Malanga article does suggest, however, is that Mike Bloomberg's failures do not merit being rewarded with re-election. Not when the current fiscal meltdown can be seen to have been exacerbated by Bloomberg's, "Grasshopper and the Ant," nonfeasance; a tenure that has left the city over burdened by taxes-and run by a politically sclerotic mind ill-equipped to take up the current challenges.
Unhealthy Cart Regime
Well, as we have already posted today, it does seem as if the city's Department of Health has been much too preoccupied with its quixotic efforts to transform the life styles and behaviors of New Yorkers-at the expense of its core mission of insuring health safety. The NY Post captures this in a follow up story on food carts: "The Health Department wants to yank the permits of more than 500 street food vendors after undercover investigators found widespread fraud. Acting at the urging of the Department of Investigation, health officials said they're reviewing "a list of possible illegal permits."
But the fraud went right to the core mission: "Suspicions at the Health Department were aroused in 2006, when workers at its Maspeth, Queens, facility began noticing that an unusually high number of carts were being brought in for inspection by the same small group of vendors and middlemen. Investigators discovered that unscrupulous vendors were gaming the system by using clean carts as stand-ins for those that couldn't pass inspection."
Can we get any more compelling evidence that the food cart oversight regime is badly in need of an extreme makeover-and that the DOH has been as badly distracted from doing its job of making sure that the food sold in the city was, if not trans fat free and calorie posted-at least safe from food borne pathogens? Perhaps now, we can get the city council to take effective action to insure that the enforcement of peddling laws will be possible; and that the inspection regime is simplified so that this important task can be easily accomplished.
But the fraud went right to the core mission: "Suspicions at the Health Department were aroused in 2006, when workers at its Maspeth, Queens, facility began noticing that an unusually high number of carts were being brought in for inspection by the same small group of vendors and middlemen. Investigators discovered that unscrupulous vendors were gaming the system by using clean carts as stand-ins for those that couldn't pass inspection."
Can we get any more compelling evidence that the food cart oversight regime is badly in need of an extreme makeover-and that the DOH has been as badly distracted from doing its job of making sure that the food sold in the city was, if not trans fat free and calorie posted-at least safe from food borne pathogens? Perhaps now, we can get the city council to take effective action to insure that the enforcement of peddling laws will be possible; and that the inspection regime is simplified so that this important task can be easily accomplished.
Court Jesters
The NY Post has been having a great deal of fun ridiculing the state senate for its frustrating gridlock of New York State's government over the past month. But, if the senators are the clowns that the Post depicts them as, what does that make Rupert Murdoch and the paper's editorial staff, who have spent the better part of a year shamelessly shilling for Mike Bloomberg and mayoral control of the city schools? In our view, simply court jesters.
Over and over, ad infinitum, the paper's news pages and editorials have kept up a drumbeat of amen choral support for the re-authorization of mayoral control of the school; never bothering to even provide a soupçon of proper balance. The Post even was able to bury its animus against Randi Weingarten and the UFT-providing her Op-Ed space-when she clearly indicated her support for the Bloomberg scheme.
But, nothing underscores this shameless parody of reporting, as much as the story (on page 2, no less) that the Post ran this past Saturday that "reported" on the mayor's new ad campaign-on, what else, his incredible success with the mayoral control experiment: "Mayor Bloomberg yesterday took his fight for control of city schools to the airwaves. Bloomberg -- seeking re-election to a third term this fall -- released two new campaign ads touting progress in improving student performance since he took charge of the school system in 2002."
What a farce! Bloomberg, with 80 million dollars or more to spend getting out, "my message," now has the added asset of an unscrupulous amen chorus, "reporting on" the mayor's ads. Bloomberg, whose re-election messages are so incessant and ubiquitous that you'd have to live in Wasila to miss them, now has an exclusive free media outlet that will help repeat and inculcate this one-sided charade-and remember that Bloomberg once defended his spending excess by saying that he couldn't depend on the media to accurately depict his record. Even he must be a little taken aback by the slavisness of the Post's cheerleading.
This lack of journalistic integrity is dramatized today by two companion stories on school governance-one in the NY Times; the other in the Post. The Times story gives us insight into the problems that the mayor may have getting his version of the legislation passed: "More than two weeks later, however, the idea that the bill will sail, unchanged, through the Senate appears more doubtful. In the strange world of Albany politics, the Senate’s 31-to-31 deadlock could mean the mayor would have to concede more than he would care to, even though the Assembly bill would most likely have enough support to pass if it were brought to a vote today."
In the Post's story, on the other hand: "Democrats in the state Senate tentatively agreed to pass legislation extending the mayor's authority to run city schools -- as soon as a power-sharing deal with the GOP is reached, sources said last night." Yet, a bit later in the piece, way below the headline and lede: "But the fragile accord could still be upended by a blow-up in the fractious Democratic conference or sniping with City Hall." Which story accurately reflects the reality in Albany? Hard to say, but, given the Post's advocacy, we'll bet on the Times here.
If we didn't know better, we'd have to assume that there is some kind of tawdry deal between Murdoch and Bloomberg; or else, we suppose, the elder newspaperman is experiencing the kind of thrill up the leg that transfixed Chris Matthews with The One. Hard to see, though, how the charisma deficient Bloomberg would be thrilling to anyone not receiving a charitable donation.
What we're seeing from the NY Post, the Washington Post, Newsweek, MSNBC, ABC, and an entire pantheon of supposedly independent journalistic outlets, is the death of news as we know it. If Mike Bloomberg, with all of his millions to spend, has an entire newspaper at his disposal to mimic his point of view-with the other local print media (particularly the editorial pages) not too far behind the Post's flackerry, than where can a citizenry expect to get an honest depiction of what's going on?
In NYC, the possibility of a truly open democratic debate has been hopelessly suborned; first by Blomberg's free spending, and now by wanton abdication by journalists totally uninterested in providing any degree of truth to power. Shame on the lot of them!
Over and over, ad infinitum, the paper's news pages and editorials have kept up a drumbeat of amen choral support for the re-authorization of mayoral control of the school; never bothering to even provide a soupçon of proper balance. The Post even was able to bury its animus against Randi Weingarten and the UFT-providing her Op-Ed space-when she clearly indicated her support for the Bloomberg scheme.
But, nothing underscores this shameless parody of reporting, as much as the story (on page 2, no less) that the Post ran this past Saturday that "reported" on the mayor's new ad campaign-on, what else, his incredible success with the mayoral control experiment: "Mayor Bloomberg yesterday took his fight for control of city schools to the airwaves. Bloomberg -- seeking re-election to a third term this fall -- released two new campaign ads touting progress in improving student performance since he took charge of the school system in 2002."
What a farce! Bloomberg, with 80 million dollars or more to spend getting out, "my message," now has the added asset of an unscrupulous amen chorus, "reporting on" the mayor's ads. Bloomberg, whose re-election messages are so incessant and ubiquitous that you'd have to live in Wasila to miss them, now has an exclusive free media outlet that will help repeat and inculcate this one-sided charade-and remember that Bloomberg once defended his spending excess by saying that he couldn't depend on the media to accurately depict his record. Even he must be a little taken aback by the slavisness of the Post's cheerleading.
This lack of journalistic integrity is dramatized today by two companion stories on school governance-one in the NY Times; the other in the Post. The Times story gives us insight into the problems that the mayor may have getting his version of the legislation passed: "More than two weeks later, however, the idea that the bill will sail, unchanged, through the Senate appears more doubtful. In the strange world of Albany politics, the Senate’s 31-to-31 deadlock could mean the mayor would have to concede more than he would care to, even though the Assembly bill would most likely have enough support to pass if it were brought to a vote today."
In the Post's story, on the other hand: "Democrats in the state Senate tentatively agreed to pass legislation extending the mayor's authority to run city schools -- as soon as a power-sharing deal with the GOP is reached, sources said last night." Yet, a bit later in the piece, way below the headline and lede: "But the fragile accord could still be upended by a blow-up in the fractious Democratic conference or sniping with City Hall." Which story accurately reflects the reality in Albany? Hard to say, but, given the Post's advocacy, we'll bet on the Times here.
If we didn't know better, we'd have to assume that there is some kind of tawdry deal between Murdoch and Bloomberg; or else, we suppose, the elder newspaperman is experiencing the kind of thrill up the leg that transfixed Chris Matthews with The One. Hard to see, though, how the charisma deficient Bloomberg would be thrilling to anyone not receiving a charitable donation.
What we're seeing from the NY Post, the Washington Post, Newsweek, MSNBC, ABC, and an entire pantheon of supposedly independent journalistic outlets, is the death of news as we know it. If Mike Bloomberg, with all of his millions to spend, has an entire newspaper at his disposal to mimic his point of view-with the other local print media (particularly the editorial pages) not too far behind the Post's flackerry, than where can a citizenry expect to get an honest depiction of what's going on?
In NYC, the possibility of a truly open democratic debate has been hopelessly suborned; first by Blomberg's free spending, and now by wanton abdication by journalists totally uninterested in providing any degree of truth to power. Shame on the lot of them!
Toward a New Food Cartology
The articles in the NY Times on food vending, and the exposés on the subject in the NY Post, dramatize the compelling need to completely overhaul the food vendor regime; a need that we had envisioned for some time as a result of our frustration with the lack of oversight over the veggie peddlers. The NY Times captures one aspect of the problem: "Under the current system, the permits are so inexpensive and the inspection process is so loose that it creates an opportunity for fraud,” she said in an interview. “The City of New York should get the money that’s on the table, not black marketeers.”
The other problem is the diffuse nature of the oversight responsibility: "Of all the gray areas for food vendors — who are regulated by a cluster of agencies including the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Police Department and the New York State sales tax authority — permits are the murkiest." Still, the idea of increasing their number amidst all of the acknowledged chaos is simply nuts: "The Health Department set the number of full-time food vending permits at 3,100, in 1979. (In the fall, the City Council will vote on a proposal that would increase the number of permits to 25,000.)"
In our view, the current chaos offers the city an opportunity for devising a system that actually works; where the rules are laid out clearly, and enforcement is delegated to one agency. But, of course, no matter how much sympathy we may have for the street vendor concept, some sense of equity for the tax paying and rent paying retailers needs to be built right into the heart of the regulatory system.
It's one thing to want more fruit peddlers in certain neighborhoods to address health issues; it's quite another to simply allow these peddlers to set up shop-literally-right in front of the tax paying food retailers who are trying to sell the same produce. The current administration appears to have almost no allegiance to the neighborhood retailers-and the Bloomberg commercials add insult to injury in this regard. But, if the goal is to stem the disappearance of supermarkets in the city, then what sense does it make to allow competitors with almost no comparable overhead to siphon off business from retailers deemed vital to the city's overall public health?
So, it's high time for an extreme makeover of the vendor regulations-and the city council and the mayor's office needs to get started right away on this so that hearings on the matter can proceed with proper due speed. The crooks and racketeers need to be rooted out, and that goes for the veggie vendors who own wholesale businesses, and run multiple fruit and vegetable carts; while employing scores of exploited workers who have been blocked from owning a cart of their own.
The other problem is the diffuse nature of the oversight responsibility: "Of all the gray areas for food vendors — who are regulated by a cluster of agencies including the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Police Department and the New York State sales tax authority — permits are the murkiest." Still, the idea of increasing their number amidst all of the acknowledged chaos is simply nuts: "The Health Department set the number of full-time food vending permits at 3,100, in 1979. (In the fall, the City Council will vote on a proposal that would increase the number of permits to 25,000.)"
In our view, the current chaos offers the city an opportunity for devising a system that actually works; where the rules are laid out clearly, and enforcement is delegated to one agency. But, of course, no matter how much sympathy we may have for the street vendor concept, some sense of equity for the tax paying and rent paying retailers needs to be built right into the heart of the regulatory system.
It's one thing to want more fruit peddlers in certain neighborhoods to address health issues; it's quite another to simply allow these peddlers to set up shop-literally-right in front of the tax paying food retailers who are trying to sell the same produce. The current administration appears to have almost no allegiance to the neighborhood retailers-and the Bloomberg commercials add insult to injury in this regard. But, if the goal is to stem the disappearance of supermarkets in the city, then what sense does it make to allow competitors with almost no comparable overhead to siphon off business from retailers deemed vital to the city's overall public health?
So, it's high time for an extreme makeover of the vendor regulations-and the city council and the mayor's office needs to get started right away on this so that hearings on the matter can proceed with proper due speed. The crooks and racketeers need to be rooted out, and that goes for the veggie vendors who own wholesale businesses, and run multiple fruit and vegetable carts; while employing scores of exploited workers who have been blocked from owning a cart of their own.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Sampson and DeMayor
Gee, it's getting just like one of those old tag-team wrestling matches watching the NY Post and Mike Bloomberg go after State Senator John Sampson. First, the Post "exposes" Sampson for a supposed conflict of interest in representing a school principal who was fired from her job. Then it inveighs against him in one of its editorial series in support of a mayoral stranglehold on the city's schools.
And then, you know what happens next? Mighty Mite Mike, takes his partner's cue, and jumps the ring ropes, swinging away at the already pummeled senator: "Mayor Bloomberg yesterday blasted Senate Democratic leader John Sampson for allowing mayoral control of schools to expire at the same time he's representing a woman in a suit against Chancellor Joel Klein. Bloomberg noted that legislators are permitted to have outside law practices -- but then fumed, "What's legal in Albany sometimes defies imagination."
Can you get a better Master Card moment then this? And what's even more precious is the way in which Bloomberg tries to take the ethical high ground; and elide the way in which his own spending-both direct and charitable-has basically rendered the democratic process inoperative. Here's his haughty comments to the WFP forumn: "Mayor Bloomberg Thursday night defended the overwhelming pile of money he is spending to win reelection, while two Democrats who want to replace him said he was running a city for the rich. "I made every dime that I have," Bloomberg told the Working Families Party candidate forum, sparking scattered hisses from the crowd of about 250."
Not to mention the way in which he overran the will of the voters on term limits. You see, Bloomberg would like us to view political corruption in only a certain narrow way-the taking of special interest money, or bribes; or having a law practice that night be seen as a conflict of interest, as in the case of John Sampson. The massive use of millions of dollars to "get my message out," along with the ability to dole out $250 million a year in charitable giving, is not depicted as anything untoward. This is, in our view, a classic definition of solipsistic.
And, of course, the WFP event wasn't covered by the NY Post; nor has the paper bothered to examine the mayor's public and private spending; talk about whose ox is being gored! No examination either of the mayor's role in the Albany meltdown; or the impact of his tax and spend policies on the city's faltering economy. Isn't there simply a confluence of class interest here?
After all, as the NY Times reports this morning, of all the people in this school governance battle, only John Sampson has even gone to a city public school: "Mr. Sampson, now in his seventh term in the Senate, was born in Bedford-Stuyvesant, not far from the district in southeast Brooklyn he now represents and lives in with his wife and three daughters. A product of city schools, he attended elementary school at Public School 3 and Samuel J. Tilden High School, where he found his wide, bulky frame well suited for football and baseball. Clement Sampson, a Guyanese immigrant, was a carpenter; his wife, who is deceased, was a special education teacher for the city."
Just maybe, Sampson has a legitimate ax to grind: "Mr. Sampson said that his affinity for the public school system is what has made him so outspoken on the issue of school control...“I don’t need to be lectured about that because I’m a product of the public school systems. And the benefits I received from the public school system put me in the position I’m in today,” Mr. Sampson said in a brief interview this week. “I’m not playing politics at all.”
It's ironic, as well as instructive to point out, that this journalistic trysting is happening at the same time that the Washington Post is being exposed for pimping access to the Obama administration. On the other outstretched hand, the NY Post's ethical lapse doesn't involve selling access; it involves the kind of media scuba diving that makes the idea of being in the tank simply quaint. These two fish-Bloomberg and Murdoch-are swimming in their own gated pond.
And then, you know what happens next? Mighty Mite Mike, takes his partner's cue, and jumps the ring ropes, swinging away at the already pummeled senator: "Mayor Bloomberg yesterday blasted Senate Democratic leader John Sampson for allowing mayoral control of schools to expire at the same time he's representing a woman in a suit against Chancellor Joel Klein. Bloomberg noted that legislators are permitted to have outside law practices -- but then fumed, "What's legal in Albany sometimes defies imagination."
Can you get a better Master Card moment then this? And what's even more precious is the way in which Bloomberg tries to take the ethical high ground; and elide the way in which his own spending-both direct and charitable-has basically rendered the democratic process inoperative. Here's his haughty comments to the WFP forumn: "Mayor Bloomberg Thursday night defended the overwhelming pile of money he is spending to win reelection, while two Democrats who want to replace him said he was running a city for the rich. "I made every dime that I have," Bloomberg told the Working Families Party candidate forum, sparking scattered hisses from the crowd of about 250."
Not to mention the way in which he overran the will of the voters on term limits. You see, Bloomberg would like us to view political corruption in only a certain narrow way-the taking of special interest money, or bribes; or having a law practice that night be seen as a conflict of interest, as in the case of John Sampson. The massive use of millions of dollars to "get my message out," along with the ability to dole out $250 million a year in charitable giving, is not depicted as anything untoward. This is, in our view, a classic definition of solipsistic.
And, of course, the WFP event wasn't covered by the NY Post; nor has the paper bothered to examine the mayor's public and private spending; talk about whose ox is being gored! No examination either of the mayor's role in the Albany meltdown; or the impact of his tax and spend policies on the city's faltering economy. Isn't there simply a confluence of class interest here?
After all, as the NY Times reports this morning, of all the people in this school governance battle, only John Sampson has even gone to a city public school: "Mr. Sampson, now in his seventh term in the Senate, was born in Bedford-Stuyvesant, not far from the district in southeast Brooklyn he now represents and lives in with his wife and three daughters. A product of city schools, he attended elementary school at Public School 3 and Samuel J. Tilden High School, where he found his wide, bulky frame well suited for football and baseball. Clement Sampson, a Guyanese immigrant, was a carpenter; his wife, who is deceased, was a special education teacher for the city."
Just maybe, Sampson has a legitimate ax to grind: "Mr. Sampson said that his affinity for the public school system is what has made him so outspoken on the issue of school control...“I don’t need to be lectured about that because I’m a product of the public school systems. And the benefits I received from the public school system put me in the position I’m in today,” Mr. Sampson said in a brief interview this week. “I’m not playing politics at all.”
It's ironic, as well as instructive to point out, that this journalistic trysting is happening at the same time that the Washington Post is being exposed for pimping access to the Obama administration. On the other outstretched hand, the NY Post's ethical lapse doesn't involve selling access; it involves the kind of media scuba diving that makes the idea of being in the tank simply quaint. These two fish-Bloomberg and Murdoch-are swimming in their own gated pond.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Who Will Call Out The Mayor?
Mike Bloomberg continues to act on the school governance issue as if we're all idiots-but perhaps he's only responding to the fact that the city's editorial writers are such slavish toadies. The mayor continues to posture that he's the only grown up in the room; and that everyone else is politically craven, while he, and he alone, righteously pursues the public good-unshackled by tawdry politics.
Here's the NY Times report: "At a news conference, Mr. Bloomberg denounced the “reckless behavior” of state lawmakers and called the city’s efforts to maintain continuity “Band-Aids, not solutions.” He said he was “trying to continue on as though mayoral control was approved.”
“Since the Senate refused to exercise its duties responsibly,” he said, “we here in the city are moving to protect our children.”
He reminds us of the pyromaniac who, upon returning to the scene of his fire, clucks on indignantly about the devastation and loss. The destruction is Bloomberg's responsibility; and not one editorial page has the guts to single him out for the deserved opprobrium. Consider today's NY Post editorial: "Bloomberg has long predicted that the expiration of mayoral control would cause the sky to fall. Then he went out of his way to see that it didn't. A week from now, or a month, it still won't have fallen -- and Sampson, et al., likely will have won the mayoral-control struggle by default. So what must Bloomberg do now? "I don't make any government decision based on politics," the mayor said yesterday. Well, his enemies do. They certainly used their power to deal mayoral control a perhaps fatal blow. Now Bloomberg needs to use his to fight back."
This is an aggravated example of editorial aphasia; it is precisely because of Bloomberg's maladroit political maneuverings that we are in facing this mess in Albany. As Wayne Barrett wrote a while back:
"Bloomberg gave $1.2 million to the New York State Independence Party's housekeeping account last year -- a donation that wasn't reported until a 2009 filing by the party. Housekeeping accounts are supposed to pay for staff salaries, voter registration and party building. But Newsday reported that "the bulk" of Bloomberg's unprecedented donation "went to radio and television ads and direct mailings" for Republican and Independence Party candidates in four key senate races, including Padavan's. The mayor also donated $700,000 to the Senate Republicans, another funnel to Padavan's campaign. The next biggest donor to state campaigns last year gave a mere $200,000, making Mayor Mike the largest financier, by far, of the bi-partisan legislative calamity in Albany (though he almost exclusively bankrolled Republicans)."
So if, as the Post and others aver, the state senate is being run by a bunch of clowns, we need these folks to point out that it was Mike Bloomberg who built the Big Top for this circus to take place. The crusaders are, however, mum on this salient fact, content as they are to go after the low hanging fruit; while failing to realize that the evidence of malfeasance and clownishness is simply what the lawyers call, "fruit of the poisonous tree."
Here's the NY Times report: "At a news conference, Mr. Bloomberg denounced the “reckless behavior” of state lawmakers and called the city’s efforts to maintain continuity “Band-Aids, not solutions.” He said he was “trying to continue on as though mayoral control was approved.”
“Since the Senate refused to exercise its duties responsibly,” he said, “we here in the city are moving to protect our children.”
He reminds us of the pyromaniac who, upon returning to the scene of his fire, clucks on indignantly about the devastation and loss. The destruction is Bloomberg's responsibility; and not one editorial page has the guts to single him out for the deserved opprobrium. Consider today's NY Post editorial: "Bloomberg has long predicted that the expiration of mayoral control would cause the sky to fall. Then he went out of his way to see that it didn't. A week from now, or a month, it still won't have fallen -- and Sampson, et al., likely will have won the mayoral-control struggle by default. So what must Bloomberg do now? "I don't make any government decision based on politics," the mayor said yesterday. Well, his enemies do. They certainly used their power to deal mayoral control a perhaps fatal blow. Now Bloomberg needs to use his to fight back."
This is an aggravated example of editorial aphasia; it is precisely because of Bloomberg's maladroit political maneuverings that we are in facing this mess in Albany. As Wayne Barrett wrote a while back:
"Bloomberg gave $1.2 million to the New York State Independence Party's housekeeping account last year -- a donation that wasn't reported until a 2009 filing by the party. Housekeeping accounts are supposed to pay for staff salaries, voter registration and party building. But Newsday reported that "the bulk" of Bloomberg's unprecedented donation "went to radio and television ads and direct mailings" for Republican and Independence Party candidates in four key senate races, including Padavan's. The mayor also donated $700,000 to the Senate Republicans, another funnel to Padavan's campaign. The next biggest donor to state campaigns last year gave a mere $200,000, making Mayor Mike the largest financier, by far, of the bi-partisan legislative calamity in Albany (though he almost exclusively bankrolled Republicans)."
So if, as the Post and others aver, the state senate is being run by a bunch of clowns, we need these folks to point out that it was Mike Bloomberg who built the Big Top for this circus to take place. The crusaders are, however, mum on this salient fact, content as they are to go after the low hanging fruit; while failing to realize that the evidence of malfeasance and clownishness is simply what the lawyers call, "fruit of the poisonous tree."
Hard of Hearing
The NY Daily News has finally posted the fine Bill Egbert report on last week's curious public hearing on the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory: "Community Board 7 got an earful at last week's public hearing on developing the Kingsbridge Armory, as vociferous supporters and opponents packed the room. More than 100 employees of the Morton Williams supermarket threatened by the project arrived early, waving signs pleading, "Save Our Jobs."
But the hearing had it surreal moments, with the singing Peter Yarrow-of all people!-and a vociferous display from the construction outliers of Positive Work Force leading to threats of banishment: "As the hearing was set to begin, several dozen construction workers shouting "Build it Now!" stormed the door so aggressively that security personnel initially threw themselves against the crush. Not even special guest Peter Yarrow - of Peter, Paul and Mary - leading the room in singing "If I Had a Hammer" could bring a "Kumbaya" spirit to the meeting. Repeated outbursts from both sides forced board chairman Gregory Faulkner to threaten to have people thrown out of the hearing, which dragged on an hour beyond its scheduled end."
The Morton Willaims workers, joined by the folks at KARA, did, however, totally dominate the substantive portion of the hearing-and the issue of a living wage will, indubitably, continue to be contentious: "Members of the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, a coalition of local groups, businesses and unions, asked the board to reject the project unless a binding community benefits agreement guarantees retail workers a "living wage" of at least $10 per hour, plus benefits. Pressed by Faulkner on the issue, Related lawyer Jesse Masyr said requiring tenants to pay workers at the Armory higher than the prevailing wage would doom the entire project."
The Riverdale Press also highlights the living wage issue: "Mr. Faulkner said after the meeting that he believes, somewhere down the line, Related and the neighborhood activists of Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance will reach some kind of agreement. They might, for example, agree on an incentive for tenants who provide a living wage rather than making it a requirement. So far, neither side is willing to budge. Related’s veteran development lawyer, Jesse Masyr of Wachtel & Masyr, says being forced to pay higher wages would “undermine the economic viability” of the Armory."
The RP reports about the supermarket issue as well: "Related’s proposal leaves open the possibility of a large grocery store, which would compete with Bronx-based Morton Williams across the street from the Kingsbridge Heights facility. Morton Williams is one of the only grocery chains to have a unionized workforce, offering higher wages (and better benefits) than most rivals. “If a big-box supermarket or big-box warehouse club is put into the Armory we would have to close our two Bronx stores as well as our hiring office,” said Valerie Sloan, a fourth generation owner of Morton Williams. She said this would take 450 union jobs from the neighborhood."
From our perspective, CB #7 did a disservice to all of the folks who had come to testify; with unneeded delays and inappropriate guest speakers marring the ability of the community to be properly heard. Given these problems, the Board would be well-served if it delayed the vote for at least a week-it has until the 26th to issue its final recommendation.
Still, as the Norwood News has written, the Board will probably approve the project with this proviso: "Board chair Greg Faulkner told the Norwood News on the eve of a June 24 public hearing that he expects the board to vote “yes” on the proposal, despite the fact that a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) may not be in place before the vote. Faulkner said the Board would essentially say with its vote: “This approval is conditioned on there being a Community Benefits Agreement which will include the following items …”
Ah, yes. The devil here is in the CBA details. But, everyone needs to be mindful of the fact that, when it comes to the ultimate source of power, it will not be the Bronx Council delegation that will be singing, "If I had a hammer..." That's because, when it comes to hammering, the council members are the ones who already hold the powerful political mallet.
But the hearing had it surreal moments, with the singing Peter Yarrow-of all people!-and a vociferous display from the construction outliers of Positive Work Force leading to threats of banishment: "As the hearing was set to begin, several dozen construction workers shouting "Build it Now!" stormed the door so aggressively that security personnel initially threw themselves against the crush. Not even special guest Peter Yarrow - of Peter, Paul and Mary - leading the room in singing "If I Had a Hammer" could bring a "Kumbaya" spirit to the meeting. Repeated outbursts from both sides forced board chairman Gregory Faulkner to threaten to have people thrown out of the hearing, which dragged on an hour beyond its scheduled end."
The Morton Willaims workers, joined by the folks at KARA, did, however, totally dominate the substantive portion of the hearing-and the issue of a living wage will, indubitably, continue to be contentious: "Members of the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, a coalition of local groups, businesses and unions, asked the board to reject the project unless a binding community benefits agreement guarantees retail workers a "living wage" of at least $10 per hour, plus benefits. Pressed by Faulkner on the issue, Related lawyer Jesse Masyr said requiring tenants to pay workers at the Armory higher than the prevailing wage would doom the entire project."
The Riverdale Press also highlights the living wage issue: "Mr. Faulkner said after the meeting that he believes, somewhere down the line, Related and the neighborhood activists of Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance will reach some kind of agreement. They might, for example, agree on an incentive for tenants who provide a living wage rather than making it a requirement. So far, neither side is willing to budge. Related’s veteran development lawyer, Jesse Masyr of Wachtel & Masyr, says being forced to pay higher wages would “undermine the economic viability” of the Armory."
The RP reports about the supermarket issue as well: "Related’s proposal leaves open the possibility of a large grocery store, which would compete with Bronx-based Morton Williams across the street from the Kingsbridge Heights facility. Morton Williams is one of the only grocery chains to have a unionized workforce, offering higher wages (and better benefits) than most rivals. “If a big-box supermarket or big-box warehouse club is put into the Armory we would have to close our two Bronx stores as well as our hiring office,” said Valerie Sloan, a fourth generation owner of Morton Williams. She said this would take 450 union jobs from the neighborhood."
From our perspective, CB #7 did a disservice to all of the folks who had come to testify; with unneeded delays and inappropriate guest speakers marring the ability of the community to be properly heard. Given these problems, the Board would be well-served if it delayed the vote for at least a week-it has until the 26th to issue its final recommendation.
Still, as the Norwood News has written, the Board will probably approve the project with this proviso: "Board chair Greg Faulkner told the Norwood News on the eve of a June 24 public hearing that he expects the board to vote “yes” on the proposal, despite the fact that a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) may not be in place before the vote. Faulkner said the Board would essentially say with its vote: “This approval is conditioned on there being a Community Benefits Agreement which will include the following items …”
Ah, yes. The devil here is in the CBA details. But, everyone needs to be mindful of the fact that, when it comes to the ultimate source of power, it will not be the Bronx Council delegation that will be singing, "If I had a hammer..." That's because, when it comes to hammering, the council members are the ones who already hold the powerful political mallet.
Making Puppets Look Bad
The old Board of Education was reconstituted yesterday-with little of the chaos that the mayor had predicted One of the major reasons why things went so smoothly was because the borough presidents, charged with appointing five of the seven board members, slavishly bowed down to the will of Mike Bloomberg (with Ruben Diaz the major exception). As City Room reported: "Back from the dead after seven years, reconstituted almost by accident, the New York City Board of Education is set to meet at noon on Wednesday. Its seven members: three deputy mayors, three sympathetic allies of the mayor, and one wild card from the Bronx.'
After the meeting, we imagine that one of the BPs-Helen Marshal of Queens-stayed around just to see if the mayor wanted her to run any errands. After all, to choose Dennis Walcott as "her" appointment to the Board, strips away even the appearance of independence: "The Queens borough president, Helen M. Marshall, appointed a third deputy mayor — Dennis M. Walcott, the deputy mayor for education and community development — as her representative on the board. With three of the new board members reporting directly to the mayor, the Bloomberg administration is close to assured in its goal of maintaining control over the nation’s largest school district and keeping the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, in place."
This act of slavishness, was so embarrassing that we can envision Pinocchio, upon witnessing such a display of subservience, deciding against becoming a real boy; seeing no real difference between being human or remaining a puppet. But, we guess that Marshall's actions simply reflect the fact that, absent the Mike Bloomberg intervention, this sweet old lady would have had to retire after her term was up, and give her job to some other Queens worthy.
So what was done yesterday-and the vote to keep Herr Klein was consistent with the best Politburo tradition (to mix a metaphor)-was to dramatize just how little true democratic substance still exists in this once vibrant democracy; and yesterday's mockery almost makes us wish that the legislature had simply rubber stamped the school governance bill.
We said almost; because the current system still needs to be bolstered with a greater degree of monitoring-and the faux graduation rate hikes are one example of the way in which puffery has replaced real achievement. Clara Hemphill underscores this point: "Because a huge proportion of students arrive in ninth grade with the skills that are two, three or even four years below grade level, the new schools must focus intensely on helping them catch up. A large proportion of the graduates of the new schools so far have received only a "local diploma" that represents the bare minimum of requirements set by the state-- standards that officials and academic experts generally agree are well below those needed to succeed in college."
And, of course, once they do graduate, these kids are simply unprepared to do any college work-and, therefore, continue on the same path of remediation at the community colleges that they were on in high school. Is this kind of statistical improvement worth the $9 billion in additional funds that the mayor has expended to jack up test scores? Or is this, courtesy of the NY Post's mayoral press office, simply a triumph of flimsy form over substance?
But the limbo that the system finds itself in is a direct result of the mayor's efforts to achieve Albany relevance-and isn't it instructive that none of the vigilant editorialists have commented on the mayor's own role in the current impasse? Fred Dicker hits this squarely: "After years of watching Mayor Bloomberg bankroll Republican control of the Senate, hearing his high-handed lectures on congestion pricing and seeing him back a primary against one of their own, Senate Democrats unexpectedly got their chance to take revenge. And they did so with a vengeance, killing -- at least for now -- mayoral control of the schools, the centerpiece accomplishment of the mayor's two terms in office."
Not one word on Bloomberg's culpability from either the Post's or the NY Daily News' editorial board. For instance, did the June 8th coup occur without the input or knowledge of one Mike Bloomberg? If so, the guy should demand a refund. In our view, this is all Bloomberg's mess-and under Pottery Barn rules, since he's the one behind the breakage, he owns it-but his press lackeys won't breathe a word of this kind of sacrilege.
It is, however, refreshing to see some folks resisting the supineness exhibited by Helen of Queens; the senate Dems have shown, at least in regards to the regal pretensions of this mayor, a good degree of backbone: "The irony is that it was the June 8 coup attempt by Bloomberg's longtime GOP allies that cleared the way for a block of largely black and Hispanic city Democratic senators to derail what the mayor wanted most from this year's legislative session. "They see Bloomberg as a white Manhattan billionaire who thinks he can boss everyone around and they don't like it," said a top Senate Democrat."
In politics, the rule of thumb is, "Cui bono," or who benefits. And here Dicker teaches us: "Had the GOP coup succeeded, Bloomberg, who had the backing of a sizable number of Democrats, today would have unquestioned control of city schools." It hasn't yet, though, so the ever nimble and tap dancing CEO of New Yor City, quickly shifted focus and railed against the senate impasse; the one that he should be taking full credit for-and none of the city Izvestias breathe a word of this!
So, we proceed with our own version of Venezuelan democracy, hopeful that we don't face another "crisis" in four years that demands the changing of the democratic rules of the game in favor of plutocracy. In the meantime, we await the national test results scheduled to come out sometime in the fall. We are anxious to see what kind of educational progress our $9 billlion has bought us.
After the meeting, we imagine that one of the BPs-Helen Marshal of Queens-stayed around just to see if the mayor wanted her to run any errands. After all, to choose Dennis Walcott as "her" appointment to the Board, strips away even the appearance of independence: "The Queens borough president, Helen M. Marshall, appointed a third deputy mayor — Dennis M. Walcott, the deputy mayor for education and community development — as her representative on the board. With three of the new board members reporting directly to the mayor, the Bloomberg administration is close to assured in its goal of maintaining control over the nation’s largest school district and keeping the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, in place."
This act of slavishness, was so embarrassing that we can envision Pinocchio, upon witnessing such a display of subservience, deciding against becoming a real boy; seeing no real difference between being human or remaining a puppet. But, we guess that Marshall's actions simply reflect the fact that, absent the Mike Bloomberg intervention, this sweet old lady would have had to retire after her term was up, and give her job to some other Queens worthy.
So what was done yesterday-and the vote to keep Herr Klein was consistent with the best Politburo tradition (to mix a metaphor)-was to dramatize just how little true democratic substance still exists in this once vibrant democracy; and yesterday's mockery almost makes us wish that the legislature had simply rubber stamped the school governance bill.
We said almost; because the current system still needs to be bolstered with a greater degree of monitoring-and the faux graduation rate hikes are one example of the way in which puffery has replaced real achievement. Clara Hemphill underscores this point: "Because a huge proportion of students arrive in ninth grade with the skills that are two, three or even four years below grade level, the new schools must focus intensely on helping them catch up. A large proportion of the graduates of the new schools so far have received only a "local diploma" that represents the bare minimum of requirements set by the state-- standards that officials and academic experts generally agree are well below those needed to succeed in college."
And, of course, once they do graduate, these kids are simply unprepared to do any college work-and, therefore, continue on the same path of remediation at the community colleges that they were on in high school. Is this kind of statistical improvement worth the $9 billion in additional funds that the mayor has expended to jack up test scores? Or is this, courtesy of the NY Post's mayoral press office, simply a triumph of flimsy form over substance?
But the limbo that the system finds itself in is a direct result of the mayor's efforts to achieve Albany relevance-and isn't it instructive that none of the vigilant editorialists have commented on the mayor's own role in the current impasse? Fred Dicker hits this squarely: "After years of watching Mayor Bloomberg bankroll Republican control of the Senate, hearing his high-handed lectures on congestion pricing and seeing him back a primary against one of their own, Senate Democrats unexpectedly got their chance to take revenge. And they did so with a vengeance, killing -- at least for now -- mayoral control of the schools, the centerpiece accomplishment of the mayor's two terms in office."
Not one word on Bloomberg's culpability from either the Post's or the NY Daily News' editorial board. For instance, did the June 8th coup occur without the input or knowledge of one Mike Bloomberg? If so, the guy should demand a refund. In our view, this is all Bloomberg's mess-and under Pottery Barn rules, since he's the one behind the breakage, he owns it-but his press lackeys won't breathe a word of this kind of sacrilege.
It is, however, refreshing to see some folks resisting the supineness exhibited by Helen of Queens; the senate Dems have shown, at least in regards to the regal pretensions of this mayor, a good degree of backbone: "The irony is that it was the June 8 coup attempt by Bloomberg's longtime GOP allies that cleared the way for a block of largely black and Hispanic city Democratic senators to derail what the mayor wanted most from this year's legislative session. "They see Bloomberg as a white Manhattan billionaire who thinks he can boss everyone around and they don't like it," said a top Senate Democrat."
In politics, the rule of thumb is, "Cui bono," or who benefits. And here Dicker teaches us: "Had the GOP coup succeeded, Bloomberg, who had the backing of a sizable number of Democrats, today would have unquestioned control of city schools." It hasn't yet, though, so the ever nimble and tap dancing CEO of New Yor City, quickly shifted focus and railed against the senate impasse; the one that he should be taking full credit for-and none of the city Izvestias breathe a word of this!
So, we proceed with our own version of Venezuelan democracy, hopeful that we don't face another "crisis" in four years that demands the changing of the democratic rules of the game in favor of plutocracy. In the meantime, we await the national test results scheduled to come out sometime in the fall. We are anxious to see what kind of educational progress our $9 billlion has bought us.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Passing the Sell Date
The drop dead date for mayoral control has passed-and Mike Bloomberg is flailing around trying to pin the guilty tail on anyone else but the man in the mirror. But, as Gerson Borrero points out: "This adulation and clamor has led the billionaire—who thinks he knows best—to strike out against the "evil times" of the old Board of Education. It has led the otherwise self-controlled magnate to rant about how his losing control of schools will lead to the sky falling, school buildings crumbling, and children perishing...It's not so farfetched an idea that, after running over City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and the so-called "independent" legislative side of City Hall, in overturning term limits, the Mayor figured that everyone in the state would sing his official city hymn of "Whatever Mike Wants, Mike Gets."
Didn't he see this coming? After all, he's the one blaming the state senate for not acting when, "they had months to go forward on this." Even more culpable, however, than the mayor's political inability to mobilize support for his pet project, is the impact that his meddling had on the current senate impasse. Daily Politics captures the mayor's culpability here in the following comment of Senator Liz Kreuger to a phone call message from Bloomberg: "I told him that based on the analysis of my conference, the only way the city could get the bills it wants passed is for him to encourage, in any way he could, a significant number of Republican senators to come to the chamber," Krueger continued. "It's no secret that my conference is split on the issue, and we need our Republican brethren to get some of his legislation passed. He's frustrated this hasn't been done already, but he didn't say, 'Yeah, you're right.' He said. 'You're the Senate; you guys have to do this."
Those are your boys and girls, Mike. You bought and paid for them, and they treated you, how? Goes to show you, that you simply can't find good help nowadays.
So now we're left in a bit of a muddle-and it's no secret that senate Dems are looking to get concessions from the mayor if any form of mayoral control is re-authorized. As the NY Daily News reports: "Some Democratic senators said they were sending a message to the mayor, who wanted an Assembly version of a mayoral control bill passed with no changes. And while some Democrats publicly called the sales tax hike regressive, one Democrat said the bill was defeated for leverage to extract concessions from Bloomberg on mayoral control."
Is Klein the sacrificial lamb here? But, what's lost in the political wrangling is the question of the efficacy of the current structure-something that gets some good scrutiny in this morning's NY Times. The paper looks at the huge spending increase of the Bloomberg/Klein regime: "They have overseen a large expansion in annual school spending, to $22 billion from $13 billion, with the additional money pumped in from Mr. Bloomberg’s budget and from the state. And that has allowed them to reshape the system to reflect the central elements of the mayor’s philosophy: smaller schools, relentless assessments of progress, and higher salaries for administrators to attract top talent."
Admirable goals and achievements, at least in some cases; but an 80%-and unaccountable-increase in spending has led to, what? Marginal increases in watered down test scores, with absolutely no attention paid in the editorial amen chorus to the flatlining on the more rigorous NAEP tests. Which leads us to ask, is this really earth shattering progress? And will any reversion to a less top down structure be a return to the days of the "old Soviet Union?"
But Mike should avoid inapt political analogies; especially when the governing of NYC resembles Venezuela-right along with a lapdog press-exemplified by the NY Post's incessant editorial and reportage clamoring for the mayor's governing scheme. And the editorial page had the nerve today to call for the abolishing of the Public Advocate's job. Perhaps if the Post and the News were more scrupulous in their oversight of the mayor, there wouldn't be any need for a public advocate at all.
But as far as the schools are concerned, any going forward should included a full fiscal transparency and review-something that the Times reports is included in the Assembly version of the legislation: "The Assembly passed a bill in June that retains the core elements of mayoral control but adds several limits on the mayor’s authority, like curbing his ability to close schools and approve contracts." And it also gives the IBO some ovesight as well.
So let's all take a deep breath at this point. Mike Bloomberg is in the process of purchasing a third term; we don't need to perpetuate any school governing system that lacks proper checks and balances. Not with a mayor who apparently is used to having cart blanche in everything he does.
Didn't he see this coming? After all, he's the one blaming the state senate for not acting when, "they had months to go forward on this." Even more culpable, however, than the mayor's political inability to mobilize support for his pet project, is the impact that his meddling had on the current senate impasse. Daily Politics captures the mayor's culpability here in the following comment of Senator Liz Kreuger to a phone call message from Bloomberg: "I told him that based on the analysis of my conference, the only way the city could get the bills it wants passed is for him to encourage, in any way he could, a significant number of Republican senators to come to the chamber," Krueger continued. "It's no secret that my conference is split on the issue, and we need our Republican brethren to get some of his legislation passed. He's frustrated this hasn't been done already, but he didn't say, 'Yeah, you're right.' He said. 'You're the Senate; you guys have to do this."
Those are your boys and girls, Mike. You bought and paid for them, and they treated you, how? Goes to show you, that you simply can't find good help nowadays.
So now we're left in a bit of a muddle-and it's no secret that senate Dems are looking to get concessions from the mayor if any form of mayoral control is re-authorized. As the NY Daily News reports: "Some Democratic senators said they were sending a message to the mayor, who wanted an Assembly version of a mayoral control bill passed with no changes. And while some Democrats publicly called the sales tax hike regressive, one Democrat said the bill was defeated for leverage to extract concessions from Bloomberg on mayoral control."
Is Klein the sacrificial lamb here? But, what's lost in the political wrangling is the question of the efficacy of the current structure-something that gets some good scrutiny in this morning's NY Times. The paper looks at the huge spending increase of the Bloomberg/Klein regime: "They have overseen a large expansion in annual school spending, to $22 billion from $13 billion, with the additional money pumped in from Mr. Bloomberg’s budget and from the state. And that has allowed them to reshape the system to reflect the central elements of the mayor’s philosophy: smaller schools, relentless assessments of progress, and higher salaries for administrators to attract top talent."
Admirable goals and achievements, at least in some cases; but an 80%-and unaccountable-increase in spending has led to, what? Marginal increases in watered down test scores, with absolutely no attention paid in the editorial amen chorus to the flatlining on the more rigorous NAEP tests. Which leads us to ask, is this really earth shattering progress? And will any reversion to a less top down structure be a return to the days of the "old Soviet Union?"
But Mike should avoid inapt political analogies; especially when the governing of NYC resembles Venezuela-right along with a lapdog press-exemplified by the NY Post's incessant editorial and reportage clamoring for the mayor's governing scheme. And the editorial page had the nerve today to call for the abolishing of the Public Advocate's job. Perhaps if the Post and the News were more scrupulous in their oversight of the mayor, there wouldn't be any need for a public advocate at all.
But as far as the schools are concerned, any going forward should included a full fiscal transparency and review-something that the Times reports is included in the Assembly version of the legislation: "The Assembly passed a bill in June that retains the core elements of mayoral control but adds several limits on the mayor’s authority, like curbing his ability to close schools and approve contracts." And it also gives the IBO some ovesight as well.
So let's all take a deep breath at this point. Mike Bloomberg is in the process of purchasing a third term; we don't need to perpetuate any school governing system that lacks proper checks and balances. Not with a mayor who apparently is used to having cart blanche in everything he does.
Carting Corruption
The examples of the efficiency of the Bloomberg administration never cease to manifest themselves. This time, as the NY Post reports, it is rampant corruption in the city's "mobile food vending unit." It seems that the DOH is so busy trying to regulate our lives with new more intrusive regulations and signage, that it can't properly oversee what it is statutorily charged with being responsible for: "An undercover investigation of street food carts has uncovered massive fraud, with $200 city vending permits fetching as much as $15,000 in a thriving black market, officials said yesterday. The officials also disclosed that the food-safety inspection system at the city Health Department was so faulty that vendors and brokers were able to routinely bypass it through trickery."
So, while the new veggie vendor permits go begging-a symptom of the dynamics of simple supply and demand-the real food vendor permits are more valuable than gold, and subject to corrupt counterfeiting: "I can't sugarcoat the fact that we found a black market with probably a couple of hundred illegal transactions," said Investigations Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn. "It's not a couple of instances."
What this means to us, however, is that the unwieldy duplication of responsibility between the DOH and the Department of Consumer Affairs-something we have been critical of for years-needs to be overhauled; because, with divided oversight-and let's not forget that the NYPD is often charged with the actual street enforcement-there really is no oversight at all: "DOI reported that more than 500 permit holders may have illegally peddled them for 10 to 75 times what they paid to desperate vendors who couldn't wait years for their names to be called from the lengthy list."
But this misfeasance by the Bloombergistas-famously known for their health concerns-may have been...really bad for your health: "Investigators also found that when a cart couldn't pass a health inspection, unscrupulous vendors were able to sneak in a different cart. Among those arrested was Nikhil Dhameliya, 23, of Woodside, Queens, a notary public who operates a candy stand at 42 Broadway, headquarters of the Department of Consumer Affairs, which distributes licenses. She was accused of notarizing 30 blank and pre-signed forms certifying that food carts were being stored in licensed facilities."
We have been complaining about this lack of responsibility and diffuse oversight for years. Our complaints have focused on the legion of fruit and veggie vendors who seem to be running illegal operations in front of every Manhattan supermarket. In fact, one vendor in front of a Morton Williams market near Columbia, bragged that he controlled multiple carts; and employed many of those vendors who are unable to get a cart permit of their own. Our complaints-as well as our efforts to get adequate enforcement-feel on deaf ears at the Mayor's Office as well as the City Council.
The DOH was too interested in its health experimentation to perform the job that it was historically assigned to do. Maybe now, with scandal and corruption exposed, the city will begin to take seriously the need to completely overhaul vending-and protect the legitimate retailers who are preyed upon by these illegal leaches who are almost as far removed from the notion of the struggling immigrant entrepreneur as Mike Bloomberg himself.
So, while the new veggie vendor permits go begging-a symptom of the dynamics of simple supply and demand-the real food vendor permits are more valuable than gold, and subject to corrupt counterfeiting: "I can't sugarcoat the fact that we found a black market with probably a couple of hundred illegal transactions," said Investigations Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn. "It's not a couple of instances."
What this means to us, however, is that the unwieldy duplication of responsibility between the DOH and the Department of Consumer Affairs-something we have been critical of for years-needs to be overhauled; because, with divided oversight-and let's not forget that the NYPD is often charged with the actual street enforcement-there really is no oversight at all: "DOI reported that more than 500 permit holders may have illegally peddled them for 10 to 75 times what they paid to desperate vendors who couldn't wait years for their names to be called from the lengthy list."
But this misfeasance by the Bloombergistas-famously known for their health concerns-may have been...really bad for your health: "Investigators also found that when a cart couldn't pass a health inspection, unscrupulous vendors were able to sneak in a different cart. Among those arrested was Nikhil Dhameliya, 23, of Woodside, Queens, a notary public who operates a candy stand at 42 Broadway, headquarters of the Department of Consumer Affairs, which distributes licenses. She was accused of notarizing 30 blank and pre-signed forms certifying that food carts were being stored in licensed facilities."
We have been complaining about this lack of responsibility and diffuse oversight for years. Our complaints have focused on the legion of fruit and veggie vendors who seem to be running illegal operations in front of every Manhattan supermarket. In fact, one vendor in front of a Morton Williams market near Columbia, bragged that he controlled multiple carts; and employed many of those vendors who are unable to get a cart permit of their own. Our complaints-as well as our efforts to get adequate enforcement-feel on deaf ears at the Mayor's Office as well as the City Council.
The DOH was too interested in its health experimentation to perform the job that it was historically assigned to do. Maybe now, with scandal and corruption exposed, the city will begin to take seriously the need to completely overhaul vending-and protect the legitimate retailers who are preyed upon by these illegal leaches who are almost as far removed from the notion of the struggling immigrant entrepreneur as Mike Bloomberg himself.
Go and Tax No More!
The fruits of chaos continue to provide sustenance for the underfed.This time, it is the fate of the city's sales tax-not only regressive but counterproductive to the vaunted five borough economic development plan. As Daily Politics pointed out, the tax was a victim of the righteous wrath of Reverend Ruben Diaz: "The sales tax increase the city needs to balance its budget hit a huge road block in the form of Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr...A vote was called, and the bill failed: 19-13. (It would have failed anyway, since there are only 31 members physically in the chamber; but Padavan was apparently counted in the affirmative). The "no" votes were: Adams, Addabbo, Diaz, Dilan, Hassell-Thompson, Kruger (Carl), Monserrate, Montgomery, Onorato, Parker, Perkins, Sampson, Smith."
The reverend's rationale? "No more tax for the city of New York," he said. "Because the people of the City of New York, the members of my district, are paying too much taxes. Yesterday. Yesterday, the MTA increased the fare...No more taxes for the City of New York. Not just me. There's a group of them. Let's see what happens. Me personally, I'm tried of taxes." Diaz Sr. suggested that if Bloomberg needs money to balance the budget, he should take it out of his own pocket, perhaps diverting some of the cash (close to $20 million already) that he has been dropping on his re-election campaign."
Also speaking a little truth to power was the much maligned Monserrate: "Monserrate was the only other senator to explain his vote. He stood to "echo the sentiment" expressed by Diaz Sr., saying the city needs a "much better and more progressive tax scheme."
All of which frustrates the mayor to no end. As Liz says elsewhere: "Bloomberg is none too happy with the Senate for being unable to pass the Assembly's mayoral control bill (not to mention the sales tax increase the city needs to balance its budget), saying he doesn't see how anyone "can look themselves in the eye in the mirror tomorrow" if they fail to approve these measures."
But, could it be that it is Bloomberg who needs to become the, "man in the mirror?" As the other great Michael once sang;
"I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place (If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place)Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change (Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change)
(Na Na Na, Na Na Na, Na Na,Na Nah)
I've Been A Victim Of A Selfish Kind Of Love
It's Time That I Realize That There Are Some With No Home, Not A Nickel To Loan
Could It Be Really Me, Pretending That They're Not Alone?"
The reverend's rationale? "No more tax for the city of New York," he said. "Because the people of the City of New York, the members of my district, are paying too much taxes. Yesterday. Yesterday, the MTA increased the fare...No more taxes for the City of New York. Not just me. There's a group of them. Let's see what happens. Me personally, I'm tried of taxes." Diaz Sr. suggested that if Bloomberg needs money to balance the budget, he should take it out of his own pocket, perhaps diverting some of the cash (close to $20 million already) that he has been dropping on his re-election campaign."
Also speaking a little truth to power was the much maligned Monserrate: "Monserrate was the only other senator to explain his vote. He stood to "echo the sentiment" expressed by Diaz Sr., saying the city needs a "much better and more progressive tax scheme."
All of which frustrates the mayor to no end. As Liz says elsewhere: "Bloomberg is none too happy with the Senate for being unable to pass the Assembly's mayoral control bill (not to mention the sales tax increase the city needs to balance its budget), saying he doesn't see how anyone "can look themselves in the eye in the mirror tomorrow" if they fail to approve these measures."
But, could it be that it is Bloomberg who needs to become the, "man in the mirror?" As the other great Michael once sang;
"I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place (If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place)Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change (Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change)
(Na Na Na, Na Na Na, Na Na,Na Nah)
I've Been A Victim Of A Selfish Kind Of Love
It's Time That I Realize That There Are Some With No Home, Not A Nickel To Loan
Could It Be Really Me, Pretending That They're Not Alone?"
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Imposturing
Clyde Haberman takes aim this morning against the city's new effort to get in your face for your own good health-the mandate that diseased lungs be postered on the point-of-sale at retail outlets where cigarettes are sold: "Before too long, you may be forced to stare at a photo of blackened lungs, oozing decay, every time you go to the bodega for a quart of milk. We’re trying to figure out where under the heading of quality of life to file this bit of news."
And Haberman is wondering just where all of this in your face do-goodism will stop-if at all: "In that case, how about taking this approach even further? Why stop with cigarettes? Why not require pictures of morbidly obese people at candy counters, to show what too many Snickers bars can do? Or photos of clogged arteries at fast-food restaurants, to discourage orders of double cheeseburgers? To promote safe sex, graphic examples of Kaposi’s sarcoma could be placed by condom racks. Displays of horribly diseased livers in liquor stores ought to deter people from drinking to excess."
Of course, you will say, that's just Haberman being his usual sardonic self. You don't really believes that the kinds of things that he suggests will ever enter into the non-diseased minds of the public health set? Do you? But this kind of thinking is part of a classic slippery slope; because the appetite for healthy intervention is indeed a voracious one.
But, as we have been saying, the concern by the Bloombergistas over the health of New Yorkers doesn't extend to the health of the very same stores that the city will soon festoon with grisly pictures of blackened lungs. With more for-rent signs sprouting up-something that Haberman has also noticed-it would be nice if we could get a bit more expansive in what we consider to be in the health interest of New Yorkers.
But, unfortunately, Mike Bloomberg has no real concern for the retailers whose livelihoods he is challenging while fervently engaged in lengthening the life span of his reluctant subjects. Here's the Haberman critique last month of the Bloomberg five borough economic fiasco that he calls a plan: "If your neighborhood is anything like mine, the streets are dotted with empty stores, victims in many cases of rapacious landlords who, with City Hall’s tacit blessing, jacked up rents to unsustainable levels. Only the bottom fell out of the economy. Those vacant storefronts, with their sad “space available” signs in the windows, are a dispiriting blight."
Still, with all of the empty store fronts, brought on in part be the Bloomberg small business myopia, there is an opportunity: a huge and expanding urban canvas upon which the Department of Health can-graffiti like-decorate with all of its avuncular health messages; all the while covering up the chronic economic malaise that the mayor ignores in his public relations snow job into a third term.
And Haberman is wondering just where all of this in your face do-goodism will stop-if at all: "In that case, how about taking this approach even further? Why stop with cigarettes? Why not require pictures of morbidly obese people at candy counters, to show what too many Snickers bars can do? Or photos of clogged arteries at fast-food restaurants, to discourage orders of double cheeseburgers? To promote safe sex, graphic examples of Kaposi’s sarcoma could be placed by condom racks. Displays of horribly diseased livers in liquor stores ought to deter people from drinking to excess."
Of course, you will say, that's just Haberman being his usual sardonic self. You don't really believes that the kinds of things that he suggests will ever enter into the non-diseased minds of the public health set? Do you? But this kind of thinking is part of a classic slippery slope; because the appetite for healthy intervention is indeed a voracious one.
But, as we have been saying, the concern by the Bloombergistas over the health of New Yorkers doesn't extend to the health of the very same stores that the city will soon festoon with grisly pictures of blackened lungs. With more for-rent signs sprouting up-something that Haberman has also noticed-it would be nice if we could get a bit more expansive in what we consider to be in the health interest of New Yorkers.
But, unfortunately, Mike Bloomberg has no real concern for the retailers whose livelihoods he is challenging while fervently engaged in lengthening the life span of his reluctant subjects. Here's the Haberman critique last month of the Bloomberg five borough economic fiasco that he calls a plan: "If your neighborhood is anything like mine, the streets are dotted with empty stores, victims in many cases of rapacious landlords who, with City Hall’s tacit blessing, jacked up rents to unsustainable levels. Only the bottom fell out of the economy. Those vacant storefronts, with their sad “space available” signs in the windows, are a dispiriting blight."
Still, with all of the empty store fronts, brought on in part be the Bloomberg small business myopia, there is an opportunity: a huge and expanding urban canvas upon which the Department of Health can-graffiti like-decorate with all of its avuncular health messages; all the while covering up the chronic economic malaise that the mayor ignores in his public relations snow job into a third term.
The End of Mayoral Control; Or, Where the Wild Things Are
As we approach the predicted chaos that Mike Bloomberg is envisioning if the reauthorization of mayoral control isn't approved before the end of the day, all we can do is chuckle-after all, chaos isn't something that we should be frightened of; especially if it is being predicted by the solipsistic Mr. Bloomberg or the self serving Randi ("It's only about the kids") Weinberg. We have been treated to an endless drumbeat of doomsday rhetoric from those quarters-not to mention the flacks over at the tab editorial pages-and it will be interesting to see whether Armageddon will actually come-as John Sampson plays his role, with the mayor cast as Delilah.
But, at least for the short term we will be treated to the visage of an angry and helpless billionaire mayor; and no matter that this delicious sighting devolves from silliness in Albany, it is certainly a sight for these sore eyes. Here's the NY Post's lamentations this morning: "Mayor Bloomberg's legal authority to run the city's school system could expire tonight after Senate Democratic leader John Sampson hardened his position against quick passage of mayoral-control legislation. "We said we are dealing with noncontroversial bills . . . Mayoral control is a controversial issue [among Senate Democrats] -- and we would like some input," Sampson said."
Things are so bad that Bloomberg is actually-Can you believe it?-counseling participatory democracy, and taking to the streets: "Earlier yesterday, a frustrated Bloomberg said he wanted to give the public the phone numbers and home addresses of senators who are failing to do the state's business. "We'll give you the numbers of the senators, assuming everybody promises to call them at 3 in the morning," Bloomberg quipped. "I can do one better," the mayor added. "We should give you their addresses so you can stand outside their houses. That would really make a dent."
But the frustration that Bloomberg feels, is something that is self-inflicted; since it was his courtiers who led the senate coup and threw that chamber into the chaos that he now laments. And now the courtiers, turned into court jesters, are casting stones at Sampson and their other Democratic colleagues-a classic case of misdirection: "Republicans wasted no time blasting the Democrats' position. "It makes absolutely no sense. It's obstructing, it's irresponsible," Senator Frank Padavan, a Queens Republican who is the sponsor of the bill, said. "Maybe he's using these 1.1 million kids as a pawn in his grab for power," Senator Andrew Lanza, a Staten Island Republican, said of Sampson."
All of which allows the governor to enact the role of the monsters in "Where the Wild Things Are."
AND WHEN HE CAME TO THE PLACE WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE THEY
CHILD 3: ROARED THEIR TERRIBLE ROARS! (ALL ROAR)
CHILD 4: AND GNASHED THEIR TERRIBLE TEETH! (ALL GNASH TEETH)
CHILD 1: AND ROLLED THEIR TERRIBLE EYES! (ALL ROLL EYES)
CHILD 2: AND SHOWED THEIR TERRIBLE CLAWS!
Until Max said stop! Now, since we know it won't be Paterson playing Max in this sequel (in spite of Bill Hammond's kudos to the sudden burst of testosterone), the only question remaining is, Who will? The chaotic situation can't continue to stall governance forever. But, in the meanwhile, we can all be entertained by the stymied Mad Michael, his comedic courtiers, and his dyspeptic flacks. Gridlock has never been so much fun to watch.
But, at least for the short term we will be treated to the visage of an angry and helpless billionaire mayor; and no matter that this delicious sighting devolves from silliness in Albany, it is certainly a sight for these sore eyes. Here's the NY Post's lamentations this morning: "Mayor Bloomberg's legal authority to run the city's school system could expire tonight after Senate Democratic leader John Sampson hardened his position against quick passage of mayoral-control legislation. "We said we are dealing with noncontroversial bills . . . Mayoral control is a controversial issue [among Senate Democrats] -- and we would like some input," Sampson said."
Things are so bad that Bloomberg is actually-Can you believe it?-counseling participatory democracy, and taking to the streets: "Earlier yesterday, a frustrated Bloomberg said he wanted to give the public the phone numbers and home addresses of senators who are failing to do the state's business. "We'll give you the numbers of the senators, assuming everybody promises to call them at 3 in the morning," Bloomberg quipped. "I can do one better," the mayor added. "We should give you their addresses so you can stand outside their houses. That would really make a dent."
But the frustration that Bloomberg feels, is something that is self-inflicted; since it was his courtiers who led the senate coup and threw that chamber into the chaos that he now laments. And now the courtiers, turned into court jesters, are casting stones at Sampson and their other Democratic colleagues-a classic case of misdirection: "Republicans wasted no time blasting the Democrats' position. "It makes absolutely no sense. It's obstructing, it's irresponsible," Senator Frank Padavan, a Queens Republican who is the sponsor of the bill, said. "Maybe he's using these 1.1 million kids as a pawn in his grab for power," Senator Andrew Lanza, a Staten Island Republican, said of Sampson."
All of which allows the governor to enact the role of the monsters in "Where the Wild Things Are."
AND WHEN HE CAME TO THE PLACE WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE THEY
CHILD 3: ROARED THEIR TERRIBLE ROARS! (ALL ROAR)
CHILD 4: AND GNASHED THEIR TERRIBLE TEETH! (ALL GNASH TEETH)
CHILD 1: AND ROLLED THEIR TERRIBLE EYES! (ALL ROLL EYES)
CHILD 2: AND SHOWED THEIR TERRIBLE CLAWS!
Until Max said stop! Now, since we know it won't be Paterson playing Max in this sequel (in spite of Bill Hammond's kudos to the sudden burst of testosterone), the only question remaining is, Who will? The chaotic situation can't continue to stall governance forever. But, in the meanwhile, we can all be entertained by the stymied Mad Michael, his comedic courtiers, and his dyspeptic flacks. Gridlock has never been so much fun to watch.
Veni, Vedi, Ricci
It gives us some great deal of pleasure to see that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of firefighter Frank Ricci in the now famous New Have case. What's interesting to us, is what Justice Kennedy has written here on the issue of disparate impacts: "The City’s actions would violate the disparate-treatment prohibition of Title VII absent some valid defense. All the evidence demonstrates that the City chose not to certify the examination results because of the statistical disparity based on race—i.e., how minority candidates had performed when compared to white candidates. As the District Court put it, the City rejected the test results because “too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted were the lists to be certified.”
What this means is that New Haven never argued that the test was unfair, only that the results weren't what they hoped for. Which, if this is going to be a criteria for sh*t canning a test, means that municipalities will have to continue to test until they get the "right" results.
Having represented firefighters in the past, we know just how important their public safety efforts are-and how complicated and dangerous as well. If the test was constructed fairly, and in a race neutral way-as Kennedy feels it was-than to jettison the results, or modify the test to make it more accommodating somehow to the examinationally challenged, is a direct threat to, not only fairness and a level playing field, but to the public safety as well.
As Justice Kennedy points out: "If an employer cannot rescore a test based on the candidates’ race, §2000e–2(l), then it follows a fortiori that it may not take the greater step of discarding the test altogether to achieve a more desirable racial distribution of promotion-eligible candidates—absent a strong basis in evidence that the test was deficient and that discarding the results is necessary to avoid violating the disparate impact provision. Restricting an employer’s ability to discard test results (and thereby discriminate against qualified candidates on the basis of their race) also is in keeping with Title VII’s express protection of bona fide promotional examinations."
But, as one commenter over at the Atlantic points out, the racialists want to do just that-keep up the testing in hopes of achieving the "scientifically desirable" results: "Maybe I bring my scientist-filter into everything, but it reminds me of validating scientific results. If you run an experiment and get consistent results that weren't what your model predicted, it's integral to the scientific process to comb through your experiment (and have others do the same) to make sure there weren't outside factors influencing the experiment. You want to make sure you have the most correct data possible before drawing conclusions. So in this case, if the city comes up with a different test that gets the same results on the same group of people, then great - no worries about bias, and it really was merit-based. And if not, they've discovered a flaw in their system that was invalidating their results.""
But the "model" predicted race neutrality; and that doesn't mean that more minorities will score high enough to be promoted, only that the test in question was fair. To some folks, however, the mere fact that minorities scored lower than other applicants means that the test, ipso facto, was unfair-and needed to be thrown out.
As the lawyer for Ricci pointed out to the District Court, being a firefighter isn't the same as being a sanitation worker-there are real skills and safety issues that need be given proper deference. And, as Stuart Taylor has written, throwing out the test has real world consequences for those who did score higher: "The disparate-impact dynamic has the benefit of expanding opportunities for preferred minorities. But it also has great costs. It is unjust to high-scoring white and Asian workers; it has greatly eroded the anti-discrimination principle; and it downgrades incentives for students and workers to study and learn -- both in school and in rigorous test-preparation courses such as the one that helped some New Haven firefighters improve their skills and do well on the test."
So, by all means, expand opportunities and training for those who want to become firefighters. Give those who have been excluded, for whatever reason, a boost up in this way. Just don't water down a test that determines who will be racing up that ladder should, God forbid, someone you love is threatened with a horrible death.
What this means is that New Haven never argued that the test was unfair, only that the results weren't what they hoped for. Which, if this is going to be a criteria for sh*t canning a test, means that municipalities will have to continue to test until they get the "right" results.
Having represented firefighters in the past, we know just how important their public safety efforts are-and how complicated and dangerous as well. If the test was constructed fairly, and in a race neutral way-as Kennedy feels it was-than to jettison the results, or modify the test to make it more accommodating somehow to the examinationally challenged, is a direct threat to, not only fairness and a level playing field, but to the public safety as well.
As Justice Kennedy points out: "If an employer cannot rescore a test based on the candidates’ race, §2000e–2(l), then it follows a fortiori that it may not take the greater step of discarding the test altogether to achieve a more desirable racial distribution of promotion-eligible candidates—absent a strong basis in evidence that the test was deficient and that discarding the results is necessary to avoid violating the disparate impact provision. Restricting an employer’s ability to discard test results (and thereby discriminate against qualified candidates on the basis of their race) also is in keeping with Title VII’s express protection of bona fide promotional examinations."
But, as one commenter over at the Atlantic points out, the racialists want to do just that-keep up the testing in hopes of achieving the "scientifically desirable" results: "Maybe I bring my scientist-filter into everything, but it reminds me of validating scientific results. If you run an experiment and get consistent results that weren't what your model predicted, it's integral to the scientific process to comb through your experiment (and have others do the same) to make sure there weren't outside factors influencing the experiment. You want to make sure you have the most correct data possible before drawing conclusions. So in this case, if the city comes up with a different test that gets the same results on the same group of people, then great - no worries about bias, and it really was merit-based. And if not, they've discovered a flaw in their system that was invalidating their results.""
But the "model" predicted race neutrality; and that doesn't mean that more minorities will score high enough to be promoted, only that the test in question was fair. To some folks, however, the mere fact that minorities scored lower than other applicants means that the test, ipso facto, was unfair-and needed to be thrown out.
As the lawyer for Ricci pointed out to the District Court, being a firefighter isn't the same as being a sanitation worker-there are real skills and safety issues that need be given proper deference. And, as Stuart Taylor has written, throwing out the test has real world consequences for those who did score higher: "The disparate-impact dynamic has the benefit of expanding opportunities for preferred minorities. But it also has great costs. It is unjust to high-scoring white and Asian workers; it has greatly eroded the anti-discrimination principle; and it downgrades incentives for students and workers to study and learn -- both in school and in rigorous test-preparation courses such as the one that helped some New Haven firefighters improve their skills and do well on the test."
So, by all means, expand opportunities and training for those who want to become firefighters. Give those who have been excluded, for whatever reason, a boost up in this way. Just don't water down a test that determines who will be racing up that ladder should, God forbid, someone you love is threatened with a horrible death.
Getting Buschwacked
We have commented previously on the ominous trend to consolidation in the beer industry-a trend that will lead to the shuttering of local businesses and higher beer prices for consumers. Another window into this trend can be seen from the following article in the WSJ: "Anheuser-Busch InBev NV is studying the idea of consolidating its network of independent U.S. beer distributors, perhaps by owning many more distributors itself, according to an analyst report that represents a potential blow for the beer titan's roughly 600 distributors."
What this means is that eventually, if nothing intervenes to stop it, all of the country's beer distribution will be in the hands of foreign entities; and the three-tiered system will become moribund. What this means in New York is that hundreds of independent, non-franchise wholesalers-along with the dwindling cohort of franchise wholesalers-will be made extinct.
Decisions on marketing and beer pricing will be made in Belgium-and the consolidated sclerosis of a distribution system will suck the consumer parched dry; with cost savings winging their way right out of the country. As the WSJ points out: "The report is the first serious indication that the brewer based in Leuven, Belgium, intends to put the squeeze on its distribution network to improve its own profitability. Potentially billions of dollars currently flowing to distributors could be at stake. InBev has reduced costs at Anheuser since acquiring the company for $52 billion last fall. But its distributors so far mostly have been spared the knife."
So, with independents looking to NY State for some statutory protections-while franchise wholesalers fight them tooth and nail-it appears that both sides are fighting a war of attrition while the common enemy waits to literally pick up the pieces. New York needs to act promptly to counteract the monopolistic, anti-consumer, trends that threaten to force the state's beer consumers to drown their sorrows in higher beer prices.
What this means is that eventually, if nothing intervenes to stop it, all of the country's beer distribution will be in the hands of foreign entities; and the three-tiered system will become moribund. What this means in New York is that hundreds of independent, non-franchise wholesalers-along with the dwindling cohort of franchise wholesalers-will be made extinct.
Decisions on marketing and beer pricing will be made in Belgium-and the consolidated sclerosis of a distribution system will suck the consumer parched dry; with cost savings winging their way right out of the country. As the WSJ points out: "The report is the first serious indication that the brewer based in Leuven, Belgium, intends to put the squeeze on its distribution network to improve its own profitability. Potentially billions of dollars currently flowing to distributors could be at stake. InBev has reduced costs at Anheuser since acquiring the company for $52 billion last fall. But its distributors so far mostly have been spared the knife."
So, with independents looking to NY State for some statutory protections-while franchise wholesalers fight them tooth and nail-it appears that both sides are fighting a war of attrition while the common enemy waits to literally pick up the pieces. New York needs to act promptly to counteract the monopolistic, anti-consumer, trends that threaten to force the state's beer consumers to drown their sorrows in higher beer prices.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Handwriting on the Capitol Wall?
The Times has an interesting analysis of demographic trends in NY State, trends that bode well for future Democratic control over the state senate: "Albany gridlock got you down? Well, worry no longer, the end is in sight — the State Senate should be back in business by 2013. An analysis of population shifts since this decade began suggests that Democrats are poised to gain as many as six seats when legislative districts are reapportioned after the 2010 census. That would give them an ample margin to untangle the 31-to-31 tie that has stalemated the Senate for three weeks."
Which certainly explains just why the Republicans made their move to grab a leadership position when they did-it was now or never. They need to have a shot at controlling the reapportionment process next year if they're gonna have any hope of maintaining a shot at relevance: "Redistricting is more abstract art than exact science, though, and Dr. Beveridge’s analysis is subject to several caveats — the most vital being which party controls the Senate after the 2010 election. After the 2000 census, the Republican majority was able to minimize the impact of population losses in its upstate base in two ways, both of which survived legal challenges."
In other words, creative carving is their last bastion of hope; and it might explain why our friend Pedro also decided to roll the Republican dice. In a senate where the Dems have a greater margin of seats, it's unlikely that his colleagues would be inclined to support his leadership ambitions. Perhaps he saw the current short term play as being in his best interests-with the inside straight possibility that, as King Gerrymander, he might ride the wave a while longer.
That, of course, doesn't change the current molasses metrics; and, as we have said elsewhere today, it probably doesn't bode well for NY's tax payers-unless a new sighted Democratic standard bearer rides into town on a centrist horse. So, in the long run, the Republican play isn't the way to bet; but for Espada and the Republican coup leaders, the insight of John Maynard Keynes was probably their underlying motivation. As the economist famously said: "In the long run, we're all dead.”
Which certainly explains just why the Republicans made their move to grab a leadership position when they did-it was now or never. They need to have a shot at controlling the reapportionment process next year if they're gonna have any hope of maintaining a shot at relevance: "Redistricting is more abstract art than exact science, though, and Dr. Beveridge’s analysis is subject to several caveats — the most vital being which party controls the Senate after the 2010 election. After the 2000 census, the Republican majority was able to minimize the impact of population losses in its upstate base in two ways, both of which survived legal challenges."
In other words, creative carving is their last bastion of hope; and it might explain why our friend Pedro also decided to roll the Republican dice. In a senate where the Dems have a greater margin of seats, it's unlikely that his colleagues would be inclined to support his leadership ambitions. Perhaps he saw the current short term play as being in his best interests-with the inside straight possibility that, as King Gerrymander, he might ride the wave a while longer.
That, of course, doesn't change the current molasses metrics; and, as we have said elsewhere today, it probably doesn't bode well for NY's tax payers-unless a new sighted Democratic standard bearer rides into town on a centrist horse. So, in the long run, the Republican play isn't the way to bet; but for Espada and the Republican coup leaders, the insight of John Maynard Keynes was probably their underlying motivation. As the economist famously said: "In the long run, we're all dead.”
Taxing Our Patience?
There has been a great deal of teeth gnashing over the continuing gridlock up in Albany; but isn't it time we looked at the bright side of all this wrangling? Let's start with that famous quote on the danger that legislatures often pose-and the one in Albany never fails to do: "No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session” is a classic political phrase that popularly began with a New York court decision in 1866. The phrase has been applied to the legislatures of other states as well."
Which brings us to the Wall Street Journal editorial on the dangers that legislative overreach can cause-particularly in the area of taxation: "A decade ago all three states were among America's most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due."
All this as a result of a capricious disregard of just what undergirds the prosperity of any local economy: "These states have been models of "progressive" policies that are supposed to create wealth: high tax rates on the rich, lots of government "investments," heavy unionization and a large government role in health care...Has all this public sector "investment" translated into jobs? Not quite. California had the nation's third highest jobless rate in May (11.5%). New Jersey and New York had below average unemployment rates in May compared to the national average of 9.4%, but one reason is that so many discouraged workers have left those states. From 1998-2007, which included two booms on Wall Street, New York and New Jersey ranked 36th and 31st in job creation. From 2000 to 2007, the New Jersey Business & Industry Association calculates that nine out of 10 new Garden State jobs were in the government."
So the, "soak the rich" philosophy, best epitomized by the platform of the Working Families Party and the missives of the Drum Major Institute, hastens the kind of economic retardation that, while it erodes the tax base all over, is particularly hard on local small businesses-as one recent study highlights: "Consistent with the growing tax burden on small-business owners, as well as the growing body of evidence linking higher tax burden with limited entrepreneurial growth and higher closure rates, this study has found that tax problems constitute an important reason for bankruptcy filings for a sizable number of entrepreneurs."
So perhaps all is not lost when legislative gridlock paralyzes the state capitol-and if this had happened in March instead of June a whole host of new taxes wouldn't have been concocted in order to stick knives in the local economies all over the state; and let's not forget that the job killing Quinnberg sales tax hike is also in limbo as the legislature continues to squabble. We're happy to see stalemate, even if it affords the governor to pretend that he's looking out for the public interest.
Unfortunately for New York's tax payers, however, this stalemate will eventually be resolved. And the WSJ's mordant analysis is way too accurate for any real debunking: "So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures."
Which brings us to the Wall Street Journal editorial on the dangers that legislative overreach can cause-particularly in the area of taxation: "A decade ago all three states were among America's most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due."
All this as a result of a capricious disregard of just what undergirds the prosperity of any local economy: "These states have been models of "progressive" policies that are supposed to create wealth: high tax rates on the rich, lots of government "investments," heavy unionization and a large government role in health care...Has all this public sector "investment" translated into jobs? Not quite. California had the nation's third highest jobless rate in May (11.5%). New Jersey and New York had below average unemployment rates in May compared to the national average of 9.4%, but one reason is that so many discouraged workers have left those states. From 1998-2007, which included two booms on Wall Street, New York and New Jersey ranked 36th and 31st in job creation. From 2000 to 2007, the New Jersey Business & Industry Association calculates that nine out of 10 new Garden State jobs were in the government."
So the, "soak the rich" philosophy, best epitomized by the platform of the Working Families Party and the missives of the Drum Major Institute, hastens the kind of economic retardation that, while it erodes the tax base all over, is particularly hard on local small businesses-as one recent study highlights: "Consistent with the growing tax burden on small-business owners, as well as the growing body of evidence linking higher tax burden with limited entrepreneurial growth and higher closure rates, this study has found that tax problems constitute an important reason for bankruptcy filings for a sizable number of entrepreneurs."
So perhaps all is not lost when legislative gridlock paralyzes the state capitol-and if this had happened in March instead of June a whole host of new taxes wouldn't have been concocted in order to stick knives in the local economies all over the state; and let's not forget that the job killing Quinnberg sales tax hike is also in limbo as the legislature continues to squabble. We're happy to see stalemate, even if it affords the governor to pretend that he's looking out for the public interest.
Unfortunately for New York's tax payers, however, this stalemate will eventually be resolved. And the WSJ's mordant analysis is way too accurate for any real debunking: "So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures."
Will Bloomberg Lose Control?
As the deadline looms to re-authorize mayoral control of the NYC schools, it doesn't appear that the state senate will be able to convene to even consider the extension. As the NY Daily News reports, even if the senators manage to get their act together, the prospects for Mike Bloomberg's pet project appear quite dim: "The extension of mayoral control over the schools is no slam dunk even if warring senators break their stalemate, the Daily News has learned. The law expires Tuesday and a number of Senate Democrats are leery of passing the Assembly's mayoral control bill without making changes. "They don't like the idea that's it's being stuffed down their throats," a Democratic aide said."
And let's not forget, that Bloomberg has railed against even the smallest changes to the assembly-backed version of re-authorization: "The Assembly bill, which leaves the basic tenets of the current mayoral control law in place, has enough support from a handful of Democrats and all 30 Republicans to pass. Paterson warned of "chaos" if the law expires, and Bloomberg called the Senate's inaction "Albany at its worst."
We kinda liked the self-serving comments of Randi Weingarten on the senate's inaction: "City teachers union President Randi Weingarten said letting the law lapse gives kids "a terrible lesson about the rule of law. We're also suggesting that chaos and instability is a good thing." Hey Randi, was the overturning of the popular will on term limits the kind of, "rule of law," lesson you had in mind? We're guessing that, as long as there's a strong leader and stability reigns supreme, we are in good shape.
But you also have to get a chuckle out of the Chicken Littles over at the NY Post, with another one of their sky is falling predictions over the possible demise of mayoral control: "Time is running short. At midnight tomorrow, an extraordinarily successful experiment could begin to unravel. That would be a tragedy." But then again, how do you tell the difference between a Post editorial and a news article on this subject. Fair and balanced? Not.
Which brings us to the, "what happens next?" scenario. As the NY Times points out, everyone's been forced to game plan the, sky is falling, unthinkable here: "Quiz: Which impending crisis, in the words of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, threatens to bring rioters into the streets and turn City Hall into the Kremlin? A swine flu pandemic? More cutbacks to the city’s labor force? Not quite. In Mr. Bloomberg’s view, doomsday will be on its way if the Senate fails to renew mayoral control of city schools by Tuesday, when the 2002 law authorizing it expires."
So what's a poor billionaire mayor to do? "But exactly how the operation of the nation’s largest school system would change — aside from, perhaps, the return of old Board of Education stationery — remains a question." But if this is the crisis that Bloomberg believes, we may find out how the city's chief executive acquits himself under duress. Truman or Carter, is there an, "under/over," on this?
But just maybe, this isn't quite like, let's say, the Berlin Airlift or the Iranian Hostage Crisis. If so, the mayor may become victim of his own hyperbole: "Mr. Bloomberg has not announced any contingency plans, perhaps trying to hasten action upstate. But he has portrayed the possibility of losing control of the schools as nothing short of a catastrophe. “If the Senate passes something that differs by one word or more,” he warned on Thursday, “it is saying to the city: ‘We want to resurrect the Soviet Union. We want to bring back chaos.’ ” In February, he said, “I think that there’d be riots in the streets.”
But alternatives are being thought about-and let's not overlook the ambition of the five borough presidents, who would get to appoint a member if the old BOE was resurrected: "Reverting to the old law would give more influence to the borough presidents, who would control five of the seven seats on the board. The mayor would be able to name only two board members, but would probably be able to persuade at least two borough presidents to appoint members favorable to the mayor’s policies."
But aren't the prospects her fun to imagine; with the imperious Michael being thwarted in his goal of world conquest. Should he find himself stymied, will his self-control be as evanescent as his lost control over school governance?
And let's not forget, that Bloomberg has railed against even the smallest changes to the assembly-backed version of re-authorization: "The Assembly bill, which leaves the basic tenets of the current mayoral control law in place, has enough support from a handful of Democrats and all 30 Republicans to pass. Paterson warned of "chaos" if the law expires, and Bloomberg called the Senate's inaction "Albany at its worst."
We kinda liked the self-serving comments of Randi Weingarten on the senate's inaction: "City teachers union President Randi Weingarten said letting the law lapse gives kids "a terrible lesson about the rule of law. We're also suggesting that chaos and instability is a good thing." Hey Randi, was the overturning of the popular will on term limits the kind of, "rule of law," lesson you had in mind? We're guessing that, as long as there's a strong leader and stability reigns supreme, we are in good shape.
But you also have to get a chuckle out of the Chicken Littles over at the NY Post, with another one of their sky is falling predictions over the possible demise of mayoral control: "Time is running short. At midnight tomorrow, an extraordinarily successful experiment could begin to unravel. That would be a tragedy." But then again, how do you tell the difference between a Post editorial and a news article on this subject. Fair and balanced? Not.
Which brings us to the, "what happens next?" scenario. As the NY Times points out, everyone's been forced to game plan the, sky is falling, unthinkable here: "Quiz: Which impending crisis, in the words of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, threatens to bring rioters into the streets and turn City Hall into the Kremlin? A swine flu pandemic? More cutbacks to the city’s labor force? Not quite. In Mr. Bloomberg’s view, doomsday will be on its way if the Senate fails to renew mayoral control of city schools by Tuesday, when the 2002 law authorizing it expires."
So what's a poor billionaire mayor to do? "But exactly how the operation of the nation’s largest school system would change — aside from, perhaps, the return of old Board of Education stationery — remains a question." But if this is the crisis that Bloomberg believes, we may find out how the city's chief executive acquits himself under duress. Truman or Carter, is there an, "under/over," on this?
But just maybe, this isn't quite like, let's say, the Berlin Airlift or the Iranian Hostage Crisis. If so, the mayor may become victim of his own hyperbole: "Mr. Bloomberg has not announced any contingency plans, perhaps trying to hasten action upstate. But he has portrayed the possibility of losing control of the schools as nothing short of a catastrophe. “If the Senate passes something that differs by one word or more,” he warned on Thursday, “it is saying to the city: ‘We want to resurrect the Soviet Union. We want to bring back chaos.’ ” In February, he said, “I think that there’d be riots in the streets.”
But alternatives are being thought about-and let's not overlook the ambition of the five borough presidents, who would get to appoint a member if the old BOE was resurrected: "Reverting to the old law would give more influence to the borough presidents, who would control five of the seven seats on the board. The mayor would be able to name only two board members, but would probably be able to persuade at least two borough presidents to appoint members favorable to the mayor’s policies."
But aren't the prospects her fun to imagine; with the imperious Michael being thwarted in his goal of world conquest. Should he find himself stymied, will his self-control be as evanescent as his lost control over school governance?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Related's Revolutionary Guard
The Bronx News Network has some very good coverage of Tuesday's Kingsbridge Armory hearing-particularly concerning the goonish actions of the Negative Workforce crew: "The evening started out with a bang as about a hundred or so construction union guys, mostly from Positive Workforce, a big supporter of the Armory's designated developer, the Related Companies, literally bum rushed past cops and security guards into the dining room and installed themselves as a backdrop to all the night's speakers.Several attendees were startled by their aggressiveness, others felt intimidated. Their message throughout the night was clear: build at the Armory now."
Lacking any real community support, Related-kind of like the ayatollahs in Iran-are utilizing paid intimidators-who, by the way, aren't union folks at all-to threaten their regime's opponents. And, as BNN explains, they have gotten an assist from the CB itself: "The hearing began with a round of "special" speakers (I think because they were disabled, they were allowed to speak first) from Co-op City who praised the project because of its apparent similarities to the Bay Plaza mall, which they think added to their part of the Bronx. It seemed kind of random."
On the contrary, there was method to the supposed randomness; and the speakers, disabled or not, had no special role to play in Tuesday's hearing-aside from acting to dilute the opposition's objections. But BNN did highlight the fact that almost all of the speakers-aside from the goon squad-were opposed to Related's project in one form or another: "Related's presentation was followed by essentially three kinds of public testimony: KARA representatives (lots of them, they dominated the hearing, no question) who told Board members to vote no on the project unless Related signed a Community Benefits Agreement, which would include union protections, living wage job requirements (which Related says is a non-starter) and free or affordable recreation space; representatives from Morton Williams who were adamantly opposed to the supermarket idea for obvious reasons; and construction workers from Positive Workforce who supported the project wholeheartedly."
We still maintain that the entire episode was illegal; since the lockout prevented a legitimate public hearing from taking place. But kudos to BNN for accurately depicting the questionable community board tactics as well as the chaotic nature of the hearing.
Lacking any real community support, Related-kind of like the ayatollahs in Iran-are utilizing paid intimidators-who, by the way, aren't union folks at all-to threaten their regime's opponents. And, as BNN explains, they have gotten an assist from the CB itself: "The hearing began with a round of "special" speakers (I think because they were disabled, they were allowed to speak first) from Co-op City who praised the project because of its apparent similarities to the Bay Plaza mall, which they think added to their part of the Bronx. It seemed kind of random."
On the contrary, there was method to the supposed randomness; and the speakers, disabled or not, had no special role to play in Tuesday's hearing-aside from acting to dilute the opposition's objections. But BNN did highlight the fact that almost all of the speakers-aside from the goon squad-were opposed to Related's project in one form or another: "Related's presentation was followed by essentially three kinds of public testimony: KARA representatives (lots of them, they dominated the hearing, no question) who told Board members to vote no on the project unless Related signed a Community Benefits Agreement, which would include union protections, living wage job requirements (which Related says is a non-starter) and free or affordable recreation space; representatives from Morton Williams who were adamantly opposed to the supermarket idea for obvious reasons; and construction workers from Positive Workforce who supported the project wholeheartedly."
We still maintain that the entire episode was illegal; since the lockout prevented a legitimate public hearing from taking place. But kudos to BNN for accurately depicting the questionable community board tactics as well as the chaotic nature of the hearing.
Budding Empire
We have commented on the anti-competitive nature of the beer distribution system in NY State; and, in particular, the fact that one of the world's largest brewers Anheuser-Busch/Inbev operates a branch distributor in three NYC countires-Manhattan, the Bronx, and Queens. In effect, in these three boroughs we have, courtesy of the territorial monoploy contracts that franchise wholesalers have maintained, a foreign company dictating to the locally owned independent wholesalers and their retail customers.
The arguments by the franchise wholesalers against a beer distribution bill (A-5001) sponsored by the Empire State Beer Distributors-the association of the independents-is that the legislation would disrupt the three-tiered distribution system that has been designed to protect local franchises against the predations of out-of-state brewers.
But if these brewers start to absorb the locally owned companies, how sacred is the three tiered system? And why should NY State go out of its way to protect a system that is being undermined from within? And, according to Beer Business Daily, this is what's about to happen on a very large scale: "There are ill-winds blowing from Europe. In a shocking revelation from across the pond, London-based UBS beverage analyst Melissa Earlam (via UBS analyst Kaumil Gajrawala in the U.S.) writes in a note to investors early today that AB InBev may be looking into shipping beer "direct" through expanding company-owned branches, to retailers in certain markets in the United States, up to 50% of its volume. This revelation was delivered to UBS analysts and investors last week in Belgium by ABI chief Carlos Brito and other top execs."
So now, if this trend continues and is mimicked by the other multi-national brewers, as we believe it will since AB has always been the industry leader, we will see the elimination of both franchise as well as independent wholesalers in New York. As BBD reports:
"While there is a "wide variance in application of regulation on alcohol on a State by State basis," writes Mel, "some States allow brewers to own wholesalers. ABI is currently reviewing the potential for direct distribution in the US. A-B already has 13 company-owned distribution companies, and 7% of its volume is done through direct distribution, though this ownership is more accidental than due to a deliberate strategy." It turns out that A-B's "accidental" strategy of buying up branches provided the number crunchers in Belgium with enough fodder to move forward. Melissa writes that when InBev purchased A-B in summer 2008, "ABI had thought that 20% direct distribution was possible in the US market. ABI now believes in theory 50% of volumes could ultimately be sold through direct distribution (not necessarily in 50% of States - some States such as California could do 100% and other States zero)."
If this comes to pass-and other brewer stakes already exist in some local franchises-then we will be looking at a monopolistic distribution system run exclusively for the benefit of multi-national conglomerates. It thus appears to us, that franchise wholesalers may have more in common with the independents than they would, perhaps, like to believe.
The arguments by the franchise wholesalers against a beer distribution bill (A-5001) sponsored by the Empire State Beer Distributors-the association of the independents-is that the legislation would disrupt the three-tiered distribution system that has been designed to protect local franchises against the predations of out-of-state brewers.
But if these brewers start to absorb the locally owned companies, how sacred is the three tiered system? And why should NY State go out of its way to protect a system that is being undermined from within? And, according to Beer Business Daily, this is what's about to happen on a very large scale: "There are ill-winds blowing from Europe. In a shocking revelation from across the pond, London-based UBS beverage analyst Melissa Earlam (via UBS analyst Kaumil Gajrawala in the U.S.) writes in a note to investors early today that AB InBev may be looking into shipping beer "direct" through expanding company-owned branches, to retailers in certain markets in the United States, up to 50% of its volume. This revelation was delivered to UBS analysts and investors last week in Belgium by ABI chief Carlos Brito and other top execs."
So now, if this trend continues and is mimicked by the other multi-national brewers, as we believe it will since AB has always been the industry leader, we will see the elimination of both franchise as well as independent wholesalers in New York. As BBD reports:
"While there is a "wide variance in application of regulation on alcohol on a State by State basis," writes Mel, "some States allow brewers to own wholesalers. ABI is currently reviewing the potential for direct distribution in the US. A-B already has 13 company-owned distribution companies, and 7% of its volume is done through direct distribution, though this ownership is more accidental than due to a deliberate strategy." It turns out that A-B's "accidental" strategy of buying up branches provided the number crunchers in Belgium with enough fodder to move forward. Melissa writes that when InBev purchased A-B in summer 2008, "ABI had thought that 20% direct distribution was possible in the US market. ABI now believes in theory 50% of volumes could ultimately be sold through direct distribution (not necessarily in 50% of States - some States such as California could do 100% and other States zero)."
If this comes to pass-and other brewer stakes already exist in some local franchises-then we will be looking at a monopolistic distribution system run exclusively for the benefit of multi-national conglomerates. It thus appears to us, that franchise wholesalers may have more in common with the independents than they would, perhaps, like to believe.
Myth of Mayoral Efficiency
With the city enveloped in an editorial fog-a compliant echo chamber that has elevated Mike Bloomberg into iconic status based on little more than the fact that he hangs in the same elite circles as the do our publishing magnates, it was refreshing to read the following report (counter-intuitive to the scions, no doubt) on the shenanigans over at the DOB: "Buildings Department inspectors are poorly trained, inspections are frequently slipshod and fines are routinely laughed off as "the cost of doing business." Those are the findings of a $4 million study released yesterday by the troubled city agency at the end of a five-year building boom that led to record numbers of construction deaths."
Can it possibly be true? After almost eight year of the most capable managerial oversight, we find that a critical city agency is overrun by stumble bums? Fraid so: "Inspectors are currently not uniformly equipped to judge the acceptability of common unsafe conditions," the study concluded. "They rely primarily on their own varying level of training, experience and degree of tolerance on nonconforming issues." The report faulted the department for having "no standard training procedure" for critical field inspections and said procedures are so lax it's often impossible to to determine whether architects' plans conform to city code."
Watch out for the falling cranes! Yet, in spite of some grave issues of competency and inattention on the part of the beatified incumbent, we are rapidly approaching an election that appears to have all of the suspense of a Laker-Knicks game; with the editorialists making lapdogs look like Rottweilers.
Even today, the NY Post uses an editorial column to savage Bill Thompson on the issue of mayoral control. To borrow Joseph Welch's comments to Joe McCarthy, we'd like to ask the Post: "Have You No Sense of Decency?" Where are the editorials on the mayor's failure to stem the tide of bigger government? Where are the snide comments about a phony five borough economic plan, one that somehow fails to mention that Bloomberg's economic policies have escorted 300 local supermarkets right out of town? And where are the countervailing voices on school governance, ones that might point out that the city's of Rochester and Buffalo have experienced as much "success" as New York even without a mayoral control system; underscoring, perhaps, that the evaluating metrics have been eroded.
But the sense of decency is missing-and its absence dramatizes the most indecent aspect of the Bloomberg victory lap; the obscene use of a private fortune to drown out any potential for a real public debate. My God, we even had to watch and listen to a Bloomberg ad during the NBA draft! And that one told us that the mayor was creating jobs for small business. Talk about disinformation!
So, let Adam Brodsky examine the statements of Bill Thompson with a careful Talmudic sense of rectitude. But let's not make any mistake about what's happening here. The editorialists have created such an echo chamber that certain political truths have become its first victim. Mike Blomberg is getting the kind of kid gloves treatment that would embarrass even an ayatollah; and this is happening in the great bastion of liberal thinking, no less.
Can it possibly be true? After almost eight year of the most capable managerial oversight, we find that a critical city agency is overrun by stumble bums? Fraid so: "Inspectors are currently not uniformly equipped to judge the acceptability of common unsafe conditions," the study concluded. "They rely primarily on their own varying level of training, experience and degree of tolerance on nonconforming issues." The report faulted the department for having "no standard training procedure" for critical field inspections and said procedures are so lax it's often impossible to to determine whether architects' plans conform to city code."
Watch out for the falling cranes! Yet, in spite of some grave issues of competency and inattention on the part of the beatified incumbent, we are rapidly approaching an election that appears to have all of the suspense of a Laker-Knicks game; with the editorialists making lapdogs look like Rottweilers.
Even today, the NY Post uses an editorial column to savage Bill Thompson on the issue of mayoral control. To borrow Joseph Welch's comments to Joe McCarthy, we'd like to ask the Post: "Have You No Sense of Decency?" Where are the editorials on the mayor's failure to stem the tide of bigger government? Where are the snide comments about a phony five borough economic plan, one that somehow fails to mention that Bloomberg's economic policies have escorted 300 local supermarkets right out of town? And where are the countervailing voices on school governance, ones that might point out that the city's of Rochester and Buffalo have experienced as much "success" as New York even without a mayoral control system; underscoring, perhaps, that the evaluating metrics have been eroded.
But the sense of decency is missing-and its absence dramatizes the most indecent aspect of the Bloomberg victory lap; the obscene use of a private fortune to drown out any potential for a real public debate. My God, we even had to watch and listen to a Bloomberg ad during the NBA draft! And that one told us that the mayor was creating jobs for small business. Talk about disinformation!
So, let Adam Brodsky examine the statements of Bill Thompson with a careful Talmudic sense of rectitude. But let's not make any mistake about what's happening here. The editorialists have created such an echo chamber that certain political truths have become its first victim. Mike Blomberg is getting the kind of kid gloves treatment that would embarrass even an ayatollah; and this is happening in the great bastion of liberal thinking, no less.
Armory Hearing Questions
The first hearing on the redevelopment of the Kinsbridge Armory was held on Tuesday-and if this meeting is any indication, the land use process is going to be a contentious one. As NY I reports: "Developers and local business owners gathered at a meeting Wednesday night in the Bronx to discuss the plan to turn the Kingsbridge Armory, empty for 20 years, into a massive shopping center... It was a heated debate Wednesday as to what kind of development should be built inside of the old Kingsbridge Armory. The Related Companies, a construction firm, is proposing a massive shopping mall. At Community Board 7's public hearing, Related tried to gain support of the crowd."
Huh? Related's crowd pleasing efforts consisted of apparently hiring a squad of hired goons who goosed stepped chanting into the Lehman College gathering menacing onlookers in the process. Making matters worse, the sixty or seventy member contingent of the non-union Positive Work Force, took up seating that should have been available to the community-but wasn't. As a result, scores of community residents were locked out of the meeting; and, with an apparent violation of the NYS open meetings law, the community board's hearing should be all rights be considered null and void.
The fact is that a public meeting must be held in a venue that is able to accommodate the public that is interested in coming to either simply hear, or to testify about the proposed project. With Tuesday's lock out, however, Community Board #7 didn't hold a valid public meeting; and in our view, will need to hold an additional public gathering before the scheduled July, 14th vote on the redevelopment project (something that area elected officials should insist upon).
The lockout was just the beginning of the problems that the Board is facing. The agenda for the hearing raises serious questions over the impartiality of the review process. In our over twenty five years of participation in community board reviews, we have never seen a pre-hearing schedule set up to purposefully undermine the opponents of a project.
But that's what the board did-bringing in some folks from Co-op City to tell the gathering that there was nothing to fear from the proposed mall. Why? Because they too had a mall in their community and, despite early misgivings, the mall was built and the world didn't come to an end. Here were people with absolutely no connection to the Kingsbridge community-and with no knowledge of the developer's proposed plans-brought in to pre-rebutt opposition arguments; and allowed to do so for an open ended period, while opponents were rigidly restricted to a three minute time frame.
Meanwhile the hundreds of opponents-as well as the locked-out residents and workers-were treated as if they were interlopers by the biased process servers. Surely, the motives and actions of the district manager and the Board's chair need to be investigated. There is enough untoward activities being examined in the borough, to raise serious suspicions about how-and why-the Board is proceeding as it is. There's an old saying that just might be applicable here: "He who pays the piper calls the tune."
Still, we all need to be cognizant of the fact that despite the Board's questionable actions, its decisions are purely advisory; and, as we saw in the case of the Brush Avenue BJs, the city council can and does override a local board if it feels that a project isn't in the public interest. And this one, with its millions of dollars of tax subsidies that will destroy two Morton Williams Supermarkets if it includes a big box food use, clearly is not.
As NYI points out: "The Kingsbridge Armory is larger than Madison Square Garden, meaning that plenty of stores can be put inside the nearly 100 year old building. But workers from local grocery stores are worried over the possibility of a 60,000 square foot supermarket at the Armory. 'With the subsidies that they are receiving from the city and the state, subsidies that we pay in taxes, we never get subsidies.' Said Morton Sloan, president of Morton Williams Supermarkets. 'We pay the taxes for the subsidies of the competition that will turn around and hurt us.'"
So, while the community board machinations are vexing, it is the votees of the local council members that will tell the story when all is said and done in this land use review. And, while we are confident that the council will stand up for local business, we still feel strongly that all of the actions of this community board need to be thoroughly scrutinized. Its behavior on Tuesday was a disgrace to the very idea of a fair and impartial review process.
And as far as Related and this development is concerned, we'll give local community activists the final word: "The Armory project calls the question: What type of development serves New Yorkers best? Will it be one based on the privatized, deregulated, unrestrained and now bankrupt model that brought on our current recession? Or can we do better? Can we meet the community’s need for good jobs that pay a living wage — the bedrock of healthy families and communities? This is what Community Board 7 must decide within the next 30 days. While Community Board 7 deliberates, our job is to hold them accountable. We need to speak out and let our voices be heard."
Huh? Related's crowd pleasing efforts consisted of apparently hiring a squad of hired goons who goosed stepped chanting into the Lehman College gathering menacing onlookers in the process. Making matters worse, the sixty or seventy member contingent of the non-union Positive Work Force, took up seating that should have been available to the community-but wasn't. As a result, scores of community residents were locked out of the meeting; and, with an apparent violation of the NYS open meetings law, the community board's hearing should be all rights be considered null and void.
The fact is that a public meeting must be held in a venue that is able to accommodate the public that is interested in coming to either simply hear, or to testify about the proposed project. With Tuesday's lock out, however, Community Board #7 didn't hold a valid public meeting; and in our view, will need to hold an additional public gathering before the scheduled July, 14th vote on the redevelopment project (something that area elected officials should insist upon).
The lockout was just the beginning of the problems that the Board is facing. The agenda for the hearing raises serious questions over the impartiality of the review process. In our over twenty five years of participation in community board reviews, we have never seen a pre-hearing schedule set up to purposefully undermine the opponents of a project.
But that's what the board did-bringing in some folks from Co-op City to tell the gathering that there was nothing to fear from the proposed mall. Why? Because they too had a mall in their community and, despite early misgivings, the mall was built and the world didn't come to an end. Here were people with absolutely no connection to the Kingsbridge community-and with no knowledge of the developer's proposed plans-brought in to pre-rebutt opposition arguments; and allowed to do so for an open ended period, while opponents were rigidly restricted to a three minute time frame.
Meanwhile the hundreds of opponents-as well as the locked-out residents and workers-were treated as if they were interlopers by the biased process servers. Surely, the motives and actions of the district manager and the Board's chair need to be investigated. There is enough untoward activities being examined in the borough, to raise serious suspicions about how-and why-the Board is proceeding as it is. There's an old saying that just might be applicable here: "He who pays the piper calls the tune."
Still, we all need to be cognizant of the fact that despite the Board's questionable actions, its decisions are purely advisory; and, as we saw in the case of the Brush Avenue BJs, the city council can and does override a local board if it feels that a project isn't in the public interest. And this one, with its millions of dollars of tax subsidies that will destroy two Morton Williams Supermarkets if it includes a big box food use, clearly is not.
As NYI points out: "The Kingsbridge Armory is larger than Madison Square Garden, meaning that plenty of stores can be put inside the nearly 100 year old building. But workers from local grocery stores are worried over the possibility of a 60,000 square foot supermarket at the Armory. 'With the subsidies that they are receiving from the city and the state, subsidies that we pay in taxes, we never get subsidies.' Said Morton Sloan, president of Morton Williams Supermarkets. 'We pay the taxes for the subsidies of the competition that will turn around and hurt us.'"
So, while the community board machinations are vexing, it is the votees of the local council members that will tell the story when all is said and done in this land use review. And, while we are confident that the council will stand up for local business, we still feel strongly that all of the actions of this community board need to be thoroughly scrutinized. Its behavior on Tuesday was a disgrace to the very idea of a fair and impartial review process.
And as far as Related and this development is concerned, we'll give local community activists the final word: "The Armory project calls the question: What type of development serves New Yorkers best? Will it be one based on the privatized, deregulated, unrestrained and now bankrupt model that brought on our current recession? Or can we do better? Can we meet the community’s need for good jobs that pay a living wage — the bedrock of healthy families and communities? This is what Community Board 7 must decide within the next 30 days. While Community Board 7 deliberates, our job is to hold them accountable. We need to speak out and let our voices be heard."
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Russians are Coming,The Russians are Coming
That master of historical allusion is at it again-this time Mike Bloomberg is comparing any dilution of mayoral control of the schools to the return of the old Soviet Union (via Liz): "Using some of his toughest language yet, Mayor Bloomberg demanded that the gridlocked Senate pass the Assembly's mayoral control bill or risk throwing the entire system into "chaos", the DN's Frank Lombardi reports. “If the Senate passes something that differs by one word or more it is saying to the city: We want to resurrect the Soviet Union, we want to bring back chaos.” Bloomberg fumed."
That's what we like about Mike, he's always ready with an inapt analogy for our edification. In fact, there's so much wrong with this one, that we don't even know where to begin. Well, to start, the old Soviets were are corrupt bunch of thugs, but chaos hardly describes their dictatorial rein. Which underscores the thin ice that Bloomberg I is skating on-there's more to his particular governing style that resembles the autocratic than the hapless old BOE.
What's amusing, is that he has started to believe the editorial echo chamber: "You want to see a school system in disarray? A good example would be the Albany Senate - nobody in charge and they can’t function. And that’s exactly what happened before when nobody was in charge of (the) school system. And once you get somebody in charge, you might not agree with every decision, but it’s pretty hard to disagree with the results.”
Well, we were no fans of the old system-and our knowledge was gleaned first hand from five years of teaching elementary school-but to imply that the old system was totally dysfunctional is a bit too much for us. And, as far as the "results" are concerned, we believe that the entire examination process is watered down; providing misleading progress reports for an eager bunch of self servers.
So we hope that Senator Sampson calls the mayor's bluff; and a poison pill is just the kind of medicine that an unaccountable mayor needs to swallow in order to instill humility where only hubris has ever been evinced. Let's see if the senate Dems have the cojones for this.
That's what we like about Mike, he's always ready with an inapt analogy for our edification. In fact, there's so much wrong with this one, that we don't even know where to begin. Well, to start, the old Soviets were are corrupt bunch of thugs, but chaos hardly describes their dictatorial rein. Which underscores the thin ice that Bloomberg I is skating on-there's more to his particular governing style that resembles the autocratic than the hapless old BOE.
What's amusing, is that he has started to believe the editorial echo chamber: "You want to see a school system in disarray? A good example would be the Albany Senate - nobody in charge and they can’t function. And that’s exactly what happened before when nobody was in charge of (the) school system. And once you get somebody in charge, you might not agree with every decision, but it’s pretty hard to disagree with the results.”
Well, we were no fans of the old system-and our knowledge was gleaned first hand from five years of teaching elementary school-but to imply that the old system was totally dysfunctional is a bit too much for us. And, as far as the "results" are concerned, we believe that the entire examination process is watered down; providing misleading progress reports for an eager bunch of self servers.
So we hope that Senator Sampson calls the mayor's bluff; and a poison pill is just the kind of medicine that an unaccountable mayor needs to swallow in order to instill humility where only hubris has ever been evinced. Let's see if the senate Dems have the cojones for this.
Dead Man Walking
The struggle over control of the state senate has apparently caused a fatal schism between the governor and his allies in the legislature. As the NY Times reports: "While the governor does not have the unilateral authority to order state troopers to round up truant senators and force them to come back to the Capitol, he can go to court and ask for an order compelling senators into session. If such an order is issued and they refuse, Mr. Paterson said, the State Police could be called in. The stalemate in Albany has not reached that point yet, but the situation on Wednesday continued as a back-and-forth of political shots. After Mr. Paterson issued his ultimatum, Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat, criticized the governor and complained that he had not done more to defend fellow Democrats in their leadership struggle with Senate Republicans."
But Parker went on to further challenge Paterson in strong language: "He’s a coward,” Mr. Parker said. “His idle threats about holding our paychecks and those other things, which he certainly has no authority to do under either the Constitution or any other law, is mean-spirited and without basis.” Mr. Parker then took a shot at Mr. Paterson’s low job-approval ratings: “He will not be returning as governor, I’m fairly sure.”
So, it looks as if the governor's going to try to take a page out of Harry Truman's book-and run against the, "do-nothing," legislature. Only problem that we see, is that it's hard to be the "do nothing governor" running against the "do nothing legislature." The Paterson persona doesn't come close to that of the feisty Truman; and we don't believe this kind of testosterone display-so late in the game-will prompt a wave of electoral support for Paterson.
So the senate will return today to, do what? Calls for pay garnishing and criminal probes notwithstanding, it's unlikely that a quick resolution of this mess will be soon at hand. Paterson's desperate display of executive power is, however, too little, too late.
But Parker went on to further challenge Paterson in strong language: "He’s a coward,” Mr. Parker said. “His idle threats about holding our paychecks and those other things, which he certainly has no authority to do under either the Constitution or any other law, is mean-spirited and without basis.” Mr. Parker then took a shot at Mr. Paterson’s low job-approval ratings: “He will not be returning as governor, I’m fairly sure.”
So, it looks as if the governor's going to try to take a page out of Harry Truman's book-and run against the, "do-nothing," legislature. Only problem that we see, is that it's hard to be the "do nothing governor" running against the "do nothing legislature." The Paterson persona doesn't come close to that of the feisty Truman; and we don't believe this kind of testosterone display-so late in the game-will prompt a wave of electoral support for Paterson.
So the senate will return today to, do what? Calls for pay garnishing and criminal probes notwithstanding, it's unlikely that a quick resolution of this mess will be soon at hand. Paterson's desperate display of executive power is, however, too little, too late.
Sign of Bad Economic Times; or "Minor Economic Issue?"
Yesterday, as the NY Daily News reports, the city 's Board of Health passed a regulation requiring stores to post large anti-smoking signs: "The health department wants to serve up something new at your corner bodega - a fresh slice of blackened lung. The grisly image is one of several new anti-smoking ads - as big as 3 feet by 3 feet - that new Health Commissioner Thomas Farley wants to post at the cash registers of every store in the city that sells cigarettes."
Once again, the city goes after the legitimate cigarette retailers-regulating rather than legislating-while allowing the black market to flourish. As we told the News: "The signs are counterproductive to the viability of these businesses," said Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, who said many shopkeepers are paid to display cigarette ads. "The profitability of these stores is going to be eroded." Others said a 3-foot-square sign would be difficult to accommodate, especially in a space as small as a newsstand."
Since the mayor passed the largest percentage tax increase in the city's history-the 1800% hike in the cigarette tax in 2002-60% of all tobacco sales have suffered a forced migration to the black market or Internet; a $250 million loss to area bodegas, newsstands and green grocers. Mike Bloomberg, deriding the concerns of small shopkeepers, called the loss, "a minor economic issue." And the mayor has done little to aggressively interdict the illegal sellers-preferring to crackdown on the legal store owners.
As Robert George pointed out at the time: "Bloomberg earlier this year raised the city tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.50. That means the average pack of cigarettes in New York City costs about $7.00 (the state had raised its own tax on the not-yet-illegal substance last year). Yet, two months ago, the association that represents bodega (Puerto Rican deli) owners, protested on the steps of city hall to say that the cigarette tax was killing their business. Bloomberg stunningly responded to the protests, "I just find it inconceivable that you could equate people's lives — particularly children that buy cigarettes in bodegas — with a minor economic issue…Let's get serious!"
And these store owners are now suffering the worst effects of-not only the recession-but of the city's anti-small business policies; and we are experiencing the the highest levels of bankruptcies and store evictions in the city's history. On Monday, over 60 small business and advocacy groups will be gathering at city hall to promote a Robert Jackson-sponsored bill that would mitigate evictions through mandatory arbitration. But, as far as we can see, the Bloombergistas remain tone deaf.
And, if the mayor's five borough economic plan ads is examined, a total psychotic break; since, under the mayor's less than watchful eye, stores are dropping like flies-with for rent signs becoming ubiquitous all over the neighborhoods of the city. But tobacco is fair game, no matter how much the ubber-regulators may hurt the local merchants. And the state has chimed in with an exorbitant increase in tobacco registration fees.
The health of New Yorkers is an important target for policy makers; but so is the health of small stores. Taking away bodega ad space for another warning sign is just another example of the idée fixe of Mike Bloomberg and his regulatory crusaders. Pretty soon, we're gonna have ten foot anti-smoking signs plastered all over the windows of the proliferating legions of empty store fronts.
Once again, the city goes after the legitimate cigarette retailers-regulating rather than legislating-while allowing the black market to flourish. As we told the News: "The signs are counterproductive to the viability of these businesses," said Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, who said many shopkeepers are paid to display cigarette ads. "The profitability of these stores is going to be eroded." Others said a 3-foot-square sign would be difficult to accommodate, especially in a space as small as a newsstand."
Since the mayor passed the largest percentage tax increase in the city's history-the 1800% hike in the cigarette tax in 2002-60% of all tobacco sales have suffered a forced migration to the black market or Internet; a $250 million loss to area bodegas, newsstands and green grocers. Mike Bloomberg, deriding the concerns of small shopkeepers, called the loss, "a minor economic issue." And the mayor has done little to aggressively interdict the illegal sellers-preferring to crackdown on the legal store owners.
As Robert George pointed out at the time: "Bloomberg earlier this year raised the city tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.50. That means the average pack of cigarettes in New York City costs about $7.00 (the state had raised its own tax on the not-yet-illegal substance last year). Yet, two months ago, the association that represents bodega (Puerto Rican deli) owners, protested on the steps of city hall to say that the cigarette tax was killing their business. Bloomberg stunningly responded to the protests, "I just find it inconceivable that you could equate people's lives — particularly children that buy cigarettes in bodegas — with a minor economic issue…Let's get serious!"
And these store owners are now suffering the worst effects of-not only the recession-but of the city's anti-small business policies; and we are experiencing the the highest levels of bankruptcies and store evictions in the city's history. On Monday, over 60 small business and advocacy groups will be gathering at city hall to promote a Robert Jackson-sponsored bill that would mitigate evictions through mandatory arbitration. But, as far as we can see, the Bloombergistas remain tone deaf.
And, if the mayor's five borough economic plan ads is examined, a total psychotic break; since, under the mayor's less than watchful eye, stores are dropping like flies-with for rent signs becoming ubiquitous all over the neighborhoods of the city. But tobacco is fair game, no matter how much the ubber-regulators may hurt the local merchants. And the state has chimed in with an exorbitant increase in tobacco registration fees.
The health of New Yorkers is an important target for policy makers; but so is the health of small stores. Taking away bodega ad space for another warning sign is just another example of the idée fixe of Mike Bloomberg and his regulatory crusaders. Pretty soon, we're gonna have ten foot anti-smoking signs plastered all over the windows of the proliferating legions of empty store fronts.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Get My Shawl
In Mame, the musical that the late David Lipsky had the privilege of doing the press for, there's a great line that Auntie Mame-wonderfully played by the recently deceased Bea Arthur-utters: "Get my shawl," she tells her nephew, "I feel the winds of change blowing." The line came to mind, while we were reading the Op-Ed from Rudy Giuliani in today's NY Times.
The editorial, signalling perhaps that the hapless incumbent governor should be looking over both of his shoulders, focuses directly at the dysfunction in Albany-calling for a constitutional convention to address the serious, and endemic, state problems: "NEW YORK STATE government is not working. This has been true for some time. But the paralysis and confusion that has overtaken the capital demonstrates the need to confront this dysfunction directly and take decisive steps to solve it once and for all. That’s why I’m calling on Albany to convene a state constitutional convention."
There's an old saying, that power abhors a vacuum, and the existence of a power vacuum in the state capitol is one of the most undeniable facts of political life in New York today. The more that this is made manifest, the more attractive the Rudy persona becomes-and some of his prescriptions for change will certainly resonate strongly among fed-up voters.
The economic focus of the former mayor is one that we are particularly enamored with: "There are more New Yorkers unemployed than at any time in 33 years, and the poverty rate is rising. Our combined state and local tax burden is the highest in the nation after New Jersey. Our business tax climate is rated the second worst in the country. And in the face of the worst recession in a quarter-century, the State Legislature decided to increase spending by 9 percent while increasing taxes and fees by $8 billion. No wonder a recent poll showed that more than 20 percent of New Yorkers are thinking of leaving the state in search of lower taxes and fewer government mandates."
We have been posting on this very theme for months now-and have watched with dismay as more taxes and fees have been added on; saddling New York business with the kind of burden that is simply intolerable in the current economic climate. That is why his call for a supermajority clause for any tax increase was music to our ears: "Too often increasing taxes is the first impulse for Albany legislators. Requiring a supermajority for tax increases would provide a powerful check on those who still think we can tax and spend our way out of economic problems. A supermajority would protect already over-burdened citizens and attract businesses, improving our long-term competitiveness."
The city and the state have been governed for too long by tax and spend forces that have grown the size of government, and made the state a very poor place to conduct business. We're certainly not ready to endorse the potential candidacy of someone whom we have fought some fierce battles with in the past; but we're happy that Rudy has laid out some agenda items that others would also be wise to adopt as we go into the next election cycle.
The editorial, signalling perhaps that the hapless incumbent governor should be looking over both of his shoulders, focuses directly at the dysfunction in Albany-calling for a constitutional convention to address the serious, and endemic, state problems: "NEW YORK STATE government is not working. This has been true for some time. But the paralysis and confusion that has overtaken the capital demonstrates the need to confront this dysfunction directly and take decisive steps to solve it once and for all. That’s why I’m calling on Albany to convene a state constitutional convention."
There's an old saying, that power abhors a vacuum, and the existence of a power vacuum in the state capitol is one of the most undeniable facts of political life in New York today. The more that this is made manifest, the more attractive the Rudy persona becomes-and some of his prescriptions for change will certainly resonate strongly among fed-up voters.
The economic focus of the former mayor is one that we are particularly enamored with: "There are more New Yorkers unemployed than at any time in 33 years, and the poverty rate is rising. Our combined state and local tax burden is the highest in the nation after New Jersey. Our business tax climate is rated the second worst in the country. And in the face of the worst recession in a quarter-century, the State Legislature decided to increase spending by 9 percent while increasing taxes and fees by $8 billion. No wonder a recent poll showed that more than 20 percent of New Yorkers are thinking of leaving the state in search of lower taxes and fewer government mandates."
We have been posting on this very theme for months now-and have watched with dismay as more taxes and fees have been added on; saddling New York business with the kind of burden that is simply intolerable in the current economic climate. That is why his call for a supermajority clause for any tax increase was music to our ears: "Too often increasing taxes is the first impulse for Albany legislators. Requiring a supermajority for tax increases would provide a powerful check on those who still think we can tax and spend our way out of economic problems. A supermajority would protect already over-burdened citizens and attract businesses, improving our long-term competitiveness."
The city and the state have been governed for too long by tax and spend forces that have grown the size of government, and made the state a very poor place to conduct business. We're certainly not ready to endorse the potential candidacy of someone whom we have fought some fierce battles with in the past; but we're happy that Rudy has laid out some agenda items that others would also be wise to adopt as we go into the next election cycle.
Showtime at the Armory: Supermarket in the Eye of the Storm
The battle over the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory gets going in full force tonight as CB# 7 holds its first land use hearing on the application of the Related Cos. to convert the facility into a retail mall. As the Observer reports: "It’s probably safe to assume that the faculty dining room at the Bronx’s Lehman College will be packed the evening of June 24 with a lot of people wanting a lot of things from the Related Companies. The prolific developer is coming before Community Board 7 to discuss its planned development of the behemoth Kingsbridge Armory, a whale of a 92-year-old, 588,000-square-foot building just beyond Manhattan. The city has been trying to develop the building for years, and now Related, led by Stephen Ross, is preparing to convert it into a $323 million shopping center, complete with cinemas, a fitness center and to-be-determined retailers."
And some battle it will be-with neighborhood coalitions, union workers, small business representatives, and supermarket owners all scheduled to come out to protest aspects of the proposed plan; with the expected fight over wages looking like a real contentious issue: "The central issue that’s emerged: Union and community groups are demanding retailers that pay a “livable wage.” Related is balking, saying that such a requirement would force it to scrap the project, leaving the site vacant."
And then there's the supermarket issue. We testified yesterday at a city council hearing on, "fresh food in NYC neighborhoods," and made the following points: "In 2008, the Department of City Planning conducted a study that determined that a supermarket gap existed in NYC. As the department’s report stated; “There is enormous capacity for new supermarkets throughout the city. NYC has the potential to capture approximately $1 billion in lost grocery sales to suburbs. The loss in sales is enough to support more than 100 new neighborhood grocery stores and supermarkets.”
Absent from the analysis, however, is the fact that-over the past eight or nine years-the city has lost over 300 local supermarkets. So, if indeed there is a gap, than the gap has come as a result of the loss of existing markets. But instead of addressing the disappearance factor-the underlying causes of store closings-City Planning devised an elaborate plan for incentivizing new market penetration in areas it considers to be underserved."
Which gets to the heart of what's at stake in tonight's official launch of the Armory ULURP. The plan by Related to place a 60,000 sq. ft. suburban-style store in the Armory would lead to the loss of at least four local supermarkets-the average when stores of this size are parachuted into city neighborhoods. Which is why, as the Observer points out: "Nearby supermarket chain Morton Williams is also pressuring local electeds to have Related rule out a grocery store within the armory."
This is a good trade off? Not in our view. In fact, even in the city's own incentive plan, new store size is capped at 30,000 sq. ft.-half the size of the one that Related proposes. The city recognizes neighborhood ecology in its plan; while Related proposes an outsized market that, while it may create an oasis at the Armory, will likely create retail deserts everywhere else. And, if successful, they will do so with $17 million of the tax payers' money.
It simply makes no sense to promote supermarkets in the city if, at the same time, planners are encouraging large suburban style markets and/or food selling box stores. In the reported aim of staunching the outflow of city shoppers, the likely alternative result will be the cannibalization of existing supermarkets-hastening their demise.
So the Armory fight pits the city against itself. It can't say it wants to promote supermarkets in the neighborhoods-using public health as the rationale-while, at the same time, promoting the kinds of developments that will contribute to the exact opposite effect. The fight over the supermarket at Kingsbridge puts this issue forward with great clarity; and, from what we're hearing, the Bronx council delegation-including Maria Baez, the local member from the area, understand what's a stake.
We're encouraged so far with the support that Morton Williams is getting in this life and death struggle for the soul of the neighborhood's economic viability. It's beginning to look a lot like another similar fight; and we'll give the Observer the last word: "But it’s worth noting that before Related’s victory at the Bronx Terminal Market, the firm suffered a rare loss on a land-use project in the borough a year earlier, under circumstances similar to those today. Related wanted to put a 130,000-square-foot BJ’s along Brush Avenue, only to see it voted down in a key City Council subcommittee."
And some battle it will be-with neighborhood coalitions, union workers, small business representatives, and supermarket owners all scheduled to come out to protest aspects of the proposed plan; with the expected fight over wages looking like a real contentious issue: "The central issue that’s emerged: Union and community groups are demanding retailers that pay a “livable wage.” Related is balking, saying that such a requirement would force it to scrap the project, leaving the site vacant."
And then there's the supermarket issue. We testified yesterday at a city council hearing on, "fresh food in NYC neighborhoods," and made the following points: "In 2008, the Department of City Planning conducted a study that determined that a supermarket gap existed in NYC. As the department’s report stated; “There is enormous capacity for new supermarkets throughout the city. NYC has the potential to capture approximately $1 billion in lost grocery sales to suburbs. The loss in sales is enough to support more than 100 new neighborhood grocery stores and supermarkets.”
Absent from the analysis, however, is the fact that-over the past eight or nine years-the city has lost over 300 local supermarkets. So, if indeed there is a gap, than the gap has come as a result of the loss of existing markets. But instead of addressing the disappearance factor-the underlying causes of store closings-City Planning devised an elaborate plan for incentivizing new market penetration in areas it considers to be underserved."
Which gets to the heart of what's at stake in tonight's official launch of the Armory ULURP. The plan by Related to place a 60,000 sq. ft. suburban-style store in the Armory would lead to the loss of at least four local supermarkets-the average when stores of this size are parachuted into city neighborhoods. Which is why, as the Observer points out: "Nearby supermarket chain Morton Williams is also pressuring local electeds to have Related rule out a grocery store within the armory."
This is a good trade off? Not in our view. In fact, even in the city's own incentive plan, new store size is capped at 30,000 sq. ft.-half the size of the one that Related proposes. The city recognizes neighborhood ecology in its plan; while Related proposes an outsized market that, while it may create an oasis at the Armory, will likely create retail deserts everywhere else. And, if successful, they will do so with $17 million of the tax payers' money.
It simply makes no sense to promote supermarkets in the city if, at the same time, planners are encouraging large suburban style markets and/or food selling box stores. In the reported aim of staunching the outflow of city shoppers, the likely alternative result will be the cannibalization of existing supermarkets-hastening their demise.
So the Armory fight pits the city against itself. It can't say it wants to promote supermarkets in the neighborhoods-using public health as the rationale-while, at the same time, promoting the kinds of developments that will contribute to the exact opposite effect. The fight over the supermarket at Kingsbridge puts this issue forward with great clarity; and, from what we're hearing, the Bronx council delegation-including Maria Baez, the local member from the area, understand what's a stake.
We're encouraged so far with the support that Morton Williams is getting in this life and death struggle for the soul of the neighborhood's economic viability. It's beginning to look a lot like another similar fight; and we'll give the Observer the last word: "But it’s worth noting that before Related’s victory at the Bronx Terminal Market, the firm suffered a rare loss on a land-use project in the borough a year earlier, under circumstances similar to those today. Related wanted to put a 130,000-square-foot BJ’s along Brush Avenue, only to see it voted down in a key City Council subcommittee."
Needed: Public Advocate for the Tabs
In our post this morning on the disgraceful cutting of the Public Advocate's budget, we derided the NY Post's snide clamoring-piling on while, simultaneously, shamelessly shilling for Deep Pockets Bloomberg. We did, however, miss the expected choral agreement from the equally supine NY Daily News.
And the paper didn't disappoint: "When last heard from, Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum ... er ... when was Betsy Gotbaum last heard from? Oh, right. She was a witness in the Brooke Astor trial. Now, she is worked up that Mayor Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine Quinn pushed through a budget that cuts public advocate funding from $2.8 million to $1.7 million. She charges political evildoing, revenge for opposing extended term limits. If only her office were consequential enough to merit payback. It ain't. It's like an appendix, useless but prone every now and then to flaring up with press releases. Long ago, it should have been excised."
Well, you know, the News may be right if our local editorialists did their job-kind of like what the paper's Mike Goodwin is doing to the president-holding the powerful more accountable. Instead we get editorial after editorial; with the News playing, "can you top that," with the Post-in the effort to see who can climb inside the mayor's shorts first.
So, we do need the PA more than ever when the news climate resembles Pravda's control of public information in the old Soviet Union. But, perhaps, the Advocate's role can be redefined, and the office's renewed focus can be on holding the press barons accountable for their dereliction of duty.
And the paper didn't disappoint: "When last heard from, Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum ... er ... when was Betsy Gotbaum last heard from? Oh, right. She was a witness in the Brooke Astor trial. Now, she is worked up that Mayor Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine Quinn pushed through a budget that cuts public advocate funding from $2.8 million to $1.7 million. She charges political evildoing, revenge for opposing extended term limits. If only her office were consequential enough to merit payback. It ain't. It's like an appendix, useless but prone every now and then to flaring up with press releases. Long ago, it should have been excised."
Well, you know, the News may be right if our local editorialists did their job-kind of like what the paper's Mike Goodwin is doing to the president-holding the powerful more accountable. Instead we get editorial after editorial; with the News playing, "can you top that," with the Post-in the effort to see who can climb inside the mayor's shorts first.
So, we do need the PA more than ever when the news climate resembles Pravda's control of public information in the old Soviet Union. But, perhaps, the Advocate's role can be redefined, and the office's renewed focus can be on holding the press barons accountable for their dereliction of duty.
Paterson on the Griddlelock
With the so called special legislative session degenerating into a middle school food fight-and polling indicating a total collapse in support for the state's legislators-it is David Paterson, and he alone, who will reap this particular whirlwind. Why, because no one knows any of the other players in this tragicomedy-aside from their own senator who, of course, they think should be re-elected: "But voters say 48 - 27 percent that their state senator deserves to be reelected in 2010. Democrats back their individual state senator 56 - 19 percent, while Republicans are less supportive, 41 - 36 percent. Independent voters back their incumbent 47 - 31 percent."
So it's left to the governor to bear the brunt of the public scorn-and his role is far from that of simple scapegoat. In the run up to this farce, Paterson has so diminished his own stature that he reminds us of the hapless substitute teacher, trying in vain to quiet an unruly group of eighth graders. The need for an intervention from the principal became more compelling yesterday as the children literally began to climb the walls-escalating the name calling to another level.
As the NY Daily News reports-with a "Girls Gone Wild"-style headline: "How low will they go? The Capitol's dysfunction sunk to amazing new depths Tuesday as warring senators held dueling sessions in the same room at the same time - and accomplished absolutely nothing. Gov. Paterson's effort to break the leadership stalemate with a special Senate session only furthered the confusion when Democrats accused the governor of not sending legislation on time. "Keystone comedy," said Sen. Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn)."
The NY Times underscores the sophomoric theme: "The two sides, like feuding junior high schoolers refusing to acknowledge each other, began holding separate legislative sessions at the same time. Side by side, the parties, each asserting that it rightfully controls the Senate, talked and sometimes shouted over one another, gaveling through votes that are certain to be disputed. There were two Senate presidents, two gavels, two sets of bills being voted on."
In most major controversies, the press lists all of the winners and losers; but in the legislative stalemate, as Bill Hammond points out, there are only losers: "Instead of doing the people's urgent business, the senators staged the political equivalent of a professional wrestling match - only a lot less dignified. They bellowed, they pointed fingers, they turned their backs on one another, they stalked out of the ring and took a bunch of phony votes that decided nothing."
Hammond does make one exception in his losers gallery: "But it's the senators who bear the ultimate blame, because they could not put aside their political infighting long enough to pass a few noncontroversial measures necessary to keep the state running. Instead, they birthed a legal mess that just might tie up the courts for years. Come to think of it, there were winners yesterday. The lawyers."
He did leave out, however, the real winner in all this; the stealth governor-in-waiting: Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo is just waiting to pick up the pieces when the mess is finally resolved-even if only on an interim basis. Maybe he is the principal that this school for scoundrels really needs.
So it's left to the governor to bear the brunt of the public scorn-and his role is far from that of simple scapegoat. In the run up to this farce, Paterson has so diminished his own stature that he reminds us of the hapless substitute teacher, trying in vain to quiet an unruly group of eighth graders. The need for an intervention from the principal became more compelling yesterday as the children literally began to climb the walls-escalating the name calling to another level.
As the NY Daily News reports-with a "Girls Gone Wild"-style headline: "How low will they go? The Capitol's dysfunction sunk to amazing new depths Tuesday as warring senators held dueling sessions in the same room at the same time - and accomplished absolutely nothing. Gov. Paterson's effort to break the leadership stalemate with a special Senate session only furthered the confusion when Democrats accused the governor of not sending legislation on time. "Keystone comedy," said Sen. Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn)."
The NY Times underscores the sophomoric theme: "The two sides, like feuding junior high schoolers refusing to acknowledge each other, began holding separate legislative sessions at the same time. Side by side, the parties, each asserting that it rightfully controls the Senate, talked and sometimes shouted over one another, gaveling through votes that are certain to be disputed. There were two Senate presidents, two gavels, two sets of bills being voted on."
In most major controversies, the press lists all of the winners and losers; but in the legislative stalemate, as Bill Hammond points out, there are only losers: "Instead of doing the people's urgent business, the senators staged the political equivalent of a professional wrestling match - only a lot less dignified. They bellowed, they pointed fingers, they turned their backs on one another, they stalked out of the ring and took a bunch of phony votes that decided nothing."
Hammond does make one exception in his losers gallery: "But it's the senators who bear the ultimate blame, because they could not put aside their political infighting long enough to pass a few noncontroversial measures necessary to keep the state running. Instead, they birthed a legal mess that just might tie up the courts for years. Come to think of it, there were winners yesterday. The lawyers."
He did leave out, however, the real winner in all this; the stealth governor-in-waiting: Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo is just waiting to pick up the pieces when the mess is finally resolved-even if only on an interim basis. Maybe he is the principal that this school for scoundrels really needs.
Checks and Imbalances
Isn't it bad enough that the mayor and the council speaker have been locked in a four year embrace that makes a mockery of the idea of checks and balances? Apparently not, since the two sides of city hall have collapsed on each other with the knifing of the public advocate's budget for the upcoming fiscal year. As the NY Times reports: "The five men vying to succeed Betsy Gotbaum as the city’s next public advocate showed up together at City Hall Friday to demonstrate solidarity with Ms. Gotbaum over a critical issue: the viability of the office."
Now we know that the all but invisible tenure of Ms. Gotbaum has got a lot of folks thinking-well, so what? But the larger point here is that the office of the Public Advocate has the potential to serve as a bully pulpit; and the need for a countervailing voice, if not force, is all the more compelling when we are facing the possibility of another four years of political pas de deux by Quinnberg.
As Mark Green, putative front runner to replace Gotbaum, told the Times: "Mr. Green, for instance, talked at length about the history of the office, before boiling down his concerns to a basic question: “Here’s the question I would urge you and you and all of you in a position to simply ask the mayor and speaker: ‘Why has only the watchdog over City Hall been cut 40 percent?’ ”
But the NY Post, quite unintendedly ironic, demurs: "Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum and her would-be successors took to the steps of City Hall yesterday to bemoan the 40 percent budget cut her office suffered at the hands of the City Council last week. O, woe is them...They all want the cut restored, because they're running for advocate, too. All the more reason to cut it again.
This time, completely."
The Post, which has been functioning as a key cog of the Bloomberg propaganda machine on the issue of school governance; sometimes running three promotional items a day, wants to eliminate, what?-any possibility of a discouraging word on the city hall range? Quite another nod to the new Supreme Leader, and a disgraceful shot at political dissent in the city.
Now we know that the all but invisible tenure of Ms. Gotbaum has got a lot of folks thinking-well, so what? But the larger point here is that the office of the Public Advocate has the potential to serve as a bully pulpit; and the need for a countervailing voice, if not force, is all the more compelling when we are facing the possibility of another four years of political pas de deux by Quinnberg.
As Mark Green, putative front runner to replace Gotbaum, told the Times: "Mr. Green, for instance, talked at length about the history of the office, before boiling down his concerns to a basic question: “Here’s the question I would urge you and you and all of you in a position to simply ask the mayor and speaker: ‘Why has only the watchdog over City Hall been cut 40 percent?’ ”
But the NY Post, quite unintendedly ironic, demurs: "Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum and her would-be successors took to the steps of City Hall yesterday to bemoan the 40 percent budget cut her office suffered at the hands of the City Council last week. O, woe is them...They all want the cut restored, because they're running for advocate, too. All the more reason to cut it again.
This time, completely."
The Post, which has been functioning as a key cog of the Bloomberg propaganda machine on the issue of school governance; sometimes running three promotional items a day, wants to eliminate, what?-any possibility of a discouraging word on the city hall range? Quite another nod to the new Supreme Leader, and a disgraceful shot at political dissent in the city.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Bloomberg's Pension Mischief
We have been arguing for some time that the argument for a third term for Mike Bloomberg-you know, a tough man for tough economic times-doesn't really hold up under even the slightest independent scrutiny. Bloomberg, imbued with an expansive government propensity-and lacking any real sympathy for the lower tax arguments that most people with a business background imbibed with their mother's milk-has raised cost that are, in the words of our national leader, "unsustainable."
Now, in a really incisive news report, the NY Times exposes the Myth of Mike; a man who has pensioned off the city's fiscal future: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is sounding the alarm over New York City’s pension system these days, calling it “out of control.” Costs have ballooned, he says, threatening to bankrupt the city. Municipal unions and lawmakers in Albany created the crisis, he suggests, and left the city holding the bag. But interviews and budget records show that the Bloomberg administration itself is responsible for much of the growth in city pension costs over the last eight years, and has repeatedly missed opportunities to rein in the spending."
Having missed all of these opportunities is not the only black mark on the Bloomberg fiscal report card. At the same time that he was avoiding making any of the responsible decisions needed to make government more cost-effective, he was simultaneously-adding injury to insult to injury-raising the crippling local taxes that have been a major contributing factor in the city's economic meltdown.
All the while, like some out of work lottery winner, the mayor was thoughtlessly spending Wall Street cash-acting as if the spigot would never be turned off. Some of this-rather unintentionally-is captured by the Times in the following tepid mea culpa from one of the Bloomberg toadies: "Aides to the mayor defend his handling of pension costs. While acknowledging that Mr. Bloomberg has given significant raises, the aides say the weakened stock market has also driven up costs, because the city is forced to cover investment losses in the pension system."
But that, of course, doesn't explain the mayor's instinctive generosity over the years: "Mr. Bloomberg presents himself as a model of financial restraint who has stood up to special interests, like unions, in order to hold down city spending — a claim that is at the heart of his bid for a third term. But financial-watchdog groups say that rather than confronting the city’s pension problem, the mayor has made it worse over the last several years, negotiating costlier payouts for retirees in flush economic times that threaten to be crippling now that the city is in a recession. “You have a mayor who says that pension costs are unsustainable, that they will bankrupt the city, who has willfully increased the city’s pension liabilities,” said Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute who focuses on New York City’s finances."
Bloomberg came into office-unbought and unbossed, to use an old Kochism-with a great opportunity to lower the cost of government through creative reinvention. Instead we got John Vliet Bloomberg-a man that never saw a government program he either didn't like, or want to expand even further; a best friend to all city workers.
Ah, but now he sees the light, after only eight years in office, and is rushing to reinvent-not government-but his own image; and he's got the money to do just that. Here's the NY Post on the teacher pension deal reached yesterday: "The teachers union and Mayor Bloomberg announced a breakthrough deal last night on a pension-reform package that the mayor estimated would save the city $2 billion over 20 years. It was the first significant pension change won by Bloomberg since taking office in 2002 -- and followed a series in The Post that disclosed that some city workers, especially cops and firefighters, were routinely collecting six-figure retirement checks."
So, perhaps Mike Bloomberg-like some other clever pols in the past-is actually running to throw the bum out; making arguments about fiscal restraint that would be less discordant coming from a real mayoral challenger. Even the old excuse that Albany ate my homework, comes off not only lame, but inaccurate as well. As the Times points out: "Over the last seven years, public sector unions have successfully lobbied lawmakers to pass dozens of bills increasing their pension benefits. In most cases, aides to the mayor said, the city has vigorously opposed the measures, to no avail. “Unfortunately, the battle we’ve been fighting over pensions is how to keep them from getting even more generous and expensive,” said Edward Skyler, the deputy mayor who oversees labor negotiations. But the mayor has, in fact, supported legislation that makes pensions more lucrative. Coming into office after the Sept. 11 attack, he backed proposals to increase retirement pay for firefighters and police officers, who receive the city’s biggest pensions"
But all of this butt covering elides the main point-and masks Mike Bloomberg's gross culpability; a guilt that goes to the heart of the mayor's big government love affair: "The mayor’s biggest contribution to pension costs, however, are the raises he has negotiated for city workers." And in response, we get the following whopper from Pie in the Skylar: "Mr. Skyler said the administration has negotiated contracts that have improved productivity and attracted more qualified job candidates. As a result, the city has been able to improve services, he said. “We get our money’s worth,” he said."
This is all beyond laughable, and if any normal incumbent was making this argument, his poll numbers would be Paterson-like. The Times underscores Bloomberg's folly: "But records show that wage increases granted by the Bloomberg administration have outpaced the rate of inflation, and have sent labor costs surging. The Citizens Budget Commission, a municipal watchdog group, has called the raises “generous in both historical and comparative terms.” “It’s pretty simple: If you pay people more, their pensions get bigger,” said Charles M. Brecher, the research director at the commission. “And wages are negotiated by the mayor. This is his call.”
All of this could have been avoided if Mike Bloomberg had the political wisdom and the scones to tackle the municipal gravy train-something he alone, because of his great wealth and self-funded campaigns-could have done with relative impunity. As Fred Siegel tells the Times: "The mayor’s political independence — unlike most politicians, he takes no campaign donations — made him “perfectly situated to impose pension reforms, but he chose to not really even try,” Mr. Siegel said. “That’s the tragedy.”
So, as we go full steam into the upcoming election cycle, we are befogged by an
unprecedented spending storm; a magical mystification tour that is going unrebutted by the supposed challenger. As a result, we have reached a nadir in the city's history-real fiscal irresponsibility caused by an incumbent has thrown the city's financial and business situation into a tailspin but, like the proverbial tree in the forest, not many people are finding out about how it has fallen. Maybe this Times critique will usher in a new trend. For all of our sakes, let's hope so.
Now, in a really incisive news report, the NY Times exposes the Myth of Mike; a man who has pensioned off the city's fiscal future: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is sounding the alarm over New York City’s pension system these days, calling it “out of control.” Costs have ballooned, he says, threatening to bankrupt the city. Municipal unions and lawmakers in Albany created the crisis, he suggests, and left the city holding the bag. But interviews and budget records show that the Bloomberg administration itself is responsible for much of the growth in city pension costs over the last eight years, and has repeatedly missed opportunities to rein in the spending."
Having missed all of these opportunities is not the only black mark on the Bloomberg fiscal report card. At the same time that he was avoiding making any of the responsible decisions needed to make government more cost-effective, he was simultaneously-adding injury to insult to injury-raising the crippling local taxes that have been a major contributing factor in the city's economic meltdown.
All the while, like some out of work lottery winner, the mayor was thoughtlessly spending Wall Street cash-acting as if the spigot would never be turned off. Some of this-rather unintentionally-is captured by the Times in the following tepid mea culpa from one of the Bloomberg toadies: "Aides to the mayor defend his handling of pension costs. While acknowledging that Mr. Bloomberg has given significant raises, the aides say the weakened stock market has also driven up costs, because the city is forced to cover investment losses in the pension system."
But that, of course, doesn't explain the mayor's instinctive generosity over the years: "Mr. Bloomberg presents himself as a model of financial restraint who has stood up to special interests, like unions, in order to hold down city spending — a claim that is at the heart of his bid for a third term. But financial-watchdog groups say that rather than confronting the city’s pension problem, the mayor has made it worse over the last several years, negotiating costlier payouts for retirees in flush economic times that threaten to be crippling now that the city is in a recession. “You have a mayor who says that pension costs are unsustainable, that they will bankrupt the city, who has willfully increased the city’s pension liabilities,” said Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute who focuses on New York City’s finances."
Bloomberg came into office-unbought and unbossed, to use an old Kochism-with a great opportunity to lower the cost of government through creative reinvention. Instead we got John Vliet Bloomberg-a man that never saw a government program he either didn't like, or want to expand even further; a best friend to all city workers.
Ah, but now he sees the light, after only eight years in office, and is rushing to reinvent-not government-but his own image; and he's got the money to do just that. Here's the NY Post on the teacher pension deal reached yesterday: "The teachers union and Mayor Bloomberg announced a breakthrough deal last night on a pension-reform package that the mayor estimated would save the city $2 billion over 20 years. It was the first significant pension change won by Bloomberg since taking office in 2002 -- and followed a series in The Post that disclosed that some city workers, especially cops and firefighters, were routinely collecting six-figure retirement checks."
So, perhaps Mike Bloomberg-like some other clever pols in the past-is actually running to throw the bum out; making arguments about fiscal restraint that would be less discordant coming from a real mayoral challenger. Even the old excuse that Albany ate my homework, comes off not only lame, but inaccurate as well. As the Times points out: "Over the last seven years, public sector unions have successfully lobbied lawmakers to pass dozens of bills increasing their pension benefits. In most cases, aides to the mayor said, the city has vigorously opposed the measures, to no avail. “Unfortunately, the battle we’ve been fighting over pensions is how to keep them from getting even more generous and expensive,” said Edward Skyler, the deputy mayor who oversees labor negotiations. But the mayor has, in fact, supported legislation that makes pensions more lucrative. Coming into office after the Sept. 11 attack, he backed proposals to increase retirement pay for firefighters and police officers, who receive the city’s biggest pensions"
But all of this butt covering elides the main point-and masks Mike Bloomberg's gross culpability; a guilt that goes to the heart of the mayor's big government love affair: "The mayor’s biggest contribution to pension costs, however, are the raises he has negotiated for city workers." And in response, we get the following whopper from Pie in the Skylar: "Mr. Skyler said the administration has negotiated contracts that have improved productivity and attracted more qualified job candidates. As a result, the city has been able to improve services, he said. “We get our money’s worth,” he said."
This is all beyond laughable, and if any normal incumbent was making this argument, his poll numbers would be Paterson-like. The Times underscores Bloomberg's folly: "But records show that wage increases granted by the Bloomberg administration have outpaced the rate of inflation, and have sent labor costs surging. The Citizens Budget Commission, a municipal watchdog group, has called the raises “generous in both historical and comparative terms.” “It’s pretty simple: If you pay people more, their pensions get bigger,” said Charles M. Brecher, the research director at the commission. “And wages are negotiated by the mayor. This is his call.”
All of this could have been avoided if Mike Bloomberg had the political wisdom and the scones to tackle the municipal gravy train-something he alone, because of his great wealth and self-funded campaigns-could have done with relative impunity. As Fred Siegel tells the Times: "The mayor’s political independence — unlike most politicians, he takes no campaign donations — made him “perfectly situated to impose pension reforms, but he chose to not really even try,” Mr. Siegel said. “That’s the tragedy.”
So, as we go full steam into the upcoming election cycle, we are befogged by an
unprecedented spending storm; a magical mystification tour that is going unrebutted by the supposed challenger. As a result, we have reached a nadir in the city's history-real fiscal irresponsibility caused by an incumbent has thrown the city's financial and business situation into a tailspin but, like the proverbial tree in the forest, not many people are finding out about how it has fallen. Maybe this Times critique will usher in a new trend. For all of our sakes, let's hope so.
Monday, June 22, 2009
More Soda Addiction
Just when we thought that the dreaded soda tax was going to simply go away when Governor Paterson withdrew it from last spring's budget negotiations, we now see it reappear on the federal level-proposed to help fund the president's trillion dollar health care package: "Early work on the ambitious health care overhaul the Obama administration is seeking has exposed the kinds of in-house fights that typify just how hard it will be to get meaningful legislation this year. Case in point: A proposal to help bankroll universal health coverage with a dime-a-can increase in the price of soft drinks."
So when candidate Obama said that he wouldn't raise taxes on 95% of all Americans, he was leaving out all of the possible levies that will be needed for funding ObamaCare:
"The final price tag for that effort could top $1 trillion, with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid covering the rest of the cost.
The tax options include:
- Increasing the price of soda and other sugary drinks by 10 cents a can.
- Applying a potential 2 percent income tax increase to single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year and households earning more than $250,000.
- A new employer payroll tax could target 3 percent of employers' health care expenditures.
- Taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits above certain levels - a less likely option but one that still is in the running."
One trillion dollars for a health plan that could very well end up with this country having a single payer-Medicare-style-system that will, as Dr. Marc Siegel writes in the NY Post, cause chaos, mayhem, and a substandard system of care for all: "The bottom line, I think, is that primary-care physicians fear that near-mindless efforts to find cost savings -- the kind we've seen in existing government programs, and spreading to private plans -- will irrevocably damage our very ability to practice, to prevent and treat illness. We're told a "public option" will mean insurance for people who now don't pay -- but it seems to me, based on hard experience, that it will mean worse health care for everyone."
All of which makes the front page NY Times poll story, not only mendacious, but fantastical as well. The idea that 72% of Americans support a Medicare-like system is as fraudulent as the poll's methodology. And, one thing we can be sure of; if anything resembling the Obama plan is ever enacted, then the soda tax that is proposed will only be the beginning of a tax assault-one made necessary by the expanding public health care Leviathan.
So when candidate Obama said that he wouldn't raise taxes on 95% of all Americans, he was leaving out all of the possible levies that will be needed for funding ObamaCare:
"The final price tag for that effort could top $1 trillion, with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid covering the rest of the cost.
The tax options include:
- Increasing the price of soda and other sugary drinks by 10 cents a can.
- Applying a potential 2 percent income tax increase to single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year and households earning more than $250,000.
- A new employer payroll tax could target 3 percent of employers' health care expenditures.
- Taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits above certain levels - a less likely option but one that still is in the running."
One trillion dollars for a health plan that could very well end up with this country having a single payer-Medicare-style-system that will, as Dr. Marc Siegel writes in the NY Post, cause chaos, mayhem, and a substandard system of care for all: "The bottom line, I think, is that primary-care physicians fear that near-mindless efforts to find cost savings -- the kind we've seen in existing government programs, and spreading to private plans -- will irrevocably damage our very ability to practice, to prevent and treat illness. We're told a "public option" will mean insurance for people who now don't pay -- but it seems to me, based on hard experience, that it will mean worse health care for everyone."
All of which makes the front page NY Times poll story, not only mendacious, but fantastical as well. The idea that 72% of Americans support a Medicare-like system is as fraudulent as the poll's methodology. And, one thing we can be sure of; if anything resembling the Obama plan is ever enacted, then the soda tax that is proposed will only be the beginning of a tax assault-one made necessary by the expanding public health care Leviathan.
Mayoral Control Mahyem
Mike Bloomberg is finally getting mad with the stalled state senate because the issue of mayoral control is in jeopardy. His own role in the political stalemate is, however, downplayed. As usual, Bloomberg fails to acknowledge his own culpability in the stalemate-and his resort to the kind of political monkeying around that he portrays as tawdry-and beneath his dignity.
As the NY Post reports: "A furious Mayor Bloomberg has declared war on Albany -- warning the Senate clowns and their ringmaster that he's sick of watching them play power games while the fate of the city's schoolkids hangs in the balance. "I find it inconceivable they won't do this," Bloomberg told The Post in an exclusive interview."
What the Sainted One fails to tell the Post in its "exclusive" press release, is that the current impasse is a direct result of a power grab by his own little class of senate sycophants-the same group that he spent so much money in an effort to insure continued Republican control over the body. And now he's angry? Perhaps, he's simply unhappy with what he has wrought.
But the coverage of the Bloomberg pique over the school issue, underscores once again just how the local press-absolutely obsessed and unhinged over mayoral control-simply doesn't cover the nuances of anything Bloomberg; particularly if these underlying factors cast the mayor in a less than flattering light. We are left to relying on Wayne Barrett for all of our unbiased reportage; and, as a result, the public-bombarded by Bloomberg's own paid messages-is shortchanged.
As the NY Post reports: "A furious Mayor Bloomberg has declared war on Albany -- warning the Senate clowns and their ringmaster that he's sick of watching them play power games while the fate of the city's schoolkids hangs in the balance. "I find it inconceivable they won't do this," Bloomberg told The Post in an exclusive interview."
What the Sainted One fails to tell the Post in its "exclusive" press release, is that the current impasse is a direct result of a power grab by his own little class of senate sycophants-the same group that he spent so much money in an effort to insure continued Republican control over the body. And now he's angry? Perhaps, he's simply unhappy with what he has wrought.
But the coverage of the Bloomberg pique over the school issue, underscores once again just how the local press-absolutely obsessed and unhinged over mayoral control-simply doesn't cover the nuances of anything Bloomberg; particularly if these underlying factors cast the mayor in a less than flattering light. We are left to relying on Wayne Barrett for all of our unbiased reportage; and, as a result, the public-bombarded by Bloomberg's own paid messages-is shortchanged.
Small Busness and Bloomberg's Five Borough Plan
We have previously posted on the incremental progress encompassed in the city council's effort-along with the mayor's-to try to improve the business climate for the city's smallest entrepreneurs. A more robust response is needed, however, since the current economic crisis can't be solved by any incremental band aid approach. In addition, a greater recognition is also necessary concerning how municipal policy itself contributes to the retail crisis.
The salience of this observation was brought home last week at a City Hall press conference headed by the intrepid Council member Tony Avella: "Extortion is taking a heavy toll on businesses throughout the city as under-the-table fees spread unchecked, according to a report by the U.S.A. Latin Chamber of Commerce.Responding to the corruption, Mayoral Candidate Tony Avella joined nearly 70 business owners and advocates at city hall on Wednesday, calling for a federal investigation."
What the press conference underscored, was that Mom and Pop retailers are being victimized at every turn-whether it's unscrupulous landlords, or simply the high tax environment that sends so much business elsewhere. Which is, of course, one of the reasons why local supermarkets are disappearing before our very eyes-the subject of a City Council hearing tomorrow.
In the view of the city planners, however, it is the lack of selection-or simply the lack of sufficient number of markets-that is causing consumers to shop elsewhere. As the DCP report on the supermarket gap pointed out: "There is enormous capacity for new supermarkets throughout the city. NYC has the potential to capture approximately $1 billion in lost grocery sales to suburbs. The loss in sales is enough to support more than 100 new neighborhood grocery stores and supermarkets.”
This observation highlights the confusion so often made between causation and correlation. Many folks do leave the city to shop; and it is our belief, bolstered by considerable data, that they will continue to do so even if the city is able to subsidize some new supermarket development. The fact is that the city's strapped consumers are being forced out to less tax happy environs.
This was recognized by Rudy Giuliani when he first pioneered the elimination of the clothing sales tax for purchases under $110: "The overwhelming successes of these tax free weeks obviously sent a message to Albany that did not go unheeded," said Mayor Giuliani. "The removal of this regressive tax on items costing less than $110 will save New York City families hundreds of dollars each year, add approximately 13,200 jobs and boost the City's economy by $910 million. I commend Governor Pataki and the State Legislature for passing this important legislation."
And Giuliani went on to point out: "It will also do much to recover the $700 million per year New York City merchants lose to New Jersey because of this tax," the Mayor continues. "Working families with lower incomes that typically spend a large portion of their income - as much as 12 percent - on clothing and footwear will especially benefit from the removal of this burdensome tax."
High taxes=lost business; it's just that simple. And with another sales tax hike on the way-if the state senate can ever get its act together-more consumer emigration will certainly follow. Which means to us, that building new box stores and suburban style supermarkets will do less to staunch the efflux of city shoppers than it will cannibalize sales from NYC's neighborhood shopping strips.
Which brings us back to the Bloomberg recycled five borough economic plan. It is simply a distraction from the fact that Mike Bloomberg, in his eight years governing this city has raised taxes across the board and increased regulations, all the while he was simultaneously growing the municipal work force and the size of government along with it.
It is amazing, given the mayor's record, that any one with a feel for the full spectrum of city business could tout the mayor's fiscal acumen as a rationale for a usurped third term in office. The city's economic troubles have been exacerbated by anti-business public policies engineered by a billionaire mayor who lacks the policy sophistication to properly address the roots of the current crisis. It is a triumph of public relations that will, retrospectively, expose the city's voters for the rubes they are if the mayor is able to garner his well purchased third term.
The salience of this observation was brought home last week at a City Hall press conference headed by the intrepid Council member Tony Avella: "Extortion is taking a heavy toll on businesses throughout the city as under-the-table fees spread unchecked, according to a report by the U.S.A. Latin Chamber of Commerce.Responding to the corruption, Mayoral Candidate Tony Avella joined nearly 70 business owners and advocates at city hall on Wednesday, calling for a federal investigation."
What the press conference underscored, was that Mom and Pop retailers are being victimized at every turn-whether it's unscrupulous landlords, or simply the high tax environment that sends so much business elsewhere. Which is, of course, one of the reasons why local supermarkets are disappearing before our very eyes-the subject of a City Council hearing tomorrow.
In the view of the city planners, however, it is the lack of selection-or simply the lack of sufficient number of markets-that is causing consumers to shop elsewhere. As the DCP report on the supermarket gap pointed out: "There is enormous capacity for new supermarkets throughout the city. NYC has the potential to capture approximately $1 billion in lost grocery sales to suburbs. The loss in sales is enough to support more than 100 new neighborhood grocery stores and supermarkets.”
This observation highlights the confusion so often made between causation and correlation. Many folks do leave the city to shop; and it is our belief, bolstered by considerable data, that they will continue to do so even if the city is able to subsidize some new supermarket development. The fact is that the city's strapped consumers are being forced out to less tax happy environs.
This was recognized by Rudy Giuliani when he first pioneered the elimination of the clothing sales tax for purchases under $110: "The overwhelming successes of these tax free weeks obviously sent a message to Albany that did not go unheeded," said Mayor Giuliani. "The removal of this regressive tax on items costing less than $110 will save New York City families hundreds of dollars each year, add approximately 13,200 jobs and boost the City's economy by $910 million. I commend Governor Pataki and the State Legislature for passing this important legislation."
And Giuliani went on to point out: "It will also do much to recover the $700 million per year New York City merchants lose to New Jersey because of this tax," the Mayor continues. "Working families with lower incomes that typically spend a large portion of their income - as much as 12 percent - on clothing and footwear will especially benefit from the removal of this burdensome tax."
High taxes=lost business; it's just that simple. And with another sales tax hike on the way-if the state senate can ever get its act together-more consumer emigration will certainly follow. Which means to us, that building new box stores and suburban style supermarkets will do less to staunch the efflux of city shoppers than it will cannibalize sales from NYC's neighborhood shopping strips.
Which brings us back to the Bloomberg recycled five borough economic plan. It is simply a distraction from the fact that Mike Bloomberg, in his eight years governing this city has raised taxes across the board and increased regulations, all the while he was simultaneously growing the municipal work force and the size of government along with it.
It is amazing, given the mayor's record, that any one with a feel for the full spectrum of city business could tout the mayor's fiscal acumen as a rationale for a usurped third term in office. The city's economic troubles have been exacerbated by anti-business public policies engineered by a billionaire mayor who lacks the policy sophistication to properly address the roots of the current crisis. It is a triumph of public relations that will, retrospectively, expose the city's voters for the rubes they are if the mayor is able to garner his well purchased third term.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Morton Willams to the Defense
The following is a guest post by Morton Sloan and Avi Kaner, president and vice president of Morton Williams Supermarkets.
Morton Williams Supermarkets Defends Itself – A David vs. Goliath Story
The Village Voice recently ran a story based on a lobbying proposal that was written to Morton Williams Supermarkets. This unexecuted private proposal outlined the kind of grass roots lobbying and community organizing strategy needed to protect Morton Williams Supermarkets from an unfair attack by the Related Company, a multi-billion dollar developer subsidized by City and State government.
The story here is how the Related Company is using its favored nation status with the current administration, as well as financial subsidies, to destroy local tax-paying businesses like ours that have been loyal to the Bronx. Related’s plans for such a retail use would violate the terms of the city’s RFP which stated “proposed commercial and retail uses must expand and enhance the current mix of retail offerings in the area, and endeavor to not duplicate or directly compete with the existing retail uses.”
Suddenly, Related announced its intention to disregard this RFP requirement. Instead Related plans a mammoth 60,000 square foot supermarket in the armory that would have a catastrophic impact on Morton Williams Supermarkets and our company-wide hiring office across the street. Morton Williams is a good union employer that has been headquartered in the Kingsbridge community for over fifty years, employing over 450 Kingsbridge area residents with full-time union jobs, health care, and other benefits. Morton Williams Supermarkets and its workers have every right to defend ourselves against a billionaire developer that has been afforded special treatment in the form of rich subsidies because of his ties to people in power.
According to Morton Sloan, President of Morton Williams Supermarkets, “The Related Company has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists; lawyers, and consultants to advance its multi-billion dollar real estate portfolio. We are trying to fight back in the little way we can. This is a David vs. Goliath story.” Regarding the tens of millions of dollars of government subsidies and tax breaks to the Related Company, Morton Sloan states, “to destroy our business with government subsidies is simply an outrage. The fact that taxes paid by businesses like Morton Williams will be used to subsidize a giant retail competitor magnifies the unfairness.”
Avi Kaner, VP of Morton Williams Supermarkets, explains that, “given our history, investment and commitment no one should be surprised that we are opposed to the use of the Kingsbridge armory for supermarket/warehouse club use.” He continues, “it would, without a doubt, represent a lethal blow to our two Bronx stores which would positively close as a result. It will also be a lethal blow against the neighborhood with the eventual elimination of many hundreds of Morton Williams union jobs as our hiring and corporate office will be forced to move to a location outside of the Bronx.”
Morton Williams, as well as its many competitors, have hired new immigrants and neighborhood residents for decades – all without a penny of subsidies and tax incentives. We welcome fair competition, but will fight unfair massive government-subsidized competition to the best of our abilities. To this date, The Mayor’s office has not responded to a letter expressing our concerns.
Morton Williams Supermarkets Defends Itself – A David vs. Goliath Story
The Village Voice recently ran a story based on a lobbying proposal that was written to Morton Williams Supermarkets. This unexecuted private proposal outlined the kind of grass roots lobbying and community organizing strategy needed to protect Morton Williams Supermarkets from an unfair attack by the Related Company, a multi-billion dollar developer subsidized by City and State government.
The story here is how the Related Company is using its favored nation status with the current administration, as well as financial subsidies, to destroy local tax-paying businesses like ours that have been loyal to the Bronx. Related’s plans for such a retail use would violate the terms of the city’s RFP which stated “proposed commercial and retail uses must expand and enhance the current mix of retail offerings in the area, and endeavor to not duplicate or directly compete with the existing retail uses.”
Suddenly, Related announced its intention to disregard this RFP requirement. Instead Related plans a mammoth 60,000 square foot supermarket in the armory that would have a catastrophic impact on Morton Williams Supermarkets and our company-wide hiring office across the street. Morton Williams is a good union employer that has been headquartered in the Kingsbridge community for over fifty years, employing over 450 Kingsbridge area residents with full-time union jobs, health care, and other benefits. Morton Williams Supermarkets and its workers have every right to defend ourselves against a billionaire developer that has been afforded special treatment in the form of rich subsidies because of his ties to people in power.
According to Morton Sloan, President of Morton Williams Supermarkets, “The Related Company has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists; lawyers, and consultants to advance its multi-billion dollar real estate portfolio. We are trying to fight back in the little way we can. This is a David vs. Goliath story.” Regarding the tens of millions of dollars of government subsidies and tax breaks to the Related Company, Morton Sloan states, “to destroy our business with government subsidies is simply an outrage. The fact that taxes paid by businesses like Morton Williams will be used to subsidize a giant retail competitor magnifies the unfairness.”
Avi Kaner, VP of Morton Williams Supermarkets, explains that, “given our history, investment and commitment no one should be surprised that we are opposed to the use of the Kingsbridge armory for supermarket/warehouse club use.” He continues, “it would, without a doubt, represent a lethal blow to our two Bronx stores which would positively close as a result. It will also be a lethal blow against the neighborhood with the eventual elimination of many hundreds of Morton Williams union jobs as our hiring and corporate office will be forced to move to a location outside of the Bronx.”
Morton Williams, as well as its many competitors, have hired new immigrants and neighborhood residents for decades – all without a penny of subsidies and tax incentives. We welcome fair competition, but will fight unfair massive government-subsidized competition to the best of our abilities. To this date, The Mayor’s office has not responded to a letter expressing our concerns.
Not Even a Rubber Stamp
Henry Stern once remarked-in reference to the lack of political meaning embodied in the old city council: "...that the New York City Council was less than a rubber stamp because a rubber stamp at least leaves an impression." And now there is the Panel for Educational Policy; as City Room explains: "If there was ever any question over the sway wielded by the Panel for Educational Policy — an enigmatic group of 13 charged with overseeing city education matters and often ridiculed as a rubber stamp — Friday morning appeared to clear things up. The Department of Education, it seems, forgot to get the state-mandated blessing of the panel before it submitted its $22.3 billion budget to the City Council."
But, as the blog points out, this panel has been the sticking point surrounding whether or not to renew the mayoral control regime over the NYC schools: "The meeting came as the panel’s exact duties, and to what extent it should serve as a hedge against the mayor’s authority over city education policy, have become a focal point of the debate in Albany over mayoral control of city schools."
And, as it turned out, the meeting was pro forma-with one exception: "At 10:30 a.m., the full flock of panelists shuffled inside the majestic Tweed Courthouse — a rare feat for a board that boasts an average 75 percent attendance rate for its mayoral appointees. The members emerged 40 minutes later, having given the budget an 11-1 voice of support. But that did not preclude the verbal fisticuffs. “The folks and parents of Manhattan do not expect me to be a rubber stamp,” Mr. Sullivan, the lone dissenter, told the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, who serves as the panel’s chairman. “The borough president didn’t send me here to be a potted plant.”
But clearly the panel was never briefed, and simply had no clue-which of course didn't prevent them from following instructions like the good pupils most of them are: "Another parent member, Dmytro Fedkowskyj of Queens, called for the creation of a budget subcommittee, saying panel members had not mastered enough of the ins and outs to give an informed vote.
“In the ninth inning, it’s very difficult,” Mr. Fedkowskyj said to the nods of other members. “A lot could have been dealt with before, so we’re not all looking like deer in the headlights.”
All of which underscores the fact that there is no credible parental oversight built into the current governance system-the one that is on life support and may expire on June 30th. And maybe that's a good thing.
But, as the blog points out, this panel has been the sticking point surrounding whether or not to renew the mayoral control regime over the NYC schools: "The meeting came as the panel’s exact duties, and to what extent it should serve as a hedge against the mayor’s authority over city education policy, have become a focal point of the debate in Albany over mayoral control of city schools."
And, as it turned out, the meeting was pro forma-with one exception: "At 10:30 a.m., the full flock of panelists shuffled inside the majestic Tweed Courthouse — a rare feat for a board that boasts an average 75 percent attendance rate for its mayoral appointees. The members emerged 40 minutes later, having given the budget an 11-1 voice of support. But that did not preclude the verbal fisticuffs. “The folks and parents of Manhattan do not expect me to be a rubber stamp,” Mr. Sullivan, the lone dissenter, told the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, who serves as the panel’s chairman. “The borough president didn’t send me here to be a potted plant.”
But clearly the panel was never briefed, and simply had no clue-which of course didn't prevent them from following instructions like the good pupils most of them are: "Another parent member, Dmytro Fedkowskyj of Queens, called for the creation of a budget subcommittee, saying panel members had not mastered enough of the ins and outs to give an informed vote.
“In the ninth inning, it’s very difficult,” Mr. Fedkowskyj said to the nods of other members. “A lot could have been dealt with before, so we’re not all looking like deer in the headlights.”
All of which underscores the fact that there is no credible parental oversight built into the current governance system-the one that is on life support and may expire on June 30th. And maybe that's a good thing.
A Hundred Bottles of Beer on the Wall
It looks like more hurry up and wait when it comes to resolving the state's expanded bottle bill. As the Politicker reports: "Lawyers representing both the state and an association of bottlers appeared today in Federal Court in Manhattan to reargue a decision which suspended the state's expanded bottle law until next year, but the case was adjourned for two weeks."
With the state senate in hibernation, and the legislative session about to end, it makes us wonder how this issue-or any issue that remains unresolved-will be addressed any time soon. And now, the legislators are starting to really fight among themselves.
As the NY Daily News reports: "State senators made a bold move Thursday to end their paralyzing stalemate: They packed up and went home. After yet another fruitless negotiating session - which almost came to blows - the battling pols got out of Dodge to enjoy their long weekend."
What happens next is any one's guess. But clearly the state senate has taken dysfunction to a new level. Can things get any worse?
With the state senate in hibernation, and the legislative session about to end, it makes us wonder how this issue-or any issue that remains unresolved-will be addressed any time soon. And now, the legislators are starting to really fight among themselves.
As the NY Daily News reports: "State senators made a bold move Thursday to end their paralyzing stalemate: They packed up and went home. After yet another fruitless negotiating session - which almost came to blows - the battling pols got out of Dodge to enjoy their long weekend."
What happens next is any one's guess. But clearly the state senate has taken dysfunction to a new level. Can things get any worse?
Small First Step
We have been extremely critical of the mayor's, "five borough economic plan," because of the absence of any real effort to help small business-especially in the face of an economic crisis that has a disparate impact on the smallest entrepreneurs. Which is why we are somewhat buoyed by the efforts of Speaker Quinn-along with the mayor-to attempt to address some of the city's regulatory burdens, burdens that contribute to the bad city business climate.
As Crain's reports: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn unveiled an agreement with the Bloomberg administration Thursday morning on a trifecta of measures geared toward making it easier for small businesses in the city to launch and prosper. Legislation will be introduced later this month to create a three-month penalty-forgiveness period for businesses and individuals with outstanding fines owed to the Environmental Control Board—the city tribunal that hears cases on quality-of-life violations issued by agencies like the Department of Buildings, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Sanitation and the Fire Department."
In addition, the proposal looks to modify some fines, if and when the underlying problem is cured-a measure we've advocated for years: "Starting this fall, the city will waive interest and late fees for businesses that can prove they’ve corrected the underlying problems. Officials hope the measure will help small businesses weighed down by the debts and simultaneously boost revenue for the city, which has struggled to collect nearly $200 million in outstanding fines."
But, as our friend and small business advocate/lawyer tells us, the city could do a lot more; The fine forgiveness, by itself, he says, is nonsense. Why interest and penalty only? How about forgiving the fine if the issue has been corrected, he asks. Isn't that the public policy reason for a summons to force a violation to be corrected?
And he's right; but let's give credit where credit is due-as the NY Daily News does today in its editorial: "The city's small businesses loom large on payday, and that's why three measures aimed at nurturing and encouraging these vital enterprises are very welcome...Council Speaker Christine Quinn is aiming to ease the load. With Mayor Bloomberg's agreement, she'll back legislation for a three-month penalty-forgiveness period on quality-of-life summonses. Interest and fees will be waived when businesses correct the complaint and pay up."
The most significant proposal-at least if it's taken to its logical conclusion-is the review panel to examine the city's regulatory code. As Crain's points out: "Finally, Ms. Quinn formally announced the formation of a regulatory review panel charged with examining agency rules and regulations that affect small business, with the aim of stripping away those that are outdated or unnecessarily interfere with business operations. Council members, including David Yassky, D-Brooklyn, and James Oddo, R-Staten Island, will sit on the panel, along with representatives of the mayor’s office and heads of city agencies. They’ll issue a report to the mayor and council speaker by the end of the year. Mr. Yassky has said for the panel to be effective, members need to go one-by-one through rules and regulations and eliminate those that do not serve a legitimate public interest."
Another idea that we have been pushing for years, since the municipal code is larded with unnecessary-but revenue producing nonetheless-regulations. And, finally, there is a suggestion for a small business review panel: "Ms. Quinn suggested the panel examine the possibility of requiring a small-business impact statement before any new enforcement regulations are instituted. An estimated 70,000 small businesses spanning 55 categories are licensed by the city's Department of Consumer Affairs alone. And untold numbers of regulations affecting companies small and large are enforced by other agencies, ranging from the health department to the buildings department."
In all of this, however, we should realize that the elephant in the room-as the NY Post highlights in its editorial today-is the city's tax burden; one that is exacerbated by the sales tax hike in the latest budget: "Big mistake: At 8.375 percent, the tax already drives shoppers to stores in Jersey and elsewhere, costing the city business. Another bump surely won't help. Likewise, there's little in the plan to significantly reduce Gotham's other off-the-chart, broad-based levies -- which have long hurt employers and taxpayers and slowed the economy."
So, with stores going bankrupt in record numbers, the city is doing something-however mild-to try to help. Now if it could only reduce its tax addiction-and bring down the out of control costs of government-then the business climate would improve and more retailers, large and small, would thrive.
As Crain's reports: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn unveiled an agreement with the Bloomberg administration Thursday morning on a trifecta of measures geared toward making it easier for small businesses in the city to launch and prosper. Legislation will be introduced later this month to create a three-month penalty-forgiveness period for businesses and individuals with outstanding fines owed to the Environmental Control Board—the city tribunal that hears cases on quality-of-life violations issued by agencies like the Department of Buildings, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Sanitation and the Fire Department."
In addition, the proposal looks to modify some fines, if and when the underlying problem is cured-a measure we've advocated for years: "Starting this fall, the city will waive interest and late fees for businesses that can prove they’ve corrected the underlying problems. Officials hope the measure will help small businesses weighed down by the debts and simultaneously boost revenue for the city, which has struggled to collect nearly $200 million in outstanding fines."
But, as our friend and small business advocate/lawyer tells us, the city could do a lot more; The fine forgiveness, by itself, he says, is nonsense. Why interest and penalty only? How about forgiving the fine if the issue has been corrected, he asks. Isn't that the public policy reason for a summons to force a violation to be corrected?
And he's right; but let's give credit where credit is due-as the NY Daily News does today in its editorial: "The city's small businesses loom large on payday, and that's why three measures aimed at nurturing and encouraging these vital enterprises are very welcome...Council Speaker Christine Quinn is aiming to ease the load. With Mayor Bloomberg's agreement, she'll back legislation for a three-month penalty-forgiveness period on quality-of-life summonses. Interest and fees will be waived when businesses correct the complaint and pay up."
The most significant proposal-at least if it's taken to its logical conclusion-is the review panel to examine the city's regulatory code. As Crain's points out: "Finally, Ms. Quinn formally announced the formation of a regulatory review panel charged with examining agency rules and regulations that affect small business, with the aim of stripping away those that are outdated or unnecessarily interfere with business operations. Council members, including David Yassky, D-Brooklyn, and James Oddo, R-Staten Island, will sit on the panel, along with representatives of the mayor’s office and heads of city agencies. They’ll issue a report to the mayor and council speaker by the end of the year. Mr. Yassky has said for the panel to be effective, members need to go one-by-one through rules and regulations and eliminate those that do not serve a legitimate public interest."
Another idea that we have been pushing for years, since the municipal code is larded with unnecessary-but revenue producing nonetheless-regulations. And, finally, there is a suggestion for a small business review panel: "Ms. Quinn suggested the panel examine the possibility of requiring a small-business impact statement before any new enforcement regulations are instituted. An estimated 70,000 small businesses spanning 55 categories are licensed by the city's Department of Consumer Affairs alone. And untold numbers of regulations affecting companies small and large are enforced by other agencies, ranging from the health department to the buildings department."
In all of this, however, we should realize that the elephant in the room-as the NY Post highlights in its editorial today-is the city's tax burden; one that is exacerbated by the sales tax hike in the latest budget: "Big mistake: At 8.375 percent, the tax already drives shoppers to stores in Jersey and elsewhere, costing the city business. Another bump surely won't help. Likewise, there's little in the plan to significantly reduce Gotham's other off-the-chart, broad-based levies -- which have long hurt employers and taxpayers and slowed the economy."
So, with stores going bankrupt in record numbers, the city is doing something-however mild-to try to help. Now if it could only reduce its tax addiction-and bring down the out of control costs of government-then the business climate would improve and more retailers, large and small, would thrive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
