It now appears that the City Planning Commission, unless there is some last minute intervention, will certify Columbia University's land use application at its June 4th meeting. This precipitous move, coming as it does before there has been any meaningful negotiations between Columbia and the community, has already begun to spark controversy.
In strongly worded letters, both CB#9 and the West Harlem LDC (formed to negotiate with the university), asked Planning Chair Burden to put off certification because, in the words of Board Chair J. Reyes-Montblanc, "It will be a great disservice to the Community, the Administration and Columbia University to issue such certification and referral during the month of June. The consequences of such an inadvisable action by DCP are dangerously enormous and may even involve public disturbance, this is how serious the situation could be." (emphasis added)
The LDC gets it just right when it tells CPC's Burden that certification this Monday, "will offend the essence of the ULURP process which is designed to seek community comment and involvement." The action also exposes the sham nature of these negotiations, proceeding along the lines of first getting the approval and then tossing the community as meager bone when it's under no pressure to really accomodate the local needs.
Apparently Columbia doesn't care, and is looking to use its political muscle (Bill Lynch?) to bogart the concerns of the community. This steamrolling prospect is in sharp contrast to the comparable expansion efforts launched by Harvard and UPenn. Quite simply, there is very little in the current Columbia plan that addresses the local need for housing, or its worries over the process of gentrification.
As this post is being written, it appears that the CB and Coalition for Community Preservation (the other CPC) is planning to do a press conference down at City Hall tomorrow, an event that could certainly get raucous. This just might be the kind of galvanizing issue that will mobilize the already considerable community opposition to the CU expansion. Columbia's hubris, and the city's need to accommodate the university, might yet lead to unexpected negative consequences for the landlord of Morningside Heights.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Ramapo-ses Questions On Wal-Mart
It seems that the Alliance isn't the only concerned party worried about the traffic impacts of the proposed Wal-Mart supercenter on Route 59. As the Journal News reports this morning, the Town of Ramapo is still waiting for the developer to answer questions it has raised, not only on the traffic impacts that the store would have on the county's main state road, but also on the spill-over impacts that would be created on the side roads in and around the project.
The story this morning highlights the fact that the town's own planner is skeptical about the ability of the Walmonster to find realistic ways to mitigate that impact that the store will be sure to have on the area's already congested traffic situation. As the News indicates, "A report filed in late March by the town's planning consultant, John Lange of Frederick P. Clark Associates, predicted that westbound traffic would back up about a mile from the site to Route 45. It was also a concern that side streets would be blocked by lines of Route 59 traffic"
This is in line with the what the Alliance's consultant, Brian Ketcham, has been pointing out from his own analysis of conditions on the local roads, both now, and should the store actually be built. In spite of what anyone who knows the conditions in the area will tell you, the developers persist in trying to get folks to accept that somehow the Walmonster won't have that great an impact.
In a report submitted to the town, consultants for the developer wrote, "Gridlock conditions will not occur..." Which brings to mind the Marx Brothers line: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?" And, in typical developer fashion, they proposed some simple turn signal changes and other minor adjustments as mitigation for the estimated 6,000,000 additional car trips that would be generated by the store.
This is precisely what the Manhattan Institute report on NYC's environmental review process called critical attention to-the developers' narrow scope of concern for immediate intersections around a project, but with no attention paid to the larger area-wide impacts that will be created. It doesn't appear that this is going to be acceptable to Ramapo.
Skepticism about the review process was voiced by a local resident who told the paper, "The traffic is horrendous already..." Yet William Johnson also said that, "They're going to do what they want to do anyway." Maybe not William. Opposition in the Monsey community continues to grow, and weekly advertisements in the Community Connections are starting to raise awareness on a wide range of community impact issue.
Legislator Bruce Levine underscores this when he tells the News about residents' concerns for traffic on all of the secondary roads around the proposed site. Today's story also reports on the work of the Alliance in calling attention to the adverse business impacts that a Wal-Mart would have on the retailers of Monsey. So it is beginning to look that the obstacles are growing and the prospects for Wal-Mart, once bright and promising, appear to be dimming.
The story this morning highlights the fact that the town's own planner is skeptical about the ability of the Walmonster to find realistic ways to mitigate that impact that the store will be sure to have on the area's already congested traffic situation. As the News indicates, "A report filed in late March by the town's planning consultant, John Lange of Frederick P. Clark Associates, predicted that westbound traffic would back up about a mile from the site to Route 45. It was also a concern that side streets would be blocked by lines of Route 59 traffic"
This is in line with the what the Alliance's consultant, Brian Ketcham, has been pointing out from his own analysis of conditions on the local roads, both now, and should the store actually be built. In spite of what anyone who knows the conditions in the area will tell you, the developers persist in trying to get folks to accept that somehow the Walmonster won't have that great an impact.
In a report submitted to the town, consultants for the developer wrote, "Gridlock conditions will not occur..." Which brings to mind the Marx Brothers line: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?" And, in typical developer fashion, they proposed some simple turn signal changes and other minor adjustments as mitigation for the estimated 6,000,000 additional car trips that would be generated by the store.
This is precisely what the Manhattan Institute report on NYC's environmental review process called critical attention to-the developers' narrow scope of concern for immediate intersections around a project, but with no attention paid to the larger area-wide impacts that will be created. It doesn't appear that this is going to be acceptable to Ramapo.
Skepticism about the review process was voiced by a local resident who told the paper, "The traffic is horrendous already..." Yet William Johnson also said that, "They're going to do what they want to do anyway." Maybe not William. Opposition in the Monsey community continues to grow, and weekly advertisements in the Community Connections are starting to raise awareness on a wide range of community impact issue.
Legislator Bruce Levine underscores this when he tells the News about residents' concerns for traffic on all of the secondary roads around the proposed site. Today's story also reports on the work of the Alliance in calling attention to the adverse business impacts that a Wal-Mart would have on the retailers of Monsey. So it is beginning to look that the obstacles are growing and the prospects for Wal-Mart, once bright and promising, appear to be dimming.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Taxing Our Patience
Yesterday we posted a commentary on the NY Times' opposition to the AMT. In it we pointed out that the paper, far from becoming noveau tax cutters, was simply looking for a more effective method to get hold of your hard earned money. They found it in a four percent increase on folks earning more than $1000,000 (singly) or $200,000 (as a couple).
In today's NY Sun, the paper editorializes on the tax raising proclivities of the Times and points out that, "In other words, the Times doesn't simply want to undo the Bush tax cuts-it wants to ratchet up taxes on higher-income Americans even higher than they were during the Clinton administration."
All of which leads the Sun to ask, if the NY Times is so hell-bent on taking more money from us in the form of taxes then, "what is holding the paper's owners back from returning the tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks they sought and received from the city and state to build a new headquarters building..?" The reason they're holding on to the dough? The same reason why liberal integrity is an oxymoron-all the way fro Martha's Vineyard to the Hampton's.
In today's NY Sun, the paper editorializes on the tax raising proclivities of the Times and points out that, "In other words, the Times doesn't simply want to undo the Bush tax cuts-it wants to ratchet up taxes on higher-income Americans even higher than they were during the Clinton administration."
All of which leads the Sun to ask, if the NY Times is so hell-bent on taking more money from us in the form of taxes then, "what is holding the paper's owners back from returning the tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks they sought and received from the city and state to build a new headquarters building..?" The reason they're holding on to the dough? The same reason why liberal integrity is an oxymoron-all the way fro Martha's Vineyard to the Hampton's.
Clearing Up Congestion
The mayor is ratcheting up his political push for the implementation of a congestion tax on New Yorkers who have to drive to work in the city. As the NY Sun is reporting, it appears that Governor Spitzer may be prepared to support the plan even though the Q-Poll has shown that most city residents outside of Manhattan oppose the tax in huge numbers.
All of this is being done in spite of the fact that the city keeps inexorably building more auto-dependent mall, and the mayor keeps voicing his support for Wal-Mart-the largest car-dependent retailer in the world. This, my friends, is rank hypocrisy and greatly diminishes the legitimacy of the mayor's quest for sustainability, a word that a few years ago wouldn't have meant much to Mayor Mike if it didn't have something to do with corporate profits.
If the PlaNYC doesn't address neighborhoods and local retailers. along with the reduction in auto-dependent shopping, then it is not a sustainability plan that all of the environmental zealots should be supporting , at least not without some strong caveats. And if the plan to tax truck deliveries is not one that will actually reduce truck traffic, then it should be jettisoned as another example of the tax happy, business unfriendly, city milieu.
All of this is being done in spite of the fact that the city keeps inexorably building more auto-dependent mall, and the mayor keeps voicing his support for Wal-Mart-the largest car-dependent retailer in the world. This, my friends, is rank hypocrisy and greatly diminishes the legitimacy of the mayor's quest for sustainability, a word that a few years ago wouldn't have meant much to Mayor Mike if it didn't have something to do with corporate profits.
If the PlaNYC doesn't address neighborhoods and local retailers. along with the reduction in auto-dependent shopping, then it is not a sustainability plan that all of the environmental zealots should be supporting , at least not without some strong caveats. And if the plan to tax truck deliveries is not one that will actually reduce truck traffic, then it should be jettisoned as another example of the tax happy, business unfriendly, city milieu.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Columbia: Comparatively Less Sensitive
One of the things that we have been emphasizing in our discussion of Columbia's expansion into West Harlem, is the glaring lack of genuine concern for the university's impact on the surrounding neighborhood. This is even more pronounced when Columbia's plan is contrasted with those of Harvard and UPenn, a comparison that we came across in a series of articles that were done two years ago by Emily Schwarz in the Columbia Spectator.
We have previously commented on the difference between Harvard's expansion into Allston and Columbia's into West Harlem, in particular, the Boston school's concern for the issue of affordable housing. In the Schwarz series of pieces we also find a stark contrast between Penn's concern for West Philly and Columbia's for its neighbors.
As the Spectator reports, there had been a series of ongoing meetings between the facilities mangers of Harvard, Penn, Columbia and Yale. At one meeting, chaired by Columbia University architecture professor David Smiley, the contrasting perspectives became clear: "Smiley said that Penn's presentation focused on the university's efforts to improve the community, while Columbia focused more on its physical plans."
And the article goes on to say; "Universities can also achieve positive community relations by learning to consider themselves as a member of the community and not as a separate entity." This appears to be a lesson that Columbia has yet to learn, and the hiring of a highly-paid former Dinkins administration deputy mayor is not a substitute for genuine dialogue and collaboration.
One final note. The Spectator quotes an Allston representative on the need for the university to meet the neighborhood half way. The article goes on to point out, citing a university official, that the Columbia plan (circa 2005) has some congruence with the community's 197-A plan. Yet since that time, it appears that Columbia has been doing more to hire political muscle than to try to really work with the local community and meet it, even somewhat half way.
We have previously commented on the difference between Harvard's expansion into Allston and Columbia's into West Harlem, in particular, the Boston school's concern for the issue of affordable housing. In the Schwarz series of pieces we also find a stark contrast between Penn's concern for West Philly and Columbia's for its neighbors.
As the Spectator reports, there had been a series of ongoing meetings between the facilities mangers of Harvard, Penn, Columbia and Yale. At one meeting, chaired by Columbia University architecture professor David Smiley, the contrasting perspectives became clear: "Smiley said that Penn's presentation focused on the university's efforts to improve the community, while Columbia focused more on its physical plans."
And the article goes on to say; "Universities can also achieve positive community relations by learning to consider themselves as a member of the community and not as a separate entity." This appears to be a lesson that Columbia has yet to learn, and the hiring of a highly-paid former Dinkins administration deputy mayor is not a substitute for genuine dialogue and collaboration.
One final note. The Spectator quotes an Allston representative on the need for the university to meet the neighborhood half way. The article goes on to point out, citing a university official, that the Columbia plan (circa 2005) has some congruence with the community's 197-A plan. Yet since that time, it appears that Columbia has been doing more to hire political muscle than to try to really work with the local community and meet it, even somewhat half way.
Columbia's Expensive Reasoning
In the weekend edition of the NY Sun, the paper reports on the lobbying effort of Columbia in its pursuit of campus expansion. Now, we'd be the last ones to chastise anyone for spending money on lobbying, but even we were blown away by the information that the university is apparently paying Bill Lynch $40,000 a month to represent its interests.
That's quite impressive indeed. We aren't aware of any single lobbyists being paid that kind of money. Maybe Guy Molinari got more from NASCAR, but we're not sure that it surpasses the Lynch retainer. Bill must be working awfully hard on the university's behalf, although without any real disrespect to Bill, we really wonder if Columbia's getting its money's worth in the deal.
The Sun piece does mention that RLA has been retained, at a greatly reduced fee, to represent the interests of property owner Nick Sprayregen. The resource disparity indicates that, as Nick tells the paper, "These eminent domain fights are like David vs. Goliath..." We'd love to see old BL try to take on an underdog in any lobbying battle. Don't hold your breathe. Like his mentor David Dinkins, those kinds of struggles are museum pieces in his resume.
We are, however, reaching a critical juncture in this particular battle. Once certain moves are made to expose the blatant self-aggrandizement of the university, we will find out whether Columbia has indeed invested wisely. One thing that we have learned, though, working for Goliath doesn't always allow you to fully demonstrate any innate ability to influence the political process.
That's quite impressive indeed. We aren't aware of any single lobbyists being paid that kind of money. Maybe Guy Molinari got more from NASCAR, but we're not sure that it surpasses the Lynch retainer. Bill must be working awfully hard on the university's behalf, although without any real disrespect to Bill, we really wonder if Columbia's getting its money's worth in the deal.
The Sun piece does mention that RLA has been retained, at a greatly reduced fee, to represent the interests of property owner Nick Sprayregen. The resource disparity indicates that, as Nick tells the paper, "These eminent domain fights are like David vs. Goliath..." We'd love to see old BL try to take on an underdog in any lobbying battle. Don't hold your breathe. Like his mentor David Dinkins, those kinds of struggles are museum pieces in his resume.
We are, however, reaching a critical juncture in this particular battle. Once certain moves are made to expose the blatant self-aggrandizement of the university, we will find out whether Columbia has indeed invested wisely. One thing that we have learned, though, working for Goliath doesn't always allow you to fully demonstrate any innate ability to influence the political process.
AMTimes
The NY Times weighs in on the Alternative Minimum Tax and finds, somewhat surprisingly, that the tax may be unfair. But before anyone gets carried away by the spectacle of the Times being opposed to a tax, any tax, it is essential to point out that the paper didn't stop at simply inveighing against the AMT as "unfair."
True to their ideological roots the Times goes on to say, "True reform must lift the alternative-tax burden from wrongly afflicted tax payers while enacting a fair way to raise tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue that will be foregone." Of course there is no mention of reducing the size of government so that the foregone tax money can simply be returned to the tax payers without the imposition of a new burden on the Times favorite bogeyman: "millionaires." Especially those who are, "among the biggest beneficiaries, by far, of the Bush-era tax cuts."
Now admittedly, we're not tax experts, but we can see pretty clearly that the Bush-era tax cuts have benefited quite a few Americans besides the objects of the Times' scorn. Put simply, the US economy is soaring, and a great deal of the credit should go to the tax cutting by the Bush administration. In fact, we see European countries like France looking to emulate Washington, having seen first hand the devastation that follows the implementation of tax policies favored by the Times.
True to their ideological roots the Times goes on to say, "True reform must lift the alternative-tax burden from wrongly afflicted tax payers while enacting a fair way to raise tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue that will be foregone." Of course there is no mention of reducing the size of government so that the foregone tax money can simply be returned to the tax payers without the imposition of a new burden on the Times favorite bogeyman: "millionaires." Especially those who are, "among the biggest beneficiaries, by far, of the Bush-era tax cuts."
Now admittedly, we're not tax experts, but we can see pretty clearly that the Bush-era tax cuts have benefited quite a few Americans besides the objects of the Times' scorn. Put simply, the US economy is soaring, and a great deal of the credit should go to the tax cutting by the Bush administration. In fact, we see European countries like France looking to emulate Washington, having seen first hand the devastation that follows the implementation of tax policies favored by the Times.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Editorial Decongestion
In today's NY Daily News the paper editorializes in favor of the mayor's traffic decongestion plan. It does so, however, without any good substantive discussion of the plans costs, or its putative benefits for that matter. Instead, it spends a good deal of the time fulsomely praising NYS Senate minority leader Malcolm Smith, one of the few Queens electeds to actually come out publicly in support of the concept.
Smith, in the view of the News, is demonstrating the kind of "gumption" that is "harder to find then parking in midtown." It's a little bemusing to see the News lionizing a politician, and it is especially so since we know just how strenuous the mayoral effort has been to court city elected officials to support PlaNYC's most controversial component. Perhaps the good senator is motivated purely by public policy concerns, but that is generally not the way to bet in this town.
On another front, Dave Seifman reports in the NY Post this morning that even some of those officials in Manhattan who support the pricing scheme are not in favor of the current 86th Street demarcation line. As Council member Gale Brewer told the paper, "I believe that 86th Street will not be the final cutoff" ( a sentiment that was echoed by newly elected assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal).
What we anticipate in the months ahead is that the current proposal will be subjected to a more strenuous evaluation, as political opposition is increased. We all agree that traffic congestion needs to be addressed. Now, and the Daily News is right that there is no other current proposal to do so, we need to devise a better plan to relieve our overburdened city streets and highways.
Smith, in the view of the News, is demonstrating the kind of "gumption" that is "harder to find then parking in midtown." It's a little bemusing to see the News lionizing a politician, and it is especially so since we know just how strenuous the mayoral effort has been to court city elected officials to support PlaNYC's most controversial component. Perhaps the good senator is motivated purely by public policy concerns, but that is generally not the way to bet in this town.
On another front, Dave Seifman reports in the NY Post this morning that even some of those officials in Manhattan who support the pricing scheme are not in favor of the current 86th Street demarcation line. As Council member Gale Brewer told the paper, "I believe that 86th Street will not be the final cutoff" ( a sentiment that was echoed by newly elected assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal).
What we anticipate in the months ahead is that the current proposal will be subjected to a more strenuous evaluation, as political opposition is increased. We all agree that traffic congestion needs to be addressed. Now, and the Daily News is right that there is no other current proposal to do so, we need to devise a better plan to relieve our overburdened city streets and highways.
Fearing Columbia?
In today's City Section of the NY Times, former mayor David Dinkins, and current Columbia employee, weighs-in in favor of the university's expansion plan. In the vacuous style that we have become accustomed to, the former mayor, in an editorial titled Don't Fear Columbia, fails to deal with the two contentious issues that have roiled opponents: the use of eminent domain and the lack of any housing in the expansion footprint.
The issue is not about some generic fear, but of the nature of the university's expansion and its potential impact on existing residents and businesses. But specificity has never been a Dinkins strong suit, and neither has intellectual rigor. The important question is: Can the Columbia plan be made better? And if so, in what way?
These key questions aren't addressed by the Columbia's paid flack, and so all we are left with is platitudinous statements like, "Columbia University's proposal...is the perfect example of a change that will generate growth and benefit all." Well it won't benefit the four hundred or so low-income residents of the Till Houses, or the property owners who will be forced out if their buildings are taken through the use of eminent domain.
Nor will it benefit the Harlem residents who will be forced to deal with the potential after effects of the university's gentrification of the 18 acre property. The former mayor, writing in prose that are best suited for some third rate PR brochure, goes on to observe that he appreciates "the concerns that some Harlem residents may have about the university's plans." What concerns Dave? Why not list and attempt to address them, rather than blather in a pseudo-sympathetic mode that is utilized merely to appear sensitive, while avoiding the need to actually be so.
Dinkins goes on to detail the numerous ways in which Columbia does interact in a positive way with the local community-from health clinics to tutoring programs. No one, however, is arguing that the university doesn't do some good for the local community, and that it doesn't have some important city wide benefits as well. The issue here, once again is, does this particular expansion plan provide the best possible use for the 18 acres? And is it necessary for Columbia, in an all-or-nothing fashion, to take away people's property in the process?
Our feeling is that the deabte over Columbia's expansion is best focused on some of the key issues we have mentioned, and should not be conducted by "professors of public affairs" whose record in office gives scant comfort in the acuity of their observations about public policy. No one fears Columbia, Dave. The fears that do exist concern an expansion plan that fails to "benefit all New Yorkers" as much as it does the university itself.
The issue is not about some generic fear, but of the nature of the university's expansion and its potential impact on existing residents and businesses. But specificity has never been a Dinkins strong suit, and neither has intellectual rigor. The important question is: Can the Columbia plan be made better? And if so, in what way?
These key questions aren't addressed by the Columbia's paid flack, and so all we are left with is platitudinous statements like, "Columbia University's proposal...is the perfect example of a change that will generate growth and benefit all." Well it won't benefit the four hundred or so low-income residents of the Till Houses, or the property owners who will be forced out if their buildings are taken through the use of eminent domain.
Nor will it benefit the Harlem residents who will be forced to deal with the potential after effects of the university's gentrification of the 18 acre property. The former mayor, writing in prose that are best suited for some third rate PR brochure, goes on to observe that he appreciates "the concerns that some Harlem residents may have about the university's plans." What concerns Dave? Why not list and attempt to address them, rather than blather in a pseudo-sympathetic mode that is utilized merely to appear sensitive, while avoiding the need to actually be so.
Dinkins goes on to detail the numerous ways in which Columbia does interact in a positive way with the local community-from health clinics to tutoring programs. No one, however, is arguing that the university doesn't do some good for the local community, and that it doesn't have some important city wide benefits as well. The issue here, once again is, does this particular expansion plan provide the best possible use for the 18 acres? And is it necessary for Columbia, in an all-or-nothing fashion, to take away people's property in the process?
Our feeling is that the deabte over Columbia's expansion is best focused on some of the key issues we have mentioned, and should not be conducted by "professors of public affairs" whose record in office gives scant comfort in the acuity of their observations about public policy. No one fears Columbia, Dave. The fears that do exist concern an expansion plan that fails to "benefit all New Yorkers" as much as it does the university itself.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Revolving Door Underscored
In a previous post, when commenting on the Manhattan Institute's critique of ULURP, we pointed out that the environmental review process is a sham because the developer-driven consulting is never any real accurate portrayal of the potential impacts of any given project. Exacerbating the situation, is the fact that the review agencies, are loath to do any in-depth review of the consultants' work-not only because it's time-consuming, but also because "no one wants to go on record blowing the whistle..."
Why not? Well, as the MI report highlights, a major reason is that the permanent government is a major potential source of after-government employment. In one very real sense, everyone in the regulatory and oversight agencies are auditioning for that opportunity to make some serious money once they leave the public sector.
As if on cue, Crain's In$ider reports yesterday on this very phenomenon saying, "The New York real estate market is so hot that developers are hiring City Hall insiders at a furious pace. Developers need their guidance through government catacombs and are wiling to pay them higher salaries." And where are the insiders going? To Vronado, Related, Brookfield Properties and The Durst Organization, just to name a few.
Which brings us back to our original observation that no change in ULURP is more imperative than to remove the review process from the hands of tainted consultants hired by developers. If the mayor is really interested in sustainability and the environment, then this is one reform that must be included in the PlaNYC package.
Why not? Well, as the MI report highlights, a major reason is that the permanent government is a major potential source of after-government employment. In one very real sense, everyone in the regulatory and oversight agencies are auditioning for that opportunity to make some serious money once they leave the public sector.
As if on cue, Crain's In$ider reports yesterday on this very phenomenon saying, "The New York real estate market is so hot that developers are hiring City Hall insiders at a furious pace. Developers need their guidance through government catacombs and are wiling to pay them higher salaries." And where are the insiders going? To Vronado, Related, Brookfield Properties and The Durst Organization, just to name a few.
Which brings us back to our original observation that no change in ULURP is more imperative than to remove the review process from the hands of tainted consultants hired by developers. If the mayor is really interested in sustainability and the environment, then this is one reform that must be included in the PlaNYC package.
Friday, May 25, 2007
NY Times: Never Counterintuitive
When the Q-Poll came out yesterday showing that an overwhelming percentage of outer borough residents oppose the congestion pricing plan (but with Manhattanites poling in a completely opposite direction) you knew it would only be a matter of time before the Times-the ultimate expression of Manhattan-centric sensibility, weighed in supporting the proposal. Adding some urgency to the situation was the fact that the plan is essentially a tax, making it absolutely irresistible to the solons of 43rd Street.
So it was no surprise to see that the paper threw its editorial support behind the idea in this morning's edition. The editorial makes interesting reading, much like children's fables the world over and, as usual for the Times, eschews nuance or any discouraging word. In characterizing the London and Stockholm experience with the concept of congestion pricing, the Times observes: "Residents of both cities were turned around by the unclogged streets, quicker commutes, better public transportation and cleaner air."
Yes, a veritable environmental Utopian age has been ushered in in those venues, with no attendant problems in the implementation of the pricing scheme in either city. Just another reason to not turn over city governance to the ideologically driven, and fact-resistant, Times editors.
Making this demonstration of solipsistic opining even worse, is the fact that the paper completely ignored the Q-Poll results. Every other city daily, except for the paper of "record," covered the news that most New Yorkers do not support the congested thinking. Most did so in the coverage of the mayor's photo-op on his "Don't block the Box" initiative. The Times story on this completely avoided the Q-Poll's newsworthy information.
Just another reason why you simply can't trust the Times to give you a balanced view of the world, especially when it comes to anything that offends Manhattan bien pensants. (although it should be noted that, as the In$ider points out this morning, two Manhattan lawmakers have come out against the plan because it would allow "people with money...to fill the streets").
The contining flow of red ink at the Times is a verification of the increasing loss of confidence that New Yorkers have in the trustworthiness of the paper. As their stand on congestion pricing suggests, when it comes to the interests of the average New Yorker, the Times not only has no clue, it couldn't care less.
So it was no surprise to see that the paper threw its editorial support behind the idea in this morning's edition. The editorial makes interesting reading, much like children's fables the world over and, as usual for the Times, eschews nuance or any discouraging word. In characterizing the London and Stockholm experience with the concept of congestion pricing, the Times observes: "Residents of both cities were turned around by the unclogged streets, quicker commutes, better public transportation and cleaner air."
Yes, a veritable environmental Utopian age has been ushered in in those venues, with no attendant problems in the implementation of the pricing scheme in either city. Just another reason to not turn over city governance to the ideologically driven, and fact-resistant, Times editors.
Making this demonstration of solipsistic opining even worse, is the fact that the paper completely ignored the Q-Poll results. Every other city daily, except for the paper of "record," covered the news that most New Yorkers do not support the congested thinking. Most did so in the coverage of the mayor's photo-op on his "Don't block the Box" initiative. The Times story on this completely avoided the Q-Poll's newsworthy information.
Just another reason why you simply can't trust the Times to give you a balanced view of the world, especially when it comes to anything that offends Manhattan bien pensants. (although it should be noted that, as the In$ider points out this morning, two Manhattan lawmakers have come out against the plan because it would allow "people with money...to fill the streets").
The contining flow of red ink at the Times is a verification of the increasing loss of confidence that New Yorkers have in the trustworthiness of the paper. As their stand on congestion pricing suggests, when it comes to the interests of the average New Yorker, the Times not only has no clue, it couldn't care less.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Being Observant
The Observer's Matt Scheurman posts on the congestion pricing/tax press conference we held yesterday and points out that Bodega head Jose Fernandez has said supportive comments on both sides of the issue. Jose, always sensitive to the impacts of policy on small business, understands intuitively that the pricing scheme is going to raise the cost of doing business, particularly for Hispanic distributors.
At the same time, we can't underestimate the persuasive abilities of the mayor. As we told our long time friend, if the mayor will finally live up to some of his promises (particularly on La Tienda Segura) then he should perhaps go for it. His stores can use all of the help the city has to offer.
At the same time, we can't underestimate the persuasive abilities of the mayor. As we told our long time friend, if the mayor will finally live up to some of his promises (particularly on La Tienda Segura) then he should perhaps go for it. His stores can use all of the help the city has to offer.
Columbia: What Housing Crisis?
We are witnessing some remarkable political movement on the issue of the availability of affordable housing in NYC. AS Azi points out today, a diverse coalition of elected officials gathered down at Stuy Town to announce the formation of a coalition on affordable housing. As CLC's Ed Ott told the group, called New York is Our Home, "'the price of housing in this city is effectively theft' and that affordable housing units, like the ones in Stuyvesant Town behind him, "are being stolen by the greed of developers and the market.'"
The new group, composed of "labor and tenant groups, The Working Families Party and others," is coming into existence on the heels of a sobering housing analysis that was done by the Community Service Society. The report, titled Closing the Door, talks about the loss of subsidized housing units to both the market and to disrepair.
As the report points out, the rapid loss of city's supply of affordable, subsidized units is well-documented, "but no level of government has yet produced a coherent policy response to it." The report goes on to say that, "This affordable housing stock provides important protections from the effects of a chronic housing shortage to low-income tenants who would be unable to afford housing in the unassisted rental market."
So we have a burgeoning coalition ready to tackle the threat to affordable housing. The question we want to raise is, what will this group do in response to the Columbia University expansion plan that, not only doesn't include a housing component and will evict low-income tenants, but will also create a gentrification aftershock that will create the market propulsion-expulsion that Ott excoriated at yesterday's press event?
The new group, composed of "labor and tenant groups, The Working Families Party and others," is coming into existence on the heels of a sobering housing analysis that was done by the Community Service Society. The report, titled Closing the Door, talks about the loss of subsidized housing units to both the market and to disrepair.
As the report points out, the rapid loss of city's supply of affordable, subsidized units is well-documented, "but no level of government has yet produced a coherent policy response to it." The report goes on to say that, "This affordable housing stock provides important protections from the effects of a chronic housing shortage to low-income tenants who would be unable to afford housing in the unassisted rental market."
So we have a burgeoning coalition ready to tackle the threat to affordable housing. The question we want to raise is, what will this group do in response to the Columbia University expansion plan that, not only doesn't include a housing component and will evict low-income tenants, but will also create a gentrification aftershock that will create the market propulsion-expulsion that Ott excoriated at yesterday's press event?
Congested Blogging
Thanks to the links by both Azi at the Observer and Elizabeth Benjamin at the Daily News we got a great deal of additional traffic yesterday on our congestion pricing press conference and related posts. The press event, also covered here, and here, and here, is the first step in our outreach to small businesses and neighborhood civics. In the final analysis, congestion pricing is not a policy that will play well in the boroughs.
As if on cue, the Q-Poll has just come out and the results are eye-popping. By widen margins folks in the outer boroughs all agree that traffic congestion is a major problem but, at the same time, feel that the congestion tax is not the way to go. Q's Mickey Carrol sums it up well: "It's all but unanimous. New Yorkers think traffic-choked streets are a big problem. But Mayor Bloomberg will need every ounce of support from his 74% approval rating to convince New York City voters that congestion pricing is the answer."
As if on cue, the Q-Poll has just come out and the results are eye-popping. By widen margins folks in the outer boroughs all agree that traffic congestion is a major problem but, at the same time, feel that the congestion tax is not the way to go. Q's Mickey Carrol sums it up well: "It's all but unanimous. New Yorkers think traffic-choked streets are a big problem. But Mayor Bloomberg will need every ounce of support from his 74% approval rating to convince New York City voters that congestion pricing is the answer."
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Wal-Mart Sustains Hypocrisy
While we're all talking about traffic congestion, asthma rates and sustainability, the mayor's full policy monty, now being sold to the city by the NYC Partnership, raises some interesting points of conflict. What does everyone think about the fact that Wal-Mart, the country's largest generator of auto-dependent shoppers, has joined with the born-again environmentalists at the Partnership? This fascinating case of blurred messaging is mentioned by Azi in today's Politicker.
We're, of course, extremely familiar with this issue since we have stayed on top of the traffic problems that the Walmonster poses for any locality. Most recently, the threat of traffic induced mayhem was the catalyst behind the opposition to the box store giant on Staten Island; and we believe will also spell the death knell for the retailer in Monsey, New York. In the case of Monsey, our consultant Brian Ketcham estimates that the store will generate an additional 3,000,000 car trips a year. That's a lot of CO2 emissions.
So what we have is the Partnership, the new Greenpeace of New York, hooking up with Wal-Mart and seeing nothing contradictory about the relationship. In fact, the Partnership's Kathy Wylde, conjecturing about the rationale for the hook-up, and what it means for the siting of a Wal-Mart in the city, tells the Observer; "Obviously they wouldn't be joining if they weren't thinking about it."
Which brings us to the point we've already made about the lacuna in PlaNYC: its failure to consider traffic in the outer boroughs, the importance of neighborhood shopping, and the threat that the proliferation of box stores like Wal-Mart poses to the kind of sustainability that is represented by the preservation of neighborhood ecology. The Partnership's shilling for congestion pricing in this context is unseemly, to say the least.
We're, of course, extremely familiar with this issue since we have stayed on top of the traffic problems that the Walmonster poses for any locality. Most recently, the threat of traffic induced mayhem was the catalyst behind the opposition to the box store giant on Staten Island; and we believe will also spell the death knell for the retailer in Monsey, New York. In the case of Monsey, our consultant Brian Ketcham estimates that the store will generate an additional 3,000,000 car trips a year. That's a lot of CO2 emissions.
So what we have is the Partnership, the new Greenpeace of New York, hooking up with Wal-Mart and seeing nothing contradictory about the relationship. In fact, the Partnership's Kathy Wylde, conjecturing about the rationale for the hook-up, and what it means for the siting of a Wal-Mart in the city, tells the Observer; "Obviously they wouldn't be joining if they weren't thinking about it."
Which brings us to the point we've already made about the lacuna in PlaNYC: its failure to consider traffic in the outer boroughs, the importance of neighborhood shopping, and the threat that the proliferation of box stores like Wal-Mart poses to the kind of sustainability that is represented by the preservation of neighborhood ecology. The Partnership's shilling for congestion pricing in this context is unseemly, to say the least.
More Congestion Ahead
In today's Crain's In$ider the newsletter reports, with a somewhat jaundiced spin in our view, that supporters of the pricing scheme are claiming that opponents are "exaggerating their breadth." In support of this, Crain's relates that the groups who will join the Alliance at today's press conference are "relatively small." Quite the canard if you ask us.
When we look at the 6,000 member Bodega Association, The Nightlife Association, the NYSRA, the Small Business Congress, and the 3,000 member Latino Restaurant Association, not to mention the 200 independent beer wholesalers, we have essentially all of the city's 200,000 neighborhood retailers represented in some form or another. And Local 342 0f the UFCW represents over 10,000 supermarket and wholesale meat workers in NYC. But what's this when compared to the handful of billionaire machers over at the NYC Partnership?
And let me say that we've just got started. When we begin, as we did with Mayor Giuliani's mega-store plan, to link the neighborhood businesses with the local civics and community groups, it will be the swells that will be terribly outnumbered.
This congestion pricing idea has not been well thought out and, as the NY Daily News story this morning on yesterday's grilling of the transportation commissioner underscores, the opposition is just beginning to build on this new, unnecessary, and additional tax burden on New Yorkers and local businesses (and props to David Weprin for exposing the idea for what it really is-"another tax that would burden the middle class").
When we look at the 6,000 member Bodega Association, The Nightlife Association, the NYSRA, the Small Business Congress, and the 3,000 member Latino Restaurant Association, not to mention the 200 independent beer wholesalers, we have essentially all of the city's 200,000 neighborhood retailers represented in some form or another. And Local 342 0f the UFCW represents over 10,000 supermarket and wholesale meat workers in NYC. But what's this when compared to the handful of billionaire machers over at the NYC Partnership?
And let me say that we've just got started. When we begin, as we did with Mayor Giuliani's mega-store plan, to link the neighborhood businesses with the local civics and community groups, it will be the swells that will be terribly outnumbered.
This congestion pricing idea has not been well thought out and, as the NY Daily News story this morning on yesterday's grilling of the transportation commissioner underscores, the opposition is just beginning to build on this new, unnecessary, and additional tax burden on New Yorkers and local businesses (and props to David Weprin for exposing the idea for what it really is-"another tax that would burden the middle class").
Congestive Traffic Failures
The Alliance is holding a press conference today in opposition to the PlaNYC's proposal for congestion pricing. We have been raising a number of issues in our opposition to the proposal, but the one thing that is paramount here is that the current plan is way to narrow in scope and leaves out serious traffic concerns in those areas outside the CBD.
All of which is underscored in the way in which proponents of the plan emphasize the health consequences, particularly children's asthma rates, as a major reason for their support. This brings up a fascinating point that the advocates all fail to mention: the current plan doesn't address crucial traffic variables in the outer boroughs, and fails to analyze (where's AKRF when you need them?) how the congestion pricing scheme will potentially exacerbate traffic/asthma issues in outlying neighborhoods.
As we have been pointing out, this is especially salient because the multi-page plan fails to look at the administration's promotion of auto-dependent shopping malls. Particularly egregious is the currently constructing Gateway Mall on the grave site of the old Bronx Terminal Market. This shopping Valhalla will generate around 125,000 cars a week and thousands of diesel spewing trucks along a strip of the Bronx that is known as "Asthma Alley."
When the Alliance was fighting the Mall, and EDC promoting it, all we heard was how great this would be for the economy of the borough. Not a single word about the environmental impact, or about the developer's traffic study the the Tri-State Transportation folks called one of thee worst they had ever seen (in terms of low balling real world traffic impacts). This from a group that supports congestion pricing.
Which brings us to the issue of neighborhood shopping. The weakness of the current plan, as far as small business is concerned, is its failure to appreciate the role that neighborhood shopping plays in any concept of sustainability that's worth its salt. Neighborhood shopping strips promote local economies, encourage short car trips or even better, walk-to-shop retailing, and bolster entrepreneurism at the same time. Any sustainability plan that ignores this is one that needs to be sent back to the drawing board.
All of which is underscored in the way in which proponents of the plan emphasize the health consequences, particularly children's asthma rates, as a major reason for their support. This brings up a fascinating point that the advocates all fail to mention: the current plan doesn't address crucial traffic variables in the outer boroughs, and fails to analyze (where's AKRF when you need them?) how the congestion pricing scheme will potentially exacerbate traffic/asthma issues in outlying neighborhoods.
As we have been pointing out, this is especially salient because the multi-page plan fails to look at the administration's promotion of auto-dependent shopping malls. Particularly egregious is the currently constructing Gateway Mall on the grave site of the old Bronx Terminal Market. This shopping Valhalla will generate around 125,000 cars a week and thousands of diesel spewing trucks along a strip of the Bronx that is known as "Asthma Alley."
When the Alliance was fighting the Mall, and EDC promoting it, all we heard was how great this would be for the economy of the borough. Not a single word about the environmental impact, or about the developer's traffic study the the Tri-State Transportation folks called one of thee worst they had ever seen (in terms of low balling real world traffic impacts). This from a group that supports congestion pricing.
Which brings us to the issue of neighborhood shopping. The weakness of the current plan, as far as small business is concerned, is its failure to appreciate the role that neighborhood shopping plays in any concept of sustainability that's worth its salt. Neighborhood shopping strips promote local economies, encourage short car trips or even better, walk-to-shop retailing, and bolster entrepreneurism at the same time. Any sustainability plan that ignores this is one that needs to be sent back to the drawing board.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Bias in the FDNY?
The NY Times, among others, is reporting today that the Justice Department has filed a suit against the FDNY because of the low percentage of Blacks and Hispanics on the job. Mayor Bloomberg, to his credit, basically told Alberto Gonzales to "take this job and shove it!" The mayor said, "The Justice Department is not going to tell us what to do."
So what are we to make of the low percentages? Is the relative paucity of minority firefighter an example of blatant discrimination, or are other factors at work? Clearly, no one, at least no one other than the mismanaged DOJ, would allege that the firefighter who are eventually hired are not the best and the bravest in the world. And finally, does the scant number of minority firefighters by itself indicate a discriminatory evaluation process?
If one is going to argue this point than it is incumbent in the accusers to point to the way in which the testing process itself weeds out otherwise qualified minority firefighters. After all, white children are scoring better on all of the tests given in the NYC school system. Preparation for the exam and a proper outreach effort, something that the FDNY is now doing, seems like the best approach to raising the number of qualified minority applicants.
When the court's overruled the tests in the early eighties, a number of unqualified women were forced into the city's firehouses and created a chaotic situation. Firefighting is a life and death situation, not only for the people who may be trapped inside of a burning building but also for those brave firefighters who put their lives on the lines. Watering down the tests, or the selection methodology, is a recipe for disaster-for both the FDNY and the citizens of NYC that depend on the bravery of the personnel in the department. 9/11 proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.
So what are we to make of the low percentages? Is the relative paucity of minority firefighter an example of blatant discrimination, or are other factors at work? Clearly, no one, at least no one other than the mismanaged DOJ, would allege that the firefighter who are eventually hired are not the best and the bravest in the world. And finally, does the scant number of minority firefighters by itself indicate a discriminatory evaluation process?
If one is going to argue this point than it is incumbent in the accusers to point to the way in which the testing process itself weeds out otherwise qualified minority firefighters. After all, white children are scoring better on all of the tests given in the NYC school system. Preparation for the exam and a proper outreach effort, something that the FDNY is now doing, seems like the best approach to raising the number of qualified minority applicants.
When the court's overruled the tests in the early eighties, a number of unqualified women were forced into the city's firehouses and created a chaotic situation. Firefighting is a life and death situation, not only for the people who may be trapped inside of a burning building but also for those brave firefighters who put their lives on the lines. Watering down the tests, or the selection methodology, is a recipe for disaster-for both the FDNY and the citizens of NYC that depend on the bravery of the personnel in the department. 9/11 proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Congestion Pricing
On Wednesday, May, 23rd, a diverse group of small business and retail leaders will hold a press conference to announce their opposition to the congestion pricing tax feature of PlaNYC. As Crain's In$ider reports this morning, the plan's congestion pricing component is making it more difficult to get past Albany's legislative scrutiny.
One senior Democrat told Crain's that, "He's going to have trouble with the pricing piece." The trouble stems from the fact that congestion pricing has not been fully thought through, something that will be emphasized at tomorrow's press event.
Where: Food Emporium – 405 East 59th Street
Time: 12 Noon
Check out the press release for more information.
Here's a list of attending groups and their representatives:
1. Richard Lipsky- Neighborhood Retail Alliance;
2. Rob Bookman-New York Night Life Association;
3. Dave Rabin-NYNA;
4. Jose Fernandez-Bodega Association;
5. Alfredo Placeras-NYS Federation of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce;
6. Louis Nunez-Latino Restaurant Association;
7. Chuck Hunt-NYS Restaurant Association;
8. Mitch Klein-Krasdale Foods;
9. Charlie Yim-SKI Beverages;
10. Marlen Lugones-Independent Beer Wholesalers;
11. Pat Purcell-United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1500;
12. Mike Mareno-United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 342;
13. Morton Sloan-MortonWilliams Associated;
14. Nevil Reid-Food Emporium;
15. Steve Barrison-Small Business Congress;
16. Sung Soo Kim-SBC
One senior Democrat told Crain's that, "He's going to have trouble with the pricing piece." The trouble stems from the fact that congestion pricing has not been fully thought through, something that will be emphasized at tomorrow's press event.
Where: Food Emporium – 405 East 59th Street
Time: 12 Noon
Check out the press release for more information.
Here's a list of attending groups and their representatives:
1. Richard Lipsky- Neighborhood Retail Alliance;
2. Rob Bookman-New York Night Life Association;
3. Dave Rabin-NYNA;
4. Jose Fernandez-Bodega Association;
5. Alfredo Placeras-NYS Federation of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce;
6. Louis Nunez-Latino Restaurant Association;
7. Chuck Hunt-NYS Restaurant Association;
8. Mitch Klein-Krasdale Foods;
9. Charlie Yim-SKI Beverages;
10. Marlen Lugones-Independent Beer Wholesalers;
11. Pat Purcell-United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1500;
12. Mike Mareno-United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 342;
13. Morton Sloan-MortonWilliams Associated;
14. Nevil Reid-Food Emporium;
15. Steve Barrison-Small Business Congress;
16. Sung Soo Kim-SBC
Monday, May 21, 2007
Recognize the Hero
In today's NY Post the paper finally identifies one of the Circuit City clerks who blew the whistle on the Fort Dix Six. Nate Sierer and two other employees of the chain recognized that there was something really off about the video that the would-be terrorists wanted to copy into a DVD format. Their concerns were relayed to Homeland Security, and the result was the recent apprehension of the gang of six.
As the Post says, Mr Sierer isn't looking for any rewards for his heroism, "I don't want to live scared...And it felt good to be able to do something like that for my country." Yet, his actions should be recognized, and it might even be a good idea to re-name the so-called "John Doe" Amendment the Nate Shierer Amendment.
All the more reason, also, for the Congress to move forward with its effort to immunize good Samaritans against the intimidation tactics of Islamic pressure groups, forces who are cleverly exploiting this country's legal system to advance an anti-American agenda. The NYC Council should immediately schedule a hearing on the Monseratte resolution and bring in Mr. Shierer to testify. All the council members, including the speaker, should support this important legislation.
As the Post says, Mr Sierer isn't looking for any rewards for his heroism, "I don't want to live scared...And it felt good to be able to do something like that for my country." Yet, his actions should be recognized, and it might even be a good idea to re-name the so-called "John Doe" Amendment the Nate Shierer Amendment.
All the more reason, also, for the Congress to move forward with its effort to immunize good Samaritans against the intimidation tactics of Islamic pressure groups, forces who are cleverly exploiting this country's legal system to advance an anti-American agenda. The NYC Council should immediately schedule a hearing on the Monseratte resolution and bring in Mr. Shierer to testify. All the council members, including the speaker, should support this important legislation.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Zoning Out: The Need to Reform ULURP
We have been actively involved in the city's land use review process for the past twenty five years, primarily in opposition to large shopping center and box store projects. As a result of this experience we can say, without any doubt, that the process is a sham; it avoids real planning and provides a technical evaluation charade that is developer-driven and inconsiderate of an real concern with community impact.
That's not to sat that we haven't learned how to use the process to maximize the power of communities and small businesses. We have, and in the process have stopped over 20 separate development projects. So we understand ULURP- as the philosophers would say, immanently. It is a process that can no longer be depended to provide good public policy outcomes, only victories or defeats that usually have no relationship to environmental issues.
Which is why the recently issued report from the Manhattan Institute, Rethinking Environmental Review: A Handbook on What Can Be Done, is such an important, and long overdo, policy evaluation. It is especially timely in the context of the mayor's long range concern with sustainability. A truly sustainable planning approach must include the reform of a land use review process that is an active impediment to the goals that PlaNYC has laid out.
That being said, there are things in the MI document that we would take issue with (Our new good friend Norman Oder has laid out some of these qualms in a recent post). Let's begin by underscoring what we find to be excellent criticisms in the MI report. In the first place, "the process has little to do with planning." Here the report is right on target.
The entire ULURP review inevitably begins with a developer's vision, and is then narrated by consultants who are hired to embellish the vision with facts that fit the preconceived narrative. The resulting environmental impact statements are certainly "impenetrable," designed as "litigation insurance" rather than as an explication of any real environmental impact.
The impenetrability is by design, since the goal is, as the report points out, "to be sure nobody reads it." We found this out exactly twenty five years ago. In one of the first projects we worked on, the Cherry Street Pathmark, we closed the parking lot for six months because we actually read the traffic study-and found that the developer had submitted the very same study that had been done for Pathmark's first urban store in Gowanus.
The consultant's have gotten a great deal more sophisticated since then, but the game is the same. And Oder's comments about the role of AKRF in all of this-both judge and jury-is right on target (something we can see most clearly in the Columbia expansion). It is the same phenomenon that we see on the Federal regulatory level: a revolving door between the private sector and government that makes legitimate regulation problematic.
The MI report captures this in quoting a unnamed consultant who said:
That's not to sat that we haven't learned how to use the process to maximize the power of communities and small businesses. We have, and in the process have stopped over 20 separate development projects. So we understand ULURP- as the philosophers would say, immanently. It is a process that can no longer be depended to provide good public policy outcomes, only victories or defeats that usually have no relationship to environmental issues.
Which is why the recently issued report from the Manhattan Institute, Rethinking Environmental Review: A Handbook on What Can Be Done, is such an important, and long overdo, policy evaluation. It is especially timely in the context of the mayor's long range concern with sustainability. A truly sustainable planning approach must include the reform of a land use review process that is an active impediment to the goals that PlaNYC has laid out.
That being said, there are things in the MI document that we would take issue with (Our new good friend Norman Oder has laid out some of these qualms in a recent post). Let's begin by underscoring what we find to be excellent criticisms in the MI report. In the first place, "the process has little to do with planning." Here the report is right on target.
The entire ULURP review inevitably begins with a developer's vision, and is then narrated by consultants who are hired to embellish the vision with facts that fit the preconceived narrative. The resulting environmental impact statements are certainly "impenetrable," designed as "litigation insurance" rather than as an explication of any real environmental impact.
The impenetrability is by design, since the goal is, as the report points out, "to be sure nobody reads it." We found this out exactly twenty five years ago. In one of the first projects we worked on, the Cherry Street Pathmark, we closed the parking lot for six months because we actually read the traffic study-and found that the developer had submitted the very same study that had been done for Pathmark's first urban store in Gowanus.
The consultant's have gotten a great deal more sophisticated since then, but the game is the same. And Oder's comments about the role of AKRF in all of this-both judge and jury-is right on target (something we can see most clearly in the Columbia expansion). It is the same phenomenon that we see on the Federal regulatory level: a revolving door between the private sector and government that makes legitimate regulation problematic.
The MI report captures this in quoting a unnamed consultant who said:
"Politicians have no time to read thousand-page volumes of technical data,
and bureaucrats are overwhelmed by their workload...{which leads to}...The
revolving door between powerful government and highly paid private-sector
CEQR jobs means that no wants to go om record blowing the whistle...A guy works
for the city, then goes to work for AKRF...and you can't get out of the circle."
The quality of the technical review is also called into question in the report. In developing mitigation for traffic impacts, consultants for developers tend to evaluate a narrow range of local impacts, and avoid looking at the wider possible damage that can be done to surrounding neighborhoods. This can be seen in the traffic signal retiming mitigations: "It is perfectly possible for a retiming, proposed to address congestion at an intersection, within the study area, to make things worse in the larger neighborhood just outside the study area."
So, for instance, with the Yankee Stadium and the Bronx Terminal Market projects that will certainly have a cumulative impact on the South Bronx, but were examined as if they were two discrete projects without any contiguity whatsoever. And of course no one bothered to look at traffic on the Deegan, since there appears to be no requirement to look at state roads-even if they are on "Asthma Alley."
So the MI report has a number of important observations, but its major weakness is its attempt to narrow the scope of review to what it feels are legitimate environmental issues. Neighborhood character and socio-economic conditions are eschewed in favor of very narrow parameters. This overlooks a number of salient points.
In the first place, the review process is a political process as much as it is an environmental one. Developer visions have a political component, and their impact needs to be evaluated on a number of levels that transcend narrow environmental concerns. When ULURP becomes a "weapon of choice" for activists-something that MI sees pejoratively-it is because it is the only available venue to express the concerns of communities and small businesses.
In addition, the issues of community character and socio-economic impacts often do have an important environmental impact. As we have commented concerning the mayor's congestion pricing plan, the building of auto-dependent shopping centers creates congestion and threatens the sustainability of local {often walk-to-shop} commercial strips. And why shouldn't the nurturing of local economies be a focus of any review? If not in ULURP, where?
Which brings us to what we feel is a major lapse in the MI report. It is spot on in showing how consultants collude with developers-and how beleaguered city bureaucrats play matador with the review-but it fails to call for the removal of developer-paid experts from the review process. As we have said before, experts should be hired by the city and paid for by the developers; and they should be given a wider planning agenda for their review.
So the MI report is a good start in the reformation of a broken ULURP process. Ultimately, however, it is too developer-friendly and insensitive to the needs of communities and small businesses. A comprehensive reformation should be made an integral part of PlaNYC so that, going forward towards sustainability, we have as disinterested (and as community-friendly) a review process as possible.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Beyond Congested Thinking
We're definitely sorry that we're unable to attend this morning's round table on congestion pricing that is being sponsored by the DMI. Whatever our disagreements are with DMI, we think that the round table is a public service, and that more such discussions should be held because the issues raised by this policy initiative need to be fully debated.
Along these lines there is an insightful column this morning in the NY Post by Manhattan BP Scott Stringer. In his piece Stringer outlines some of the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the current formulation of congestion pricing. His most important point from our perspective: "If we are serious about changing the status quo, our work must start by acknowledging that there can be no transit solution for New York City except for a five borough solution."
Stringer point, one we have alluded to previously, is that the administration's plan is much to Manhattan-centric, and ignores some serious outer borough traffic issues. In addition, Stringer points out that we need to examine the cart and horse nature of the current plan, to the extent that the pricing scheme long precedes any mass transit improvements for folks who now are forced into their cars because of inadequacies in the current system.
In our view we need to also examine the current congestion pricing tax in the context of the overall tax burden that New Yorkers are subjected to. As the Post discusses this morning, this tax burden is a challenge to the preservation of the middle class and small business in the city.
All of which will be coming to the fore as we come on board to assist the opposition to the congestion pricing scheme. Next week we will join with other opponents in a press conference that will emphasize some of the negative tax consequences of the congestion plan. AS Scott Stringer underscores, the mayor has highlighted some serious environmental issues that need to be addressed. Well meaning people can disagree on the proper approach to solving traffic congestion, and as far as the mayor's plan is concerned we respectfully disagree.
Along these lines there is an insightful column this morning in the NY Post by Manhattan BP Scott Stringer. In his piece Stringer outlines some of the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the current formulation of congestion pricing. His most important point from our perspective: "If we are serious about changing the status quo, our work must start by acknowledging that there can be no transit solution for New York City except for a five borough solution."
Stringer point, one we have alluded to previously, is that the administration's plan is much to Manhattan-centric, and ignores some serious outer borough traffic issues. In addition, Stringer points out that we need to examine the cart and horse nature of the current plan, to the extent that the pricing scheme long precedes any mass transit improvements for folks who now are forced into their cars because of inadequacies in the current system.
In our view we need to also examine the current congestion pricing tax in the context of the overall tax burden that New Yorkers are subjected to. As the Post discusses this morning, this tax burden is a challenge to the preservation of the middle class and small business in the city.
All of which will be coming to the fore as we come on board to assist the opposition to the congestion pricing scheme. Next week we will join with other opponents in a press conference that will emphasize some of the negative tax consequences of the congestion plan. AS Scott Stringer underscores, the mayor has highlighted some serious environmental issues that need to be addressed. Well meaning people can disagree on the proper approach to solving traffic congestion, and as far as the mayor's plan is concerned we respectfully disagree.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Posting Bodegas
In today's NY Post the paper covers the DOH report on Harlem and East Harlem's access to healthier food choices. As we commented yesterday, and we're cited to that effect in the paper today, "The report doesn't break new ground. There has always been less demand for these so-called healthier products in low-income neighborhoods."
The underlying factors for this situation have long been misconstrued, a tendency that Assemblyman Keith Wright continues when he tells the Post, "After years and years of glaring racism, environmental and otherwise, this is what happens." What is "this?"
Does Wright mean that stores deliberately refuse to sell Harlemites healthier foods? Or is the situation more a reflection of demand? As we said in the Post, "If in fact that department is successful in increasing the demand {for healthier food}, and we certainly hope they are, then store owners will respond as retailers do all over to their customers' wishes."
This is, in fact, what the Post does find when it surveyed bodegas on the East Side. In contrast to a bodega in East Harlem, a grocery on East 71st Street carried arugula, scallions and leaks, along we a selection of high-end cookies. Bodegas respond as neighborhood tastes change.
What is overlooked in the report is the fact that while bodegas, much as convenience stores everywhere, carry less healthy choices, supermarkets carry a fuller range of food products. And there are a significant number of supermarkets in the neighborhoods in question. The report points out, however, "There are 3 supermarkets per 10,000 people on the Upper East Side compared to 2 supermarkets per 10,000 in East and Central Harlem."
What does this mean? Is this, per Wright, an example of "environmental racism?" Or is it, rather, a result of the income disparities between the neighborhoods? Should we be comparing the highest income neighborhood of the city to some of the poorest? To what end?
Not only does the income disparity skew the comparison, but the fact that healthier foods are more costly exacerbates the situation making the comparison invidious in the extreme. The point is driven home in the food stamp story in this morning's NY Daily News. As one nutritionist told the paper, "Eating this diet long term, I'd be concerned about heart disease, diabetes. cancer, and osteoporosis."
The issue being that a food stamp recipient can't afford to purchase healthy foods, and if a neighborhood has a large percentage of these recipients, stores will be less likely to stock items that their customers can't afford to purchase. Poorer people, then, because of income levels and the lack of proper education, will not eat as healthy as people with greater nutritional awareness and higher incomes. There may be a limit as to what government can do to change this equation.
The underlying factors for this situation have long been misconstrued, a tendency that Assemblyman Keith Wright continues when he tells the Post, "After years and years of glaring racism, environmental and otherwise, this is what happens." What is "this?"
Does Wright mean that stores deliberately refuse to sell Harlemites healthier foods? Or is the situation more a reflection of demand? As we said in the Post, "If in fact that department is successful in increasing the demand {for healthier food}, and we certainly hope they are, then store owners will respond as retailers do all over to their customers' wishes."
This is, in fact, what the Post does find when it surveyed bodegas on the East Side. In contrast to a bodega in East Harlem, a grocery on East 71st Street carried arugula, scallions and leaks, along we a selection of high-end cookies. Bodegas respond as neighborhood tastes change.
What is overlooked in the report is the fact that while bodegas, much as convenience stores everywhere, carry less healthy choices, supermarkets carry a fuller range of food products. And there are a significant number of supermarkets in the neighborhoods in question. The report points out, however, "There are 3 supermarkets per 10,000 people on the Upper East Side compared to 2 supermarkets per 10,000 in East and Central Harlem."
What does this mean? Is this, per Wright, an example of "environmental racism?" Or is it, rather, a result of the income disparities between the neighborhoods? Should we be comparing the highest income neighborhood of the city to some of the poorest? To what end?
Not only does the income disparity skew the comparison, but the fact that healthier foods are more costly exacerbates the situation making the comparison invidious in the extreme. The point is driven home in the food stamp story in this morning's NY Daily News. As one nutritionist told the paper, "Eating this diet long term, I'd be concerned about heart disease, diabetes. cancer, and osteoporosis."
The issue being that a food stamp recipient can't afford to purchase healthy foods, and if a neighborhood has a large percentage of these recipients, stores will be less likely to stock items that their customers can't afford to purchase. Poorer people, then, because of income levels and the lack of proper education, will not eat as healthy as people with greater nutritional awareness and higher incomes. There may be a limit as to what government can do to change this equation.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Healthy Food Access
The DOH has just released a report that tells us that it is harder to get healthier food products in Harlem and East Harlem. Frankly, we don't really think that this is news. We have been commenting on this issue for years, and there have been any number of studies that have been done to demonstrate that food options are not as plentiful for low income neighborhoods as they are for higher income communities.
The real issue in all of this is the underlying cause for this disparity. There are some who like to place the blame on the stores themselves; for their failure to adequately stock shelves with healthier foods, opting instead for cheaper unhealthier stuff. Clearly, this perspective fails to understand the demand side of the food equation. As a corollary to this, it also underestimates the role of income.
Taking income first, the Daily News reality series on the food stamp follies of Councilman Eric Goia underscores just how difficult it is for low income people to eat healthier-more expensive!-food items. The lower incomes militate against local groceries carrying healthier, but more expensive foods.
The second feature on the demand curve is that lack of nutritional awareness. Here, the DOH report makes an important contribution. One of its major recommendations is: "Promoting consumer demand for nutritious food at affordable prices through education and social marketing."
This is a point we have been trying to emphasize for years. If consumers begin to become more aware of what's good to eat, they will demand that local stores stock these foods. And guess what? The stores will respond to these new demands, as they do when formerly low income neighborhoods begin to gentrify and consumer preferences change.
So there' good news here and we're ready to praise the department's actions and directions. Beginning with the "Healthy Bodega" initiative DOH has recognized that it needs to partner with the local stores and restaurants; and that partnership needs to encompass an aggressive community nutritional awareness plan. The department's convening of the Harlem Food and Fitness Consortium is a major step forward.
We'd also like to see the Health Corps concept integrated with the department's efforts. Getting young people activated on health is a crucial variable that needs to be brought into play, something that the HC definitely does. The fact that the DOH has already met with the HC folks on the bodega initiative bodes well for the integration of these various good policy approaches.
The real issue in all of this is the underlying cause for this disparity. There are some who like to place the blame on the stores themselves; for their failure to adequately stock shelves with healthier foods, opting instead for cheaper unhealthier stuff. Clearly, this perspective fails to understand the demand side of the food equation. As a corollary to this, it also underestimates the role of income.
Taking income first, the Daily News reality series on the food stamp follies of Councilman Eric Goia underscores just how difficult it is for low income people to eat healthier-more expensive!-food items. The lower incomes militate against local groceries carrying healthier, but more expensive foods.
The second feature on the demand curve is that lack of nutritional awareness. Here, the DOH report makes an important contribution. One of its major recommendations is: "Promoting consumer demand for nutritious food at affordable prices through education and social marketing."
This is a point we have been trying to emphasize for years. If consumers begin to become more aware of what's good to eat, they will demand that local stores stock these foods. And guess what? The stores will respond to these new demands, as they do when formerly low income neighborhoods begin to gentrify and consumer preferences change.
So there' good news here and we're ready to praise the department's actions and directions. Beginning with the "Healthy Bodega" initiative DOH has recognized that it needs to partner with the local stores and restaurants; and that partnership needs to encompass an aggressive community nutritional awareness plan. The department's convening of the Harlem Food and Fitness Consortium is a major step forward.
We'd also like to see the Health Corps concept integrated with the department's efforts. Getting young people activated on health is a crucial variable that needs to be brought into play, something that the HC definitely does. The fact that the DOH has already met with the HC folks on the bodega initiative bodes well for the integration of these various good policy approaches.
Tax and Spend
We have been arguing over the past few weeks with the tax sanguininity of our friends over at the Drum Major Institute. Some of our ripostes have been sarcastic, but the substance of the debate reveals deep disagreements about the salutary role of government, and the impact that taxes have on economic growth.
The debate is put into sharp relief by the story in this morning's NY Post that reveals that New York's "overall tax burden is the heaviest in the nation..." Not surprisingly, the story isn't covered at all over at the ("We've never met a tax we didn't like") NY Times. The reason for the ranking is that NY has a bloated and over paid municipal work force, skyrocketing Medicaid expenses, and "school spending well above the national average..."
It is in this over taxed climate that we find the calls for greater "progressivity" to be both alarming and counter productive. Alarming because there is no evidence that the city of New York has the ability to use these taxes in a way that improves the quality of life of the average tax paying citizen. These folks, of all races and ethnicities, are the homeowners in the boroughs whose basic requirements from government are more or less limited to safe streets, infrastructure repair, and a well-functioning school system.
The higher taxes are counterproductive because they lead inevitably to the exodus of our most productive citizens and to fleeing retirees who can do much better on fixed incomes in low taxed southern and western areas of the country. A companion piece in the Post about a fleeing businessman, a lifelong Brooklynite, underscores this point.
The point is driven home by a spokesman for the Business Council who tells the Post that New York is "one of only four states that is losing population." And in the midst of all of this we have the anomaly of a businessman mayor who, perhaps because he is so wealthy that he has lost touch with the facts on the ground, feels that New Yorkers can't complain about taxes because of the gold plated services they demand.
What we have is a city that is caught in a time warp, governed by folks who forget that the 1970's revealed in a stark fashion (and wonderfully chronicled by Ken Auletta's book, "The Streets Were Paved With Gold"), that you can't run a quasi-socialist local government in a capitalist economy. Unfortunately the governing class and the chattering class collude to perpetuate the situation, and Mike Bloomberg is the perfect embodiment of the city's zeitgeist.
At some point the tax and spend impulse will collide with reality. The greatest gift that the city's
poor can receive from their government is a business climate that encourages robust job growth, and quality schools so that the up-and-comers can take advantage of the burgeoning opportunities that will follow economic initiative. Cutting taxes is the only sure methodology for insuring the continued health and vitality of NYC.
The debate is put into sharp relief by the story in this morning's NY Post that reveals that New York's "overall tax burden is the heaviest in the nation..." Not surprisingly, the story isn't covered at all over at the ("We've never met a tax we didn't like") NY Times. The reason for the ranking is that NY has a bloated and over paid municipal work force, skyrocketing Medicaid expenses, and "school spending well above the national average..."
It is in this over taxed climate that we find the calls for greater "progressivity" to be both alarming and counter productive. Alarming because there is no evidence that the city of New York has the ability to use these taxes in a way that improves the quality of life of the average tax paying citizen. These folks, of all races and ethnicities, are the homeowners in the boroughs whose basic requirements from government are more or less limited to safe streets, infrastructure repair, and a well-functioning school system.
The higher taxes are counterproductive because they lead inevitably to the exodus of our most productive citizens and to fleeing retirees who can do much better on fixed incomes in low taxed southern and western areas of the country. A companion piece in the Post about a fleeing businessman, a lifelong Brooklynite, underscores this point.
The point is driven home by a spokesman for the Business Council who tells the Post that New York is "one of only four states that is losing population." And in the midst of all of this we have the anomaly of a businessman mayor who, perhaps because he is so wealthy that he has lost touch with the facts on the ground, feels that New Yorkers can't complain about taxes because of the gold plated services they demand.
What we have is a city that is caught in a time warp, governed by folks who forget that the 1970's revealed in a stark fashion (and wonderfully chronicled by Ken Auletta's book, "The Streets Were Paved With Gold"), that you can't run a quasi-socialist local government in a capitalist economy. Unfortunately the governing class and the chattering class collude to perpetuate the situation, and Mike Bloomberg is the perfect embodiment of the city's zeitgeist.
At some point the tax and spend impulse will collide with reality. The greatest gift that the city's
poor can receive from their government is a business climate that encourages robust job growth, and quality schools so that the up-and-comers can take advantage of the burgeoning opportunities that will follow economic initiative. Cutting taxes is the only sure methodology for insuring the continued health and vitality of NYC.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
See Something? Say Something
As the recent foiling of the Fort Dix six highlights, whistle blowers and good Samaritans are essential in fighting the war on terror. As the NY Post editorializes, however, there is a degree of self censorship that threatens to undermine the active participation of citizens in the effort to keep the country safe. As it points out, the clerk who played the key role in the stymieing of the plot asked a colleague "I don't know what to do...Should I call someone, or is that being racist?"
The reason for the clerk's reticence is, we believe, two fold. Initially it stems from the concerted campaign to prevent racial profiling of African Americans and Latinos by the police. As a result of this campaign there is a reluctance to accuse any minority for fear of being labeled...racist. So the completely different issues involving Islamic terrorists gets inappropriately conflated with standard American civil rights issues-at a cost to our security.
Secondly, there is the efforts being made by so-called Arab-American civil rights groups to do two things. First, is to cloak their issues in the language of the mainstream civil rights movement in order to avoid too stringent a scrutiny of some of the activities in their community. Second is the effort to downplay the extent to which the "War on Terror" is more accurately a war against an extreme version of Islam. These two approaches work together to forestall proper vigilance.
All of this is played out, of course, in the well-publicized "Flying Imams" case. The actions of the imams, both before and after they boarded the USAir flight, were nothing if not provocative. They were meant, in our view, to provoke the responses they did get from the passengers on the plane. The imams lawsuit, aimed as it is against the alleged bigotry of both the airline and its passengers, is designed to generate the fear, initially expressed by the Fort Dix whistle blower, that pointing a finger at the suspicious behavior of Muslims might be considered racist; and even worse, the exposure to the expense of a lawsuit.
The actions of the good Samaritan in New Jersey is turning the tide on all of this trepidation. As we have reported the City Council has introduced a resolution of support for Peter King's John Doe amendment, and Joe Lieberman and two of his Republican colleagues have introduced companion legislation in the Senate. The City Council resolution already has 17 co-sponsors to the Monseratte-led measure, and we're hopeful that the full body will join their colleagues in support of this commonsense effort.
The reason for the clerk's reticence is, we believe, two fold. Initially it stems from the concerted campaign to prevent racial profiling of African Americans and Latinos by the police. As a result of this campaign there is a reluctance to accuse any minority for fear of being labeled...racist. So the completely different issues involving Islamic terrorists gets inappropriately conflated with standard American civil rights issues-at a cost to our security.
Secondly, there is the efforts being made by so-called Arab-American civil rights groups to do two things. First, is to cloak their issues in the language of the mainstream civil rights movement in order to avoid too stringent a scrutiny of some of the activities in their community. Second is the effort to downplay the extent to which the "War on Terror" is more accurately a war against an extreme version of Islam. These two approaches work together to forestall proper vigilance.
All of this is played out, of course, in the well-publicized "Flying Imams" case. The actions of the imams, both before and after they boarded the USAir flight, were nothing if not provocative. They were meant, in our view, to provoke the responses they did get from the passengers on the plane. The imams lawsuit, aimed as it is against the alleged bigotry of both the airline and its passengers, is designed to generate the fear, initially expressed by the Fort Dix whistle blower, that pointing a finger at the suspicious behavior of Muslims might be considered racist; and even worse, the exposure to the expense of a lawsuit.
The actions of the good Samaritan in New Jersey is turning the tide on all of this trepidation. As we have reported the City Council has introduced a resolution of support for Peter King's John Doe amendment, and Joe Lieberman and two of his Republican colleagues have introduced companion legislation in the Senate. The City Council resolution already has 17 co-sponsors to the Monseratte-led measure, and we're hopeful that the full body will join their colleagues in support of this commonsense effort.
Bloomberg Plans, Albany Doesn't Laugh
AS the NY Sun and the NY Times are reporting this morning, the mayor sojourned in Albany yesterday and made some headway in selling his controversial congestion pricing plan. In particular, the Senate's Majority Leader Joe Bruno was particularly receptive since he is going out of his way to tout Bloomberg as the next GOP gubernatoirial candidate.
Unquestionably, however, the plan has a long way to go before it receives legislative approval. With a scant 37 days left, it leaves little time for the two chambers to duly consider and pass such a set of complex and, at least with congestion pricing, controversial ideas.
We do agree with the NY Daily News that editorializes this morning that the mayor deserves credit for bring the discussion to the forefront. After criticizing Speaker Quinn and Comptroller Thompson for their silence (and Weiner for his opposition-if rather obliquely), the paper says, "They don't seem to realize that the mayor is doing them and the city a huge favor by forcing this very big idea onto the public agenda."
Agreed. Unlike many elected officials who can't seem to think much past their next quarterly filing, Bloomberg does offer a refreshing contrast. That does not mean that the plan he has put forward is flawless. In addition, let's not forget that Weiner, while opposing congestion pricing, has made himself constructively part of the conversation.
At the same time we should also add, as today's Daily News 2009 mayoral poll highlights, that schools and housing are still the major concern of New York's voters. And at least with the schools there is clearly a great deal of room for improvement. It's always a good idea to plan, as long as we don't lose sight of the most pressing immediate needs that face the city.
Unquestionably, however, the plan has a long way to go before it receives legislative approval. With a scant 37 days left, it leaves little time for the two chambers to duly consider and pass such a set of complex and, at least with congestion pricing, controversial ideas.
We do agree with the NY Daily News that editorializes this morning that the mayor deserves credit for bring the discussion to the forefront. After criticizing Speaker Quinn and Comptroller Thompson for their silence (and Weiner for his opposition-if rather obliquely), the paper says, "They don't seem to realize that the mayor is doing them and the city a huge favor by forcing this very big idea onto the public agenda."
Agreed. Unlike many elected officials who can't seem to think much past their next quarterly filing, Bloomberg does offer a refreshing contrast. That does not mean that the plan he has put forward is flawless. In addition, let's not forget that Weiner, while opposing congestion pricing, has made himself constructively part of the conversation.
At the same time we should also add, as today's Daily News 2009 mayoral poll highlights, that schools and housing are still the major concern of New York's voters. And at least with the schools there is clearly a great deal of room for improvement. It's always a good idea to plan, as long as we don't lose sight of the most pressing immediate needs that face the city.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Show Me a Good Loeser, And I'll Show You a Loser
Our annoying little friend Stu Loeser is at it again. This time he's taking Anthony Weiner to task for the congressman's plan to combat congestion in the city. Now, we haven't had a chance to fully review Weiner's proposal, but Loeser's comments are genuinely droll.
Weiner's plan focuses in on reducing truck traffic by encouraging deliveries outside of peak daytime hours. Loeser's take is that Weiner's idea would "drastically increase truck traffic in neighborhoods that already have high child asthma rates." Really, Stu, you need to get out more. It is Mayor Bloomberg who has drastically-and already-increased truck traffic in asthma-laden nabes by his box store mania.
How can you explain or justify building an auto-dependent mall, with 500,000 square feet of retail space, right on the Major Deegan parking lot next to Yankee Stadium? Stu, this area is called asthma alley and your own Planning Commission ignored the traffic analysis that the Alliance did, along with the one done by our friend Teresa Toro of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign.
Both of these studies, work that should be seen alongside of the analyses that have been done on the CBX/Deegan interchange and the new Yankee Stadium, predict millions of additional tons of CO2 emissions as cars and trucks try to navigate entry and exit from the Gateway Mall. Yet the mayor's myopic CPC wasn't able to see any flaws in a traffic study that felt that simply widening the Deegan off ramp at 149th Street would somehow mitigate an extra 250,000 cars and thousands of more trucks a week
In addition, this mall will pull thousands of local shoppers away from their neighborhood shopping areas, commercial strips that many, if not most consumers, are walking to shop at. Nurturing local shopping should be part of creating a sustainable city, but Bloomberg's grand plan hasn't a single mention of this.
But Loser is nothing if not arrogantly presumptuous. After all who else could, in criticizing Weiner, claim that the congressman's plan would "hurt small business." This from an administration whose policies have been virulently anti-small business (and from a mayor who called the $250 million a year Bodega tax, "a minor economic issue").
Kermit the Mayor and his little mouthpiece sidekick should stick to the promotion of their own plan and steer clear of caricaturing the alternative proposal of the Congressman. The more that Loeser does so, the more he appears to be engaging in self-parody.
Weiner's plan focuses in on reducing truck traffic by encouraging deliveries outside of peak daytime hours. Loeser's take is that Weiner's idea would "drastically increase truck traffic in neighborhoods that already have high child asthma rates." Really, Stu, you need to get out more. It is Mayor Bloomberg who has drastically-and already-increased truck traffic in asthma-laden nabes by his box store mania.
How can you explain or justify building an auto-dependent mall, with 500,000 square feet of retail space, right on the Major Deegan parking lot next to Yankee Stadium? Stu, this area is called asthma alley and your own Planning Commission ignored the traffic analysis that the Alliance did, along with the one done by our friend Teresa Toro of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign.
Both of these studies, work that should be seen alongside of the analyses that have been done on the CBX/Deegan interchange and the new Yankee Stadium, predict millions of additional tons of CO2 emissions as cars and trucks try to navigate entry and exit from the Gateway Mall. Yet the mayor's myopic CPC wasn't able to see any flaws in a traffic study that felt that simply widening the Deegan off ramp at 149th Street would somehow mitigate an extra 250,000 cars and thousands of more trucks a week
In addition, this mall will pull thousands of local shoppers away from their neighborhood shopping areas, commercial strips that many, if not most consumers, are walking to shop at. Nurturing local shopping should be part of creating a sustainable city, but Bloomberg's grand plan hasn't a single mention of this.
But Loser is nothing if not arrogantly presumptuous. After all who else could, in criticizing Weiner, claim that the congressman's plan would "hurt small business." This from an administration whose policies have been virulently anti-small business (and from a mayor who called the $250 million a year Bodega tax, "a minor economic issue").
Kermit the Mayor and his little mouthpiece sidekick should stick to the promotion of their own plan and steer clear of caricaturing the alternative proposal of the Congressman. The more that Loeser does so, the more he appears to be engaging in self-parody.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
DMI's Poor Sintax
In a post at DMI today Amy Traub takes a look at this country's tax policies and finds them, well of course, insufficiently redistributive. The focus of the post is on a NY Times business story about $350 drink minimums at the city's night clubs. The author points out that, the declining tax rates fuels the kind of spending that contributes to the development of an entire class of workers earning their living by catering to the "obscenely wealthy."
Traub finds this disturbing, the idea that "the market itself will redistribute wealth." And she goes on to point out that the author of the story, "to his credit...never quite says that that the market redistributes wealth as effectively as good old progressive taxation." Nor, one might add, as effectively as confiscating the land of kulaks though forced collectivization.
This brings us face to face with the efficacy of the entire redistributive worldview. The fact remains that lowering the tax rates does create wealth and encourages new enterprise. Not all of the excess capital is going to purchase expensive liquor, a great deal of reinvestment is fueling the market growth that, more and more, is helping millions of middle class Americans grow their investments and savings. More capital is going to create new enterprise and the employment that spurs economic growth.
But let's just take the $350 drinks at the city's night life venues. The fact is that this industry alone is generating $700 million a year to the city in tax revenues. It is, as we have pointed out, a $10 billion economic engine that employs 19,000 city residents. These are good jobs, and it is the generation of good jobs that makes this economic system superior to all of those whose basic premises rest on some notion of redistribution.
This does not mean that the lack of affordable health care shouldn't be a concern, or that those of us who support the assumptions of this economic system have a Marie Antoinette attitude. It does mean that we believe strongly that the "throw the baby out with the bath water" economic philosophy of the redistributors is an example of the cure being much worse than the disease.
Traub finds this disturbing, the idea that "the market itself will redistribute wealth." And she goes on to point out that the author of the story, "to his credit...never quite says that that the market redistributes wealth as effectively as good old progressive taxation." Nor, one might add, as effectively as confiscating the land of kulaks though forced collectivization.
This brings us face to face with the efficacy of the entire redistributive worldview. The fact remains that lowering the tax rates does create wealth and encourages new enterprise. Not all of the excess capital is going to purchase expensive liquor, a great deal of reinvestment is fueling the market growth that, more and more, is helping millions of middle class Americans grow their investments and savings. More capital is going to create new enterprise and the employment that spurs economic growth.
But let's just take the $350 drinks at the city's night life venues. The fact is that this industry alone is generating $700 million a year to the city in tax revenues. It is, as we have pointed out, a $10 billion economic engine that employs 19,000 city residents. These are good jobs, and it is the generation of good jobs that makes this economic system superior to all of those whose basic premises rest on some notion of redistribution.
This does not mean that the lack of affordable health care shouldn't be a concern, or that those of us who support the assumptions of this economic system have a Marie Antoinette attitude. It does mean that we believe strongly that the "throw the baby out with the bath water" economic philosophy of the redistributors is an example of the cure being much worse than the disease.
Who Will Educate the Educator?
It just keeps getting more bizarre all the time. The mayoral takeover of the schools was designed to bring an out-of-control system under some kind coherent structure that would improve the education of the city's million-plus school kids. Instead what we're seeing is an educational leadership, devoid of any expertise in the field, ceding control over pedagogy to teachers hell bent on reordering political priorities rather than lifting math and reading scores.
All of which is underscored in Sol Stern's brilliant expose in the NY Post this morning of the proliferation of "social justice" high schools in New York. In today's column Stern focuses on a cadre of math teachers who are using an anti-capitalist ideology to teach math. The "lessons' focus on thing like how check cashing locations are "ripping of" poor people.
Now we know that "motivation" is a big part of any lesson plan, but how about a little even handedness. You know, How many kulaks did Stalin exterminate;? and if he continued at the rate he was going, How long would it have taken him to wipe out the entire population? Why doesn't "social justice" teach kids about all of the atrocities that have been committed in the name of social justice?
There was actually a conference held last month in Brooklyn, titled "Creating Balance in an Unjust World: Math Education and Social Justice," that was funded with a $3,000 grant from Joel Klein's Department of Education. In the conference one of the speakers told the gathering that "teachers shouldn't use traditional math lessons where students calculate the cost of food. Instead they should use their lessons to get their students to see that in a truly 'just society,' food would 'be a free as breathing the air.'"
How the hell do we allow these political morons to get within ten feet of a child? If they want to preach revolution this country allows them to be as outrageous as they want to be in preaching their version of the gospel. Allowing them to do so inside a public classroom is insanity.
All of this gives new meaning to Lenin's observation that, "the capitalists will sell us the rope that we will hang them with." Even worse is the lame response Klein gave to Stern when he inquired about the appropriateness of this grant being given. He told Stern, "This is a private conference, at which a range of views will be expressed, it seems that many of these views are hardly 'radical'..."
This statement should be grounds for the chancellor's dismissal. Private conference? Who's he kidding? This conference is detailing the methods of political indoctrination that this radical cohort of teachers is using in Mr. Klein's classrooms. The conference was a staging ground for the expansion of the inappropriate politicization and brainwashing of New York's schoolchildren.
And people wonder why the Beacon School can defy the State Department and take high schoolers to Cuba? It's relatively easy when useful idiots are running the entire education enterprise. Someone needs to come in and investigate this situation, and if it means new leadership, so be it.
All of which is underscored in Sol Stern's brilliant expose in the NY Post this morning of the proliferation of "social justice" high schools in New York. In today's column Stern focuses on a cadre of math teachers who are using an anti-capitalist ideology to teach math. The "lessons' focus on thing like how check cashing locations are "ripping of" poor people.
Now we know that "motivation" is a big part of any lesson plan, but how about a little even handedness. You know, How many kulaks did Stalin exterminate;? and if he continued at the rate he was going, How long would it have taken him to wipe out the entire population? Why doesn't "social justice" teach kids about all of the atrocities that have been committed in the name of social justice?
There was actually a conference held last month in Brooklyn, titled "Creating Balance in an Unjust World: Math Education and Social Justice," that was funded with a $3,000 grant from Joel Klein's Department of Education. In the conference one of the speakers told the gathering that "teachers shouldn't use traditional math lessons where students calculate the cost of food. Instead they should use their lessons to get their students to see that in a truly 'just society,' food would 'be a free as breathing the air.'"
How the hell do we allow these political morons to get within ten feet of a child? If they want to preach revolution this country allows them to be as outrageous as they want to be in preaching their version of the gospel. Allowing them to do so inside a public classroom is insanity.
All of this gives new meaning to Lenin's observation that, "the capitalists will sell us the rope that we will hang them with." Even worse is the lame response Klein gave to Stern when he inquired about the appropriateness of this grant being given. He told Stern, "This is a private conference, at which a range of views will be expressed, it seems that many of these views are hardly 'radical'..."
This statement should be grounds for the chancellor's dismissal. Private conference? Who's he kidding? This conference is detailing the methods of political indoctrination that this radical cohort of teachers is using in Mr. Klein's classrooms. The conference was a staging ground for the expansion of the inappropriate politicization and brainwashing of New York's schoolchildren.
And people wonder why the Beacon School can defy the State Department and take high schoolers to Cuba? It's relatively easy when useful idiots are running the entire education enterprise. Someone needs to come in and investigate this situation, and if it means new leadership, so be it.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Taxing Credulity
As would be expected, the DMI has come out strongly in support of the mayor's congestion pricing plan. We say expected, because the plan amounts to a tax on commuters, distributors and small businesses, and DMI has generally never met a tax it didn't see as justified. In fact, the Institute is holding a forum on the congestion pricing topic next Friday down at NYU, a summit that is co-sponsored by the NYC Partnership, a strong advocate of the plan. It doesn't appear that any naysayers are on the official agenda.
Adding additional spice to the event will be London Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron, the person who implemented the London congestion pricing plan. Gavron initially was put up by the Labour Party to run for mayor, but stepped aside when Kenny the Red Livingston was readmitted to the party. We'd certainly like to know just how Gavron, a child of Holocaust survivors, justifies serving alongside of a Jew-baiting anti-Semite like Livingstone.
What is missing from the DMI post is any degree of intellectual depth; there is simply no evaluation of the potential costs of the mayor's proposal and there is a unreflected, and reflexive genuflection to the virtues of mass transit. There is, as usual, a class-based emphasis on the fact that the pricing tax only hits the 5% minority of those commuters who drive to work. That may be true, but the fact that a tax only effects a minority doesn't, ipso facto, mean that the policy is therefore without any faults.
The DMI, along with all the rest of the mayor's clacks, also fails to point out the extent to which the tax on the CBD avoids any amelioration of the serious traffic congestion being stimulated by the numerous mega-projects sponsored by the current administration. It also lacks any real policy analysis of the numerous ways in which the plan could serious hamper outer borough residents who lack any access to good mass transit alternatives.
A belated correction here is in order. I've been informed that the post in question here is actually a guest blogger's from Transportation Alternatives. The substance of our comments doesn't change but if DMI's position differs we'd love to see to what extent.
Adding additional spice to the event will be London Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron, the person who implemented the London congestion pricing plan. Gavron initially was put up by the Labour Party to run for mayor, but stepped aside when Kenny the Red Livingston was readmitted to the party. We'd certainly like to know just how Gavron, a child of Holocaust survivors, justifies serving alongside of a Jew-baiting anti-Semite like Livingstone.
What is missing from the DMI post is any degree of intellectual depth; there is simply no evaluation of the potential costs of the mayor's proposal and there is a unreflected, and reflexive genuflection to the virtues of mass transit. There is, as usual, a class-based emphasis on the fact that the pricing tax only hits the 5% minority of those commuters who drive to work. That may be true, but the fact that a tax only effects a minority doesn't, ipso facto, mean that the policy is therefore without any faults.
The DMI, along with all the rest of the mayor's clacks, also fails to point out the extent to which the tax on the CBD avoids any amelioration of the serious traffic congestion being stimulated by the numerous mega-projects sponsored by the current administration. It also lacks any real policy analysis of the numerous ways in which the plan could serious hamper outer borough residents who lack any access to good mass transit alternatives.
A belated correction here is in order. I've been informed that the post in question here is actually a guest blogger's from Transportation Alternatives. The substance of our comments doesn't change but if DMI's position differs we'd love to see to what extent.
Maybe Not So Smart
The NY Sun is reporting today that the mayor's grandiose traffic plans may be running into some resistance up in Albany. It seems that the proposed SMART authority may create a jurisdictional battle with the MTA; and that some state officials view the proposed authority as little more than a power grab by the city. As State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky points out, "It's essentially about control, not policy. What they're really saying is that the decision making over regional transportation should be made by the city."
All of which could spell trouble because the SMART authority is the vehicle (no pun intended) for the financing of all of the transportation projects that comprise the backbone of the mayor's sustainability vision. In addition, MTA folks are worrying that the SMART money is geared only to construction, which would leave the operating expenses for the new train lines as the MTA's responsibility.
None of this is insurmountable if all sides feel that it is something that is worth doing. It does indicate, however, that there are some serious details that need to be ironed out, something that is complicated by the nature of the political opposition being generated against the mayor's plan.
As Crain's In$ider reports this morning, congestion pricing foes have scheduled a number of press events starting next week. The events will focus on a variety of opponents' rationales for viewing the mayor's plan unfavorably. It will be difficult, given the operational problems and the political opposition, for the mayor to achieve a swift, positive, resolution to his policy initiatives.
All of which could spell trouble because the SMART authority is the vehicle (no pun intended) for the financing of all of the transportation projects that comprise the backbone of the mayor's sustainability vision. In addition, MTA folks are worrying that the SMART money is geared only to construction, which would leave the operating expenses for the new train lines as the MTA's responsibility.
None of this is insurmountable if all sides feel that it is something that is worth doing. It does indicate, however, that there are some serious details that need to be ironed out, something that is complicated by the nature of the political opposition being generated against the mayor's plan.
As Crain's In$ider reports this morning, congestion pricing foes have scheduled a number of press events starting next week. The events will focus on a variety of opponents' rationales for viewing the mayor's plan unfavorably. It will be difficult, given the operational problems and the political opposition, for the mayor to achieve a swift, positive, resolution to his policy initiatives.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Whistleblower Reso Advances
In addition to the coverage in today's NY Sun, yesterday's press conference in support of a city council resolution that urges the US Senate to pass the King amendment, the measure that protects whistle blowers who report suspicious activity, also received good notice in today's SI Advance.
The Advance points out that all three of the SI members have signed on to the bill and that Vito Fosella, the congressman from the Island, is a strong supporter of the measure. In addition, John Catsimatidis' presence at the press conference, and his potential role as Republican mayoral candidate in 2009, is mentioned.
What needs to be done now, is for the reso's supporters to push Speaker Quinn to hold hearings on the measure in the Council's State and Federal Legislation Committee. So far, there is no indication of where Quinn stands on this important homeland security question.
The Advance points out that all three of the SI members have signed on to the bill and that Vito Fosella, the congressman from the Island, is a strong supporter of the measure. In addition, John Catsimatidis' presence at the press conference, and his potential role as Republican mayoral candidate in 2009, is mentioned.
What needs to be done now, is for the reso's supporters to push Speaker Quinn to hold hearings on the measure in the Council's State and Federal Legislation Committee. So far, there is no indication of where Quinn stands on this important homeland security question.
ESDC Shifts Gears on Eminent Domain?
In today's Crain's In$ider, the newsletter reports that new ESDC head Patrick Foye may be more coy on the use of eminent domain than his predecessor at the agency. As he told the Crain's breakfast yesterday, "'Taking someones property without their consent is a serious matter and should be a last resort,' especially when it's done for private and not government use..."
All of which creates an even more interesting situation with the issue of the expansion of Columbia University, an expansion that the university's president says, cannot be done without the exercise of eminent domain. Of course, this is simply self-serving drivel. Columbia has plenty of room in its 18 acre plan to grow without taking any private property whatsoever.
As the lobbyists for one of the major property owners threatened, we will be delighted to sit down with the University and with ESDC to explain just how expansion can move forward in collaboration with the property owners, all for the overall common good. We anticiapte making this case politically, and think that it would be in Columbia's interest to modify its serf-serving position.
All of which creates an even more interesting situation with the issue of the expansion of Columbia University, an expansion that the university's president says, cannot be done without the exercise of eminent domain. Of course, this is simply self-serving drivel. Columbia has plenty of room in its 18 acre plan to grow without taking any private property whatsoever.
As the lobbyists for one of the major property owners threatened, we will be delighted to sit down with the University and with ESDC to explain just how expansion can move forward in collaboration with the property owners, all for the overall common good. We anticiapte making this case politically, and think that it would be in Columbia's interest to modify its serf-serving position.
Whistling Past the Graveyard
The furor over the King whistle blower legislation found its way to City Hall yesterday as a resolution supporting the congressman's measure was introduced by Councilman Monseratte,. And, as the NY Sun reports, a press conference led by the councilman, was also held and was attended by New York business leader John Catsimatidis. Catsimatidis has taken out ads in support of King's initiative, a bill that needs Senate support to go into law, and was the impetus behind the resolution that was introduced yesterday.
In addition, the Republican minority leader of the Council, Jimmy Oddo of Staten Island, was joined on the steps of City Hall by his Republican colleague Vinnie Ignizio and Council Finance Chair David Weprin. Councilmen Recchia, Nelson and Gentile are also co-sponsoring the resolution and it is hoped that the measure will garner the backing of a majority of the body. It wil be intriguing to see what position the speaker takes on this issue.
An interesting feature of the Sun story is the fact that US Senator Charles Schumer announced that he "generally" is supportive of whistle blower protection, and that he would, "have to take a look" at the legislation. Senator Clinton's office was unavailable for comment. With the events of the Jersey Jihadists still fresh in our minds, it would seem that whistle blower protection should be a legislative priority for all New York lawmakers.
In addition, the Republican minority leader of the Council, Jimmy Oddo of Staten Island, was joined on the steps of City Hall by his Republican colleague Vinnie Ignizio and Council Finance Chair David Weprin. Councilmen Recchia, Nelson and Gentile are also co-sponsoring the resolution and it is hoped that the measure will garner the backing of a majority of the body. It wil be intriguing to see what position the speaker takes on this issue.
An interesting feature of the Sun story is the fact that US Senator Charles Schumer announced that he "generally" is supportive of whistle blower protection, and that he would, "have to take a look" at the legislation. Senator Clinton's office was unavailable for comment. With the events of the Jersey Jihadists still fresh in our minds, it would seem that whistle blower protection should be a legislative priority for all New York lawmakers.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Sustaining the Permanent Government
In their path breaking book on New York City government, The Abuse of Power, Jack Newfield and Paul Du Brul coined the phrase "permanent government." The term, devolved from the C. Wright Mills power elite concept, referred to the fact that this city's power elite was an intersection of government officials, lobbyists and real estate interests. While these authors may have gone a bit overboard in their denunciatory rhetoric, the permanent government concept retains its usefulness as an analytical tool.
We can get a glimpse of this power nexus in operation when we take a look at the proposed development of Willets Point.The development in question is analyzed by Tom Angotti in a post on the Gotham Gazette's website. In the Angotti discussion, he questions the concept of "sustainable development" when applied to the Iron Triangle project.
The problem here is that, in Angotti's words, "Sustainability should mean sustaining the economic livelihoods of people as well as preserving the environment. But under this plan, the thriving local economy in some immigrant communities in Queens could be overwhelmed by megaprojects and their corporate tenants."
Which gets us to the very heart of the Bloomberg notion of sustainability: sustaining the real estate interests that he sees as the economic backbone of his city. There is absolutely no idea here of sustaining, let alone nurturing, the small business entrepreneurs that make up the bulk of enterprise at the Point.
And then there is the congestion issue that Kermit the Mayor is wearing like a regular Johnny Appleseed. He envisions over 5,000 units of housing, and there's simply no way for the already overcrowded 7 line to accommodate these folks. Which means, at least until all of the transit improvements are actually in place, that the new Willets Point residents will take to the road.
This has been exactly our point about the mayor's congestion pricing plan. This enviro-chic proposal completely ignores the auto dependent development that the mayor continues to push in the outer boroughs. Angotti's end quote is worth reading: "Are megaprojects, like the one planned for Willets Point, consistent with the vision of sustainable development. Or would more modest efforts, aimed at nurturing existing neighborhoods like Corona, be more sustainable and cost-effective?"
We can get a glimpse of this power nexus in operation when we take a look at the proposed development of Willets Point.The development in question is analyzed by Tom Angotti in a post on the Gotham Gazette's website. In the Angotti discussion, he questions the concept of "sustainable development" when applied to the Iron Triangle project.
The problem here is that, in Angotti's words, "Sustainability should mean sustaining the economic livelihoods of people as well as preserving the environment. But under this plan, the thriving local economy in some immigrant communities in Queens could be overwhelmed by megaprojects and their corporate tenants."
Which gets us to the very heart of the Bloomberg notion of sustainability: sustaining the real estate interests that he sees as the economic backbone of his city. There is absolutely no idea here of sustaining, let alone nurturing, the small business entrepreneurs that make up the bulk of enterprise at the Point.
And then there is the congestion issue that Kermit the Mayor is wearing like a regular Johnny Appleseed. He envisions over 5,000 units of housing, and there's simply no way for the already overcrowded 7 line to accommodate these folks. Which means, at least until all of the transit improvements are actually in place, that the new Willets Point residents will take to the road.
This has been exactly our point about the mayor's congestion pricing plan. This enviro-chic proposal completely ignores the auto dependent development that the mayor continues to push in the outer boroughs. Angotti's end quote is worth reading: "Are megaprojects, like the one planned for Willets Point, consistent with the vision of sustainable development. Or would more modest efforts, aimed at nurturing existing neighborhoods like Corona, be more sustainable and cost-effective?"
Whistleblower Hero: Nadler Reconsiders
In today's NY Sun the paper's Russell Berman reports that Congressman Jerry Nadler, who originally voted against the King amendment, has now changed his position and will support the measure. As he told the Sun, "We want to encourage people to reprt what they think is suspicious..."
It turns out that the King motion to recommit, which led up to the passage of the amendment, was voted on part lines according to Naddler. Yet that doesn't explain why the bill was able to pass overwhelmingly in the Democrat-controlled House. In any case, the Nadler switch is good news, and hopefully is a harbinger of what the Senate will decide to do once the bill reaches it.
Sometime soon we hope, since the events over in New Jersey are a stark reminder of the threat that we are still living under. It is the kind of threat that demands citizen vigilance; and we were lucky that a Kinko's clerk was just that in the Garden State, because it was his alertness, as US Attorney Christopher Christie points out, that led to the successful foiling of this terror plot. As Christie told the News, "He deserves a lot of credit for coming forward and doing the right thing."
It turns out that the King motion to recommit, which led up to the passage of the amendment, was voted on part lines according to Naddler. Yet that doesn't explain why the bill was able to pass overwhelmingly in the Democrat-controlled House. In any case, the Nadler switch is good news, and hopefully is a harbinger of what the Senate will decide to do once the bill reaches it.
Sometime soon we hope, since the events over in New Jersey are a stark reminder of the threat that we are still living under. It is the kind of threat that demands citizen vigilance; and we were lucky that a Kinko's clerk was just that in the Garden State, because it was his alertness, as US Attorney Christopher Christie points out, that led to the successful foiling of this terror plot. As Christie told the News, "He deserves a lot of credit for coming forward and doing the right thing."
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Homeland Insecurity
Tomorrow at City Hall there will be a press conference in support of the so-called Peter King amendment. The King bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly, would immunize whistle blowers who report suspicious activities to the proper homeland security authorities. The press conference will highlight a resolution that is being introduced by Councilman Monseratte and six of his colleagues. The reso calls on the US Senate to follow the House's lead and create the immunity from lawsuits needed to insure that our citizens won't be intimidated in reporting untoward behavior.
What lends tomorrow's event greater poignancy is the breaking news of the foiling of the plot by six Islamic radicals to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. The key to the successful intervention was the alert behavior of a clerk at a local Fotomat who suspected that these folks may have been up to no good. He blew the whistle!-and now our servicemen and women are no longer threatened.
In order for New Yorkers and all Americans to remain safe we need for all of our citizens to be alert and vigilant. If they are afraid that they'll be forced to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees they just might decide to remain silent-and allow thousands of people to die as a result. The only thing perplexing in all of this is why some of our New York electeds don't get it.
What lends tomorrow's event greater poignancy is the breaking news of the foiling of the plot by six Islamic radicals to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. The key to the successful intervention was the alert behavior of a clerk at a local Fotomat who suspected that these folks may have been up to no good. He blew the whistle!-and now our servicemen and women are no longer threatened.
In order for New Yorkers and all Americans to remain safe we need for all of our citizens to be alert and vigilant. If they are afraid that they'll be forced to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees they just might decide to remain silent-and allow thousands of people to die as a result. The only thing perplexing in all of this is why some of our New York electeds don't get it.
Congestion Clouds Clear Thinking
There's an interesting post today on the Gotham Gazette website by Bruce Schaller in defense of the mayor's congestion pricing plan. Schaller, a transportation advisor, ventures into the political realm in his post today and foresees that New Yorkers will eventually buy into the mayor's scheme. Let's examine his prediction.
The major thrust of his argument is that once New Yorkers are apprised of the benefits of the plan they won't hesitate to sign on to the proposal; "As the debate continues, it is likely that New Yorkers will focus more on the benefits to them personally and the city at large." The problem with Schaller's assertion is that it is premised on his strong belief in a mass transportation ethos, and he is so convinced of the rectitude of his belief that he can't help but believe that his fellow citizens will follow in the path of righteousness.
What Schaller envisions is all of the wonderful things that the congestion tax revenue would subsidize ( money that, "would fund the $31 billion in transit projects"). It is literally a transportation advocates wet dream, a cornucopia of subway construction, bridge repair and infrastructure bolstering. As he points out, "Far more people will benefit from the mayor's plan than will be affected by the congestion fee."
Ah yes, but Bruce neglects an important axiom of politics, one that was articulated by Robert Dahl many years ago: "An intense minority will overwhelm an apathetic majority." There will be a passionate and intense opposition to the mayor's plan, and the majority of folks who would supposedly benefit from it may not be as susceptible, as Bruce is, to the putative future benefits.
In addition, there are a great number of cynical New Yorkers who will see the generation of this kind of money, and the creation of a "transportation financing authority," as a boondoggle in the making (And won't, we believe, see clearly the environmental benefits that Schaller does). Also, don't forget that most New Yorkers will be very lucky to live long enough to see any of these grandiose plans come to fruition.
Yet all of the questionable political musings are in fact a cover for the ideological-tax and spend-mindset that animates Schaller's arguments. He points out, tendentiously in our view, that "outer borough auto commuters tend to have higher incomes than subway commuters, so a fee that improves transit is actually more equitable than the current system. In fact, auto commuters who use the free bridges are being subsidized by transit users whose taxes pay for bridge reconstruction and maintenance. Is that equitable?"
Why yes, it is eminently equitable because, as Schaller indicates, the higher income folks are the ones coming in in this manner and it is their greater income generation that fuels the economic engine. Equity in this case is not encompassed in by a redistributive mentality, but by a system that innervates the most ambitious wealth generators (who in turn raise employment levels and incomes for the transit riders).
One final thought. Schaller concludes his piece by talking about the fact that "childhood asthma rates are four times higher in the city than nationally." In regards to the mayor's plan this is a classic straw man argument. The reason it is inheres in the glaring lacuna in the mayor's Utopian greening of New York proposal. The gap here devolves from the fact that the mayor fails to mention, not a single word, his five years of oute borough big box shopping center development that will add millions of more tons of CO2 emissions to the city's air.
What are we to make of the building of over 500,000 square feet of box store malls on the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market-the geographic area that has been labelled 'asthma alley'?" What about the expansion of Gateway Estates in Brooklyn, the mall that chokes the Belt Parkway every weekend? Exacerbating these developments, and don't forget Willets Point on the horizon, is the fact that they pull shoppers off of the neighborhood walk-to-shop areas that the mayor hasn't shown the slightest degree of appreciation for.
Any view of a sustainable New York that doesn't address these issues is not only a diluted one, it is also hypocritical, since the man spearheading PlaNYC is none other than Deputy Dan, the major cheerleader for all of the box store projects of his friend at Related, Steve Ross. So our view is that Schaller needs to get out more and get a better grip on the pulse of the city. We strongly believe that Anthony Weiner's political instincts are more prescient than BMT Bruce.
The major thrust of his argument is that once New Yorkers are apprised of the benefits of the plan they won't hesitate to sign on to the proposal; "As the debate continues, it is likely that New Yorkers will focus more on the benefits to them personally and the city at large." The problem with Schaller's assertion is that it is premised on his strong belief in a mass transportation ethos, and he is so convinced of the rectitude of his belief that he can't help but believe that his fellow citizens will follow in the path of righteousness.
What Schaller envisions is all of the wonderful things that the congestion tax revenue would subsidize ( money that, "would fund the $31 billion in transit projects"). It is literally a transportation advocates wet dream, a cornucopia of subway construction, bridge repair and infrastructure bolstering. As he points out, "Far more people will benefit from the mayor's plan than will be affected by the congestion fee."
Ah yes, but Bruce neglects an important axiom of politics, one that was articulated by Robert Dahl many years ago: "An intense minority will overwhelm an apathetic majority." There will be a passionate and intense opposition to the mayor's plan, and the majority of folks who would supposedly benefit from it may not be as susceptible, as Bruce is, to the putative future benefits.
In addition, there are a great number of cynical New Yorkers who will see the generation of this kind of money, and the creation of a "transportation financing authority," as a boondoggle in the making (And won't, we believe, see clearly the environmental benefits that Schaller does). Also, don't forget that most New Yorkers will be very lucky to live long enough to see any of these grandiose plans come to fruition.
Yet all of the questionable political musings are in fact a cover for the ideological-tax and spend-mindset that animates Schaller's arguments. He points out, tendentiously in our view, that "outer borough auto commuters tend to have higher incomes than subway commuters, so a fee that improves transit is actually more equitable than the current system. In fact, auto commuters who use the free bridges are being subsidized by transit users whose taxes pay for bridge reconstruction and maintenance. Is that equitable?"
Why yes, it is eminently equitable because, as Schaller indicates, the higher income folks are the ones coming in in this manner and it is their greater income generation that fuels the economic engine. Equity in this case is not encompassed in by a redistributive mentality, but by a system that innervates the most ambitious wealth generators (who in turn raise employment levels and incomes for the transit riders).
One final thought. Schaller concludes his piece by talking about the fact that "childhood asthma rates are four times higher in the city than nationally." In regards to the mayor's plan this is a classic straw man argument. The reason it is inheres in the glaring lacuna in the mayor's Utopian greening of New York proposal. The gap here devolves from the fact that the mayor fails to mention, not a single word, his five years of oute borough big box shopping center development that will add millions of more tons of CO2 emissions to the city's air.
What are we to make of the building of over 500,000 square feet of box store malls on the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market-the geographic area that has been labelled 'asthma alley'?" What about the expansion of Gateway Estates in Brooklyn, the mall that chokes the Belt Parkway every weekend? Exacerbating these developments, and don't forget Willets Point on the horizon, is the fact that they pull shoppers off of the neighborhood walk-to-shop areas that the mayor hasn't shown the slightest degree of appreciation for.
Any view of a sustainable New York that doesn't address these issues is not only a diluted one, it is also hypocritical, since the man spearheading PlaNYC is none other than Deputy Dan, the major cheerleader for all of the box store projects of his friend at Related, Steve Ross. So our view is that Schaller needs to get out more and get a better grip on the pulse of the city. We strongly believe that Anthony Weiner's political instincts are more prescient than BMT Bruce.
Not Ike and Tina Turner
In this morning's NY Sun, the paper's Bradley Hope does a good job at uncovering what we knew instinctively was being passed off as education at New York City's Beacon School: indoctrination masquerading as "social justice." There is simply no place in the public schools for these kinds of ideologues. Critical thinking is not developed through the heavy-handed use of left wing agit-prop.
This is precisely why the DOE needs to come down hard on this politicization of the curriculum, and why we are so skeptical of the effort by the department to open up a high school for Arabic language and culture. The seemingly welcome cultural opening is easily transformed into something a good deal less salutary when ideologues take over, as they will certainly do with dopecrats at the helm of the department.
This is brought home by Hope's story when he quotes the blissfully ignorant remarks of a former Beacon student about teacher Nat Turner; "He focuses on things that you don't normally focus on...you are able to question things that you thought were just the way it was." In the jargon, this is known as deconstruction. The problem is that it is the kind of critique that is reserved exclusively for the dominant cultural ethos, and is never applied to the perspective of the critical educator herself.
It is the kind of one way street that reminds us again of the cold war anecdote about the American and the Soviet citizen who meet on the street. The American tells his acquaintance, "In my country we are all free to criticize the president." To which the Soviet replies; "My country is no different than yours. In the Soviet Union we are also all free to criticize your president."
What's missing at the Beacon's of the world is true academic diversity and intellectual challenge. The student's remarks quoted indicate the mindset of someone who believes that some sort of new truth has been revealed. Kids at high school age are so susceptible to this kind of influence that in some cases it can be seen as intellectual child abuse. The "red diaper Baby" syndrome is the prime example of the impact of this kind of "education." It's time to clean house at Beacon-now!
This is precisely why the DOE needs to come down hard on this politicization of the curriculum, and why we are so skeptical of the effort by the department to open up a high school for Arabic language and culture. The seemingly welcome cultural opening is easily transformed into something a good deal less salutary when ideologues take over, as they will certainly do with dopecrats at the helm of the department.
This is brought home by Hope's story when he quotes the blissfully ignorant remarks of a former Beacon student about teacher Nat Turner; "He focuses on things that you don't normally focus on...you are able to question things that you thought were just the way it was." In the jargon, this is known as deconstruction. The problem is that it is the kind of critique that is reserved exclusively for the dominant cultural ethos, and is never applied to the perspective of the critical educator herself.
It is the kind of one way street that reminds us again of the cold war anecdote about the American and the Soviet citizen who meet on the street. The American tells his acquaintance, "In my country we are all free to criticize the president." To which the Soviet replies; "My country is no different than yours. In the Soviet Union we are also all free to criticize your president."
What's missing at the Beacon's of the world is true academic diversity and intellectual challenge. The student's remarks quoted indicate the mindset of someone who believes that some sort of new truth has been revealed. Kids at high school age are so susceptible to this kind of influence that in some cases it can be seen as intellectual child abuse. The "red diaper Baby" syndrome is the prime example of the impact of this kind of "education." It's time to clean house at Beacon-now!
Monday, May 07, 2007
The Man With a Plan
The NY Post's Dave Seifman comments this morning on the mayor's grandiose plans, both for the sustainable city he envisions for 2030, and for the building of tens of thousands of units of affordable housing. On the greening issue, Seifman reports that insiders believe that it will be very difficult for the mayor to get his congestion pricing scheme approved.
At the same time, he argues that Bloomberg's high popularity and overall tenacity are two factors working in his favor. Maybe so, but the clock is ticking and there are forces at work that will make it doubtful for the mayor to force feed congestion pricing to outer borough residents. Not even the bennies the NY Sun is reporting he's offering to these folks-extra express buses and residential parking permits-will be sufficient to allow the lame duck success in this taxing venture.
At the same time, he argues that Bloomberg's high popularity and overall tenacity are two factors working in his favor. Maybe so, but the clock is ticking and there are forces at work that will make it doubtful for the mayor to force feed congestion pricing to outer borough residents. Not even the bennies the NY Sun is reporting he's offering to these folks-extra express buses and residential parking permits-will be sufficient to allow the lame duck success in this taxing venture.
A Fine Mess
As we have been commenting on, the city's unrestrained use of New York's restaurants as a cash cow continues unabated. As the NY Post reports this morning, this year's fine totals are expected to reach over $27 million, an increase of 25% over the previous years collection. Now, with trans fat and menu labeling on the horizon, the sky really is the limit for the voracious bureaucracy at the DOH.
Dr. Frieden, in defending the record increase, told the Post, "Really, absolutely, truly we have no target for restaurant fines...We want the food to be cleaner. Period." Well, we believe you Tom. At least about the target. He wouldn't want his inspectors to slow down when approaching an artificial quota.
Frieden than went on to say, stretching our willingness to suspend our disbelief, that he wished that the fines "went to zero." The Department's sole concern about cleanliness is belied, however, by its arcane, point-driven, inspection system, one that is constructed precisely to generate revenue and has little bearing on customer protection.
What we have in this city is a bureaucratic enforcement structure that is designed to increase the cost of doing business here. With DOH and DCA, two agencies with a built-in bias against entrepreneurism, we can see just how much the city devalues the hard work of its neighborhood retailers.
The disappearance of these two agencies would harm the city a great deal less than if the commercial strips of the neighborhoods were denuded of their shops. The proper balance between economic development and consumer protection has long ago gone way out of whack in this city.
Dr. Frieden, in defending the record increase, told the Post, "Really, absolutely, truly we have no target for restaurant fines...We want the food to be cleaner. Period." Well, we believe you Tom. At least about the target. He wouldn't want his inspectors to slow down when approaching an artificial quota.
Frieden than went on to say, stretching our willingness to suspend our disbelief, that he wished that the fines "went to zero." The Department's sole concern about cleanliness is belied, however, by its arcane, point-driven, inspection system, one that is constructed precisely to generate revenue and has little bearing on customer protection.
What we have in this city is a bureaucratic enforcement structure that is designed to increase the cost of doing business here. With DOH and DCA, two agencies with a built-in bias against entrepreneurism, we can see just how much the city devalues the hard work of its neighborhood retailers.
The disappearance of these two agencies would harm the city a great deal less than if the commercial strips of the neighborhoods were denuded of their shops. The proper balance between economic development and consumer protection has long ago gone way out of whack in this city.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Go Down Moses
In today's City Section of the NY Times, the paper's excellent reporter Michael Powell takes a look at the revisionist critique of Robert Caro's behemoth bio of Robert Moses. It seems that a number of historian's now feel the Caro's view of the master planner was too harsh. The debate raises a few interesting questions about the tension between planning and democracy.
The crucial criticism of Moses is that, on innumerable occasions, he ran roughshod over the wishes of neighborhood residents in the path of one of his development schemes. His destruction of the working class Jewish Bronx neighborhood in order to build the CBX is usually one of the most frequent examples cited concerning Moses' arrogant edifice complex.
The revisionists, however, argue that Moses, in spite of all the warts that they acknowledge he had, "...built with quality and remarkable honesty, and we need to return to some of that today." As Powell points out, the revisionists see the need to resurrect Moses' "grand vision and iron will."
Of course there will always be planners who will look nostalgically at an archetype like Moses. Planners are, by nature, transfixed by grand architectural schemes and less concerned about those whose neighborhoods are in the path of the bulldozers. Now it appears that there are some historians who stand similarly transfixed, and the fact that one of the leading revisionists comes out of Columbia, a university looking to impose its own ubber-vision on a West Harlem community, only adds to the provocative nature of the debate over the legacy of Robert Moses.
What seems clear to us, is that the Moses debate is healthy. A creative tension is needed between the planning impulse and the need to maintain democratic controls over that impulse. It all goes back to the debate between Plato and Aristotle about the desirability of a philosopher king. In Plato's analogy, it is the shoemaker alone who knows how to skillfully make shoes. We need, however, to always keep in mind the Aristotelian rejoinder-It is only the wearer who can tell if the shoes pinch.
The crucial criticism of Moses is that, on innumerable occasions, he ran roughshod over the wishes of neighborhood residents in the path of one of his development schemes. His destruction of the working class Jewish Bronx neighborhood in order to build the CBX is usually one of the most frequent examples cited concerning Moses' arrogant edifice complex.
The revisionists, however, argue that Moses, in spite of all the warts that they acknowledge he had, "...built with quality and remarkable honesty, and we need to return to some of that today." As Powell points out, the revisionists see the need to resurrect Moses' "grand vision and iron will."
Of course there will always be planners who will look nostalgically at an archetype like Moses. Planners are, by nature, transfixed by grand architectural schemes and less concerned about those whose neighborhoods are in the path of the bulldozers. Now it appears that there are some historians who stand similarly transfixed, and the fact that one of the leading revisionists comes out of Columbia, a university looking to impose its own ubber-vision on a West Harlem community, only adds to the provocative nature of the debate over the legacy of Robert Moses.
What seems clear to us, is that the Moses debate is healthy. A creative tension is needed between the planning impulse and the need to maintain democratic controls over that impulse. It all goes back to the debate between Plato and Aristotle about the desirability of a philosopher king. In Plato's analogy, it is the shoemaker alone who knows how to skillfully make shoes. We need, however, to always keep in mind the Aristotelian rejoinder-It is only the wearer who can tell if the shoes pinch.
Columbia's Exceptionalism
In this morning's NY Daily News there is an interesting story on the city's ongoing efforts to build 350,000 new units of affordable housing. As the paper points out, "With New York's housing market squeezed by high demand, city planners are seeking new urban frontiers for residential development."
Deputy Dan captures the Bloomberg zeitgeist when he tells the paper, "What we're doing is scouring the city for opportunities...We can't afford to let transit-accessible areas go undeveloped." Hey Dan, the Broadway local stops at 125Th Street and 137Th Street, and the 18 acres that Columbia University wants to develop all for itself should be considered prime for new housing. Or is Columbia's expansion an exception to the city's stated policy goals?
The essence of the city's new housing plans calls for the building of "high density housing," which means "high rises or voluminous, squat buildings, near transportation hubs." As usual, the debate centers around the need to make as much of the new housing affordable, and just what the term affordable actually means,
What is clear, however, is that Columbia's aim to upscale the West Harlem neighborhood that it is looking to build in, will create an unstoppable gentrification wave that will sweep through the surrounding working class neighborhoods. That is, unless the mayor and his planning minions intervene to alter the university's monolithic, Columbia-centric vision.
If they don't, then the comments of New School urban planner Andrew White will become prophetic: "'If we continue having the super-wealthy coming to buy second and third homes...it's going to be extremely difficult for anybody else to live in Manhattan.'" Which, as we have repeatedly pointed out, makes the effort to amend the Columbia expansion scheme all the more essential.
Deputy Dan captures the Bloomberg zeitgeist when he tells the paper, "What we're doing is scouring the city for opportunities...We can't afford to let transit-accessible areas go undeveloped." Hey Dan, the Broadway local stops at 125Th Street and 137Th Street, and the 18 acres that Columbia University wants to develop all for itself should be considered prime for new housing. Or is Columbia's expansion an exception to the city's stated policy goals?
The essence of the city's new housing plans calls for the building of "high density housing," which means "high rises or voluminous, squat buildings, near transportation hubs." As usual, the debate centers around the need to make as much of the new housing affordable, and just what the term affordable actually means,
What is clear, however, is that Columbia's aim to upscale the West Harlem neighborhood that it is looking to build in, will create an unstoppable gentrification wave that will sweep through the surrounding working class neighborhoods. That is, unless the mayor and his planning minions intervene to alter the university's monolithic, Columbia-centric vision.
If they don't, then the comments of New School urban planner Andrew White will become prophetic: "'If we continue having the super-wealthy coming to buy second and third homes...it's going to be extremely difficult for anybody else to live in Manhattan.'" Which, as we have repeatedly pointed out, makes the effort to amend the Columbia expansion scheme all the more essential.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Poll-Tax
Well now, according to a poll that was conducted by the New York City Partnership, sixty percent of the people who now drive to work would stop if the mayor's congestion pricing plan was enacted. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the poll is even partially accurate, i.e., a substantial number of commuters would be forced off the roads as a result of the mayor's tax. What would this mean for the folks forced to do so?
To answer this question you first need to examine why these people are driving in the first place. The answer is rather simple. In many parts of the city-Southeast Queens, Mill Basin Staten Island's South Shore, the Northeast Bronx, just to name a few areas-the transit system is not an accommodating alternative. Forcing these folks onto buses and trains will, unlike the mayor's commute, drastically increase the time it takes to get to work.
So when the mayor talks about the impact of "capitalism," and does so in reference to the fact that the congestion tax will force commuters off the roads, what he really is saying that he is happy that thousands of outer-borough New Yorkers will now have to spend anywhere from a half hour to an hour in extra commuting time in order to get to their workplace.
This is the kind of callous disregard for average people that the mayor is becoming more and more known for. As he told his radio audience, he believes that the people who drive to work can afford the tax "because otherwise they'll take mass transit." He can't really understand the difficult choices that people in certain areas of the city are forced to make in order to feed their families. It reminds me so much of what one of my history professors once said when I asked him about a midterm: "Richard, It's just a question of mind over matter. I don't mind, and you don't matter."
Which gets us to the issue of the state of a great many parts of the city's transportation infrastructure. Put very simply, many of the train lines are already severely overcrowded. What will be the impact of funneling thousands of additional riders onto these trains? The mayor apparently recognizes this when he says that "...we must do a better job of providing mass transit in parts of the city where the city never invested in the past..."
In the meantime, however, those forced off the roads are left out in the lurch, waiting for the day when all of this extra transit tax monies can be channeled into building more subways. Short term heartache in exchange for long term "sustainability." As the poet once said, though, "In the long run we're all dead."
To answer this question you first need to examine why these people are driving in the first place. The answer is rather simple. In many parts of the city-Southeast Queens, Mill Basin Staten Island's South Shore, the Northeast Bronx, just to name a few areas-the transit system is not an accommodating alternative. Forcing these folks onto buses and trains will, unlike the mayor's commute, drastically increase the time it takes to get to work.
So when the mayor talks about the impact of "capitalism," and does so in reference to the fact that the congestion tax will force commuters off the roads, what he really is saying that he is happy that thousands of outer-borough New Yorkers will now have to spend anywhere from a half hour to an hour in extra commuting time in order to get to their workplace.
This is the kind of callous disregard for average people that the mayor is becoming more and more known for. As he told his radio audience, he believes that the people who drive to work can afford the tax "because otherwise they'll take mass transit." He can't really understand the difficult choices that people in certain areas of the city are forced to make in order to feed their families. It reminds me so much of what one of my history professors once said when I asked him about a midterm: "Richard, It's just a question of mind over matter. I don't mind, and you don't matter."
Which gets us to the issue of the state of a great many parts of the city's transportation infrastructure. Put very simply, many of the train lines are already severely overcrowded. What will be the impact of funneling thousands of additional riders onto these trains? The mayor apparently recognizes this when he says that "...we must do a better job of providing mass transit in parts of the city where the city never invested in the past..."
In the meantime, however, those forced off the roads are left out in the lurch, waiting for the day when all of this extra transit tax monies can be channeled into building more subways. Short term heartache in exchange for long term "sustainability." As the poet once said, though, "In the long run we're all dead."
Friday, May 04, 2007
Lights Out on the Lower East Side
Newsday is reporting that a number of night clubs have been closing as the Lower East Side transforms itself into a more gentrified setting. Frankly, we're not surprised. As we have been commenting all along, the city has no judicious public policy for nurturing its multi-billion dollar nightlife industry.
As neighborhoods become more residential it becomes more challenging to run clubs that are generally noisy and fit poorly in the changing community milieu. What the city has done, through its ill-thought-out enforcement efforts, is to steer clubs into certain areas. Then instead of restricting residential development in these areas, it allows for spot zoning and loft development that leads to conflicts with the nightlife activity.
So, the tax incentive ideas advanced by Councilman Gerson to help nurture this vibrancy on the Lower East Side, will be for nought if there isn't a concerted effort to create club zones that don't abut residential neighborhoods. The same is true on the Far West Side. Without a clear policy initiative in this area, the city's economic night life engine will be silenced.
As neighborhoods become more residential it becomes more challenging to run clubs that are generally noisy and fit poorly in the changing community milieu. What the city has done, through its ill-thought-out enforcement efforts, is to steer clubs into certain areas. Then instead of restricting residential development in these areas, it allows for spot zoning and loft development that leads to conflicts with the nightlife activity.
So, the tax incentive ideas advanced by Councilman Gerson to help nurture this vibrancy on the Lower East Side, will be for nought if there isn't a concerted effort to create club zones that don't abut residential neighborhoods. The same is true on the Far West Side. Without a clear policy initiative in this area, the city's economic night life engine will be silenced.
Related Hits the Wall
As Crain's is reporting today, the proposal by the Related Companies to build an entertainment complex on Pier 40 on the West Side has run into a wall of community opposition. If you remember, it was Related that was designated-without any bidding process- to take over the old BTM and build a mall in spite of the opposition of the merchants who were evicted from the site.
This time, however, things are starkly different, as over 1,500 community residents came out for a public hearing on Related's proposal. Apparently, what you can do to bogart residents of the South Bronx is not likely to work on the activist Manhattan neighborhoods of Chelsea and Hell's Kitchen. From our vantage point, it couldn't happen to a better company, one that has gotten more from this administration than any other single real estate firm.
This time, however, things are starkly different, as over 1,500 community residents came out for a public hearing on Related's proposal. Apparently, what you can do to bogart residents of the South Bronx is not likely to work on the activist Manhattan neighborhoods of Chelsea and Hell's Kitchen. From our vantage point, it couldn't happen to a better company, one that has gotten more from this administration than any other single real estate firm.
Social Justice: Indoctrination Pure and Simple
There has been a number of controversies lately over the injection of a politicized curriculum into the city's public schools. Most recently, the sojourn of Nat Turner's Beacon School students to Cuba caused some consternation, but the issue runs deeper than this one glaring example and Andrew Wolf has called attention to the larger concern.
What we are seeing is that there is a cadre (good word comrades) of self-styled radical retrogrades who feel that it is their duty to raise the consciousness of the city's school children. That's not, however, the major cause for worry in this regard. What's even more bothersome is the useful idiots over at DOE who has set up 15 "social justice" high schools all over town. In league with these dopeycrats is something called The New York Collective on Radical Education, a group that is looking to, among other things, teach math in such a way as to "prove" that Hurricane Katrina was less a natural disaster than a consequence of American racism.
All of this is reinforced in a letter that is published today in the NY Sun. The letter, written by someone named Sally Lee, who is with a group called Teachers Unite. Lee tells us that all teachers bring their ideologies into the classroom: "When educators declare themselves neutral or apolitical, but then proceed to teach one interpretation of history or one approach to problem solving, they inadvertently reinforce dominant ideologies about how the world works."
And do you know something?-she is absolutely right. All education is about socialization, and all socialization reflects the world views of the society that sponsors it. Ms. Lee's problem is that she just doesn't like the assumptions of the society that she lives in; the one that apparently pays her salary to teach as well.
Here's her worldview. Speaking of her radical cohort she tells the Sun's readers; "Many of these educators recognize that white supremacy, capitalism, misogyny, and imperialism, are forces that permeate the globe..." Interesting, and as an aside you notice that this radical wretch doesn't mention the permeation of jihadism as a force that might actually incinerate her charges on the subway or in their homes.
So we can see that Ms. Lee leans, well, leeward, if you're someone who "don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." The point being that if Lee and her merry band of faux revolutionaries want to foment a radical reordering of this society they should do so on their own dime, and not expect to be paid by the fascist state for teaching their dangerous nonsense.
As to the idea of social justice, it really is "just us," revolutionary vanguard. It is the same tired themes that brought us the gulag, the forced collectivization of the kulaks, and the show trial. Not to mention the immiseration of millions through economic collapse and mass starvation. Chancellor Klein better wake up here. Our kids are doing badly enough with the standard curriculum, they don't need to be indoctrinated by half-baked revolutionary ideas that will cripple any chance they might have for academic success.
What we are seeing is that there is a cadre (good word comrades) of self-styled radical retrogrades who feel that it is their duty to raise the consciousness of the city's school children. That's not, however, the major cause for worry in this regard. What's even more bothersome is the useful idiots over at DOE who has set up 15 "social justice" high schools all over town. In league with these dopeycrats is something called The New York Collective on Radical Education, a group that is looking to, among other things, teach math in such a way as to "prove" that Hurricane Katrina was less a natural disaster than a consequence of American racism.
All of this is reinforced in a letter that is published today in the NY Sun. The letter, written by someone named Sally Lee, who is with a group called Teachers Unite. Lee tells us that all teachers bring their ideologies into the classroom: "When educators declare themselves neutral or apolitical, but then proceed to teach one interpretation of history or one approach to problem solving, they inadvertently reinforce dominant ideologies about how the world works."
And do you know something?-she is absolutely right. All education is about socialization, and all socialization reflects the world views of the society that sponsors it. Ms. Lee's problem is that she just doesn't like the assumptions of the society that she lives in; the one that apparently pays her salary to teach as well.
Here's her worldview. Speaking of her radical cohort she tells the Sun's readers; "Many of these educators recognize that white supremacy, capitalism, misogyny, and imperialism, are forces that permeate the globe..." Interesting, and as an aside you notice that this radical wretch doesn't mention the permeation of jihadism as a force that might actually incinerate her charges on the subway or in their homes.
So we can see that Ms. Lee leans, well, leeward, if you're someone who "don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." The point being that if Lee and her merry band of faux revolutionaries want to foment a radical reordering of this society they should do so on their own dime, and not expect to be paid by the fascist state for teaching their dangerous nonsense.
As to the idea of social justice, it really is "just us," revolutionary vanguard. It is the same tired themes that brought us the gulag, the forced collectivization of the kulaks, and the show trial. Not to mention the immiseration of millions through economic collapse and mass starvation. Chancellor Klein better wake up here. Our kids are doing badly enough with the standard curriculum, they don't need to be indoctrinated by half-baked revolutionary ideas that will cripple any chance they might have for academic success.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Recycling Pessimism
The just released IBO report on recycling makes for depressing reading. Put simply, the cost of recycling, around $206 per ton, is so high that it is more cost-effective to simply through the garbage out. Have no fear, however, help is here-in the form of the city's new office of recycling.
This new office, a product of the mayoral-speaker political union, is looking to ramp up recycling rates through intensive educational out-reach efforts. If the city remains unable to increase capture rates, the wastefulness of this romantic throwback to the euphoria of earth day will continue to bleed tax payer dollars.
Our money is definitely on the Office's continued failure to increase the amount of recyclables necessary to make this program even somewhat fiscally prudent. In the end, we believe that the only hope to really ramp up the recycling rates in town will devolve from a prudent expansion of the state's bottle law, something that we have been advocating for the past twenty years. In addition, the introduction of food waste disposers would jack up commercial recycling to record levels, but the measure would actually aid the private sector so it remains an anathema to elected officials.
This new office, a product of the mayoral-speaker political union, is looking to ramp up recycling rates through intensive educational out-reach efforts. If the city remains unable to increase capture rates, the wastefulness of this romantic throwback to the euphoria of earth day will continue to bleed tax payer dollars.
Our money is definitely on the Office's continued failure to increase the amount of recyclables necessary to make this program even somewhat fiscally prudent. In the end, we believe that the only hope to really ramp up the recycling rates in town will devolve from a prudent expansion of the state's bottle law, something that we have been advocating for the past twenty years. In addition, the introduction of food waste disposers would jack up commercial recycling to record levels, but the measure would actually aid the private sector so it remains an anathema to elected officials.
Columbia's Not in the House
As we have been commenting, the Columbia expansion plan raises some serious questions on the issue of affordable housing. These questions are underscored by a report that is posted on the DMI website. The report, issued by the city's Rent Guidelines Board, is titled the 2007 Income and Affordability Study.
This report points out that "income levels are not going up for working class New Yorkers." In many so-called affordable neighborhoods, residents are paying over 50% of their income for rent. As DMI highlights: "Further rent increases without a corresponding rise in income will force many will force many of these families to either double up, leave the city, or go homeless."
So the city's affordable housing crisis continues unabated in spite of all of the mayor's seemingly good intentions. All of which underscores the seriousness of the situation if Columbia University is allowed to expand its campus without any concomitant commitment to build affordable housing-within and around the foot print of its new campus.
This report points out that "income levels are not going up for working class New Yorkers." In many so-called affordable neighborhoods, residents are paying over 50% of their income for rent. As DMI highlights: "Further rent increases without a corresponding rise in income will force many will force many of these families to either double up, leave the city, or go homeless."
So the city's affordable housing crisis continues unabated in spite of all of the mayor's seemingly good intentions. All of which underscores the seriousness of the situation if Columbia University is allowed to expand its campus without any concomitant commitment to build affordable housing-within and around the foot print of its new campus.
Pointed Questions
Yesterday the city unveiled the plans it has to redevelop Willets Point. The only thing missing? Well, an actual developer for one thing. In what is certainly a most unusual case, the city is trying to evict hundreds of businesses and thousands of employees from an area, and ULURP its rezoning proposal, before it actually designates a firm to do the redevelopment work.
What this means is that the city council will really be asked to accept a pig in a poke, a development scheme that lacks any tangible details, and without these details it really is giving the mayor carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants after the council approves the vague vision. The city could, it it wants, bring a Wal-Mart into the project or any other use that. in hind site, the council might have found objectionable, if it had only known the truth beforehand,
Even worse, after rezoning and clearing the land it might be determined that no developer had any interest in the site until after the city spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, to remediate a site that has been known as a dump for toxic materials-and as an area with virtually no infrastructure.
On top of all this, of course, is the fact that in doing this the city will need to remove business owners through the use of eminent domain. The BTM contract killing was bad enough, with its scores of businesses and hundreds of employees. The Point, however, as Tom Angotti points out, has hundreds of businesses and thousands of predominately minority workers. The so-called blighted nature of the area is in reality a tribute to the years of municipal neglect, a neglect that has been so severe that the businesses would be within their rights to sue for the city's failure to provide services to these tax paying firms.
One major irony in all of this is the mayor, on his Kermit the Frog kick, is touting the development for its greenness, "a model for sustainability and environmental stewardship." Is he kidding? The proposal calls for 5,500 units of housing. How are these people going to get to work? On the 7 Line that is way overcrowded? If not, than I guess the roadways in this area will be able to accommodate the residential, commercial, retail and convention traffic that the site is being hyped for.
So much for the touted reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Earth to mayor. Manhattan is not the only part of the city contributing to the air quality challenges you've been harping on ad nauseum over the past few weeks. The current traffic capacities in this area are already at their limits.
So now the gauntlet will be thrown down to the council, a body that has not exhibited the kind of checks and balances that we've come to expect from a healthy legislature. Will the council rubber stamp this effort without being privy to any of the details of the actual development? Or will it, in New York lottery fashion, simply take a chance on, "A dollar and a dream?"
The Willets Point businesses are waiting nervously to find out the answer to this serious question, because, as one business owner told the NY Sun, "There's no place to go-where are they going to relocate us?" Clearly, the use of eminent domain and the "relocation" of the existing businesses is little more than a thinly disguised death sentence from an administration that has absolutely no use for small businesses.
What this means is that the city council will really be asked to accept a pig in a poke, a development scheme that lacks any tangible details, and without these details it really is giving the mayor carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants after the council approves the vague vision. The city could, it it wants, bring a Wal-Mart into the project or any other use that. in hind site, the council might have found objectionable, if it had only known the truth beforehand,
Even worse, after rezoning and clearing the land it might be determined that no developer had any interest in the site until after the city spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, to remediate a site that has been known as a dump for toxic materials-and as an area with virtually no infrastructure.
On top of all this, of course, is the fact that in doing this the city will need to remove business owners through the use of eminent domain. The BTM contract killing was bad enough, with its scores of businesses and hundreds of employees. The Point, however, as Tom Angotti points out, has hundreds of businesses and thousands of predominately minority workers. The so-called blighted nature of the area is in reality a tribute to the years of municipal neglect, a neglect that has been so severe that the businesses would be within their rights to sue for the city's failure to provide services to these tax paying firms.
One major irony in all of this is the mayor, on his Kermit the Frog kick, is touting the development for its greenness, "a model for sustainability and environmental stewardship." Is he kidding? The proposal calls for 5,500 units of housing. How are these people going to get to work? On the 7 Line that is way overcrowded? If not, than I guess the roadways in this area will be able to accommodate the residential, commercial, retail and convention traffic that the site is being hyped for.
So much for the touted reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Earth to mayor. Manhattan is not the only part of the city contributing to the air quality challenges you've been harping on ad nauseum over the past few weeks. The current traffic capacities in this area are already at their limits.
So now the gauntlet will be thrown down to the council, a body that has not exhibited the kind of checks and balances that we've come to expect from a healthy legislature. Will the council rubber stamp this effort without being privy to any of the details of the actual development? Or will it, in New York lottery fashion, simply take a chance on, "A dollar and a dream?"
The Willets Point businesses are waiting nervously to find out the answer to this serious question, because, as one business owner told the NY Sun, "There's no place to go-where are they going to relocate us?" Clearly, the use of eminent domain and the "relocation" of the existing businesses is little more than a thinly disguised death sentence from an administration that has absolutely no use for small businesses.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Honest Brokering the Columbia Expansion
The final scoping document that was released yesterday was conducted by the folks at AKRF. This firm is what amounts to eminence when it comes to environmental review in this town. As far as we're concerned, however, they are no more than the usual suspects. They can be depended on to short shrift a meaningful analysis of the negative consequences of any development project.
We clearly remember the role the firm played in the fated attempt by Mayor Giuliani to open a mega store flood gate in the city. Their analysis was so pro forma that it led you to wonder whether the firm had actually done any of the requisite work at all. All of their so-called evaluation of big box proliferation seemed cribbed from a compilation of the work that the firm had done on previous mega-store projects all over the city. And it was fatally flawed and deficient.
In the current Columbia scope there is one key variable that needs to be thoroughly and honestly evaluated-the issue of "indirect displacement" of local residents. This is the issue that prompted BP Stringer to issue his re-zoning proposal last month. On page 38 of the scope AKRF outlines the issue: "The objective of the indirect residential displacement analysis is to determine if the Proposed Action would increase property values and thus rents throughout the study area, making it difficult for existing residents to afford their housing."
The issue is crucial because Columbia not only refrains from proposing any new housing for one of the largest underdeveloped Manhattan parcels, but the university also proposes evicting scores of low income tenants. In addition, the zoning that the university is advancing would make any residential building all but impossible. Given these variables, the fact that the expansion might also lead to the displacement of untold numbers of local tenants would seem to make this entire proposal antithetical to any conceived local interest.
One last key point. If indirect displacement is a distinct possibility then how can any conscientious elected official be satisfied with AKRF as the evaluator? This issue is too important to be left to the firm that has shilled on behalf of developers for the past two decades. It is imperative that an honest broker be brought in to analyze the residential displacement issue. Maybe Jesse Masyr is available?
We clearly remember the role the firm played in the fated attempt by Mayor Giuliani to open a mega store flood gate in the city. Their analysis was so pro forma that it led you to wonder whether the firm had actually done any of the requisite work at all. All of their so-called evaluation of big box proliferation seemed cribbed from a compilation of the work that the firm had done on previous mega-store projects all over the city. And it was fatally flawed and deficient.
In the current Columbia scope there is one key variable that needs to be thoroughly and honestly evaluated-the issue of "indirect displacement" of local residents. This is the issue that prompted BP Stringer to issue his re-zoning proposal last month. On page 38 of the scope AKRF outlines the issue: "The objective of the indirect residential displacement analysis is to determine if the Proposed Action would increase property values and thus rents throughout the study area, making it difficult for existing residents to afford their housing."
The issue is crucial because Columbia not only refrains from proposing any new housing for one of the largest underdeveloped Manhattan parcels, but the university also proposes evicting scores of low income tenants. In addition, the zoning that the university is advancing would make any residential building all but impossible. Given these variables, the fact that the expansion might also lead to the displacement of untold numbers of local tenants would seem to make this entire proposal antithetical to any conceived local interest.
One last key point. If indirect displacement is a distinct possibility then how can any conscientious elected official be satisfied with AKRF as the evaluator? This issue is too important to be left to the firm that has shilled on behalf of developers for the past two decades. It is imperative that an honest broker be brought in to analyze the residential displacement issue. Maybe Jesse Masyr is available?
Columbia Ubber Alles
The final EIS for Columbia's expansion plan has been released and as expected, the university has no plans to do anything positive for the surrounding neighborhoods that they are encroaching upon. So a project that contains 6.8 million gross square feet, give or take a few million, will have no affordable housing component or any retail development that is consistent with the needs of the existing community.
But the university will, if necessary, move to seize property from the existing owners, "in stages based on Columbia's reasonably anticipated needs for such property as the Mixed-Use Area is developed." Under the proposed plan, Columbia seeks to "revitalize" an area that its consultants characterize as underutilized, not of course taking into consideration the fact that an aggressive re-zoning of the area could easily prompt a vibrant development of the 18 acres without any noblesse oblige help from the university.
What this all means is that the certification of this project will soon be forthcoming, and we still haven't heard nary a peep from some of the area's most influential public officials. The only one really weighing in on the plan is BP Stringer, who has proposed an new zoning response to mitigate the inevitable gentrification tsunami that Columbia's expansion will generate. The plan itself, however, appears to be sacrosanct.
We have been working with Nick Sprayregen, the area's largest property owner, to devise a modification of the university's proposal-a revision that hopefully will be unveiled shortly. What the modification will highlight, is the extent to which the Columbia plan is a danger to anyone of modest means who lives within shouting distance of the plan's footprint (and many who live further away than the immediate surrounding neighborhoods).
In addition, the modification will underscore the fact that the local owners do not see themselves as obstructionists, but rather welcome the expansion of the university in a manner that includes their participation in the revitalization of the community that they have invested so much blood, sweat and tears in. It will, in fact, be a co-development plan, one that seeks to preserve what's good in the current footprint, and include some important community requisites that Columbia's hubris has explicitly excluded.
The gauntlet that will then be thrown down to the area's elected officials. It will devolve from the issue of representation: "Who are you representing, Columbia or the community?" In the mind of the university this is a false dichotomy. The university's neighbors have a different mindset.
But the university will, if necessary, move to seize property from the existing owners, "in stages based on Columbia's reasonably anticipated needs for such property as the Mixed-Use Area is developed." Under the proposed plan, Columbia seeks to "revitalize" an area that its consultants characterize as underutilized, not of course taking into consideration the fact that an aggressive re-zoning of the area could easily prompt a vibrant development of the 18 acres without any noblesse oblige help from the university.
What this all means is that the certification of this project will soon be forthcoming, and we still haven't heard nary a peep from some of the area's most influential public officials. The only one really weighing in on the plan is BP Stringer, who has proposed an new zoning response to mitigate the inevitable gentrification tsunami that Columbia's expansion will generate. The plan itself, however, appears to be sacrosanct.
We have been working with Nick Sprayregen, the area's largest property owner, to devise a modification of the university's proposal-a revision that hopefully will be unveiled shortly. What the modification will highlight, is the extent to which the Columbia plan is a danger to anyone of modest means who lives within shouting distance of the plan's footprint (and many who live further away than the immediate surrounding neighborhoods).
In addition, the modification will underscore the fact that the local owners do not see themselves as obstructionists, but rather welcome the expansion of the university in a manner that includes their participation in the revitalization of the community that they have invested so much blood, sweat and tears in. It will, in fact, be a co-development plan, one that seeks to preserve what's good in the current footprint, and include some important community requisites that Columbia's hubris has explicitly excluded.
The gauntlet that will then be thrown down to the area's elected officials. It will devolve from the issue of representation: "Who are you representing, Columbia or the community?" In the mind of the university this is a false dichotomy. The university's neighbors have a different mindset.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
