Bloomberg's South Poll

In what appears to be a Marx Brother's-like response to the latest Q-Poll, the mayor and some of his supporters seem to be saying, much like Chico said when the husband of the woman he was in bed with suddenly burst into the room; "Who're going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?" So we have with the just released poll results, which showed once again that the great majority of New Yorkers think that the congestion tax idea stinks.

The funniest response, besides the one from the mayor's office which sounds just as if it were scripted by Baghdad Bob, comes from the group Transportation Alternatives. This organization, the strident leader of the bicycle brigade, attacks the poll itself and complains about the "biased" wording of the questions; "Paul Steely White, the group's executive director, thought the questions had 'loaded language,' such as the 'federal meddling question,' and criticized the poll for not specifying times that vehicles will be charged for driving south of 86th Street."

As far as the "meddling" question is concerned, we think that it was inspired. It gave respondents the opportunity to think about the nature of the funding source, the sum of money involved, and the strings that were attached to the allocation. It's not as if New Yorkers were knee-jerk conservatives suspicious about the role of the federal government in their lives.

The problem with ideologically inspired groups like TA, is that they are forever running up against the recalcitrance of the "masses," and the inability of the people to understand the righteousness of the cause. All of this comes out of the Marxist false consciousness play book, and it denigrates the innate ability of the folks to understand what is really good for them. It is the mindset that led Rousseau to observe that sometimes, "You have to force people to be free."

Which gets us to the mayor's position that the poll, because it says that 57% of New Yorkers would support a congestion tax if "is used to prevent an increase in mass transit fares and bridge and tunnel tolls," actually demonstrates that people really support his plan. The NY Post's take-"Bronx Jeer for Traffic Fee"-is more to the point.

This is strictly Wonderland stuff since it is clear that the funds are not going to be used for that purpose, and even if they were there's not enough revenue being generated-especially after the administrative costs are applied-to hold the fares or tolls down. As Crain's points out, "That’s an unlikely scenario as proceeds from the proposal, which aims to reduce traffic in the city by 6.3%, are earmarked for transit improvement projects, such as the Second Avenue subway and new bus facilities, and not to offset fare hikes." So if you want to take a shot at the poll, you could say that it was this question that was misleading.

And how about the press reports today about the great response rides have to the "already overcrowded" 7 Line? The Times headline-"More Trains..." Here's TA president Roberts' candid admission: "Mr. Roberts said that he could not add more trains during the busiest period in the morning and evening, which lasts roughly an hour, because the line was already running at capacity then. But by adding trains before and after, he said, he hoped to be able to “spread the peak” and change the habits of some riders.Mr. Roberts said that he could not add more trains during the busiest period in the morning and evening, which lasts roughly an hour, because the line was already running at capacity then. But by adding trains before and after, he said, he hoped to be able to “spread the peak” and change the habits of some riders."

Is there a clearer demonstration of the cart-before-the-horse nature of the congestion tax then this statement from the head of the city's transit system? The Posts' take on the 7 Line could be applied to the entire system: "The No. 7 isn't in danger of flunking out, but could probably use a tutor." Let's scrap the congestion tax folly and get a grip on a comprehensive transit plan, one that benefits all New Yorkers, and not just some consultants who are planning to milk the new technology.

The Know Nothing Brigade

Thanks to the link from Daily Politics Blog, and welcome to its readers. It always gives us great pleasure to respond to our legion of fans, one of whom commented on the Liz post this morning. In his remarks, a certain Hugh Taylor referred to "Lipsky and his Know Nothing Brigade."

The tenor of the comment reminds us of how William Buckley responded to the followers of Ayn Rand, when the conservative columnist called her a fascist. When Buckley appropriately labeled Rand for what she was, he was subjected to an avalanche of vicious, self-righteous vitriol. To which Buckley responded: Rand's followers, "Dotted the "I's," and crossed the "T's," of my point."

In reading the Taylor commentary, we experience the same kind of smug self-righteousness, the sense that he represents the forces of light against the forces of darkness-a Manichean world view that underscores just why the legions of Taylors-and all of the Streetbloggers-simply don't get it. They look with contempt at the petit-bourgeois, outer borough boobs, and see their concern with taxes and fairness to be nothing more than narrow-minded selfishness.

We can see this in Taylor's diatribe against those commuters who use the "subsidized" East River bridges. The world view here is redolent with disdain for those New Yorkers who really do the lion's share to make this city productive-and who happen to drive their cars to work in the process. In addition, we also detect the redistributive philosophy that drives so much of the congestion debate-just read the DMI blog to get the full flavor of this pro-tax view.

So continue to call us Know Nothings Mr. Taylor. What you'll discover is that your contempt for the people will come back strongly to bite you on the asinine world view you so emotionally espouse.

Booing Bollinger, Holding Columbia Accountable

At a recent meeting of CB9 Columbia University president Lee Bollinger, along with ex-mayor David Dinkins, were booed by an irate community for their support of the university's expansion into West Harlem. In today's NY Daily News columnist Errol Louis takes umbrage with the reception and sees the disrespect as part of an unwieldy land use review process that he labels the "Gulliver Gambit": "pretending to support progress, but only if the developer agrees to attach a thousand tiny strings to a big project."

Which, we believe, is an unfair view of the process and reduces complexity to what amounts to a simplistic description of a more complex reality. What this all comes down to is the nature of the project in question, and what kind of impact a development may have on the community and/or the smaller businesses in the area.

In spite of what Errol implies, not all large development projects are benign. The Gateway Mall in the Bronx, for instance, can be seen as a sweetheart deal that one city official steered to his good friend-at the expense of the economic health of smaller business, and the environmental health of the community. Does a community protest in this instance lack righteousness when area electeds sheepishly refuse to stand up for local community interests?

So to focus exclusively on process is a mistake. If the community isn't able to make its voice heard there is always a distinct possibility that behind-the-scenes maneuvers can end up being deleterious to the neighborhoods. The ULURP process, then, allows an irate community to express its views-under the assumption that more sunshine (not Ken, however) is needed in order for area elected officials to truly understand how a community feels.

In the end, there is no such thing as a Gulliver Gambit, because the strings attached have no weight in the negotiating process-one that is in the exclusive purview of area elected officials. In the Columbia case, the fact remains that the booing Bollinger received, as the NY Post editorialized this morning, should be seen as a wake up call for the university to negotiate, something that Bollinger himself has now stated publicly.

And negotiating in good faith is something that Errol Louis also properly endorses: "Such complaints are a distraction from the real deal making that needs to take place." The complaints and the raucousness, however, are sometimes a necessary ingredient to get the mule's attention.

Which brings us to the proposal being floated by Nick Sprayregen. As Louis points out, "In particular, there's a proposal by Harlem businessman Nick Sprayregen that deserves more attention: the deal would swap Sprayregen's businesses on the west side of Broadway for Columbia's property on the east side, where Sprayregen would build up to 1,000 units of affordable housing."

As this concept of our client Tuck-it-Away becomes clearer, we'll see just how much the university is willing to bargain in good faith. But we will agree with Louis that, "New York is long overdue for a new set of land use regulations." Until that happens, however, the strident voice of the community remains an important way for keeping developers, and the elected officials who may slavishly support them, accountable for their actions.

Stupid, Qpid?- NOT!

Yesterday we commented about the Politicker post on congestion pricing polls, one that previewed the Q-Poll that comes out today. In the post Azi suggested that, when the folks are told about the "myriad benefits" that will flow like manna from heaven once the mayor's plan is implemented, they support the congestion tax. We called this a crock, and pointed out that the only poll that showed support for this scheme was the one done by the mayor's own pollsters-another example of how so-called experts are being mis-used by the pro-congestion tax side.

Well the poll is out, and the results not only reinforce what we said yesterday, they actually underscore the fact that the more people find out about this mishagos the less they like it. Today's Q-Poll finds that New Yorkers have become more skeptical:"Traffic congestion in New York City is a 'very serious' or 'somewhat serious' problem, 89% of city voters say, but voters oppose congestion pricing 57-36 percent...This compares to 52-41 percent opposition in a July 26 poll by the independent Quinnipiac University."

On the other hand, the Q-pollsters found that if the proceeds of congestion taxing were used to "prevent an increase in mass transit fares and bridge and tunnel tolls," something that the state comptroller says is not possible, than support for the tax almost reverses. Which makes sense, since the tax payers would then see the measure as a potential financial wash for them personally.

What's fascinating in the poll is the evidence that New Yorkers are so disenthralled by the congestion tax idea that they reject-by a 51-35 percent margin- the $354 million carrot that the Feds are dangling to the city if an agreement on a congestion tax is reached. The poll found that respondents saw the promised funds as "federal meddling in a municipal decision," As poll director Mickey Carrol says; "'Don't tread on me' ought to be the message on the city flag. A majority of New Yorkers think it's federal meddling when Washington promises transit aid with strings-only if the city approves congestion pricing..."

Another interesting set of results revolves around race. Black and Latino respondents reject the congestion tax by larger margins-63-29, and 61-34-than do white voters. Opposition to the tax is strongest in the Bronx (which has no representation on the commission), where the margin balloons to 74-21. Queens and Brooklyn opposition remains at 60% or better.

So what we have here is another elite scheme that is meet with heavy disdain by the less sophisticated folks who just seem unable to grasp just what's good for them. It is, however, a clear warning shot to all of those pols that are interested in a city wide office in 2009. Like Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, they should see the Q results as the handwriting on the wall. A congestion tax is a most unpopular idea, and is not likely to endear any office seeker to vital outer borough constituents.

Omig-Azi

In today's Politicker Azi previews tomorrow's Q-Poll on congestion pricing with the following observation: "When people were asked about congestion pricing without being given a description of its projected benefits, the plan was not overwhelmingly popular...When people were told about the benefits of congestion pricing it suddenly sounded to New Yorkers like a more reasonable price to pay." What's Azi been drinking?

First of all, when any non-partisan poll was done on congestion pricing, it was thoroughly rejected-with wide landslide-like margins in the outer boroughs. The only time this didn't happen was when the mayor's own pet pollsters spun some tale about all of the "projected" benefits of a congestion tax (perhaps the cure for ED was in there as well).

This is all invidious rubbish! In fact, Azi, the Penn poll-unlike any other-actually showed wide support for the mayor's tax scheme even before all of the "myriad" benefits were outlined. So why the juxtaposition of reputable polls an obvious push poll? The reality here is that there is so much confusion-some of it deliberate-surrounding the mayor's (Kathy Wylde's?) scheme that it is hard to judge what people may actually be responding to when questioned by a pollster.

Most folks in the boroughs, however, are pretty good at understanding when a tax is a tax-and are rightly skeptical when Manhattan elites talk about the "myriad benefits" devolving from the picking of their pockets. We'll see tomorrow how well the folks resist the mayor's lavish efforts at disinformation.

On the Brink of a Windfall

We have been commenting on the role being played-both behind and in front of the scenes-by the consulting firm of Parsons Brinckerhoff, on the advancement of the idea of a congestion tax. One of the themes we have been emphasizing has been the need for independent review of all of the assumptions built into the mayor's plan. Foremost among these assumptions is the assertion-taken at face value by a coalition of the venal and the gullible-that the mayor's tax will reduce traffic by 6.3%.

As we have been pointing out, this unverified magic number emerges from a study done by the P-B firm on behalf of the NYC Partnership. To our knowledge, not a single independent review of the study has ever been done. But one thing we do know for certain, Parsons is no disinterested third party in this fight. Let's put it this way: As far as "congestion pricing" is concerned, Parsons Brinckerhoff doesn't have a dog in the fight (and with apologies to Michael Vick), they are the dog.

When you google Parsons and congestion pricing you get 14,000 hits! The firm is advocating all over the world on this issue, and to say that it has a vested interest in a favorable outcome in NYC would be one whopping understatement. So then, what is its once and future employee, Sadik-Kahn, doing on the congestion commission? And for that matter, what is the Parsons partner at the NYC Partnership, Kathy Wylde, doing there as well? This is what the NY Times calls a "mostly thoughtful and impressive" commission? Emmit Till had a fairer adjudication than the opponents of a congestion tax will receive from this bunch.

So in the middle of this process, one that even the mayor's aides are saying is a stacked deck, the Bloombergistas are starting a procurement process for the firms that will eventually handle all of the lucrative work installing and monitoring the congestion pricing system-and not one reporter has asked the mayor whether or not Parsons Brinckerhoff should be excluded from the bidding?

Which brings us back to the purpose of the congestion commission: evaluation. How could this possibly be done fairly? With so many ringers appointed to this commission all that is left is to be done to punctuate this charade is to disinter Judge Roy Bean to preside over the proceedings. One marvels at the level of arrogance of the puppet master who put this Punch and Judy show together.

Poor Policy: Bloomberg's Mexican Hat Dance

The Gotham Gazette is writing on Mayor Bloomberg's new approach to the war on poverty-paying for good behavior in order to create a change in the attitudes that lead to the perpetuation of poverty. As we have said before, this is not a very good idea at all. In fact the proposed cure here can easily become worse than the disease.

In the first place, as has been pointed out, the use of the Mexican example makes no sense at all. The Mexican woman who are paid to take their kids to a doctor would have no ability to do so because of the feared loss of income from the jobs that they are doing. These are real world obstacles that can be rationally overcome by the Mexican subsidy program. And let's face it, the best poverty program Mexico has is the hundred yard dash across the US border-not exactly what we should be using as a role model

This situation has no American analogue. The folks here who are failing to avail themselves of school or services are behaving this way because of a certain set of internal attitudes that used to be pejoratively known as the "culture of poverty." If we pay them to behave differently, what will this do to their current set of beliefs and behaviors? What about the folks in the same set of social circumstances who are trying to behave in ways that will enable them and their children to succeed?

Of course, paying people to behave properly is not only a slippery slope-will we have to raise the stipends periodically to insure compliance?-but will inevitably lead to the creation of a social welfare structure that will be more concerned with self-perpetuation than any dramatic solution of endemic poverty. And it goes without saying that the tax payers will be asked to pick up the exorbitant tab if this social experiment has its option picked up by government when the private subsidies lapse.

And let's make no mistake about it, despite what the mayor might say, paying people to behave better is not capitalism-it is simply another variant of the tired social welfare mentality. While it is true that this is out-of-the box thinking, it is in no way comparable to the courageous decision, embodied in the 1996 welfare reform act, to insist that those seeking assistance must work.

So let's hope that the experiment goes no further than its current philanthropic incarnation-with George Soros at the helm for Pete's sake. What needs to be guarded against here is the possibility that the chosen evaluators-MDRC-will hot wire its analysis of the experiment. A great deal of independent oversight is needed here.

Send in the Consultants

In what was a refreshing and honest look at the way we do the city's so-called environmental review business, the Manhattan Institute's Hope Cohen exposed what we have called the collusion of the consultants. This is the process by which consultants in this city revolve into and out of government and, as a result of the potentially lucrative golden parachutes that are waiting for them once ensconced in a decision-making position, they are unwilling to honestly evaluate development projects.

Here is how the Manhattan Institute report accurately captured this phenomenon: "The revolving door between powerful government and highly paid private-sector CEQR jobs means that no want wants to go on record blowing the whistle..." Which brings us to the present conflict over congestion pricing, and the report by Liz that the city has issued a RFI for consultants to possibly implement the technical phase of the mayor's plan.

As the Daily Politics points out, the city is looking for firms "with the right technical expertise" to demonstrate just how the congestion tax would be implemented and monitored. This is no small matter because, as we have pointed out, the cost of manging the congestion tax system could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

So who might be lined up in this anticipated feeding frenzy? We don't yet have the list of potential suitors, but there' one firm we know will be there, and it will have an intimate friend right at a coveted seat at the table. The firm? Parsons Brinckehoff, a company that has been involved in the pre-planning of this tax scam from the very beginning, and whose former employee is now the DOT commissioner and congestion commission member-Janette Sadik-Kahn. And since sadik means "wise one"in Yiddish we're convinced that Sadik-Kahn will... Well, just learn from history on this up-coming scenario.

It should also be pointed out-and why aren't more reporters involved in doing this basic investigative journalism?-that PB and the NYC Partnership were the partners in the original study that Kathy Wylde, also a commission member (any patterns developing here?), continues to allude to in her learned defense of the mayor's plan. This is a real conflict of interest scandal in the making-and the real basic question here is: who will regulate the regulators?

Fatten Down the Hatches

In a study released yesterday by the Trust for America's Health, we are once again reminded that Americans are getting fatter-and our children are particularly at risk. In New York City, the survey found that 22.4% of New York's adults were considered to be obese-a number that rises over 50% when we include overweight as a category.

In the NY Sun story this morning, it was also pointed out that 43% of city elementary school children are overweight and, as Dr. Lous Aronne of New York Presbyterian Hospital told the paper; "Telling people to eat less and exercise more hasn't worked." Jeffrey Levi, the executive director of the health organization told the NY Post that, "Kids aren't running out to play after school as they used to...They're spending more time in front of the computer screen."

Which is precisely why the Health Corps initiative spearheaded by Councilman Rivera, is so important. We need to break the current cycle but, as HC founder Dr. Mehmet Oz wrote last week in the NY Daily News, "What it takes, however, is a change of attitudes and lifestyles, and this is no simple matter."

It is the mission of the Health Corps to do just that. Now placed in 28 NYC high schools, the HC is going out to alter the current trends among our young by inculcating a different mindset; and through education and inspiration the goal is to instill this healthier lifestyle in a new generation of kids. The crisis is severe and if we don't do something our entire health system will implode in the not so distant future.

"If Mr. Livingston is Correct"

The editorial page of the NY Times has become what William Buckley used to say about the Yale faculty: that he'd rather be governed by the first one hundred names in the New Haven phone book. So it goes with the Times and its editorial observations. This is, after all, the one year anniversary of the Duff Wilson's infamous 6,000 word disgrace of a story about the three lacrosse kids at Duke. We still are awaiting the paper's editorial mea culpa but we're not holding our breathe.

Let's just say that the Times' judgment is suspect on a wide range of matters, and the nosedive into red ink (with a drop in area market share from 29% to 24%), is a reflection of the way in which the paper remains out of touch with average New Yorkers. Which brings us to yesterday's editorial on the congestion commission.

That the Times could describe the panel selected as "a mostly thoughtful and impressive one," is a fair indication of it's lack of perspective; and its failure to call a spade a spade about the selection of pro-congestion tax lobbyists by all of the law makers except Speaker Silver is egregious, considering its normal disdain for lobbyists of any kind. We guess it all depends on who the lobbyists in question are.

But if this is the case, than the Times is exhibiting a gross hypocrisy. The fact remains that lobbyists of all stripes, and we should know, represent "special interests." This is true whether you like some of the interests and despise some of the others. So, if your the Times, it's okay to appoint reps to the commission who have a vested interest in one particular outcome? How are these ringers going to be "thoughtful?"

Of course, the Times is being less than honest in this discussion. To deconstruct: "We like congestion taxes-just like we like all taxes, except when we're accepting tax breaks for our own corporate interests-and since we support the mayor's plan we have no issue with the appointment of 'thoughtful' ringers to the congestion commission. Imagine if some of the law makers had appointed Walter McCaffrey, Richard Lipsky and a slew of anti-congestion industry figures, with only one lone law maker appointing congestion pricing proponents?

Fahgettaboutit! The paper would be screaming like a stuck pig, and probably calling for some kind of independent investigation. Can we get any clearer a demonstration of the oxymoronic nature of journalistic honesty here? And the position of El Diario is not much better; and hasn't been since the mayor dropped an adverti$ing bundle on the paper in his first campaign.The reality is that the commission remains a stacked deck, as Councilman Fidler originally described it.

But what really got our juices flowing was the suggestion by the Times that the commission follow the guidance of Red Ken Livingston, an anti-Semite and America hater that the paper gave over its editorial page to last month: "if Mr. Livingston is correct," brays the paper, than we will all be convinced that, as London goes, so goes New York. Give us a break. The Times still refers to Livingston as a populist; another indication that without double standards the paper wouldn't have any standards at all.

What needs to be done here is simple. The mayor's plan, and any alternatives need to be put to the test by the undertaking of a comprehensive and independent environmental review. But this is not all. We also need to examine all of the fiscal implications of the congestion tax, and do so within the context of the lack of accountability and transparency exhibited by the MTA when it proposed a fare hike last month; or perhaps the Times has forgotten its previous positions here?

Which brings us to the continual use of the 6% solution mantra. The Times concludes its confusion and collusion here by saying; "The federal government has warned that its pledge of $354 million in assistance depends on achieving an approved plan that reduces traffic by 6 percent, as Mr. Bloomberg's proposal would." (added emphasis) Says who? What about Mr. Bush's surge? Will the Times buy into General Patraeus' argument if he tells the Congress that the surge is working?

So why do we have have such an easy suspension of disbelief in this case? The Times needs to do much better in serving the interests of its readers (and its former readers who are beginning to out number the current ones). Only an independent evaluation of the congestion tax will shed light on the serious questions that have been raised by opponents of the mayor's plan. What's everyone afraid of?

The Mysterious 6.3%

You might know about the old ethnic joke that asks the supposedly stupid member of that particular group, "What's the greatest invention of all time?" To which he replies, "The thermos." "What about the telephone, the computer, or even the wheel, for God's sake," asks the questioner. The justifying reply in favor of keeping the thermos as number one: "When you put something hot in it, it stays hot. And when you put something cold in it, it stays cold." "So what," says the questioner. "So what?" goes the reply- "How does it know?"

Which of course brings us to the mysterious 6.3% in the mayor's traffic congestion plan; this is the alleged percent reduction we'll see in congestion if we apply the proposed taxes on commuters and trucks going into the city's CBD. To which we reply: "How does it Know?"

This is an extremely important point in the debate that is going to unfold about the mayor's plan in the next few months. Editorial boards, chiding opponents of the congestion tax, have hectored them with the admonition that any alternative plan must do as well or better than the mayor's reducing traffic congestion. Yet in the hundreds of pages that make up PlaNYC 2030 there are only 16 pages that address the congestion pricing plan and its traffic reduction abilities-and there is absolutely no documentation of the methodology or work product that underlies the skimpy conclusive statements in the plan document!

We're not surprised. This is all de rigueur for the land use flim-flam artists that comprise the city's environmental consulting class. They submit reams of documents that allege all sorts of fairy tale scenarios designed to mitigate that most severe possible traffic congestion impacts. The only thing that's always missing? Any back-up documentation; without which it is impossible to test the validity of the conclusions submitted.

So who did the original work on the 6.3%? The answer: Parsons-Brinckerhoff, the same firm that has given the city its new transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Kahn-someone who just so happens to sit on the new congestion commission. All of which underscores the Manhattan Institute's observation about what's wrong with the city's land use process: the circulation of the consultants who rotate effortlessly from the private sector world of consulting into high government positions, only to rotate back once certain lucrative decisions have been made.

This is a climate of collusion that our local press has been slow to examine. Perhaps the paper of record would like to take a stab at this? After all, if this was the military-industrial complex the Times would be all over how this circulation process enriches the Halliburtons of the world-at the expense of tax payers. In NYC, where real estate is the reigning power elite, this kind of collusion remains unexamined; and a good reason may be that the corporate interests of the media are intertwined here.

All of which demands that the examination of the mayor's tax plan be done through an independent environmental review, one that examines any number of alternative scenarios as well. The examination, however, must be as free of bias as possible. This means that the three or four major consulting firms, the city's usual suspects, need to be told to sit on the sidelines; and outside expertise must be brought in to fairly vet the mayor's ex cathedra proclamations.

West Harlem's Not For Sale

In yesterday's El Diario CB9 Chair Jordi Reyes-Montblanc lashes out against the use of eminent domain by Columbia in the West Harlem neighborhood. In particular, he takes issue with the university's job claims, and points out that the 6,000 new-mostly high tech- jobs Columbia claims it will generate, will replace 1,600 factory and mechanics jobs that are being done by a predominately Hispanic work force.

In addition, as we have been relentlessly pointing out, gentrification has already hit this area hard. Apartments that were going for for as little as $300/month are now being rented for $1800/month. Once the expansion takes hold, it will be tough for anyone of modest means to live in or around the university's hallowed ground.

Which is why we have been hitting hard on the affordable housing issue-and Columbia's failure to devise any meaningful housing plan; but also for the way in which it is relocating low-income tenants. As we have said before, unlike Columbia, Atlantic Yards developed an extensive housing program and the university is going to have to step up and not wait for the LDC to bail them on this key issue.

Which brings us to a post that was done by the Wonkster yesterday on the CB 9 vote. Calling the CB9 vote a "bump in the road," and referring to Curb's description of the vote as "meaningless,"the web site went on to point out that Richard Lipsky's representing the area's largest property owner and according to the indefatigable Norman Oder, is making arguments that he supposedly refuted when he was representing FCRC on the Atlantic Yards controversy.

First, it would have been nice if Wonkster had linked to us if it was going to link to Oder's exhaustive deconstruction of our arguments. But that being said, we are flattered by the almost hermeneutic-like attention Oder pays to our positions on the topics of eminent domain and the land-use process. He has an almost Talmudic fascination for what he sees as our inconsistencies in these areas.

And in some ways he's right since politics is so often a case of, "whose ox is being gored." But in another important way he's off the mark. One's view of process is colored by, in this case, first principles. In any land use matter first principles emanate from your view of the merits of the project itself. As we have often said, we have no absolute position on eminent domain, but we have pointed out that the rights of property owners need to have a greater degree of protection than the currently have under NYS law.

Which gets us to our rationale for working on the Atlantic Yards project. Our attraction to the development was initially spurred by our past academic interest in the interface of sports, politics and society. As a result of this interest we begin to see how the Nets coming to Brooklyn could have a significant benefit to the amateur sports programs of the borough. This lead to our development of the Brooklyn Sports Alliance, the only lobbying focus that we had during the entire land use battle. For a fuller account of our disagreements with the AY critics, you can go to here, and here, and here. Suffice it to say, that we looking forward to the collaboration of the BSA and the Brooklyn Nets, a partnership that will do great things for the kids of Brooklyn.

One final observation, We don't know Norman Oder but as far as we can see the AY projects is the only one of its kind that he has ever been involved in; and there's no question that he has devoted a great deal of exhaustive energy and talent to the effort. However, it simply can't stand in comparison to our own body of work in his area, grass roots lobbying that goes back for twenty seven years in NYC.

In that period of time we have defeated three Wal-Mart projects, a BJ's Warehouse Club development, three Costcos and seven separate shopping center projects; not to mention keeping Anheuser Busch at bay on an anti-trust crusade or the better part of a decade. In all of these efforts we have defended the rights of communities and small businesses. Once the AY critics have a body of work like this they will be in a better position to criticize our work.

Let's not forget, that absent the work we've done over this period of time, there would have been no other lobbyist defending the rights of less well-heeled interests. So. while we remain flattered by Oder's meticulous attention to all of the nuances of our arguments, we are unmoved by the criticism. As Pete Seeger said in one of his songs; "How do I know my youth is all spent, my get-up-and-go has got up and went, but in spite of it all I'm able to grin, to think of the places my get up has been."

Fidler On the Truth

In yesterday's Daily Politics Blog Liz highlights the unusual Council vitriol generated by the decision of Speaker Quinn to stack the congestion commission with ringers. The leader of the attack was Councilman Lew Fidler who strongly charcterized the Kangaroo Commission as a "scam."

Lew's money quote: It's wrong to have a commission that is clearly a scam. and is not going to consider alternatives to the mayor's plan...I usually keep my negative counsel private, but this is a very public issue..." What Fidler is saying, and what we're hearing privately from a number of council members, is that the lack of fairness in the make-up of the body is going to seriously erode the commission's credibility when it finally makes a determination in this matter. In addition, the Speaker's choices here, as well as the selection of Marc Shaw as the commission chair, indicates the extent to which the mayor's heavy hand has played in stacking the deck with his own kangaroos.

This is what's known as being too clever by half. In not trying to at least appear to be even-handed, the mayor and his minions are paving the way for legislators to ignore the commissions "findings." In fact, the interrelationships on the panel-and the less than six degrees of separation between the panelists and the mayor-threaten to give incest a bad name.

Dissatisfaction is not limited, however, to the scamifold ways the panelists bring their own ground axes to the discussion. As the Wonkster reports, citing the editorial in the Staten Island Advance, other council members are upset that there are no representatives from either the Bronx or Staten Island ("A Snub, By Any Measure").

This is no minor issue. As we have commented in another context (the fight over the Tottenville Wal-Mart), traffic congestion and pollution is a major issue on the Island, one that is so strong that it really made our successful fight against the Walmonster much easier.

The exclusion of anyone from Staten Island or the Bronx (where asthma rates are highest) only further underscores that there is no serious city wide approach to congestion/pollution in the current congestion plan; and it's highly unlikely that the commission, with its collection of the like-minded, will venture too far from the orthodoxy demanded of it.

Livingston, Chavez and Bloomberg?

We have been noticing just how much the whole congestion pricing issue has created some strange bedfellows-from the scions of New York real estate to the more politically radical advocates of environmental justice. Nothing, however, beats the recently announced alliance between Red Ken Livingston and Hugo Chavez, the "socialist" dictator of Venezuela.

According to the Financial Times, Livingston has struck a deal with Chavez, whereby the apparent dictator for life is supposed to forward around $32 million to subsidize poor Londoners to ride the city's buses. In exchange, Livingston will come down to Caracas to help that city implement a congestion pricing plan.

Livingston and Chavez (along with the DMI's Schlesinger)-perfect together. Red Ken has no problem aligning himself with the latest left wing tyrant because, as we have already pointed out, he has a history of doing so; and takes particular glee if the partner in question hate the US. In this case he makes no bones about where his allegiances lie: "Frankly I'd rather be getting into bed with {Mr. Chavez} than, as the British government has been, getting into bed with {US President} George Bush."

But then again Red Ken would have said the same thing about Mao and Stalin-or Saddam Hussein for that matter. And this is the dangerous kook who New York wants to use as a role model for it public policy agenda?

The fact remains, however, is that there is a great deal of affinity between congestion taxing and a whole slew of other government dictates that seek to penalize behaviors deemed anti-social; and Mike Bloomberg leads the way in this aggressive paternalism that is so often mislabeled as "progressive." The common denominator? The feeling that most folks don't really know what's good for them and you need, in the words of Rousseau, to "force people to be free." It is a dangerous slippery slope that our mayor walks; and some of the fans of congestion taxing should give us pause before a misplaced enthusiasm takes a feverish hold on our senses.

Beating the Drums for Criminal Immigrants

We have had our issues with the philosophy of the Drum Major Institute for some time now. In general, we feel that the organization has a redistribute the wealth ideology that is a direct threat to hard working middle-class New Yorkers. Now, however, they've taken an even worse turn with an indefensible post done on the murders in Newark. The post's title-"Newark Opts Out of an Immigration Dragnet"-underscores the dishonesty of the poster, and the DMI should disavow any paternity for the remarks; but we doubt it will.

The fact that the the heinous murders of three good college-bound kids doesn't make a dent on the poster, so intent is he/she? on creating a red herring that will elide the central issue that should frame this debate, highlights just how much the pro-illegal ideology eschews good common sense. That issue?

We have a policy in the city of Newark that is so concerned with the sensibilities of folks who circumvented the law to arrive here, that it prevents the law enforcement establishment from inquiring about the immigration status of someone arrested for a despicable crime. Mayor Booker should be chastised-not lionized by DMI- for his negligence, and for his lack of concern for the safety of the citizens of Newark.

This is not about any dragnet for illegals, and the focus on this malicious straw man underscores the way in which a growing cohort of dishonest people have hijacked the immigration debate. When people who are in this country illegally, and they are arrested for a crime, they need to be held without bail until their situation is adjudicated. Mr. Carranza (and the other illegals who colluded with him), on bail after three separate arrests-one including the allegation of the rape of a five year old-did not belong on the street. If his status had been questioned, a detainer would have been placed on him by ICE; and he would not have been on the street to murder the promise that those three kids represented.

This is the central issue of the debate: Have we become so insensitive to the rights of law abiding citizens that we can't even question the immigration status of those people who are arrested for heinous crimes? This refusal to stand up for the sovereignty of this country, is the hallmark of the DMI philosophy. They don't want to protect our borders because they don't believe in the legitimacy of our borders-in spite of any of the usual disclaimers that folks like this issue.

And for the DMI poster to try to reference the policies of former mayor Rudy Giuliani is another example of DMI bad faith. Whatever Giuliani did or believed when he was mayor became obsolete on 9/11. The immigration dynamic changed when 19 fanatics, in possession of multiple false ids, flew those planes into buildings. Don't forget, these evil men utilized the illegal immigration network to get the drivers licenses that they used to get on those planes. And, by the way, NYC does cooperate with immigration authorities when it comes to illlegal behavior by immigrants.

So what the DMI post does is to falsely stigmatize all of us who want to get criminal aliens out of this country as quickly as possible. The manner of the stigmatization involves labeling us as either racist, or "anti-immigrant." This is how the debate gets debased in a miasma of dishonest finger pointing. Which is why we cheer the just announced policy decision by the NJ Attorney General that dictates that all of the state's law enforcement personnel must report the illegal status of those that are arrested for violent crimes in the Garden State.

We find all of this repugnant. We have spent the better part of twenty five years defending immigrant store owners and restaurateurs, and no, we didn't inquire about their status. Immigration is a source of this country's real strength, but to fail to defend the borders; and by nonfeasance to allow criminal illegals to be set loose on our street to murder, is not to be a defender of immigration. It is to be a defender of the dissolution of our country's security and sovereignty; and the concomitant demise of America's greatness.

Basement Paneling

In her effort to furnish the congestion commission, Speaker Quinn has outdone herself in proffering the most unbalanced possible panel choices. What's interesting, as we have pointed out, is what the impact her choices might have on congestion tax critics. The first blowback has now come in-in the form of Assemblyman Rory Lancman.

As the Observer points out, Lancman severely takes Quinn to task about her transparent effort to promote the mayor's plan by stacking the commission with kangaroos: "This is already a plan the public is not happy with. The legislature is not happy with. If there is an impression that the commission is stacked, it will not help the mayor's efforts to get a congestion pricing scheme."

We really can't understand what the speaker is thinking here. It is extremely difficult for any speaker to make the step up to city wide office, even more so if the speaker in question is seen as a Manhattan-centric liberal. There's a perception in the outer boroughs, especially among those Democrats who deserted the party in droves to support Guiliani and Bloomberg, that this species of Democrats has no sense of empathy for tax paying homeowners.

Quinn's support of the congestion tax, widely seen as an effort to build an expansion bridge to the Magic Kingdom of Bloomberg, is likely to earn scorn from those borough voters. Her nomination of Kathy Wylde to the commission, someone who is rightfully seen as the mayor's major congestion tax supporter, will only reinforce the sense of alienation that these more conservative Democrats feel towards the Manhattan elites. This, we believe, will be exacerbated by the fact that Wylde represents all of the city's real estate power elite-a fact that will further distance Quinn from the bulk of voters that she will have to win over if she runs in 2009.

But will the mayor's endorsement help her overcome this isolation? We believe not; and the reason is that Mike Bloomberg is given a pass for his pro-tax insensitivity and Nanny-state proclivities (something the Speaker herself shares); a dispensation that won't be bestowed on the candidate Quinn. In the end even if she gets it, and there's no guarantee that she will, we think it will amount to little more than a Phyrric victory.

Which brings us to choice number two: Andrea Batista Schlesinger of the Drum Major Institute. Schlesinger, who we have taken to task in the past for her Institute's aggressively pro-tax views, is trained in the field of education and appears to have little or no environmental expertise. Her appointment, once her resume is made known and the ideology of the DMI is brought to light, will further isolate Quinn from the voters she'll need the most if she's going to survive a Democratic primary, let alone a general election.

So what we have is an effort to use the congestion tax issue to cement a tie to the mayor. The cement in question, however, may well turn out to be the weight that sinks her city wide candidacy; and the congestion tax issue will introduce her to outer borough constituents with the kind of imprinting that we believe will not be to her future political advantage.

Columbia: Can We Talk?

Matt Schuerman's Observer Real Estate Blog has commentary on the CB9 vote the other night against the Columbia expansion. The take on what transpired? That there is still plenty of room to negotiate a compromise that incorporates a good deal of wehat the CB would like to see in the expansion plan. The view is shared by Councilman Jackson who told the Observer; "They laid a framework for negotiation...I'm looking at this with open eyes and an open mind."

What was interesting was the comments of Columbia's executive vice president for facilities, Joseph Ienuso. Mr. Ienuso said that the university was examining whether it could still expand, given that it already controls 85% of the area in question, without the use of eminent domain-a major sticking point for the community. As he said; "That's a good question that's part of the analysis that we will be looking at between the draft (environmental impact statement) and the final EIS."

It seems to us, however, that the major bone of contention will revolve around the issue of affordable housing-something that we have underscored from the very beginning. It appears that the university may be willing to set up some sort of housing trust fund, but the sticking point is where the housing would be built (and if any of the housing would be included in the proposed 18 acre expansion area).

A commitment to affordable housing, at least as it seems to us, should involve a commitment to actual brick and mortar-real housing that's affordable to real people. As President Bollinger told AMNY, the university would like, "to achieve a sense of integration with the surrounding communities...That is important to say, but very difficult to do." A real commitment to housing would be a giant step in the right direction. If CU can figure out how to do this-and we're glad to be of help-than they just might be able to mollify a good proportion of the community.

"Honey, They Shrunk My Expansion"

In what the Columbia Spectator describes as an overwhelming 31-2 vote, CB9 sent a message to Columbia University that the university's expansion plan, at least in its current incarnation, is not acceptable to the local community. The university, however, apparently feels that it has enough political support to basically ignore the local community board's advisory sentiments.

As President Bollinger told the Spectator: "'It's always better to have a unanimous vote in your favor...' But, noting the support the plan has from state officials and Mayor Mike Bloomberg, he added, 'we have to really take this focus and try to arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement.'" Bollinger was referring to the CBA that is supposed to be developed between the university and the community-represented by the West Harlem LDC.

In last night's resolution of opposition, as Metro reports, there are ten basic demands that CB9 has laid out-crucial ones deal with eminent domain and affordable housing. Columbia feels that the board's provisos can be incorporated into a CBA. It remains to be seen, however, how well the LDC represents community interests. The aborted attempt to remove Columbia critic Nick Sprayregen from the LDC, indicates to us that there are currents on the local group whose mindset may be antithetical to the strongly delineated community concerns embodied in the CB9 vote last night.

It remains to be seen just how the area's elected officials will respond to the clear signals from the community board, and how well the CBA process reflects the sentiments expresses in last night's vote. More fireworks should be expected-as well as electoral blowback from residents if certain pols fail to read the handwriting on the wall.

Health Corps Tackles Obesity Epidemic

In this week's Bronx special take-out edition of the NY Daily News, Dr. Mehmet Oz, the founder of the Health Corps, writes about the group's efforts to fight obesity through education and health activism. The HC is funded by a $2 million grant from the City Council, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars that the group-and its CEO Michele Bouchard-have been able to raise privately.

Starting in the fall, the group will be working in 28 city high schools under the direction of the group's educational director Rob Roberts. A coordinator, trained by Roberts will be working in each of the schools, generating awareness about health life styles, and working with local stores and community groups on initiatives to increase health living.

The goal of the HC is to change attitudes at the local level; by encouraging personal as well as communal changes. The program has been strongly supported by Councilman Joel Rivera, chair of the Council's Health Committee. One of its immediate goals is to work with the DOE to increase the participation of local school kids in the vital free universal breakfast program. A report released this month indicated that only 29% of NYC school children were availing themselves of the breakfast.

Dr. Oz, who is a regular on the Oprah Winfrey show and is the author of two best selling books on health, feels that if we don't create a health activism we are going to be in a massive health crisis in the near future. When young people in their twenties are coming in for heart procedures we are facing a serious public policy calamity, one that we can't afford from either a fiscal or a health perspective.

Quinn Decommissions Diversity

In a move that is surely going to inspire the ire of opponents of congestion taxing, Liz is reporting, and the NY Sun is also, that Speaker Quinn will be appointing Kathy Wylde, an aide to Floyd Flake and someone from among our friends over at the Drum Major Institute as her reps to the Congestion Commission. So much for diversity of point-of-view; we don't know much about where Ed Reed stands (Flake's aide), but the inimitable KW has been the most outspoken proponent of the mayor's plan, and DMI has also staked out a vigorous position in favor of the concept.

According to Liz, there is much discontent over at the Council with the Speaker's choices, as there should be, because if Quinn is going to preserve even the perception of fairness she won't be able to if she puts pro-congestion tax ringers, in kangaroo court fashion, on the commission. Ironically, by doing so, she allows the legislative opponents of the taxing scheme to place pure political will over other mitigating factors-and thus actually finds herself in the position of aiding and abetting the foiling of the mayor's scheme.

In the process, she simultaneously manages to alienate many of her key leadership colleagues in the council, and weakens her effort to cultivate political support for her expected mayoral campaign, This is called putting all of your political eggs in the Bloomberg basket. With any pretense of fairness apparently eschewed in favor of a stacked deck, Chris Quinn helps to underscore the shakiness of the mayor's congestion policy: it simply can't withstand review and evaluation by anyone other than ringers.

Congestion Taxing: It's Debatable

Yesterday, on Channel 4's News Forum, Jay DeDapper hosted a lively debate between Assemblyman Richard Brodsky and the NYC Partnership's Kathy Wylde on the merits and prospects for the mayor's congestion tax plan. Liz Benjamin happily supplied the transcript last Friday. The debate was revealing for a number of important reasons.

In the first place, what comes through clearly is the degree of skepticism that Brodsky, and apparently his colleagues as well, have for, not only the substance of the mayor's plan, but for the methods that he has used to gain acceptance for it. The key Brodsky phrase: "Bum's rush."

In addition, Brodsky feels that the commission's mandate is more expansive than what the mayor and his supporters apparently conceive it should be. The money quote: "...congestion's a problem, and we haven't funded our mass transit system adequately. Whether we need to do a pricing mechanism, whether there are other things that would work as well is really what the commission's mandate is..."

Brodsky also bristled at DeDapper's statement that the mayor's people feel that "the fix's in." He goes on to tell the host that this is the kind of hubris that got the mayor into trouble in the first place; an example, he says, of Mike Bloomberg " at his worst."

What's fascinating here as well, is how Wylde characterizes the process. She tells DeDapper that she has been working for two years on this. Say what? Is she saying that the Bloomberg administration, in partnership with the city's power elite, has been planning this scheme before anyone was publicly made aware of what was going on? What is Wylde saying about doing "three years of study" on the congestion issue?

What did her study say? "We did a study that showed $13 billion a year in new-in additional costs and losses of revenue and another 50,000 jobs that are lost because of the delays...associated with traffic congestion." A heckuva study Ms. Wylde! What's interesting here-aside from the study's provenance-is that the Partnership has endorsed a long-held view on the "externality costs" of traffic congestion that has been pioneered in this area by Brian Ketcham. Brian has employed this analysis to critique the proliferation of box stores and large shopping centers in NYC.

The twist here is that the critique has been leveled at those major developers who make up the leadership structure of the Partnership itself. And guess what? The Ketcham analysis has been uniformly ridiculed and discounted by the consultants in the employ of these good real estate moguls. But now we see it trotted out in support of the mayor's plan-but not for the Gateway Malls in the Bronx and Brooklyn, or the Vronado Mall in Rego Park-neighborhoods where congestion has actually increased in the past few years, and areas where asthma rates are much higher than in the CBD.

But if the Partnership has been studying this issue for three years, pray tell us what is its ulterior motive? Surely, no one believes that it is motivated purely by the public interest. There are multi-billion dollar real estate projects to be bid, and there is reason to conclude that there may be some connection between the Partnership's new-found environmentalism and the prospect of favored nation status with the Bloombergistas.

In any case, if it took the Partnership three years to reach its conclusion-in research that wasn't vetted by anyone independent of the organization's interests-than it is reasonable to demand that a full independent review of the Partnership's work be done in a time-frame that would allow the same degree of due diligence. Don't you think?

So we are back to the original Brodsky point about the mayor's hubris. He colludes behind the scenes for years with the city's major real estate elites and then- Voila!-introduces an absolutely essential global plan to save the city from the deleterious effects of traffic and pollution. And by the way, you need to approve this, tout de suite.

All the more reason why we need to not suspend our disbelief when all of these masters of the universe get together to save us from ourselves. Quite frankly, their motives need to be thoroughly examined; at the same time that their environmental assumptions are put to a very independent test.

Community to Columbia: "We Will Not Be Moved"

In yesterday's NY Daily News, the paper's Albor Ruiz had a powerful column that detailed the reactions of CBM9 chair, Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, to last week's board 17-1 vote that slam dunked the Columbia expansion proposal. As Reyes-Montblanc told Ruiz, "They think they know better than us what is good for the community...There attitude is, 'What is good for Columbia is good for humanity,' which in their mind justifies pushing people around."

Foremost in the community's mind is the fear of residential displacement-an issue that even Columbia's puppet consultants found to be problematic. As Ruiz observes, "...the fear that the elite school's expansion will mean the end of the working-class, racially and culturally diverse neighborhood is pervasive. Rising rents have already displaced many people." Reyes-Montblanc concurs: "'And the Columbia expansion has made it even worse.'"


There is an irony here, of course. Columbia's President Bollinger has been in the forefront of the campaign to maintain racial diversity on this country's college campuses. He was, while president at the University of Michigan, the lead plaintiff in a pair of affirmative action cases that sought to counter efforts to impose color-blind admissions policies.

Apparently, when it comes to the university's own corporate interests, however, diversity is a mere slogan-and the removal actions against the low-income folks at the Till houses is the prime manifestation of this blatant hypocrisy. Mindful of the thin ice it's treading on, Columbia has begun to talk compromise, with university spokesman Kasdin calling the 17-1 vote, "a vote to negotiate."

Now would be a good time to begin. Reyes-Montblanc told the News that compromise was still possible, but the university needs to overcome the severe mistrust it has engendered in the community. Any compromise, according to the chairman, would have to involve conditions, "such as building low-income housing and taking measures to protect the environment."

Reyes-Montblanc has the final word on all of this: "What we are looking for is for Columbia to couple its plan with that of the community...You know...it's true that they do good things for humanity. But they just cannot do them at the expense of the people of Harlem."

Diplomatically Taxing Congestion-Not!

When Mayor Bloomberg announced his congestion taxing scheme in April he told one and all that, except for emergency vehicles, taxis, and handicapped drivers, everyone would have to pay-including diplomats. Well, not so fast. As the NY Post reports this morning, it now appears that State Department pressure has removed diplomats-you know, New York's favorite scofflaws-from having to pay the fee. Diplomats already owe NYC around $18 million in unpaid parking fines.

What got us going here was the fact that our government is fighting the attempt by the city of London to collect $3 million it says that the US owes because of that city's congestion charges. As the Post says; "The State Department-currently locked in a bitter battle with the city of London over $3 million in unpaid congestion fees and fines American diplomats have racked up there-has argued that congestion pricing amounts to a tax. And under the Geneva Conventions, the agency maintains, foreign governments don't pay taxes." (added emphasis)

So it takes the US government to label this congestion plan for what it really is-a tax on the middle class of the city, a tax that all of our free loader diplomats will be able to avoid so that the State Department can save some money. As Josh Beinstock, speaking for the Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free, says; "It is galling that an Iranian diplomat could pay nothing while a senior citizen from Bayside would be charged to go for cancer treatment at a Manhattan hospital."

The more we are able to see behind the smoke and mirrors involving the congestion tax, the more we can see just how the costs of this plan will burden some of the most taxed people in this country-homeowners, small business folks, and outer borough working people who are apparently the forgotten class when it comes to the policy making of this administration.

More on the Sunshine Band

The fall out from the booing of former mayor Dinkins continues, with Liz Benjamin commenting on the fracas in a post today on her Daily Politics web site. The gist of her commentary is that Dinkins remains "unintimidated" by the reception; but in our view DD is besides the point, as we have already pointed out.

The real issue, as one community resident said in a posted response, is the way in which Columbia is trying to use its political muscle to bogart the opposition-even while its spokesman tells the press that Columbia wants to negotiate a compromise. A side issue is the amount of money being paid to Bill Lynch for lobbying on the university's behalf. Liz points out that the Lynch firm has been paid $285,000 in the six month period beginning last January; a good $40,000 more than first reported. And, of course, no one knows just how much publicist Ken Sunshine is getting to aid and abet the Lynch operation.

The question here is, what is all the money actually being used for? We have pointed out that the Lynchites have been waging a scurrilous campaign against Nick Sprayregen, and at the community board the other night scores of folks from some kind of drug treatment facility apparently were bussed in to provide an amen chorus for Columbia. Someone should demand an accounting here.

And for those who may be curious about the Lipsky lobbying retainer it is for $6,000 a month. Our experience over twenty five years only reinforces the observation that it doesn't pay as well to battle Goliath; but it generally is a good deal more satisfying.

Dinkins Dissed in Harlem

As the NY Press reported yesterday, and as the NY Daily News reports this morning, former New York mayor David Dinkins, came back home to Harlem only to be booed by residents opposed to the Columbia expansion plan. Dinkins, currently a paid university employee, told the hearing at CBM9 that he supports the use of eminent domain to facilitate the expansion. The former mayor's reception is a strong indication of the depth of the opposition to Columbia's development proposal.

The meeting was heated, with the local community opposition pitted against bus loads of union folks who support the job-generating aspects of the Columbia plan. The tactic was lambasted by CB Chair Jordi Reyes-Montblanc who told the Press; "'Columbia made a big mistake...They brought in union reps and busload of people from all of the areas of Harlem who are in some sort of program run by or influenced by Mr. Lynch.'

The Lynch in question is none other than Bill Lynch, the $40,000/month man who has been hired to create the impression that there is real community support for the university's development scheme. But, as one Columbia student told the Press concerning the poor reception received by the university, "'Columbia had it coming for them this whole time by excluding the community on every step of the way...Columbia wasn't listening to the community.'" The work of Lynch will not change this basic dynamic.

So now the anti-Columbia resolution goes to the full board for a vote next Monday. It goes without saying that the vote is non-binding but it does, as the Press says, bolster "the board's assertion the West Harlem community doesn't support the school's proposed expansion in the form it now exists." No wonder the Lynchites are trying to make Nick Sprayregen the focal point-anything to take the attention away from how the neighborhood feels about the city's second largest landlord.

That being said, the Columbia Spectator is reporting, as is the City Rooom Blog, that both sides feel that there is still room for compromise. CU spokesman, Robert Kasdin, told the Spectator, "It's not a vote against {the plan}. It's a vote to negotiate." And the Spectator said that, CB9 board chair Jordi Reyes-Montblanc supported the idea that both sides would have to give on certain issues and compromise is desirable." We'll just have to see if there is room for good faith here to gain traction.

Do You Love Me? Paradise by the Washington Monument

As we have been commenting, there have been questions raised, primarily by the intrepid Brodsky, as to whether the federal government has actually committed itself to the mayor's traffic congestion tax scheme. The question is not without relevance, since the state legislation mandating the establishment of the congestion commission says that New York must have a commitment of at least $200 million from the feds or else all bets are off.

Now as the NY Times reports today, in the Brodsky letter to Mary Peters, the assemblyman asks the secretary to clarify the terms of the $354 million commitment package. As the Times points out, "Mr. Brodsky said that a new state law that sets up a commission to study the mayor's plan required a firm commitment of $200 million from federal; officials by October."

Now we doubt that the commitment issue will prove to be any kind of a deal breaker but, as the Times says, it does give further indication of the less than enthusiastic response Speaker Silver has to all of this. The Speaker's stance is underscored in a trenchant blog post up at LoHo 10002.

As the bloggers here point out, the Speaker's rope-a-dope strategy has been to use the mayor's own energy against him; and the insistence on due process is just the beginning, it seems to us, of death by a thousand cuts. The money quote: "He simply ignored the urgency, refused to respond to the implied threat of the loss of federal monies and read his own script instead. And the script, like I said, was all about process."

The Speaker's stand is, however, beyond a simple process argument. Shelly has an intimate knowledge of policy minutia, and understands just how all of these mass transit discussions need to transcend the mayor's narrow, self-interested, perspective. As LoHo observes about Shelly: "Silver simply reminded us we may not have the needed infrastructure in place to support 6.3% worth of social engineering. And he's probably right. Remember geographically there's no similarity between the London pricing plan and our own proposed plan. The Manhattan vision is huge, compared to London's."

All of which brings us back to our original observation that this is far from a done deal. And if the devil's in the details, we think that the mayor's gonna have a helluva time getting this lemon squeezed.

Columbia Fails First Community Test

In a raucous meeting up in West Harlem last night the local community board's ULURP Committee rejected the Columbia expansion plan by a 17-1 vote. The vote was on a board resolution that chastised the university for, among other things, its use of eminent domain and its "displacement of CB9M's low, moderate, and middle-income African-American and Hispanic residents, resulting in significant and adverse impacts on the community..." (emphasis added)

In addition, the resolution took Columbia to task for its failure to enter into "a good faith collaboration with the community in developing its proposals," and called on the university to cease its eminent domain intimidation tactics against property owners. Significantly, the resolution called on Columbia to, "immediately develop and hereafter permanently implement and carry out an effective housing anti-displacement program...And further not interfere with the transfer of 132 units from HPD to the residents of these units as previously agreed to by the City."

This last tidbit is in direct contradiction of the university's behind-the-back maneuver to forcefully relocate the residents in collusion with HPD. Crain's In$ider is reporting this effort, one that we expect will be met by a challenge from the tenants who, not only don't want to move, but who were never consulted until after the fact.

Finally,the resolution insisted that Columbia enter into a good faith bargaining with the Board to devise a workable compromise that would permit the university to expand in as community-minded a way as possible. In sum, as strong a rebuke as possible to the Columbia planned expansion, as well as a rejection of the university's assertions that it was preceding with community support. Clearly, the Bill Lynch grass roots effort fell flat on its face last evening; but perhaps the university's mailings will turn this anti-Columbia sentiment around.

All of which means that the university has done precious little to really attempt to engage the community; preferring to allow its paid henchman to launch a scurrilous campaign against one of the most vocal opponents of the project. The community board has also done a yeoman-like job at articulating the community concerns-only to be ignored by Columbia. There is still time for Columbia to turn this around if it cares to do so; and not just rely on the use its political muscle.

One thing we know for sure, Senator Bill Perkins, if last night is any indication, is going to be a thorn in Columbia's side, and if it isn't careful the thorn may get virulently infected. Councilman Jackson, who had nothing to say last night, will need to be mindful of the coming storm as well.

Check Please!

In all of the hullabaloo over the feds ponying up the $350 million, it was somehow lost that there is a big monetary gap here. With only $10 million earmarked from Washington for the paraphernalia and technology of congestion taxing, the city's going to have to find a way to make up the difference. This is going to create an inevitable battle where some council members who have signed on to the mayor's plan, will now be really forced to put their money where their mouths are.

If the council folks have any second thoughts about all of this, they can take solace from today's NY Times editorial which envisions a borrowing scheme in order to make up for the shortfall: "The city could borrow against future fees to pay for the mechanisms, including traffic cameras, needed to collect the congestion charge, which is a fair deal." Really?

If, let's say, the congestion tax is an 18 month pilot, how does any borrowing scheme get to pay off the money owed within this period? It won't, and the city will be obligated in Robert Moses fashion to pay the money off-and to continue to charge until the Twelfth of Never; with never-ending escalators built in, as the city gets a new taxing mechanism.

In addition, as the Daily Politics blog is reporting, there is some question over whether or not the US DOT has actually committed the $350 million-and Richard Brodsky has written to Mary Peters to try to get a clarification of this key point. Without an ironclad commitment, the whole fiasco could turn into a giant game of three card monte.

Which is why we agree with Metro's take here: "Not So Fast," screams today's headline. And its story reflects Speaker Silver's severe skepticism of this grand plan, quoting Shelly on how the mayor's proposal wasn't on "easy street." Indeed it isn't, but it will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the coming months.

Columbia Changes Its Tune

Tonight CB#9 will meet to discuss the Columbia University expansion plan. All indications point to a fairly unanimous objection to the full scope of the university's proposal. What is emerging, however, is a changed perspective on the part of Columbia, a change that has been spurred by criticism (from this quarter in particular) that that its plan not only doesn't include any affordable housing, but that the plan's impact would displace thousands of low-income tenants.

As the NY Sun reports this morning; "Columbia is working with elected officials and community groups to forge an agreement that is likely to include a commitment by the university to fund the creation of affordable housing..." As the paper goes on to observe, this "represents a change from late last year," and, as Columbia spokesman Robert Kasdin told the Sun, "'There's a clear commitment by Columbia to address affordable housing'..."

The devil, as they say, is in the details here, since the CB is still upset by a number of other of the plan's features-particularly the university's use of eminent domain. Which does lead the door open, however, to a compromise with the area's largest property owner, Nick Sprayregen. Sprayregen has been developing (with our assistance) a plan to swap property with Columbia in order to create affordable housing while at the same time preserving Nick's own ownership rights.

So far, Columbia has not been very amenable to the discussion here, seemingly preferring to engage in a scurrilous campaign to demonize Sprayregen. We're confident that once the housing plan and swap become public, the negotiating dynamic will shift. There's still room for compromise, but that depends on the exercise of good faith. Let's see if the supply hasn't been squandered.

Spinning At The Traffic Circle

Well, if you read some of the press coverage of the announcement that the federal government will be (maybe) sending the city around $350 million for (maybe) a traffic decongestion plan, you'd think that the skies had opened up and the the long crop-killing drought had ended. Some of the papers, so eager to sing in the Hallelujah chorus, even failed to get any potential critics of the mayor's plan into their panegyrics.

The NY Times and the NY Sun however, was an exception in this regard, and we need to single out William Neuman and Anni Karni for their even-handedness. As the Times story headline said: "New York to Get U.S. Traffic Aid, but With a Catch." One of the biggest catches? The fact that the city needs to find $200 million of its own money to fund the most controversial feature of the mayor's scheme: the plan to charge motorists for entering the CBD. The other? Shelly Silver ("Not So Fast, Silver Says..." is the Sun's caveat heading).

As the Times accurately points out, "The announcement was mixed news for Mr. Bloomberg," since he now has to come up with the lion's share of the money "to install a computerized system to monitor traffic and impose the fee..." The mixed news was greeted with disdain by the opponents of the mayor's plan. The money quote is from Congressman Weiner who sarcastically observed;
"'It's puzzling if you listen to the transportation secretary today about how important congestion pricing was to the plan... But obviously it wasn't important enough to fund it.'"

The money that is actually forthcoming here is for other parts of the plan-the transit infrastructure stuff that should precede any discussion of a new congestion tax. And given the MTA fiascoes of last week we think that it's probably not the best time to experiment with putting tens of thousands of more people on the trains and buses. As Weiner told Newsday, "You have to invest in the mass transit system first, before you penalize people for not using it.."

And then there is a disagreement about what the contingencies in the funding actually mean. Secretary Peters says that an alternative plan would be acceptable, if it matches the supposed 6% reduction in congestion that the mayor claims his plan will achieve. Bloomberg, on the other hand, points to a clause in the agreement that links funding to some variant of congestion pricing and hails the funding decision as a "major victory" for his specific scheme.

Speaker Silver, who alone has played the role of judicious elder statesman, is not buying this particular computer terminal from the mayor. As the NY Post points out: "But Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver...said he believes that there are an array of options that can satisfy the feds, ranging from an altered congestion-pricing plan to lowering of mass transit fees during peak hours to encourage ridership."

As we mentioned yesterday, all this means that there is a long and difficult road ahead, as it should be, since the mayor's scheme is a radical departure from current practice and deserves the fine tooth comb that we're confident Speaker Silver will give it. The misinforming, full-speed-ahead, cheers from the editorial pages should be muted so that the full implications of the mayor's plan can be dissected.

Peters Transports Us-But to Where?

Beware of bureaucrats who exhibit rhetorical flourishes, typically the substance behind the remarks is quite a bit less impressive. And so it is the case on one Mary Peters, someone who it appears may have an eye on a life after government as the Bush era comes to a close. How else to explain the effusiveness of her praise for the mayor's congestion tax?

Perhaps there is a genuine appreciation at work here but the following adulatory prose for the mayor, cited in the City Room Blog, doesn't have us suspending our disbelief: "He has stepped forward with a plan as brass and bold as New York itself. New Yorkers must understand that we must stop relying on yesterday's ideas to fight today's traffic jams." If it were up to us we would have paired brass with another word altogether. Clearly when it comes to the mayor, Secretary Peters has raised toady to its highest possible expression.

Still, as we have said, the money does offer the mayor a degree of solace-even if we disagree with our friends at City Room that, it "gives the mayor enormous leverage as he continues to press for his proposal." There are simply too many unknown variables in this equation, and the collapsing public trust of the MTA is certainly one of the bigger question marks. Still, we kind of agree with the Intelligencer folks who observed that; "Shelly Silver, we think, is going to have a whole lot more fun."

We also consider the issue of the actual real world impact of the mayor's plan to be, perhaps, the largest obstacle in the way of the mayor's success. It was fascinating to read the Secretary's comment that the DOT would consider alternatives devised by the commission, but that any other proposal would have to meet the "same performance goals" as mayor Bloomberg's plan. She went on to say-one thinks of Charlie McCarthy here-"it would be difficult for them to meet those performance objectives," if the commission's plan was substantially different from the congestion tax.

Here we get to the heart of this flim-flam; somewhat on the order of one lying and the other swearing to it. How the heck does Peters know what the mayor's plan will actually deliver in the way of congestion relief? No one has ever independently vetted the plan's assumptions, yet everyone in the amen chorus repeats the mayor's assertions as if they were part of some religious liturgy. Oh, and speaking of the chorus, we did get a kick out of the congratulatory remarks from the NYC Partnership that cited its "study" that "documented the high cost of traffic." Not mentioned was the role of all its own members in the exacerbation of the traffic they now so urgently are fighting to relieve.

It is time to put it all to the test. Given the benchmarks in this earmark, and the phony deadline posturing the mayor and DOT has done, it will be impossible for the mayor and his acolytes to refuse to subject the plan to the needed EIS; one that is not conducted by, as the Times might say, the "usual suspects." The review, however, needs to subject the mayor's plan to a full economic impact analysis as well-costs as well as benefits need to be properly juxtaposed.

If the review process goes forward in this manner we see a veritable minefields ahead, and we're inclined to agree with one observer who noted that; "In other words, this could be tougher than the Lincoln Tunnel during rush hour." (kudos to the Wonkster for this)

Feds Money for Nothing?

The NY Times is reporting today that the federal government has made NYC one of the five finalists for transportation grants that are being earmarked to ease congestion in urban centers. There's no doubt, as the Times says, that the potential grant-estimated to be around $350 million by the NY Daily News, will put some additional pressure on state and city law makers to approve at least some portion of the mayor's taxing plan.

That would be a big mistake, If the events of the last week have taught us anything, it's that our metropolitan transit system is in utter shambles-with little accountability over how the funds currently generated are spent. Adding a new tax scheme-a plan that will at best only reduce congestion by small percentages-before the incoherent governing structure of the MTA is addressed is not sound public policy.

It's even less so when the mayor's traffic relief proposal has not been subjected to any independent environmental review-something that we believe is mandated by federal, state and city law. In particular, we need to know how much traffic-diverted from the CBD, will be diverted into neighborhoods where pollution and asthma rates are highest.

So the commission that has been set up needs to, as the Times observed on Sunday, examine not only the mayor's plan itself, but also the soundness of the targeted repository of these funds-the MTA. And the Times is correct that the citizens of the city would not be well-served if the commission is made up of the, "usual suspects." Too much is at stake, and no one should be willing to simply buy the mayor's pig-in-a-poke simply because he says, "Trust me."

More MTA Questions

We have been writing about the lack of transparency and managerial competence over at the MTA. In this morning's NY Post Steve Cuozzo's column continues along this very same line; the agency has reached a point where to continue to allow it to collect revenue by raising fares is no longer an acceptable option. To use the MTA as a repository for any congestion tax is also irresponsible.

In Cuozzo's piece, the focus is on the inability of the agency to manage to even keep its own web site updated on a daily basis; and on the agency's failure to control the construction projects that are under its jurisdiction. As Cuozzo points out; "If the MTA can't keep up its web site on a dry day, should we be surprised that it can't promise that the trains will run next time it rains?"

Which leads us once again to the issue of the mayor's grand congestion tax plan. There is simply too much that is wrong with the governance of the MTA to create another revenue generating system that hits commuters in the wallet. After all, the whole stated purpose of the congestion tax is to help fund a more robust mass transit infrastructure. If we can't depend on the competence and expertise of the transit agency, how can any one in good conscience go forward with a tax scheme that is funneled into the MTA?

Which is why the call yesterday by Councilman Weprin for the mayor to create a commission to study the city's aging bridge and tunnel infrastructure, only makes partial sense. What we need is a commission to study the entire transit delivery system-with an eye towards the total revamping of the current dysfunctional public authority that has demonstrated its incompetence.

Until that happens, we shouldn't permit another penny of additional MTA funding-whether we call it a fare increase or a congestion tax. Let the mayor find another issue to tart up his efforts to present himself to a national audience.

MTA and the Public Trust

The NY Times has an editorial today that speaks of restoring "trust" in the MTA. In our view the concept of restoration implies the existence of a previous pristine condition-one that has been lost but, through the exercise of good will and hard work, can be found again. In the case of the MTA, however, there has really never been any such condition, certainly not one that would prompt the re-writing of some version of Paradise Lost.

In fact, the MTA is a monument to inefficiency and the absence of any real accountability. Certainly, given its governing charter, there is no reason for anyone living in NYC to grant the agency any credibility whatsoever. The flavor of this general sentiment is glimpsed in today's Letters Section of the NY Post-aptly titled, "Does the 'M' in MTA Stand for Moronic?"

As one writer eloquently points out; "The entire MTA organization is incompetent, from root to branch. Thanks to them we have a subway that is a disgrace to the greatest city in the world...Throwing more money at an organization this feckless would be like shoveling it into a furnace." Somehow, we think that this observation is a more prescient evaluation of the MTA-and the trust it engenders- than the tepid prose of the Times editorial.

Which brings us to the twin issues of a fare hike and the mayor's congestion tax. Clearly, in our view a comprehensive review of the MTA, both its governance and its capabilities, needs to precede any plan that increases the agency's revenue flow. In this context, the approval of any congestion tax would be akin to the gift of a prosthetic device to a quadriplegic.

What's interesting here is the remarkable evolution of the Times' view of the entire congestion plan. Looking back, we recall how the paper jumped on the mayor's bandwagon-with all of the enthusiasm of a paid clack. The congestion tax was an essential ingredient for the building up of a more robust mass transit infrastructure.

Now, however, the tone-and the direction-has taken a dramatic new turn. In today's editorial observation the paper starts to shift gears: "If Washington comes through, state and city elected leaders, including Governor Spitzer, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, will begin assembling a commission to come up with a plan that relieves gridlock. The inclination will be to load up the panel with the usual suspects. We hope they fight that urge, and include independent voices who can speak for New Yorkers who want a daily commute they can count on..."

So instead of the previous, "full speed ahead posture," the Times is now echoing the positions that we have been taking about the need for deliberation and caution. The commission, widely seen exclusively as a review mechanism for the mayor's plan, is now seen by the putative paper of record as a deliberative body charged with coming up with "a plan that relieves gridlock."

This is right on the money. A comprehensive transit review commission is needed; and the mayor's congestion tax needs to be evaluated within a much broader context. There are some serious governance deficiencies in the public authority's structure. Until they are addressed, not another penny more should be allocated to these unelected bureaucrats.

There Goes the Neighborhood

We have been commenting on the unavoidable impact that the expansion of Columbia University will have on the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods. These impacts are so serious that, as Matthew Scheurman highlights, even the house consultants for the university are forced to point out that, "approximately 3,293 residents of the surrounding area are vulnerable to 'indirect displacement' due to upward rent pressure.'"

This is what is known in the parlance of the EIS as a "significant and adverse impact," and from what we know about these particular Columbia consultants, we'd bet that this analysis is skewed to the conservative side-with adverse impacts affecting a good many more residents than those thousands cited in the study. It's why BP Stringer has introduced his zoning protection plan, a measure aimed at slowing the tide of gentrification that he feels the CU expansion will unleash.

In today's NY Post, the paper goes into greater depth on what is already in the works in the Harlem neighborhoods in and around the footprint of Columbia's expansion. If you are a low-income tenant or a neighborhood retailer the picture isn't very pretty. Scores of local businesses, many who have been in Harlem for decades, have already been jettisoned, or are facing eviction shortly.

One such business, Bobby's Happy House-a Harlem music shop fixture-has been in the neighborhood for 61 years. As the granddaughter of the owner told the Post; "To tear this building down would essentially be to tear Harlem apart." And as the Post goes on to point out: "While developers tout plans for hotels, condominiums, office space and national retailers, local businesses are being left behind..." As the owner of the Record Shack on 125th Street says, "This is the economic lynching of the community, and it's not right."

Which brings us back to Columbia and its self-motivated expansion plan. The university, unlike the commercial developers who are descending like rapacious locusts on the changing Harlem community, is supposed to be motivated by a soupcon of public interest; after all, it's led by a First Amendment scholar who prides himself on defending the great American democratic traditions.

When it comes to real estate, however, CU is just another avaricious land owner. The displacement question is one that should be addressed by elected officials; instead they are chasing after Nick Sprayregen in a classic example of misfeasance and misdirection. Stop trying to create a classic red herring and open your eyes! Thousands of people are going to be thrown out of their homes and businesses while you are looking to suckle on the university teat.

The only issue that should be on the table for all of the area's elected officials is the threat of massive displacement and the disappearance of affordable housing. The "Housing Trust Fund" concept that CU has been floating is meaningless if not accompanied by actual brick and mortar-real housing being built for the people of the West Harlem community.

If it isn't, where exactly will the current residents go to live? Perhaps, the electeds agree with one of the commentators to the Real Estate blog at the Observer who said: "I am so tired of hearing about the poor being displaced in Manhattan. 'Let them live in the Bronx'..." Sounds like one of Bill Lynch's new coalition folks.

Columbia is asking the city and the state to act as its own private bulldozer. Isn't it incumbent on the elected representatives to hold the university accountable for its unavoidable displacement of long-time residents and shop owners? Instead, we get the scapegoating charade that wants to portray one business owner who doesn't want to submit to the bulldozer as the proverbial "enemy of the people." The charade must stop!

Guillermo Linares: "Persona No Grata"

We couldn't resist a chuckle today when we saw yesterday's headline in El Diario (courtesy of The Politicker) saying that Gillermo Linares was considered a persona non grata in the Dominican community. The charge was brought by Nelson Pena, who heads up an umbrella group of various community organizations in Washington Heights.

Without going into the particulars of the dispute, it goes without saying that we're not surprised that Linares is being viewed with disdain by legitimate Dominican community groups. Back in 1995, the then Councilman Linares voted in favor of the Pathmark Supermarket development in East Harlem-after promising the Dominican supermarket owners that he would support their fight.

So now the wheel turns and Linares is back in the middle of controversy for failing to stick up for Dominican interests-so much so that he is being characterized as an "enemigo publico de los Dominicanos." It's a predictable situation for a public official who has demonstrated so little integrity throughout an undistinguished career.

Columbia and the "Outsiders"

As we approach the first community board deliberation over the Columbia expansion plan-a vote is scheduled for August, 20th-we can begin to see how the university is desperately trying to tarnish its opponents in order to deflect attention away from the fatal flaws in its vision for a total gentrification of West Harlem.

The diversionary tactics involve organizing the booty capitalists, and stigmatizing Nick Sprayregen, Columbia's bete noir in the expansion battle. As one of Bill Lynch's minions told the Columbia Spectator; "'There are people who are for this, and those people need to get their voice heard.'" Perhaps so, but none of these Columbia aficionados are the residents of the Till houses who are being evicted.

There was once a time when folks like Bill Lynch would have been on the front lines in defense of these tenants, but at $40,000 a month Lynch's priorities have been dramatically altered. As Tom Lehrer remarked about the shifting allegiances of the rocket scientist Werner Von Braun: "A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience. Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down. That's not my department, says Werner Von Braun."

Race baiting, however, is apparently harder to jettison. Enter Mr. Sprayregen who is, according to one of the Lynchites, "a wealthy developer from Westchester" trying to make believe that he represents the community when it should be clear that he's only interested in making a buck. And this is from a firm making an ill-deserved 40 grand a month while representing an institution that sees the eviction of low income tenants as in the community interest?

Will not Columbia's lion eyes be struck blind? Lost in this bit of sleight-of-hand is the inconvenient existence of a real community organization-CPC-representing scores of local groups and vehemently opposed to the university's solipsistic vision. Instead the lying Lynchers, in a blatant attempt to change the subject to Nick, try to fob off the following disinformation: "Wardally {Lynch acolyte Kevin} said the goal was to 'let them know who the opposition in this case really is.'"

Well, the flyers they're giving out don't point out the Columbia expansion is opposed by all of these community folks. No way. So Lynch doesn't really want to inform, so much as to divert attention and misinform. And the phony first amendment scholar who presides over this once great university has the gall, while trying to distance the university from Lynch'e gutter tactics, to call Sprayregen-a community business owner for over thirty years-an "outsider."

The blatant hypocrisy of these tactics have done little, however, to move the hearts and minds of the community. Oh yes, we almost forgot. There is a community board that is on record strenuously opposed to the Columbia land grab. Did Nick Sprayregen suborn all of those folks on CB9 who unanimously voted in favor of the 197-a plan?

And, as Crains In$ider reports this morning, the local board is more than likely to reject the university plan when the board takes it up later this month. These are the facts on the ground in West Harlem, and no astro-turf effort will change them.

But Lynch needs to be careful here. His efforts to stigmatize can easily turn around and bite him on his ample behind-he's opened a Pandora's Box. No one's going to sit back here and turn the other cheek. When the counterattack begins all of those who are on, or who are looking to get on, the Columbia gravy train will be exposed for the self-serving double dealers that they are. And when the larger community gets this message, there are certain elected officials who will soon see the handwriting on the wall.

Sunshine's Not the Best Disinfectant

In spite of a virulent and scurrilous effort to assassinate the character of Nick Sprayregen, a campaign that was a prelude to the effort to remove him from the board of the West Harlem LDC, the attempt to dump Columbia's chief opponent from the local group ended in failure the other night. As the Observer pointed out, the effort was spearheaded by Susan Russell, a key aid to Councilman Robert Jackson. Russell has been trying for months to have Sprayregen removed, actions that raise questions over her impartiality in the entire land use matter.

The reason for suspicion here lies with the fact that it is the university-and certainly not anyone in the community-that stands to benefit most from Nick's removal. The suspicion is increased because of the actions of the councilman himself, who went out of his way to praise Columbia for its putative magnanimity in declaring that it wouldn't seek to invoke the use of eminent domain to evict low-income tenants from the expansion footprint. This faux benevolence masked the fact the the university was still moving forward with its plan to relocate the tenants-against their wishes and without any direct discussions with them.

The underlying deceitfulness of all this is underscored and exacerbated by the down-and-dirty campaign being waged by Bill Lynch-formerly known as a progressive-and his partner in crime, the publicist to the stars, Ken Sunshine. The dissemination of scurrilous flyers is this pairs first attempt to make race and class-but not Columbia- the issue in the land use battle. This is necessary because a close look at the facts of the expansion-and its impact on the community-would not place Columbia-the second biggest landlord in the city-in the best light.

This is a mega real estate deal with a great deal of backroom dealing. After all, when you have Columbia, and the state agency that is empowered to determine whether Sprayregen's property is "blighted" sharing the same consultant, even the obtuse can see the foundation of collusion that characterizes this expansion.

Normally when confronted with this kind of a deal we observe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Given who's advising Columbia, however, we think that the opposite is the case here. Sunlight, perhaps, but Sunshine-and all that goes with him- needs to be expunged with real a disinfectant if a real community-friendly expansion is to move forward..

Post Toasties: Breakfast of Chumpions

We've been reading local editorials in this town for over fifty years-admittedly, we did start young. Still, even with all of these years of editorial reading behind us, we don't think we've ever seen something quite as silly as today's editorial, titled Books Before Breakfast, in the NY Post.

Now we have come to admire the Post's levelheaded editorial posture on many issues of the day-it is one of the few local dailies to stand up four square on behalf of business in this city-particularly small business. Which is why today's observation in the paper was so jarring to us; it comes from being captive of a certain ideological point-of-view and, because of that, not being able to break out and see the facts on the ground clearly.

In this case it is about school breakfast program, a DOE effort that is woefully inadequate in meeting its basic mission: simply feeding as many of the eligible children as possible. In New York City's case, only 29% of those eligible are availing themselves of the free meals-compared to 94% in Newark. The Post, however, sees little wrong with the abysmal numbers.

The reason? It lies with the fact that Tuesday's press conference was led by Joel Berg and the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, a group that the Post disdains. In this case disdain clouds the paper's good judgment. The best example of this failure is the following: "Funny, we thought that students turning down free food is a fairly good indication that they're, well, not hungry."

The paper goes on to observe that the low participation rates are indicative of the fact that: "Hunger is simply not a problem in New York City." The real problem according to the Post is not hunger, but obesity. Think again. There is a real correlation between the fact that kids are not eating breakfast and the prevalence of obesity. When we taught many moons ago, and from what we've heard the situation hasn't changed that drastically, kids would come in to class with a bag of chip, a soda and some form of candy in a brown bag.

The issue here isn't hunger per se, but what the kids are eating and how what they're consuming affects their learning. The consumption of high sugar breakfasts leads to a temporary high, followed by a lethargy that weakens concentration and prompts the desire for more sugar in an addictive cycle (something to do with insulin). Learning is negatively impacted and the poor dietary choices are a direct contributory factor in the rising rates of childhood obesity.

Don't take our word for it. In a study done under the auspices of the Nutrition Consortium of New York it was demonstrated that a nutritious breakfast had a dramatic impact on school educational outcomes. Attention spans increased and school performance was enhanced. The key was feeding the kids in the classroom.

Which underscores the misguided nature of the Post's take on all of this; "None of this is, of course, is to diminish the struggles poor families endure to provide for their children-struggles that very often involve New York's still-dismal educational system...In fact, that's precisely why it would be a shame for New Yorkers to pay too much attention to the hunger lobby om this issue. Gotham schools have a lot that needs fixing-but breakfast isn't even near the top of the list."

The Post couldn't possibly be more off base here-getting the nutrition and obesity dynamic wrong, and then missing widely on the educational correlation between a good breakfast and improved school outcomes. Which is not to say that the delivery of an improved school breakfast program is without obstacles-and the classroom venue does pose a challenge. The failure to understand the importance of the effort, however, only gives an excuse to the DOE, which has lagged woefully behind other school districts in the delivery of a healthy breakfast for school kids.

"Motorist Vilification and Taxation Plan"

There was a great piece in the Wall Street Journal last month (subscription required), that really exposes the mayor's congestion plan for what it is-a motorist vilification and taxation program that will do very little to reduce traffic and pollution. As Holman Jenkins underscores, "Listen to half an ear to the mayor and his acolytes, however, and their goal isn't easing congestion at all. It's raising money. The city's plan foresees only negligible improvement in traffic density and speeds, less than 8%, but millions for the city to spend on other priorities."

Jenkins goes on to highlight the dubious asthma prevention claims of the mayor and his supporters and further points out that, if traffic congestion was the real goal her, the mayor would be all for tolls on the East River bridges. "But something much bigger is afoot, and voters not just in New York should be paying attention."

The attention they should be paying is to the way the 6,000 cameras in London have become part of an elaborate surveillance system that makes Briton the most monitored society in the world. Even worse, this is all part of making motorists into a lucrative pinata-in Briton the cameras sent out 2.2 million traffic speeding tickets as a result of street cameras; "Tens of thousands more tickets were sent to drivers who had been photographed talking on cell phones or committing other minor offenses. More than one million of Briton's 33 million drivers are now one ticket away from losing their licenses." (added emphasis)

The implications here are far reaching-from both a financial as well as a personal privacy perspective. Think first of a mammoth PVB bolstered by a network of thousands of cameras all over the city streets. Now watch as the "fee" gets raised and drivers are bombarded by summonses, any number of which could be potentially challenged if the city actually had an equitable adjudication system.

As Jenkins observes, "The issue isn't cameras, but networks of cameras, combined with software to extract information from the pictures and match it with information held in databases. On top of it all, the issue is an overpowering political incentive to use the system to extract more and more money from motorists..."

All of which highlights what we have been saying all along. The mayor's plan is ill-conceived as a traffic relief program and, more in keeping with his propensity, is a plan to tax New Yorkers while making sure that they learn to behave better-or else!

If we need a better transit infrastructure-and more money to pay for it-there are much better ways to do this-as Comptroller Thompson's discussion of the MTA's proposed fare hikes in today's NY Post, makes abundantly clear. The State has shortchanged the city for too long and, as Thompson says, we need to reverse our priorities and recognize mass transit as an "economic engine."

In order to do this we need to coalesce around a more comprehensive mass transit plan, The mayor's congestion tax is a red herring, one with significant social costs, that doesn't address the problems in the most constructive manner; and by failing to do so, prevents us from developing the most optimal solutions to the overall public transit crisis. With the federal congestion money in abeyance, we need to look for a more creative solution.

The Breakfast Flub

The NYC Coalition Against Hunger held its press conference yesterday, and we couldn't top the NY Post and its headline in today's paper-so we shamelessly copied it for our commentary. Clearly, there is something radically amiss in the schools when Newark is doing a much better job getting children to eat breakfast than we are in New York; and this is after Mayor Bloomberg established "Universal Breakfast," a program that allows any kid to eat without regard to eligibility.

The key here, as Coalition head Joel Berg pointed out, is for "the city to expand participation by serving breakfast in classrooms rather than cafeterias." That's the approach that enabled Newark to reach its 93% rate, leaving NYC red faced at 29%.

This poor record has a number of implications, as the report from Food Research and Action Center highlights. Our school kids in New York are part of a generation that is facing health challenges that have heretofore been unknown to us. Diabetes and heart disease, and an obesity epidemic that is shocking, are two results of lifestyles and poor eating habits that need to be changed-or, quite frankly, they will soon bankrupt us.

In addition, the failure to have a good breakfast has educational implications as well. Poor nutrition will effect attention spans and educational outcomes will inevitably suffer. And, with around 600,000 eligible children not eating, the city is forfeiting close to a million a day in federal and state revenue. Exacerbating the situation is the fact that, because there is a differential between what the city gets in aid and what it spends on each breakfast, there is an additional $60-$70 million a year lost-money that could go to additional nutritional programs.

All of which makes the DOE's response to the FRAC report even more questionable. As a spokeswoman for the Department told the NY Daily News, citing the fact that participation rates were at 14% in 2003, the current 29% is "a huge jump." That's what happens, it seems, when you don't set the bar too high-hyperbole replaces sober reevaluation.

The city needs to really move on this-especially when the mayor has made health and education such a high public policy priority. We need to devise a number of innovative pilot programs-and classroom breakfast is a good place to begin- and really look for ways to makes these dismal rates soar. As the NY Times reports this morning, "The Department of Education said yesterday that it would consider the proposal."

This is welcome news indeed. In Newark the Ed Department partnered with "Got Breakfast!" and the not-for-profit advocacy group helped boost participation. Maybe that's a good place to begin.

Hungry for Better Results

A healthy breakfast is not only nutritionally crucial but also is an important element of successful school performance. However, according to a study by Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), New York City is virtually last among all major urban cities in providing low income children despite that fact that one in five New York City children live in homes that cannot afford a sufficient supply of food. Amazingly, though 80% are eligible, only 29% of NYC's school children that receive free lunches also receive breakfast. For context, consider that in Portland 98% and in Newark 96% of such students are served their morning meal.

This absolute failure of the Administration will be underscored today at 10:00 a.m. on the steps of city hall as Representative Anthony Weiner, State Senator Carl Kruger, Councilmen Gioia, Monseratte, and Weprin and the New York City Coalition Against Hunger rally to pressure the Department of Education to reverse their shameful performance when it comes to providing breakfast for the city's low-income youth.

In particular the speakers will emphasize that the most successful way to improve the participation rate in NYC's free school breakfast initiative is to move the program from the cafeteria to the classroom. As has been seen in Newark, where the program is very successful, kids are much more likely to opt for breakfast if the meals are distributed to all their peers in a such a way that eliminates stigma and the temptation to eat less nutritious foods.

This innovative approach needs to piloted in the city otherwise New York will continue to remain in an embarrassing and dangerous last when it comes to feeding its neediest students; and this dismal showing has educational, health and fiscal implications. With school performance still much in need of improvement, and with the city being challenged by an obesity epidemic, we need to insure that school kids eat a healthy breakfast-not to mention the tens of millions of dollars that New York City is leaving on the table because of its low school breakfast participation rate.

Columbia's Duplicity

Much was made in the press about the apparent decision by CU to not try to invoke the use of eminent domain to remove tenants from the low income housing in the path of the university's expansion. In the view of the Coalition to Preserve Community (CPC), which will hold a press conference today at 11:15 in front of City Planning, the university's announcement was little more than a public relations charade, one that was issued in bad faith and was designed to create the false impression that the university's relationship with area tenants had reached some improved status.

In addition, was disappointed with the reactions of some of the area's elected officials who went out of their way to praise the university's decision. That was a mistake on their part and here's why: The university is still looking to evict the tenants from their homes. The fact that it is exploring alternative methods doesn't change the unacceptability of this basic fact. The reality here is that the tenants still want to stay, and Columbia is still looking to remove them; a situation that makes those who enthusiastically praise the university on the eminent domain ruse look incredibly foolish, and disingenuous.

CPC has told us that it opposes the university's strong arm tenant removal tactics , whatever label is used to describe them. Without the tenants approval of any relocation plan, all of the press releases in the world will not change the one basic reality here: Columbia University, with little or no regard for the community, is looking to steamroll the residents and businesses so that it can aggrandize its own selfish interests.

No amount of scapegoating of university opponents will change the facts on the ground: the Columbia plan is an attempt to steamroll the community, and use political muscle to stifle any accomodation to neighborhood wishes. Spineless representation enables this situation, and we will soon be making the munecos uncomfortable in their role as toadies to the corporate interests.

Commuting Traffic Nonsense

In what was quite a fascinating round table discussion, three of our favorite bloggers sat down with NBC's Day DeDapper at the channel's News Forum for a discussion of politics. Naturally, the talk with Sewell Chan, Liz Benjamin and Azi Payabarah got around to the mayor's congestion taxing plan.

All three of these political observers agreed that the mayor was in for a difficult time in the next few months; and see any number of pitfalls in the way before any kind of acceptance of the mayor's plan can be achieved. Liz gets to the core of the mayor's problem: the substantive, political and personality differences between the Assembly Democrats (and many Democratic Senators we might add) and the mayor.

Here's her money quote: "...what I mean is that in the long term...this might be a question of should we kill the congestion pricing now or should we kill it later as far as the Assemble Democrats are concerned. I mean, I don't know exactly what's going to happen over the next few months that's going to significantly change their minds...And one of the things that really angers them regarding the mayor and the way he approached this was that he sort of seems to brush them aside and sort of downplayed their importance when it came to his plan."

She then goes on to point out that the mayor's aristocratic condescension really put the legislators off; "He just like, this is a great plan, this is going to work, it's important to reduce asthma, to reduce pollution, etc.,and yeah, yeah, it's the legislature yeah, they're going to do it. So I think that really made them-offended a number of legislators.

Sewell Chan goes on to say that the mayor still has time to improve his "care and feeding" of the legislators, and he's right, but little we've seen so far indicates that his skills lie in this area. Which leads the discussion into the establishment of the commission, and Azi's comments that it appears to him that there are any number of ways for the plan to fall-and the commission only recommends, but the legislature approves. As he points out; "But lawmakers still have to step forward."

The congestion tax discussion ends with DeDapper asking the three pundits about whether they're optimistic about the mayor's chance for success. All three agreed with the question: "None of you would be as optimistic as the mayor at this point?" Of course Bloomberg set the optimism bar pretty high here.

The real conundrum in all of this is how this commission process will unfold. The commission, as far as we know, is without both staff and any investigation resources. How will the commissioners, legislators and not policy experts, review the mayor's plan in order to determine whether its environmental assumptions are valid-after all, the mayor himself is arguing that any alternatives to his proposal must reduce traffic by the same 6.3% that he claims his own scheme does.

What this means is that all of the congestion relief, asthma reduction and pollution amelioration supposedly integral to the mayor's plan must be tested empirically. How will this be done? Will a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the plan's assertions find a wide gap between the rhetoric of the mayor and his supporters-some of whom take the car service in from Bay Ridge-and the actual impact of his planned tax? Will the mayor balk when the call for an EIS is made, giving fodder to the critics of the plan?

We agree that there is a great deal of time between now and the time when a final decision is made on all of this. One thing we are confident about, however, is that the more people find out about the real hardships and limitations of the mayor's plan, the more they will join with those legislators that are skeptical, and remain opposed to this new tax.

Fatty Tissue of Tall Tales

Our good friends at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) are at it again-don't you just love it when unelected folks arrogate to themselves a public interest mantle? This time as the NY Post reports this morning, they are out on the streets of New York gathering evidence on the level of compliance of fast food restaurants with the city's Trans fat ban. Some outlets are apparently doing better than others, if you believe the CSPI "study."

Our skepticism, of course, devolves from the fact that these self-appointed guardians of the public health have a vested interest in the outcomes that they find; primarily because the city's trans fat ban, and its menu labeling reg that is currently under court challenge, are the brainchild of none other than CSPI itself. And as we have pointed out, the menu labeling farce was cribbed directly from the CSPI material by the city's DOH.

New York is facing a critical public health crisis-with obesity and diabetes epidemics challenging the health resources of our city government. The way to tackle this problem is not through the implementation of heavy-handed regulations, but by the utilization of aggressive educational outreach directed at changing the hearts and minds side of the public health equation.

With most of the city's restaurants are making the shift over to non trans fat frying and baking, it is the silly menu labeling that most disturbs us. Putting calorie counts on certain fast food restaurants-in the absence of any nutritional knowledge among the customers of these places-is counterproductive; and at the same time is injurious to local business. We're hoping that the court feels the same.

The New Reggie Bar: Chewing on Sprayregen

In a continuation of our commentary on the attempts by Bill Lynch to generate grass roots support for Columbia's expansion, we want to take a look today at the attempt by the Lynchites to make Nick Sprayregen into a poster child for rich white privilege. These smear tactics might make some sense if it was Nick who was trying to evict low-income tenants and gentrify a large swath of West Harlem real estate.

It is of course Columbia that is trying to do all of these things-while using the power of the state to take away peoples' property. The tactics in play are therefore in the service of of a multi-billion dollar expansion effort and their very nature serves to underscore the lack of integrity of Columbia-which should be called on to denounce them in no uncertain terms. They are also useful to deflect attention away from the actual impacts that the university's expansion will have on the West Harlem community.

There is no coalition that Bill Lynch could form that could in any way defend the lack of affordable housing in the Columbia plan, or the gentrifying tsunami that the plan will certainly unleash-at least according to BP Stringer's incisive analysis of the situation. The solution? Ignore the plan's negative features, focus on the jobs (that Lynch will dole out to the faithful), and target Sparayregen for his race and class.

Which brings us to the Reverend Williams, a man who has stepped up to become the public face of the effort to tarnish Sprayregen. We take you back to his Village Voice letter of last week where the Reverend said the following: "Sprayregen is using his personal wealth and business interests to make himself the public face of those opposing the plan, many, including other religious leaders, question who and what he really represents."

Sounds quite sinister, doesn't it? Sprayregen, the front for some kind of cabal? As Williams continues in his tawdry innuendo: "But he's not a resident; he's a businessman. A businessman negotiating commercial development and luxury condo deals in Yonkers...Columbia University's proposal is a chance to revitalize our neighborhood. If Sprayregen actually lived here, or really cared about it, maybe he could see that."

Sprayregen, bad! Columbia, good! Why didn't we see that? Columbia's revitalization will uplift all of the neighborhood and only the rich white interloper is standing in the way. Doesn't this remind you of the Marx Brothers line?- "Who're going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?

Which brings us to the inconvenient fact that Nick Sprayregen is part of a racially and economically diverse grass roots coalition that thinks the Columbia plan stinks; and this coalition, in turn, is reflective of the unanimous sentiment of CB#9 that has an entirely different vision for the area than does the benevolent university.

So, Reverend Williams, who are the ones who really care about the community? Not the folks who are part of the paid army of astro-turf soldiers, looking to score off of the expansion drive. These booty capitalists are nothing but opportunists who are not representing the community-at least not the community as it is currently constitutes. After the gentrifying tsunami's cleansing effect, who knows, maybe it will become representative at that point?

So, in answer to the Williams slander, it is Sprayregen who is representing the community's interests, and using his personal resources to advance them. What Williams, and by extension Lynch, wants to do is to de-legitimize Nick so that the opposition to the gravy train will be diminished and everyone in line to eat can do so undisturbed.

Columbia's Lynch Hired to Weed the Garden

In his continuing focus on the Columbia University expansion effort, The Observer's Matt Scheurman takes a look today at the role of former Deputy Mayor Bil Lynch. It seems that Lynch, being paid $40,000 a month according to published reports, has been busy organizing his own grass roots coalition of employees and alumni of Columbia-as well as those who, "are supportive of the expansion because of the jobs they have heard about..."

All of which is well and good, because no one has denied that there are potential benefits inherent in the university's expansion. It is, however, somewhat beside the point since the real community concern has been in the all or nothing approach that the university has taken; as well as in the way in which Columbia, unlike Forest City Ratner in Brooklyn, has refrained from engaging the community in direct negotiations.

Which brings us to the issue of this WHLDC-a Trojan Horse in development. How many months has this entity labored? Not since Horton Hatches a Who has so much effort gone into an effort with so little to show for it. From our vantage point it looks like the classic Ali "Rope-a-Dope" strategy. You'd think by now that the LDC would have been able to devise 4 or 5 basic demands for the university.

And what are the electeds doing on the Board? The role of elected officials in a land use struggle is to act as honest brokers on behalf of the community, especially when a number of them will have to vote on the plan when it comes to them-either at the Borough Board or at the City Council. Even Adolfo Carrion didn't place himself on the negotiating team in the ill-conceived Gateway Mall CBA-while trying to steer the negotiations into a direction that he was comfortable with. Do you think that the presence of these officials might be one reason that the LDC has done very little?

The Lynch effort is, however, extremely interesting. What we do know is that the community opposition, as today's Newsday/AP story highlights, didn't coalesce as a result of any outside organizing; it has always been both genuine and passionate. So who will represent the Lynchites? Clearly, they will be folks who up until this time had no reason to voice support for Columbia's expansion.

Their entry into the conversation, then, would seem to require a catalyst; and with all due respect to Lynch, it can't be his good looks and charm that will be doing the pump priming. It is clearly a "Jerry McGuire" moment for the Lynch acolytes. Yet, what this creates, it seems to us, is a parallel negotiating process-an official one that involves the LDC, and an unofficial effort that is being spearheaded by Columbia's consultant.

If we were to bet here, we'd have to make Lynch the favorite to come out on top, since he is the one who represents Columbia and has its ear. If so, where does that leave the LDC? If we are right about the classic diversionary strategy in play here, it means that, in the final analysis, the LDC will adopt a platform that is in reality advanced by none other than Bill Lynch. In this kind of a dishonest process Jesse Masyr and Susan Russell are the quintessential midwives.

Will the results reflect genuine community interest? Given the structure of the process, and the role Lynch is playing, this is highly unlikely. In our view, the main community concern is the intertwined need for affordable housing and the fear of gentrification. Yet the Columbia plan completely avoids both sides of this equation-and don't expect to find a large contingent of housing advocates in Lynch's grass garden.

The bottom line in all of this is that no amount of weeding by Bill Lynch can change the fact that the university will, directly and indirectly, be displacing hundreds, if not thousands of low-income Harlem residents; and no amount of jawboning by Columbia about relocating those evicted should be taken with anything but the proverbial grain of salt.

In addition, with no negotiations or identifiable destinations identified up until this point, isn't it premature for Bob Jackson to be praising the university without qualification for agreeing to not use eminent domain to evict these tenants? Is there an agreement that we're not aware of? What if the tenants don't want to move from the neighborhood many have lived in for decades? The Columbia agreement, without any tenant assent to be moved, is pure smoke and mirrors; and praise from the elected officials here is redolent of bad faith.

Mayor Mike: "Pimp My Ride"

We have been writing extensively on Mike Bloomberg's exhaustive efforts to paint the rosiest picture possible about his administration's achievements and plans. Our main focus has been on his elaborately presented and packaged congestion tax scheme, a plan that has a great deal more fluff than substance. We've also pointed out, relying on the research of Sol Stern, how the mayor's educational successes have been given a much glossier presentation than the reality of the schools in NYC would allow.

All of this, of course, is because the mayor has been crafting a national platform, and he understands more than most that it is better to appear good than to be good. Which brings us to the story in today's NY Times about the mayor's subway riding-apparently another example of how the mayor has manged to manipulate his public image.

We have all been treated to the image of our plebeian-wannabe mayor, holding his briefcase in one arm, patiently riding the train down to City Hall. It now appears, however, that the mayor first gets into his Suburban SUV, bypasses his own subway stop a five minute walk away, and is driven to 59th Street to catch the express.

What we learn from all of this-aside from the expected sycophancy of the Transportation Alternative folks who defended their patron in the article-is that the mayor is a master media manipulator. It is high time that the press, following the Times' lead, examine many of the other gaps between symbolism and reality in the mayor's glossy resume. Congestion taxing would be a good start in this long awaited deconstruction.

Who's Got a Conflict in West Harlem?

Matt Scheurman's Real Estate Blog at the observer has a post up on the effort to remove (our client) Nick Sprayregen from the West Harlem LDC. The LDC was set up to supposedly negotiate a Community Benefits Agreement with Columbia University; in the many months of its existence it has yet to advance one concrete proposal for the university to consider.

The removal effort appears to be the brainchild of Susan Russell, an aid to Councilman Jackson. Ms. Russell claims that Nick, "...has a financial interest that is very different from the community's." This is simply a fabrication; Sprayregen's interest in preserving his property for development in conformance with the community's 197-a plan is, by definition, not in conflict with the community's vision. In addition, Russell has been lobbying for months to remove Nick from the LDC, and quite frankly it's time someone asked just why she is pursuing this.

In whose interest is it that Nick be gone? Sprayregen is one figure in the West Harlem community with the resources to fight the university. He has aligned himself with, and has the support of, the Coalition to Preserve Community, an assortment of community groups who have been around a good deal longer than Russell and her boss. His removal, it seems to us, could only be in the interest of Columbia; and any one advocating his removal-well, you can connect the dots here.

If that's the case, where does the most blatant conflict lie in all of this? If Russell is really concerned with conflicts she should have been on her soap box very early on when the LDC decided to appoint Jesse James Masyr as its "pro bono" counsel. What kind of pro bono attorney reserves the right to be paid at a later date by an unnamed third party? This obvious Trojan Horse-someone who has never, ever, represented a community interest suddenly willing to temporarily donate his valuable time-doesn't faze Russell and her boss?

If anyone was truly concerned with conflicts in this situation they would insist that members of the LDC, and staff to any elected official, be barred from accepting any employment from Columbia University for at least five years. With Bill Lynch out there dangling opportunities in front of a poor community it is imperative that steps be taken to insure the integrity of this process.

As far as Nick Sprayregen's putative conflict is concerned The Real Estate Blog, final comments bear repeating: "According to the development corporation's web site, he fills a spot reserved for commercial property owners in Manhattanville. How is someone going to represent business owners in the footprint who does not have a conflict of interest?"

This misses an important point, and highlights the difficulty in defining what represents community interest versus what represents "private" interests. What the 197-a plan does is to underscore just how much the indigenous community believes that there is no conflict between preserving local business and advancing the general community good. Therefore, Sprayregen has no reason to apologize for his fight to preserve his property rights, and there is no reason for him to be removed. If any one should resign from the LDC it is Russell, la muñeca, and Masyr.

Postscript

Matt Scheurman revises his blog post to include a clarifying comment from Sprayregen that underscores some of our points above.