As the Crain's Insider is reporting this morning, the Central Labor Council isn't quite ready to support the university's expansion plan: "Central Labor Council officials met recently with Columbia University to discuss endorsing its expansion plan, which would create work for trade unions. Insiders say there is a snag in the talks; the CLC says it is not ready to discuss the negotiations."
On information and belief, as the lawyers are wont to say, we surmise that the snag may be about the recent labor forays into the affordable housing market-and the university's lack of any effort in an area that labor believes to be essential, both for its own workers, as well as for low income New Yorkers being squeezed by gentrification.
Stay tuned for more deliberations in this area; and we're hopeful that Columbia will begin to see the wisdom of the Sprayregen swap proposal. The set aside of property on the East Side of Broadway-alongside other residential high-rise buildings, would be a winner for all concerned.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Real Traffic Mess
In the argument over the congestion pricing plan, we've maintained that the focus on the city's CBD is both hypocritical and short-sighted. It's hypocritical because, in its use of asthma and other health maladies to, well, sell the product, it ignores the real traffic congestion that effects other areas of the city-many of which are real hotbeds of asthma and other respiratory ailments.It's shortsighted because it offers no remedy for traffic relief elsewhere.
And Staten Island is a case in point. As the Advance pointed out the other day, the island is approaching real gridlock conditions on a daily rush hour basis: "For every Staten Islander who has gotten "the look" from the boss when they arrive late to work in the morning; for every missed family dinner, doctor's appointment, or school play, for every extra hour spent standing on a packed express bus, there is hope on the way."
The hope in this case involves more express buses and an altered construction schedule for the Verrazano Bridge. It is precisely this traffic nightmare that spelled the death of Wal-Mart on the Island two years ago. The mayor's plan, by being so narrowly focused, is not the true city wide effort that is needed in order to really address the sustainability issue for our city.
And Staten Island is a case in point. As the Advance pointed out the other day, the island is approaching real gridlock conditions on a daily rush hour basis: "For every Staten Islander who has gotten "the look" from the boss when they arrive late to work in the morning; for every missed family dinner, doctor's appointment, or school play, for every extra hour spent standing on a packed express bus, there is hope on the way."
The hope in this case involves more express buses and an altered construction schedule for the Verrazano Bridge. It is precisely this traffic nightmare that spelled the death of Wal-Mart on the Island two years ago. The mayor's plan, by being so narrowly focused, is not the true city wide effort that is needed in order to really address the sustainability issue for our city.
Plastic Bagmen
In yesterday's SI Advance, the paper wrote about the City Council's legislative effort on plastic bags. What was interesting and different here was the Advance's reference to the support of the measure by the plastic bag manufacturer-in a rebuttal to our remarks: "Lipsky argued the bill offers no incentive for shoppers to return the bags, but a vice president of the bag alliance, David Vermillion, said stores likely will make money off the bags, which have a recycling value of 15 to 20 cents per pound, according to his organization."
Now we know Mr. Vermillion and genuinely like him, but to say that the store's will make money is,well, a stretch. You see, if this was such a money maker than, either the stores would have figured it out earlier, or some private recycler would have stepped up to collect all of that valuable plastic. And to use other state's or municipalities are exemplars is to misconstrue the uniqueness of the NYC environment, particularly the cost of real estate and the space premium.
We're more inclined to agree with Councilman Ignizio, the lone voice of pro-business sentiment that we've heard on this issue: "Once again, it relinquishes one's personal responsibility to businesses. I think if people want to be environmentally friendly, that's a laudable goal," Ignizio said. But "you ought not burden businesses with that responsibility. You're going to find businesses fleeing the city," he contended."
And the NY Post agrees, and in its editorial today make this observation: "By forcing city grocers to become the city's de facto plastic-bag-recycling agency, the council skirts its own duty. The city now prohibits New Yorkers from putting plastic bags in with other recyclables. Yet more people would dispose of the bags in an eco-friendly manner if they could dump them with the other plastics, as opposed to making a trip back to the grocery."
This is precisely the point that needs to be made here-one that Gristedes head John Catsimatidis has also already made. The city already has a curbside collection program that includes plastics of all kinds. So, once again as with the bottle bill, we are creating a dual collection system that adds costs to New York businesses and residents-without increasing the efficiency of recycling collection. If the curbside program is so ineffective, then why are we still paying $300/ton to collect recyclables-and doing it so poorly?
Now we know Mr. Vermillion and genuinely like him, but to say that the store's will make money is,well, a stretch. You see, if this was such a money maker than, either the stores would have figured it out earlier, or some private recycler would have stepped up to collect all of that valuable plastic. And to use other state's or municipalities are exemplars is to misconstrue the uniqueness of the NYC environment, particularly the cost of real estate and the space premium.
We're more inclined to agree with Councilman Ignizio, the lone voice of pro-business sentiment that we've heard on this issue: "Once again, it relinquishes one's personal responsibility to businesses. I think if people want to be environmentally friendly, that's a laudable goal," Ignizio said. But "you ought not burden businesses with that responsibility. You're going to find businesses fleeing the city," he contended."
And the NY Post agrees, and in its editorial today make this observation: "By forcing city grocers to become the city's de facto plastic-bag-recycling agency, the council skirts its own duty. The city now prohibits New Yorkers from putting plastic bags in with other recyclables. Yet more people would dispose of the bags in an eco-friendly manner if they could dump them with the other plastics, as opposed to making a trip back to the grocery."
This is precisely the point that needs to be made here-one that Gristedes head John Catsimatidis has also already made. The city already has a curbside collection program that includes plastics of all kinds. So, once again as with the bottle bill, we are creating a dual collection system that adds costs to New York businesses and residents-without increasing the efficiency of recycling collection. If the curbside program is so ineffective, then why are we still paying $300/ton to collect recyclables-and doing it so poorly?
Which is certainly the case for Manhattan supermarkets, stores that are finding that the cost of doing business here just isn't worth it. Who knows, maybe plastic recycling kiosks can replace the evanascent groceries.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Plastic Panaceas
In an expected move, the City Council has introduced legislation that would establish a mandatory/voluntary plastic bag recycling program. As first reported in the City Room blog, the measure would require stores to set aside space for consumers to bring back their plastic bags to; and in addition, "This bill would require that each plastic bag carry a printed message, at least three inches in height and in capital letters: “Please return this bag to a participating store for recycling.”
The open question, however, is what incentives are being proffered for consumers to bring their used bags back to all of the stores that are over 5,000 sq. ft. As we told the NY Sun in today's story: "What we have here is a program that has no incentive for the consumer to bring the bags back." So what this amounts to is a preschool form of deposit system-one that will be second phased when the consumer fails to comply with the voluntary initiative.
Here's how we put it in the Sun: "Mr. Lipsky called the plan "a death by slow water torture" that would burden businesses with extra costs. He questioned whether it was "a deposit wolf in sheep's clothing" that would lead to tougher recycling laws similar to those for bottles." Our observation was rebutted by the Speaker who said that this wasn't a deposit requirement, and we agree for the short term. It lays the groundwork nevertheless.
It also, contrary to what the bill's sponsors argue, adds another regulatory cost onto an already overburdened retail sector. This is not the view of the speaker: "She minimized the impact of the bill on businesses. "This is not something that's going to end up costing stores any kind of significant money," Ms. Quinn said."
One wonders just how she knows this, since to the best of our knowledge there was no cost/benefit analysis done, and there's no economic impact study built into the bill. So what we have is another well-intentioned law that will add to the currently high costs of doing business in this city. And with supermarkets closing, and independent retailers disappearing, the current proposal is another nail in the small business coffin.
The open question, however, is what incentives are being proffered for consumers to bring their used bags back to all of the stores that are over 5,000 sq. ft. As we told the NY Sun in today's story: "What we have here is a program that has no incentive for the consumer to bring the bags back." So what this amounts to is a preschool form of deposit system-one that will be second phased when the consumer fails to comply with the voluntary initiative.
Here's how we put it in the Sun: "Mr. Lipsky called the plan "a death by slow water torture" that would burden businesses with extra costs. He questioned whether it was "a deposit wolf in sheep's clothing" that would lead to tougher recycling laws similar to those for bottles." Our observation was rebutted by the Speaker who said that this wasn't a deposit requirement, and we agree for the short term. It lays the groundwork nevertheless.
It also, contrary to what the bill's sponsors argue, adds another regulatory cost onto an already overburdened retail sector. This is not the view of the speaker: "She minimized the impact of the bill on businesses. "This is not something that's going to end up costing stores any kind of significant money," Ms. Quinn said."
One wonders just how she knows this, since to the best of our knowledge there was no cost/benefit analysis done, and there's no economic impact study built into the bill. So what we have is another well-intentioned law that will add to the currently high costs of doing business in this city. And with supermarkets closing, and independent retailers disappearing, the current proposal is another nail in the small business coffin.
Road Reversal
The governor's radical makeover on drivers licenses continued with his joint press conference on Saturday with Homeland Security. As the NY Times reported: "In a major shift, Gov. Eliot Spitzer is backing off his plan to allow illegal immigrants to obtain the same kind of driver’s licenses as other New Yorkers, after weeks of furor over the proposal."
What the Spitzer about face demonstrates is that the original plan had serious public safety weaknesses: "The new plan also reflects the increasingly complicated security requirements that have been developed by the federal government since the Sept. 11 attacks." This obvious weakness, however, hasn't made a dent on the illegal immigrant amen chorus-led by the civil liberties crowd that has never endorsed a single homeland security measure in the six years since the country was attacked.
It's as if 9/11 never happened for these ostriches, and as Ray Rivera reported yesterday, they are fighting back against the governor's understanding change of heart. Here's the full quote that underscores the kind of cliff that the governor was headed for if he hadn't been cold watered with a dose of political common sense:
“He’s now embracing and letting his good name be used to promote something that has been widely known in the immigrant community as one of the most anti-immigrant pieces of legislation to come out of Congress,” Ms. Hong said.
She said having separate licenses would amount to a scarlet letter for illegal immigrants. “I know I’m speaking for millions of immigrants when I say I just feel so thoroughly betrayed.”The separate licenses could also serve as an invitation for law enforcement to arrest anyone carrying one on immigration charges, said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. She added that the new proposal could send illegal immigrants further into the shadows, compelling them to drive with forged or no licenses and without insurance.
“This flip-flopping is bowing to the fear-mongering of the Bush administration and turns New York into a poster child for policies based on fear rather than public safety,” she said."
These are the people who have been driving the governor's cliff-heading bus; folks who want blanket amnesty for the illegals and spit in the face of citizens and all of the immigrants who have spent the time and money to gain legal status-and they ignore the fact that Utah, for instance, has a two-tiered system that the undocumented workers now support after initial trepidation. And to hear Donna Lieberman support something in the name of "public safety" is beyond funny.
But then again, this is the same position that is supported by the editorial scions at the Times, another quarter that has no interest in any measure that protects the country's citizens. In yesterday's editorial, the paper encourages the governor to educate the unwashed about why the original proposal makes sense, and why-as per the NYCLU-it's about security: "Democrats need to gather their strength, and Mr. Spitzer needs to help them marshal the substantial arguments for this cause. If this is about security, Mr. Spitzer wins. His plan is safer than the one we have now."
Someone, obviously with more seychel than the editorialist at the Times, talked sense to the governor, yet he still continues to put his foot in his mouth by saying-as per Liz Benjamin-that his proposal has been approved by Homeland Security. It's one thing, however, to argue the plan on whatever its merits might be construed to be, it's quite another to have a political psychotic break and argue that promoting this insult was good politics.
The NY Post captures this yesterday with the following prescient headline: GOV NEEDS YEAR TO FIX ID WRECK. And Mayor Bloomberg got it just right when he called the Spitzer epiphany, "a clear step in the right direction." What's clear in all of this, however, is that the NY Times remains the most clueless opinion-molding outlet in the country, an organization whose world view is way out-of-step with the perspectives of the vast majority of New Yorkers; and the governor takes the paper's advice at his own political peril.
What the Spitzer about face demonstrates is that the original plan had serious public safety weaknesses: "The new plan also reflects the increasingly complicated security requirements that have been developed by the federal government since the Sept. 11 attacks." This obvious weakness, however, hasn't made a dent on the illegal immigrant amen chorus-led by the civil liberties crowd that has never endorsed a single homeland security measure in the six years since the country was attacked.
It's as if 9/11 never happened for these ostriches, and as Ray Rivera reported yesterday, they are fighting back against the governor's understanding change of heart. Here's the full quote that underscores the kind of cliff that the governor was headed for if he hadn't been cold watered with a dose of political common sense:
“He’s now embracing and letting his good name be used to promote something that has been widely known in the immigrant community as one of the most anti-immigrant pieces of legislation to come out of Congress,” Ms. Hong said.
She said having separate licenses would amount to a scarlet letter for illegal immigrants. “I know I’m speaking for millions of immigrants when I say I just feel so thoroughly betrayed.”The separate licenses could also serve as an invitation for law enforcement to arrest anyone carrying one on immigration charges, said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. She added that the new proposal could send illegal immigrants further into the shadows, compelling them to drive with forged or no licenses and without insurance.
“This flip-flopping is bowing to the fear-mongering of the Bush administration and turns New York into a poster child for policies based on fear rather than public safety,” she said."
These are the people who have been driving the governor's cliff-heading bus; folks who want blanket amnesty for the illegals and spit in the face of citizens and all of the immigrants who have spent the time and money to gain legal status-and they ignore the fact that Utah, for instance, has a two-tiered system that the undocumented workers now support after initial trepidation. And to hear Donna Lieberman support something in the name of "public safety" is beyond funny.
But then again, this is the same position that is supported by the editorial scions at the Times, another quarter that has no interest in any measure that protects the country's citizens. In yesterday's editorial, the paper encourages the governor to educate the unwashed about why the original proposal makes sense, and why-as per the NYCLU-it's about security: "Democrats need to gather their strength, and Mr. Spitzer needs to help them marshal the substantial arguments for this cause. If this is about security, Mr. Spitzer wins. His plan is safer than the one we have now."
Someone, obviously with more seychel than the editorialist at the Times, talked sense to the governor, yet he still continues to put his foot in his mouth by saying-as per Liz Benjamin-that his proposal has been approved by Homeland Security. It's one thing, however, to argue the plan on whatever its merits might be construed to be, it's quite another to have a political psychotic break and argue that promoting this insult was good politics.
The NY Post captures this yesterday with the following prescient headline: GOV NEEDS YEAR TO FIX ID WRECK. And Mayor Bloomberg got it just right when he called the Spitzer epiphany, "a clear step in the right direction." What's clear in all of this, however, is that the NY Times remains the most clueless opinion-molding outlet in the country, an organization whose world view is way out-of-step with the perspectives of the vast majority of New Yorkers; and the governor takes the paper's advice at his own political peril.
Weighty Pronuncement at the NY Times
As expected, the NY Times weighed in on Saturday with editorial support for the DOH's new calorie regulation. As usual, however, the paper can't resist an anti-business trope: "There’s no telling how many calories the restaurant industry has expended running away from New York’s pioneering attempt to improve the city’s health by requiring chain eateries to prominently display calorie information."
If you just paid attention to the editorial page (and ignored Ray Rivera's balanced coverage of the issue) you'd never have a clue that there just might be some legitimate reason for the industry to oppose this cockamamie measure. In the Times' Manichean world, industry is in always trying to protect its economic interests against the efforts of public spirited folks only out to protect the common good.
The real question here is whether the Times is correct with the following comment in support of the DOH rule that limited to chains with 15 or more outlets: "That should minimize the burden on businesses but still help a lot of diners make better- informed choices about what to eat." But what evidence does the Times and the Health Department proffer for this optimism?
The answer is in a survey that, as far as we know, no one has seen and almost certainly was not scientifically designed and peer-reviewed. According to this survey, the customers at Subways are being informed about calorie counts and because they are, better nutritional choices are being made: "The big chains fighting the city might take a cue from Subway. The sandwich maker is using calorie counts as a marketing tool and a way to build on its reputation as a more healthful fast-food alternative. It has voluntarily posted calories where customers can easily see them, usually on the menu board."
So according to the NY Times, all fast food companies need to become health food stores in order to protect the poor people from their own ignorance ("The bargain-priced food appeals especially to lower-income residents, who are most likely to lack access to health care that might diagnose and treat the chronic conditions linked to obesity, including diabetes, heart disease and hypertension.")-a leap that ignores customer preferences as well as ignorance about the meanings of calorie information in the first place.
The Times also ignores the fact that the DOH survey found that the customers at Subways who read the calorie information only consumed 50 less calories that their ignorant fellow customers; which is certainly minimal, and from a methodological standpoint ignores the fact that the calorie readers may have come armed with both the knowledge and the motivation that the others lacked.
All of this may just be academic, however, if the courts weigh-in on the side of the industry here. It goes to show that there is nothing that the DOH-and the Times-won't do in the name of health: even if it creates an unhealthy business climate, and impacts the productivity and employment base of neighborhood stores that are vital to the city's economy.
If you just paid attention to the editorial page (and ignored Ray Rivera's balanced coverage of the issue) you'd never have a clue that there just might be some legitimate reason for the industry to oppose this cockamamie measure. In the Times' Manichean world, industry is in always trying to protect its economic interests against the efforts of public spirited folks only out to protect the common good.
The real question here is whether the Times is correct with the following comment in support of the DOH rule that limited to chains with 15 or more outlets: "That should minimize the burden on businesses but still help a lot of diners make better- informed choices about what to eat." But what evidence does the Times and the Health Department proffer for this optimism?
The answer is in a survey that, as far as we know, no one has seen and almost certainly was not scientifically designed and peer-reviewed. According to this survey, the customers at Subways are being informed about calorie counts and because they are, better nutritional choices are being made: "The big chains fighting the city might take a cue from Subway. The sandwich maker is using calorie counts as a marketing tool and a way to build on its reputation as a more healthful fast-food alternative. It has voluntarily posted calories where customers can easily see them, usually on the menu board."
So according to the NY Times, all fast food companies need to become health food stores in order to protect the poor people from their own ignorance ("The bargain-priced food appeals especially to lower-income residents, who are most likely to lack access to health care that might diagnose and treat the chronic conditions linked to obesity, including diabetes, heart disease and hypertension.")-a leap that ignores customer preferences as well as ignorance about the meanings of calorie information in the first place.
The Times also ignores the fact that the DOH survey found that the customers at Subways who read the calorie information only consumed 50 less calories that their ignorant fellow customers; which is certainly minimal, and from a methodological standpoint ignores the fact that the calorie readers may have come armed with both the knowledge and the motivation that the others lacked.
All of this may just be academic, however, if the courts weigh-in on the side of the industry here. It goes to show that there is nothing that the DOH-and the Times-won't do in the name of health: even if it creates an unhealthy business climate, and impacts the productivity and employment base of neighborhood stores that are vital to the city's economy.
License Insecurity Stalled
On Saturday Governor Spitzer, responding to intense public opposition, reversed course and rescinded his plan to give illegal immigrants New York State drivers licenses-at least the same ones that are given to the state's citizens. As the Post reported: "Following intense pressure, Gov. Spitzer is preparing to backpedal on his plan to issue state driver's licenses to illegal immigrants as he nears an agreement with Homeland Security in which undocumented aliens can obtain licenses as long as the cards are not recognized by the federal government, The Post has learned."
So it appears as if the governor may be coming to his senses, and not a moment too soon. If left unresolved, this issue was going to tar baby the Democrats in the coming 2008 election cycle. As the NY Times reported; "The shift comes as the governor has faced a firestorm of criticism both from Republicans and from within his own party."
Leaving aside the political implications, we're frankly puzzled why the governor went down this Drum Major path in the first place. The chorus of "progressive" voices that inappropriately conflate illegal with legal immigration-and accuse opponents of the former of the vilest of motives-will lead elected officials on the road to oblivion; both for themselves and for the innocents who are cut down because criminal illegal immigrants have been allowed, time and time again, to slip through the cracks of the criminal justice system.
In the current drivers license debate, these same voices arrogantly down played the homeland security dangers posed by providing a "breeder" document to illegals who may be here to cause great harm to this country. Which is why we're so glad the the governor's turnaround is generated in negotiations with the federal Office of Homeland Security. It's a recognition, particularly in New York, that we're still fighting a war against terrorists that will use our open society to cause harm.
Now that he's come to his senses on this issue, we can all hope that the governor gains some traction for governing; recognizing that the bulldozer style may be useful on certain principled issues, but should not be employed whenever he feels someone disagrees with one of his policies. Otherwise, he will continue to rapidly hemorrhage political support.
So it appears as if the governor may be coming to his senses, and not a moment too soon. If left unresolved, this issue was going to tar baby the Democrats in the coming 2008 election cycle. As the NY Times reported; "The shift comes as the governor has faced a firestorm of criticism both from Republicans and from within his own party."
Leaving aside the political implications, we're frankly puzzled why the governor went down this Drum Major path in the first place. The chorus of "progressive" voices that inappropriately conflate illegal with legal immigration-and accuse opponents of the former of the vilest of motives-will lead elected officials on the road to oblivion; both for themselves and for the innocents who are cut down because criminal illegal immigrants have been allowed, time and time again, to slip through the cracks of the criminal justice system.
In the current drivers license debate, these same voices arrogantly down played the homeland security dangers posed by providing a "breeder" document to illegals who may be here to cause great harm to this country. Which is why we're so glad the the governor's turnaround is generated in negotiations with the federal Office of Homeland Security. It's a recognition, particularly in New York, that we're still fighting a war against terrorists that will use our open society to cause harm.
Now that he's come to his senses on this issue, we can all hope that the governor gains some traction for governing; recognizing that the bulldozer style may be useful on certain principled issues, but should not be employed whenever he feels someone disagrees with one of his policies. Otherwise, he will continue to rapidly hemorrhage political support.
Friday, October 26, 2007
With Friends Like These...
The Congestion Commission held its Manhattan hearing last night and, as you'd expect, there was more support at the Hunter College venue than there's been so far at the other hearings-more sparsely attended than last night's. That being said, the level of support heard last night from the local and state elected officials was far from overwhelming.
In fact, as the NY Sun story this morning points out, the list of qualifiers was so long that you have to wonder to what extent the current plan-if, of course, it survives in anything close to its current form, will have any chance to succeed when it eventually is sent to the various legislatures for a vote.
As the Sun puts it: "Elected officials in districts that would be affected by Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan say that while they support the policy in principle, they have reservations about the details." The devil's really in the details here, and if these "small matters" aren't addressed than the whole plan will go down-courtesy of its supporters.
Many of the objections focused on the unfairness of charging residents of the zone when they leave it to commute outside-with Councilwoman Mendes describing how there are areas of her district where you need to walk for fifteen minutes in order to wait another fifteen for-"one of the worst buses in the city." She went on to ask why it was fair to charge someone from the Lower East Side the same $8 bucks for driving two blocks to the Drive. As the Sun says; "With this terrible bus service, one can't blame these residents for wanting to drive," Council Member Rosie Mendez added."
Councilman Dan Garodnick seconded the Mendes observation: "Mr. Garodnick also said there was "an inherent unfairness" in charging residents of the zone a fee to drive out of it." Others, like Assemblyman Micah Kellner, raised the possibility of removing the deduction that out-of-town drivers would get under the plan for tolls paid on the bridges: "Drivers entering the Lincoln and Holland tunnels should not pay a reduced fee, as the plan calls for, Mr. Kellner said. "The burden of congestion pricing should not fall disproportionately on residents inside the zone," he said."
This would be a surefire way to get the whole deal killed, and is the most salient example of how the plan's putative supporters may have a heavy hand in getting the kibosh put on the entire scheme. Many of the other objections focused on the arbitrary nature of the 85th Street demarcation line, with questions raised about how the line was chosen.
Many of the elected officials pointedly were worried about the ability of dedicating any funds from a congestion tax to the improvement of mass transit. And, if the Metro story this morning is right, they have every reason to be concerned. There's also a big question whether the system can accommodate the increased riders-and the ability of the MTA to do, well, almost anything: "The Metropolitan Transportation Authority might want congestion pricing, but it doesn’t have the money to pay for more bus and subway service. The MTA presented options to handle the increased ridership resulting from the traffic fee at Thursday’s meeting of the Congestion Mitigation Commission, which will determine the viability of congestion pricing."
And, since our application to speak was mysteriously deep-sixed, no one at last night's hearing underscored the unfairness of a $21 truck tax that has no correlation with any traffic reduction. At the Hofstra hearing, however, this issue was addressed: "Business owners said the proposal would hurt companies that must make multiple trips to Manhattan each day."Our industry is going to be majorly impacted," said Ron Billing, president of Ron's Rapid Delivery in Hicksville."
So it appears to us that the mayor's original plan has a long way to go before it sees the light of legislative day-and that likelihood isn't increased by the killing kindness exhibited last night by those legislators most inclines to be supportive of the congestion tax concept. What the objections last night did reveal, at least to us, that there are serious questions about the plan that simply can't be answered without a full and independent environmental review.
In fact, as the NY Sun story this morning points out, the list of qualifiers was so long that you have to wonder to what extent the current plan-if, of course, it survives in anything close to its current form, will have any chance to succeed when it eventually is sent to the various legislatures for a vote.
As the Sun puts it: "Elected officials in districts that would be affected by Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan say that while they support the policy in principle, they have reservations about the details." The devil's really in the details here, and if these "small matters" aren't addressed than the whole plan will go down-courtesy of its supporters.
Many of the objections focused on the unfairness of charging residents of the zone when they leave it to commute outside-with Councilwoman Mendes describing how there are areas of her district where you need to walk for fifteen minutes in order to wait another fifteen for-"one of the worst buses in the city." She went on to ask why it was fair to charge someone from the Lower East Side the same $8 bucks for driving two blocks to the Drive. As the Sun says; "With this terrible bus service, one can't blame these residents for wanting to drive," Council Member Rosie Mendez added."
Councilman Dan Garodnick seconded the Mendes observation: "Mr. Garodnick also said there was "an inherent unfairness" in charging residents of the zone a fee to drive out of it." Others, like Assemblyman Micah Kellner, raised the possibility of removing the deduction that out-of-town drivers would get under the plan for tolls paid on the bridges: "Drivers entering the Lincoln and Holland tunnels should not pay a reduced fee, as the plan calls for, Mr. Kellner said. "The burden of congestion pricing should not fall disproportionately on residents inside the zone," he said."
This would be a surefire way to get the whole deal killed, and is the most salient example of how the plan's putative supporters may have a heavy hand in getting the kibosh put on the entire scheme. Many of the other objections focused on the arbitrary nature of the 85th Street demarcation line, with questions raised about how the line was chosen.
Many of the elected officials pointedly were worried about the ability of dedicating any funds from a congestion tax to the improvement of mass transit. And, if the Metro story this morning is right, they have every reason to be concerned. There's also a big question whether the system can accommodate the increased riders-and the ability of the MTA to do, well, almost anything: "The Metropolitan Transportation Authority might want congestion pricing, but it doesn’t have the money to pay for more bus and subway service. The MTA presented options to handle the increased ridership resulting from the traffic fee at Thursday’s meeting of the Congestion Mitigation Commission, which will determine the viability of congestion pricing."
And, since our application to speak was mysteriously deep-sixed, no one at last night's hearing underscored the unfairness of a $21 truck tax that has no correlation with any traffic reduction. At the Hofstra hearing, however, this issue was addressed: "Business owners said the proposal would hurt companies that must make multiple trips to Manhattan each day."Our industry is going to be majorly impacted," said Ron Billing, president of Ron's Rapid Delivery in Hicksville."
So it appears to us that the mayor's original plan has a long way to go before it sees the light of legislative day-and that likelihood isn't increased by the killing kindness exhibited last night by those legislators most inclines to be supportive of the congestion tax concept. What the objections last night did reveal, at least to us, that there are serious questions about the plan that simply can't be answered without a full and independent environmental review.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Send in the Pinkertons
In today's NY Newsday, the paper's Jim Pinkerton writes a prescient column about how the immigration debate is being won by hardliners. Pinkerton underscores our critique of the Drum Majorettes, folks who continue to obfuscate the immigration issue-as well as the lack of support that exists throughout the state and the country for giving unearned benefits to illegals.
What Pinkerton also points out, another issue that we've harped on, is how the failure to support a stronger anti-illegal immigration policy will come back to bit the Democrats on the butt: "But unfortunately for Spitzer and the bulk of his party, the politics of immigration are changing rapidly, nationwide, in a Tancredo-esque direction. Yesterday The Washington Post released a poll showing that three-fourths of Virginians count illegal immigration as an "important" issue, and they don't mean that in a good way."
In spite of these electoral realities there are still those who see the actions against the governor's plan as politically dubious-check out the responses to Liz's piece today on El Diario's shilling for the Spitzer plan (and Gerson Borrero's "jellyfish" epithet). The eight Dems that voted against the governor aren't spineless, they are "calling them as they see them." It would, however, truly be spineless to vote for the governor's plan out of a fear of political retribution.
The old saw is, "A rising tide lifts all boats;" But this political wave is more like an undertow, and it threatens to wash the Democrats out to sea if they don't alter their panderistic polemics.
What Pinkerton also points out, another issue that we've harped on, is how the failure to support a stronger anti-illegal immigration policy will come back to bit the Democrats on the butt: "But unfortunately for Spitzer and the bulk of his party, the politics of immigration are changing rapidly, nationwide, in a Tancredo-esque direction. Yesterday The Washington Post released a poll showing that three-fourths of Virginians count illegal immigration as an "important" issue, and they don't mean that in a good way."
In spite of these electoral realities there are still those who see the actions against the governor's plan as politically dubious-check out the responses to Liz's piece today on El Diario's shilling for the Spitzer plan (and Gerson Borrero's "jellyfish" epithet). The eight Dems that voted against the governor aren't spineless, they are "calling them as they see them." It would, however, truly be spineless to vote for the governor's plan out of a fear of political retribution.
The old saw is, "A rising tide lifts all boats;" But this political wave is more like an undertow, and it threatens to wash the Democrats out to sea if they don't alter their panderistic polemics.
High Caloric
As the NY Times (and the NY Daily News as well) is reporting this morning, the Department of Health has returned with a menu labeling rule that it believes will pass court scrutiny; its previous rule was struck down last month. It appears to us, however, that the rule will also be subjected to a court challenge and Judge Richard Howell's original decision, which was creative in the extreme, will be further tested.
All of which begs the question of the efficacy of what the DOH is doing here. According to today's story, Health Commissioner Frieden is convinced that the postings will have a beneficial effect: “The big picture is that New Yorkers don’t have access to calorie information,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “They overwhelmingly want it. Not everyone will use it, but many people will, and when they use it, it changes what they order, and that should reduce obesity and, with it, diabetes.”
That statement is, let's put it politely, lacking in empirical foundation that would give the commissioner any backing for the categorical surety expressed. New Yorkers "overwhelmingly" want to have calories posted in the manner that the Department envisions? And the rest of his statement is equally open to question since there is little scientific research that would bolster the commissioner's bold assertions.
In fact, what little research that has been done in this area raises more questions than it answers. We were interested in the revelation in this morning's Times story about some kind of survey done by the DOH last spring. Here's what it allegedly found: A health department survey this spring found that only 3 percent of customers at Domino’s, Papa John’s, Taco Bell and other popular restaurants saw the calorie information provided by those chains on their Web sites or other locations before ordering. By contrast, about 31 percent of Subway customers reported seeing the calorie information, which was posted prominently next to the cash register at the time of the survey. Those who said they did consumed about 634 calories, about 50 calories less than those who did not, the study found.
Now do we really have to point out just how silly-and thoroughly unscientific-all of this sounds? Aside from the fact that the Subway postings were not done in total conformance to the DOH formula, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from a comparison between Subway customers and, let's say McDonald's customers, without having a little bit of a priori knowledge of what the disparate customer bases are bringing with them in the form of nutritional information.
Subway, which has always emphasized its nutritional appeal, and markets its restaurants on this basis, may well be attracting customers with both the knowledge and inclination to utilize calorie information-wherever it's posted. And the fact that those who claimed that they saw the calorie info supposedly consumed "50 calories less" than those who didn't, proves, well, absolutely nothing because we simply have no idea whether this result, although correlated, has any degree of causal relationship. The less consuming calorie customer may only have been predetermined by the prior inclination and knowledge we've mentioned.
Or not. After all, what does a 50 calorie difference mean? If the DOH's own survey found that the readers of calorie posts consumed only 50 calories less than those who did not, it would seem to us to be an indication of the worthlessness of the entire scheme. We're also wondering if the DOH survey plumbed the depth of customer knowledge about calories and their importance? Our suspicion is that it didn't, but if it did the levels of ignorance found would have been astounding-a further indication of the silliness of the entire effort.
Which underscores what we have been saying all along: this is all just an elaborate, and expensive social science experiment that is, at best, nothing but a shot in the dark-done by folks who haven't been in a fast food restaurant in years, if ever. These chains are a vital cog in the economic foundation of the city's neighborhoods, and are owned and operated by many minority entrepreneurs. The DOH experiment, dubious at best, is being done at the expense of neighborhood small businesses, firms that will be forced to spend millions in compliance costs in order to help the good doctor generate his data.
All of which begs the question of the efficacy of what the DOH is doing here. According to today's story, Health Commissioner Frieden is convinced that the postings will have a beneficial effect: “The big picture is that New Yorkers don’t have access to calorie information,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “They overwhelmingly want it. Not everyone will use it, but many people will, and when they use it, it changes what they order, and that should reduce obesity and, with it, diabetes.”
That statement is, let's put it politely, lacking in empirical foundation that would give the commissioner any backing for the categorical surety expressed. New Yorkers "overwhelmingly" want to have calories posted in the manner that the Department envisions? And the rest of his statement is equally open to question since there is little scientific research that would bolster the commissioner's bold assertions.
In fact, what little research that has been done in this area raises more questions than it answers. We were interested in the revelation in this morning's Times story about some kind of survey done by the DOH last spring. Here's what it allegedly found: A health department survey this spring found that only 3 percent of customers at Domino’s, Papa John’s, Taco Bell and other popular restaurants saw the calorie information provided by those chains on their Web sites or other locations before ordering. By contrast, about 31 percent of Subway customers reported seeing the calorie information, which was posted prominently next to the cash register at the time of the survey. Those who said they did consumed about 634 calories, about 50 calories less than those who did not, the study found.
Now do we really have to point out just how silly-and thoroughly unscientific-all of this sounds? Aside from the fact that the Subway postings were not done in total conformance to the DOH formula, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from a comparison between Subway customers and, let's say McDonald's customers, without having a little bit of a priori knowledge of what the disparate customer bases are bringing with them in the form of nutritional information.
Subway, which has always emphasized its nutritional appeal, and markets its restaurants on this basis, may well be attracting customers with both the knowledge and inclination to utilize calorie information-wherever it's posted. And the fact that those who claimed that they saw the calorie info supposedly consumed "50 calories less" than those who didn't, proves, well, absolutely nothing because we simply have no idea whether this result, although correlated, has any degree of causal relationship. The less consuming calorie customer may only have been predetermined by the prior inclination and knowledge we've mentioned.
Or not. After all, what does a 50 calorie difference mean? If the DOH's own survey found that the readers of calorie posts consumed only 50 calories less than those who did not, it would seem to us to be an indication of the worthlessness of the entire scheme. We're also wondering if the DOH survey plumbed the depth of customer knowledge about calories and their importance? Our suspicion is that it didn't, but if it did the levels of ignorance found would have been astounding-a further indication of the silliness of the entire effort.
Which underscores what we have been saying all along: this is all just an elaborate, and expensive social science experiment that is, at best, nothing but a shot in the dark-done by folks who haven't been in a fast food restaurant in years, if ever. These chains are a vital cog in the economic foundation of the city's neighborhoods, and are owned and operated by many minority entrepreneurs. The DOH experiment, dubious at best, is being done at the expense of neighborhood small businesses, firms that will be forced to spend millions in compliance costs in order to help the good doctor generate his data.
Nativists Unite!
The effort to tarnish opponents of illegal immigration continues unabated, even as the general public (as well as more county clerks) continues to reject the policies and philosophical rationales of the open border crowd. The latest missive, courtesy of the DMI again, now refers to people who see the governor's drivers license plan as misguided-as nativists!
Memo to DMI: when you find yourself in a whole, just stop digging. If you keep up this kind of advocacy, and the Republican party is able to effectively pin the tail on the alien, it will lead the New York State Democratic party to defeat in 2008. Already the legislators in the suburban ring are heading for the hills to distance themselves from the governor on this hot button issue. As L.I. Assembly member Pat Eddington told Newsday (courtesy of Liz):“I am adamantly and vehemently opposed to licensing undocumented people."
But the drum beat in favor of the plan continues in spite of the polls that show that the folks aren't buying the arguments. In a post yesterday on its website the demonization of opponents of the plan follows the typical malignant progressive trope: "A recent New York Times editorial lays out the arguments for why this needs to happen rather than the country descending into Lou Dobbs hysteria (thank goodness his show got pushed into a later time slot – my ears and eyes have been hurting for a long time from his knee-jerk nativism)."
The best comment in the post, however, referred to the utility of embracing the illegals because; " Hello healthy birthrate sustaining the American economy after immigrants come to the US!" Now the US birthrate is healthy when viewed from the standpoint of citizens alone, unlike Eurpoe where Arab immigrant populations will metastasize to the eventual extinction of Western liberal democracy.
The day that the US has to open its borders in order to sustain population growth will be the day that America as we know it will have demised-something that the advocates of the rights of "immigrants without status" (where would these folks be without euphemisms?) are looking forward to. What the advocates can't seem to do, aside from uttering the word "illegal," is to support any form of enforcement policy that will stem the illegal immigration tide-or admit that a country that can't protect the sanctity of its own borders no longer has any sovereignty.
And so it goes with the Drum Majors. Here's their money quote:"It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that local communities are going to have to develop their own practical approaches to immigration policy and make sure they trickle up to the feds, who remain more obsessed with border fencing than with figuring out how to see immigrants (particularly undocumented ones) as important economic contributors and vital parts of our community."
And the Drummers remain more obsessed with handing out bennies to everyone who violates the country's borders than they are with honoring the laws of this country and protecting American citizens. In fact, any one who sees security-whether from foreign or domestic enemies-as important can count on being maligned as a racist or nativist.
And notice how they use the phrase, "obsessed with border fencing." It reveals the basic dishonesty of the open border position, because it intentionally obscures the fact that the Drummers of this world will oppose almost any enforcement measure that would potentially be effective; while giving lip-service to some ideas in this area that are unlikely to do much to stem the illegal tide.
Which brings us to the efficacy of the vaunted Spitzer license review mechanism. As the Times Union revealed yesterday, the equipment don't work that well: "Counterfeit documents have been getting through scanning machines that the Department of Motor Vehicles plans to use under Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, according to a state government source familiar with the performance of the machines."
This won't really bother the advocates much, because they really don't give a hoot about documenting these illegals with any degree of effectiveness-except when it comes time to awarding government services; then there's great effort expended to insure that one and all feed at the public trough. It seems that they will go to any lengths to obfuscate the opposition's position on illegal immigration, characterizing it as the epitome of an obscurantism that they invidiously juxtapose against their own enlightenment.
Memo to DMI: when you find yourself in a whole, just stop digging. If you keep up this kind of advocacy, and the Republican party is able to effectively pin the tail on the alien, it will lead the New York State Democratic party to defeat in 2008. Already the legislators in the suburban ring are heading for the hills to distance themselves from the governor on this hot button issue. As L.I. Assembly member Pat Eddington told Newsday (courtesy of Liz):“I am adamantly and vehemently opposed to licensing undocumented people."
But the drum beat in favor of the plan continues in spite of the polls that show that the folks aren't buying the arguments. In a post yesterday on its website the demonization of opponents of the plan follows the typical malignant progressive trope: "A recent New York Times editorial lays out the arguments for why this needs to happen rather than the country descending into Lou Dobbs hysteria (thank goodness his show got pushed into a later time slot – my ears and eyes have been hurting for a long time from his knee-jerk nativism)."
The best comment in the post, however, referred to the utility of embracing the illegals because; " Hello healthy birthrate sustaining the American economy after immigrants come to the US!" Now the US birthrate is healthy when viewed from the standpoint of citizens alone, unlike Eurpoe where Arab immigrant populations will metastasize to the eventual extinction of Western liberal democracy.
The day that the US has to open its borders in order to sustain population growth will be the day that America as we know it will have demised-something that the advocates of the rights of "immigrants without status" (where would these folks be without euphemisms?) are looking forward to. What the advocates can't seem to do, aside from uttering the word "illegal," is to support any form of enforcement policy that will stem the illegal immigration tide-or admit that a country that can't protect the sanctity of its own borders no longer has any sovereignty.
And so it goes with the Drum Majors. Here's their money quote:"It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that local communities are going to have to develop their own practical approaches to immigration policy and make sure they trickle up to the feds, who remain more obsessed with border fencing than with figuring out how to see immigrants (particularly undocumented ones) as important economic contributors and vital parts of our community."
And the Drummers remain more obsessed with handing out bennies to everyone who violates the country's borders than they are with honoring the laws of this country and protecting American citizens. In fact, any one who sees security-whether from foreign or domestic enemies-as important can count on being maligned as a racist or nativist.
And notice how they use the phrase, "obsessed with border fencing." It reveals the basic dishonesty of the open border position, because it intentionally obscures the fact that the Drummers of this world will oppose almost any enforcement measure that would potentially be effective; while giving lip-service to some ideas in this area that are unlikely to do much to stem the illegal tide.
Which brings us to the efficacy of the vaunted Spitzer license review mechanism. As the Times Union revealed yesterday, the equipment don't work that well: "Counterfeit documents have been getting through scanning machines that the Department of Motor Vehicles plans to use under Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, according to a state government source familiar with the performance of the machines."
This won't really bother the advocates much, because they really don't give a hoot about documenting these illegals with any degree of effectiveness-except when it comes time to awarding government services; then there's great effort expended to insure that one and all feed at the public trough. It seems that they will go to any lengths to obfuscate the opposition's position on illegal immigration, characterizing it as the epitome of an obscurantism that they invidiously juxtapose against their own enlightenment.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Recycling Arguments
As we have said before, the mayor's efforts to bogart Shelly Silver on the Gansevoort recycling center were doomed to failure-a fact that is confirmed to day in a story in the NY Times. We saw no good coming out of a mayoral press conference, where some members of the Democratic conference in the Assembly were quoted invoking environmental racism as the reason for the site being held up.
This is just the wrong way to win friends and influence people in Shelly Silver's Albany-and it doesn't bode well for another mayoral scheme, congestion pricing. Contradicting all that was said in last week's press event, the Times tells its readers: "The speaker said the city administration had failed to live up to a promise to seriously explore alternatives to the plan, and he said he was in no rush to move ahead until officials did so." Ouch!
This is just the wrong way to win friends and influence people in Shelly Silver's Albany-and it doesn't bode well for another mayoral scheme, congestion pricing. Contradicting all that was said in last week's press event, the Times tells its readers: "The speaker said the city administration had failed to live up to a promise to seriously explore alternatives to the plan, and he said he was in no rush to move ahead until officials did so." Ouch!
"Immigrants": The Highjacking of the Language
In a post at the DMI website, the group's leader, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, continues with the progressive high jacking of the English language over the issue of illegal immigration. In a post that runs over 800 words, Schlesinger never once uses the word illegal to modify immigrant. On the other hand, any of us who see the widespread disregard for the country's laws as a threat to American sovereignty-and safety-are defamed as "anti-immigrant."
Schlesinger goes about her task with a bag of rhetorical tricks that camouflages the moral bankruptcy of her position-and she has a convenient bogeyman, CNN"s Lou Dobbs, who she employs to create a false dichotomy between a Know Nothing and raging xenophobia and a reasonable and humane compassion. What is it Andrea about the word "illegal," that you find so difficult to understand?
And what is it about the concern that average folks have about the disrespect for the rule of law that you can't even begin to understand? Schlesinger cleverly elides the realities of public opinion with the following-"Washington's failure to achieve consensus on an immigration bill should not obscure the fact that commonsense immigration laws have strong majority support. Americans believe it is neither feasible nor desirable to deport the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently here. Instead, there is consensus in favor of providing a path to citizenship for immigrants of all kinds who learn English, work hard, and participate in the American system. Unfortunately, the anti-immigrant sentiment fostered by Dobbs and his ilk kept Washington from pursuing it."
Wass up here? This citation conveys the kind of dishonesty that ignores where people really stand on the illegal immigrant issue. The fact that majorities of Americans don't want to deport all of the 12 million people here, shouldn't obscure the fact that even larger numbers don't want to confer legitimacy on illegals before any comprehensive system is put into place. And it needs to be said that most folks see border enforcement-and the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants-as essential features of any reform policy.
We're not sure where Schlesinger is on the enforcement and deportation side of the equation but we've never heard her polemicize about Mary Nagel or the Newark Three-victims of hard working illegal immigrant criminals who may be given further cover under the Spitzer plan; unless you're confident that local DMV officials will have the expertise to weed out the fraudulent and dangerous among the 12 million undocumented.
So when she says, "Immigrants are consumers and taxpayers. They are entrepreneurs. They provide the services that native-born Americans rely on from morning until night. They resuscitate struggling neighborhoods. They keep our Social Security system solvent. They are not terrorists," she consciously avoids the billions being spent to incarcerate illegals who have preyed upon our citizens. And by the way, some of these folks may very well be terrorists that DMV personnel won't catch as they carefully try to vet some Bolivian or Indonesian passport.
Americans do want immigration reform, a reform that has been stymied by folks, like our editorial friends at the NY Times, who have no real desire to protect this country's borders. These are the reasonable and humane people who demonize the opponents of illegal immigration by vile name calling and dishonest caricature.
Schlesinger appears to be auditioning for an opening at the Times with her mimic of that paper's tired tropes on this issue. Which is, to us, akin to looking for a job as captain on the Titanic. To the Times and its acolytes, any opposition to the careless legitimation of illegal immigrants is a result of "misguided sentiments," retrograde ideas that will dissipate once their betters are able to properly educate them.
Schlesinger goes about her task with a bag of rhetorical tricks that camouflages the moral bankruptcy of her position-and she has a convenient bogeyman, CNN"s Lou Dobbs, who she employs to create a false dichotomy between a Know Nothing and raging xenophobia and a reasonable and humane compassion. What is it Andrea about the word "illegal," that you find so difficult to understand?
And what is it about the concern that average folks have about the disrespect for the rule of law that you can't even begin to understand? Schlesinger cleverly elides the realities of public opinion with the following-"Washington's failure to achieve consensus on an immigration bill should not obscure the fact that commonsense immigration laws have strong majority support. Americans believe it is neither feasible nor desirable to deport the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently here. Instead, there is consensus in favor of providing a path to citizenship for immigrants of all kinds who learn English, work hard, and participate in the American system. Unfortunately, the anti-immigrant sentiment fostered by Dobbs and his ilk kept Washington from pursuing it."
Wass up here? This citation conveys the kind of dishonesty that ignores where people really stand on the illegal immigrant issue. The fact that majorities of Americans don't want to deport all of the 12 million people here, shouldn't obscure the fact that even larger numbers don't want to confer legitimacy on illegals before any comprehensive system is put into place. And it needs to be said that most folks see border enforcement-and the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants-as essential features of any reform policy.
We're not sure where Schlesinger is on the enforcement and deportation side of the equation but we've never heard her polemicize about Mary Nagel or the Newark Three-victims of hard working illegal immigrant criminals who may be given further cover under the Spitzer plan; unless you're confident that local DMV officials will have the expertise to weed out the fraudulent and dangerous among the 12 million undocumented.
So when she says, "Immigrants are consumers and taxpayers. They are entrepreneurs. They provide the services that native-born Americans rely on from morning until night. They resuscitate struggling neighborhoods. They keep our Social Security system solvent. They are not terrorists," she consciously avoids the billions being spent to incarcerate illegals who have preyed upon our citizens. And by the way, some of these folks may very well be terrorists that DMV personnel won't catch as they carefully try to vet some Bolivian or Indonesian passport.
Americans do want immigration reform, a reform that has been stymied by folks, like our editorial friends at the NY Times, who have no real desire to protect this country's borders. These are the reasonable and humane people who demonize the opponents of illegal immigration by vile name calling and dishonest caricature.
Schlesinger appears to be auditioning for an opening at the Times with her mimic of that paper's tired tropes on this issue. Which is, to us, akin to looking for a job as captain on the Titanic. To the Times and its acolytes, any opposition to the careless legitimation of illegal immigrants is a result of "misguided sentiments," retrograde ideas that will dissipate once their betters are able to properly educate them.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Licensing Humility
Bill Hammond has some useful advice for Governor Spitzer in his column today in the NY Daily News. Hammond urges the governor to issue modified licenses to illegal immigrants that clearly identify their immigration status: "A two-tiered licensing system would allow Spitzer to achieve his worthy goals without taking such a bloody beating in public opinion...He could still encourage many of New York's 1 million illegal immigrants to put their names, addresses and photographs into the Department of Motor Vehicles database - providing an invaluable resource for law enforcement. But he would also show a healthy respect for the 72% of New Yorkers who think licensing illegal immigrants is a lousy idea."
You think the governor's gonna do this? We hope so, because it would be a clear recognition that we don't live in a political "Father Knows Best" world-that's on steroids. Part of governing is listening to the electorate, and sometimes admitting-as Ed Koch used to do-that a mistake's been made.
The problem here is that the governor doesn't want to create a so-called second tier license that would, in the words of his aides, " brand people with scarlet letters." This kind of thinking is an insult to all of the New Yorkers-both immigrants and native born-who are here legally and are law-abiding. Folks who think like this-like State Senator Kevin Parker, who branded the governor's opponents "racists," are on the fringe of the state's political spectrum.
Finally, as Hammond highlights, the governor, by demonstrating humility and good sense, could regain some of his lost political footing-and undue damage that threatens his party all over the state: "By making this concession to the reasonable concerns of the people who elected him, Spitzer would demonstrate that he can and does respond to criticism - and live down his reputation as a steamroller who tries to flatten anyone who gets in his way. He would begin to make up for the ham-handed way he introduced the plan, announcing it as a done deal without inviting public comment or even consulting his fellow state leaders."
You think the governor's gonna do this? We hope so, because it would be a clear recognition that we don't live in a political "Father Knows Best" world-that's on steroids. Part of governing is listening to the electorate, and sometimes admitting-as Ed Koch used to do-that a mistake's been made.
The problem here is that the governor doesn't want to create a so-called second tier license that would, in the words of his aides, " brand people with scarlet letters." This kind of thinking is an insult to all of the New Yorkers-both immigrants and native born-who are here legally and are law-abiding. Folks who think like this-like State Senator Kevin Parker, who branded the governor's opponents "racists," are on the fringe of the state's political spectrum.
Finally, as Hammond highlights, the governor, by demonstrating humility and good sense, could regain some of his lost political footing-and undue damage that threatens his party all over the state: "By making this concession to the reasonable concerns of the people who elected him, Spitzer would demonstrate that he can and does respond to criticism - and live down his reputation as a steamroller who tries to flatten anyone who gets in his way. He would begin to make up for the ham-handed way he introduced the plan, announcing it as a done deal without inviting public comment or even consulting his fellow state leaders."
Kocha!
In his latest column, cited by Azi, former mayor Ed Koch warns of the political danger for anyone who supports the issuuance of drivers licenses to illegal immigrants: "If a general election were held today for the office of Governor, or in 2010, when it will, in fact, be held, any candidate who supports the granting of drivers licenses to illegal aliens would, I believe, go down to defeat."
With an already dwindling supply of political capital, we believe that the governor was ill-advised to jump on this hot potato. And the early signs seem to demonstrate this. As Liz points out in her Daily Politics blog yesterday, it looks as if the license issue may harbinger the defeat of the Democratic candidate for county executive.
We'll see how all of this plays out, but if the issue lingers well into the new year, it can only benefit the state's Republicans in the Senate, who are hanging onto their majority for dear life. And it will do Hillary no good at all, and we believe she will duck this one, or oppose it outright-it's aloser issue both locally as well as nationally.
With an already dwindling supply of political capital, we believe that the governor was ill-advised to jump on this hot potato. And the early signs seem to demonstrate this. As Liz points out in her Daily Politics blog yesterday, it looks as if the license issue may harbinger the defeat of the Democratic candidate for county executive.
We'll see how all of this plays out, but if the issue lingers well into the new year, it can only benefit the state's Republicans in the Senate, who are hanging onto their majority for dear life. And it will do Hillary no good at all, and we believe she will duck this one, or oppose it outright-it's aloser issue both locally as well as nationally.
The High Cost of Political Correctness
There's an interesting item posted on the Gotham Gazette website that comments on the high cost of living in NYC. There is, however, a glaring omission: there is no mention in the litany of costs of the city's high tax rates. Why this was left out is not clear, but even a casual analysis of the issue should lead the analyst to this hot topic.
For instance, there is a discussion of the high cost of groceries that concludes that there's an obvious connection between grocery prices and real estate: " Clearly there is no conspiracy of American farmers to charge New Yorkers more," said Frank Braconi, chief economist at the city comptroller's office. "If you have food prices going faster, in all likelihood it's going to come back to real estate one way or another ... supermarkets competing for space."
The competition for real estate space, however, is not only about rising rents in Manhattan. It's also the rising rate of commercial real estate taxes-taxes that were raised precipitously by the mayor and the council in 2002. Every commercial lease in the city has a tax pass-along, and the cost of groceries reflects this reality
Some of this can be seen in the relative price superiority of Fairway on 129th Street. Fairway, illegally zoned in this manufacturing area-having been given a pass on the required special permit-has a rent that is lower than just the commercial tax that a Gristedes pays on, let's say, 96th Street. In addition, as we have commented, the high retail prices also reflect the city's harsh regulatory environment.
All of the wonderful consumer protection contained in the myriad of fines that are issued to neighborhood stores, is a cost borne by the very consumers the statutes are devised to supposedly protect. If New York's consumers were presented with a cost/benefit analysis of all this, we think that a great majority of them would elect to eliminate the DCA in exchange for a leaner competitive market.
This discussion of cost pass alongs doesn't include the direct tax burden that is borne by city residents. As the Gothamist reported earlier this year: "A report from the Independent Budget Office showed that New York City has the biggest tax burden than eight other big cities. In fact, NYC's tax burden is practically 50% higher than the average of cities like Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Antonio, Houston, Chicago, Dallas, Phoenix and San Diego. (We don't know where San Francisco, Boston, or Seattle were during this survey.) For every $100, New York City's state and local taxes "absorbed" $9.02, while other cities average $6.16."
It is this basic reality that under girds-or should-any discussion of water bills, grocery prices, and transit fares; not to mention the proposed congestion tax. To talk about the high cost of living in NYC without mentioning the tax burden is to render the writer incoherent; or at least a member of the Times editorial board.
For instance, there is a discussion of the high cost of groceries that concludes that there's an obvious connection between grocery prices and real estate: " Clearly there is no conspiracy of American farmers to charge New Yorkers more," said Frank Braconi, chief economist at the city comptroller's office. "If you have food prices going faster, in all likelihood it's going to come back to real estate one way or another ... supermarkets competing for space."
The competition for real estate space, however, is not only about rising rents in Manhattan. It's also the rising rate of commercial real estate taxes-taxes that were raised precipitously by the mayor and the council in 2002. Every commercial lease in the city has a tax pass-along, and the cost of groceries reflects this reality
Some of this can be seen in the relative price superiority of Fairway on 129th Street. Fairway, illegally zoned in this manufacturing area-having been given a pass on the required special permit-has a rent that is lower than just the commercial tax that a Gristedes pays on, let's say, 96th Street. In addition, as we have commented, the high retail prices also reflect the city's harsh regulatory environment.
All of the wonderful consumer protection contained in the myriad of fines that are issued to neighborhood stores, is a cost borne by the very consumers the statutes are devised to supposedly protect. If New York's consumers were presented with a cost/benefit analysis of all this, we think that a great majority of them would elect to eliminate the DCA in exchange for a leaner competitive market.
This discussion of cost pass alongs doesn't include the direct tax burden that is borne by city residents. As the Gothamist reported earlier this year: "A report from the Independent Budget Office showed that New York City has the biggest tax burden than eight other big cities. In fact, NYC's tax burden is practically 50% higher than the average of cities like Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Antonio, Houston, Chicago, Dallas, Phoenix and San Diego. (We don't know where San Francisco, Boston, or Seattle were during this survey.) For every $100, New York City's state and local taxes "absorbed" $9.02, while other cities average $6.16."
It is this basic reality that under girds-or should-any discussion of water bills, grocery prices, and transit fares; not to mention the proposed congestion tax. To talk about the high cost of living in NYC without mentioning the tax burden is to render the writer incoherent; or at least a member of the Times editorial board.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Demanding a Recount
We've been saying all along that the mayor's congestion tax scheme was badly in need of a forensic accountant-mainly because we feel that the tax consequences of the plan can be construed as a criminal assault on the city's middle class commuters. In today's NY Daily News, the paper's Adam Lisberg does what all of the press should have been doing months ago: closely examining the numbers, and analyzing the plan's projections.
And what he finds isn't pretty. As the News points out: "Mayor Bloomberg says congestion pricing will raise $390 million a year for mass transit, but that figure is nothing more than an educated guess..." Or, as we would put it, a not so educated guess that would eventually mean that the city's commuters-those in their cars as well as those using mass transit-would be an ever escalating fee for coming into the city's CBD.
Which of course devolves from the system's operating costs that will eat up most of the plan's revenues; monies that are projected to go to the needed improvement of the mass transit infrastructure. Without this improvement, the cars that are removed from the streets will mean thousands of new transit commuters for a system that everyone see as already over crowded.
So how does the administration respond to the news? Here's mayoral spokesman John Gallagher: "The true benefits of the plan are derived from reducing traffic-choking congestion." That is a decent goal to shoot for, but it isn't a panacea in the context of a crowded system badly in need of expansion and repair.
One major thing to keep in mind is the fact that the highly touted London system didn't meet revenue projections until it jacked up the tax to around $16 per day. So what we're looking at here is a continual assault on commuters and small businesses to feed a technologically complex congestion system administration.
Which raises the question of where the money's going to come from for mass transit. When the MTA revenue shortfalls are seen in the context of a congestion tax that fails to generate sufficient monies for trains and buses, it means that the mass transit commuters better get ready to be hosed-with the end result being that everyone will have to pay more in one of the highest taxed cities in the world.
But don't get despondent about all of this because we read in the NY Times this morning that we Americans are severely undertaxed! Yes, compared to other industrialized countries, we're lagging behind! And; "This country’s meager tax take puts its economic prospects at risk and leaves the government ill equipped to face the challenges from globalization."
So we guess that everyone should begin to see our new tax burdens as our chance to catch up with Holland and Germany-countries whose government sponsored welfare programs and poor economic growth will lead to an inevitable implosion in the next twenty years. Another example of why the Times itself is becoming like the Dodo bird.
But we digress. What the Daily News story dramatizes is the fact that the entire congestion tax scheme cannot withstand any kind of independent scrutiny-for either its revenue numbers or its traffic reduction estimates. Which leads us to urge our Assembly friends to save us all from buyer's remorse and can this ill-conceived experiment.
And what he finds isn't pretty. As the News points out: "Mayor Bloomberg says congestion pricing will raise $390 million a year for mass transit, but that figure is nothing more than an educated guess..." Or, as we would put it, a not so educated guess that would eventually mean that the city's commuters-those in their cars as well as those using mass transit-would be an ever escalating fee for coming into the city's CBD.
Which of course devolves from the system's operating costs that will eat up most of the plan's revenues; monies that are projected to go to the needed improvement of the mass transit infrastructure. Without this improvement, the cars that are removed from the streets will mean thousands of new transit commuters for a system that everyone see as already over crowded.
So how does the administration respond to the news? Here's mayoral spokesman John Gallagher: "The true benefits of the plan are derived from reducing traffic-choking congestion." That is a decent goal to shoot for, but it isn't a panacea in the context of a crowded system badly in need of expansion and repair.
One major thing to keep in mind is the fact that the highly touted London system didn't meet revenue projections until it jacked up the tax to around $16 per day. So what we're looking at here is a continual assault on commuters and small businesses to feed a technologically complex congestion system administration.
Which raises the question of where the money's going to come from for mass transit. When the MTA revenue shortfalls are seen in the context of a congestion tax that fails to generate sufficient monies for trains and buses, it means that the mass transit commuters better get ready to be hosed-with the end result being that everyone will have to pay more in one of the highest taxed cities in the world.
But don't get despondent about all of this because we read in the NY Times this morning that we Americans are severely undertaxed! Yes, compared to other industrialized countries, we're lagging behind! And; "This country’s meager tax take puts its economic prospects at risk and leaves the government ill equipped to face the challenges from globalization."
So we guess that everyone should begin to see our new tax burdens as our chance to catch up with Holland and Germany-countries whose government sponsored welfare programs and poor economic growth will lead to an inevitable implosion in the next twenty years. Another example of why the Times itself is becoming like the Dodo bird.
But we digress. What the Daily News story dramatizes is the fact that the entire congestion tax scheme cannot withstand any kind of independent scrutiny-for either its revenue numbers or its traffic reduction estimates. Which leads us to urge our Assembly friends to save us all from buyer's remorse and can this ill-conceived experiment.
Spitzer Gets Pass Protection
We've already commented on the amnesia over at the NY Times when it comes to the drivers license issue, and the role of Richard Clarke in his flip-floppin' defense of the governor's policy. Now, however, the paper goes a step further in galvanizing support for the Spitzer plan. In yesterday's paper the Times, with a picture of a pugnacious Spitzer, focuses on how, "Mr. Spitzer has shifted his tone once again, taking the offensive and pouncing on opponents."
The tone of the piece tends towards the adulatory ("The attacks have clearly rekindled Mr. Spitzer’s fighting spirit"), with a great deal of emphasis on how the governor has regained his combative footing-"In interviews, the governor and his advisers suggested that there is little to be gained in remaining apologetic."
Yet Danny Hakim is too good a reporter to ignore the widespread unease in Democratic circles over the governor's combativeness: "Fellow Democrats were elated when Mr. Spitzer won, but they have wearied of saying that he needs to play nice in the political sandbox. Some also worry that his staff has too many former prosecutors and that the governor has been unwilling to fire members of his inner circle." And the story goes into the way in which the governor's actions have paralyzed legislative momentum by alienating the Senate Majority Leader, Joe Bruno.
All of which raises questions about the feasibility of the governor's promotion of a wildly unpopular initiative. Certainly, he no longer has the kind of moral capital to pursue the drivers license issue-and his rhetoric against Mayor Bloomberg's opposition to the policy-"Mr. Spitzer called Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg “factually wrong, legally wrong, morally wrong, ethically wrong” for opposing the driver’s license policy"-doesn't bode well for his future salesmanship.
None of this, of course, disturbs the Times' editorial support for the plan. The editorial page is getting so predictably bad that its challenging the maxim, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day." And the editorialists even cite the praise of the aforementioned Mr. Clarke for the policy-"Richard Clarke, an adviser under the last four presidents, mostly on national security issues, has said that making driver’s licenses available to immigrants regardless of their legal status would promote security because “it is far preferable for the state to know who is living in it and driving on its roads."- ignoring the fact that Little Richard, who had said something totally different on the Times Op-ed page in June, contradicted himself in the process.
It kind of makes you wonder whether the Times folks read their own newspaper. And the situation's made worse by the fact that-see the NY Post story yesterday-the track record in other state's doesn't give great confidence in the workability of the plan. What's undeniable, however, is that the issue is a lose for Spitzer-something that is probably underscored by the way in which the Times enthusiastically endorses it.
The tone of the piece tends towards the adulatory ("The attacks have clearly rekindled Mr. Spitzer’s fighting spirit"), with a great deal of emphasis on how the governor has regained his combative footing-"In interviews, the governor and his advisers suggested that there is little to be gained in remaining apologetic."
Yet Danny Hakim is too good a reporter to ignore the widespread unease in Democratic circles over the governor's combativeness: "Fellow Democrats were elated when Mr. Spitzer won, but they have wearied of saying that he needs to play nice in the political sandbox. Some also worry that his staff has too many former prosecutors and that the governor has been unwilling to fire members of his inner circle." And the story goes into the way in which the governor's actions have paralyzed legislative momentum by alienating the Senate Majority Leader, Joe Bruno.
All of which raises questions about the feasibility of the governor's promotion of a wildly unpopular initiative. Certainly, he no longer has the kind of moral capital to pursue the drivers license issue-and his rhetoric against Mayor Bloomberg's opposition to the policy-"Mr. Spitzer called Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg “factually wrong, legally wrong, morally wrong, ethically wrong” for opposing the driver’s license policy"-doesn't bode well for his future salesmanship.
None of this, of course, disturbs the Times' editorial support for the plan. The editorial page is getting so predictably bad that its challenging the maxim, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day." And the editorialists even cite the praise of the aforementioned Mr. Clarke for the policy-"Richard Clarke, an adviser under the last four presidents, mostly on national security issues, has said that making driver’s licenses available to immigrants regardless of their legal status would promote security because “it is far preferable for the state to know who is living in it and driving on its roads."- ignoring the fact that Little Richard, who had said something totally different on the Times Op-ed page in June, contradicted himself in the process.
It kind of makes you wonder whether the Times folks read their own newspaper. And the situation's made worse by the fact that-see the NY Post story yesterday-the track record in other state's doesn't give great confidence in the workability of the plan. What's undeniable, however, is that the issue is a lose for Spitzer-something that is probably underscored by the way in which the Times enthusiastically endorses it.
Hearing Loss
If the new Congestion Commission had wanted to purposefully denigrate the public review process, they couldn't have done a better job than scheduling the -hopefully-first round of hearings at such a short notice. The first hearing, in Queens, is set for this Tuesday, and the short notice gives both sides very little time to alert their partisans.
What this means to us, and we agree with Senator Liz Krueger on this (unusual in itself), is that the Commission needs to set up a second round of hearings and do a better job at publicizing them. As Krueger told her constituents, in a letter posted on Streetsblog: "I am extremely disturbed by the short notice provided for this hearing. I have discussed this issue with the members of the commission, and requested additional hearings be held in Manhattan with more adequate notice."
But not only in Manhattan. What about the fact that Rockland County is completely left out of the hearing process? Rockland, with no decent mass transut access to the CBD, is especially vulnerable to any congestion tax scheme-a fact that was pointed out when a number of Rockland legislators held a press conference to announce their opposition to the plan in July.
What the congestion tax plan needs is more exposure, not less. Any indication that the public review process is simply cursory will buttress opponents' arguments that the entire scheme has not been fully evaluated-and it lacks any degree of transparency. So, we guess that. as opponents of this ill-thought out plan we should encourage our friend Marc Shaw-someone not really comfortable in the limelight-to continue to keep on keeping on.
What this means to us, and we agree with Senator Liz Krueger on this (unusual in itself), is that the Commission needs to set up a second round of hearings and do a better job at publicizing them. As Krueger told her constituents, in a letter posted on Streetsblog: "I am extremely disturbed by the short notice provided for this hearing. I have discussed this issue with the members of the commission, and requested additional hearings be held in Manhattan with more adequate notice."
But not only in Manhattan. What about the fact that Rockland County is completely left out of the hearing process? Rockland, with no decent mass transut access to the CBD, is especially vulnerable to any congestion tax scheme-a fact that was pointed out when a number of Rockland legislators held a press conference to announce their opposition to the plan in July.
What the congestion tax plan needs is more exposure, not less. Any indication that the public review process is simply cursory will buttress opponents' arguments that the entire scheme has not been fully evaluated-and it lacks any degree of transparency. So, we guess that. as opponents of this ill-thought out plan we should encourage our friend Marc Shaw-someone not really comfortable in the limelight-to continue to keep on keeping on.
Nicked on Affordable Housing
In last week's Spectator, there was an article on the CB9 rejection of Nick Sprayregen's re-zoning proposal. A number of reasons were given for the unusually close 16-12 vote, but what caught our eye was the Board's concern with affordable housing: "After much debate over the resolution's wording, CB9 rejected the proposal in a close and contentious vote. The resolution set forth conditions that the plan would need to meet for board approval, including making at least 50 percent of residential units affordable housing and defining affordable housing within CB9’s average mean income."
What's fascinating here is the way in which the community is holding Nick to the same standards that it is holding Columbia to-the insistence that an affordable housing piece be included as a term for any community board approval. Of course at this early stage, and with no zoning approval, there's no way that Sprayregen could promulgate an affordable housing plan with any specificity-the community has a better beef with area elected officials who have had lockjaw on the affordable housing issue.
The pols should be lined up in concert to demand that the city, state and university put forward such a plan for the area as a precondition for any Columbia expansion. In the absence of such principled action, Sprayregen becomes a convenient scapegoat for the community's frustration.
The Spectator also speculates that the defeat of the Sprayregen rezoning can be partially attributed to the ill-will spread by Columbia consultant Bill Lynch: "But some of the dissent may have come out of doubts over Sprayregen’s credibility and allegations that he cares more about the money in his pocket than the well-being of the neighborhood. Much of the criticism can be traced to former deputy mayor Bill Lynch, whose firm, Bill Lynch Associates, was hired by Columbia in April 2006 to lobby for its expansion plans."
We're less sure about this. The more likely source is the over all sense of powerlessness-and the frustrating lack of political leadership, underscored by the pusillanimous actions of the Manhattan BP and the failure of the West Harlem LDC to generate any sense of sanguinity over the prospects of a worthwhile CBA.
In another Spectator piece about the community board's discouragement with the LDC, one of the members of the negotiating group demurred: "Maritta Dunn, a former board member and member of the LDC, the body negotiating a community benefits agreement with Columbia, responded to board members’ accusations that politicians have co-opted the LDC and that CB9 representatives have not fought to be heard since the group’s creation. “The LDC is the only game in town,” Dunn said, adding that it only helps Columbia when board members are divided over the LDC. “We need to stop knocking it,” she added."
Maybe so, but many others remain unconvinced about the LDC's bona fides: “I never have blind faith,” community board member Norma Ramos said. “I’m never going to surrender my right to raise any issues and I‘ve been consistently raising the issue of the lack of Latino representation on the LDC and I’m not going to be silenced about that by being told that I am against the interest of the community.”
So it seems to us that Nick Sprayregen is really a victim of circumstances on all of this, and as much as we'd like to blame Bill Lynch, the real blame lies with the university and its political enablers. The real issue in the expansion debate is residential displacement and the concomitant need for affordable housing. The fact that the city and area electeds have allowed a newly-created West Harlem LDC to bear the burden of community concerns over these matters is a sorry example of buck passing.
What needs to be done now is for the university to become proactive on the affordable housing issue. Sprayregen has put an interesting and creative land swap concept on the table, one that could lead to the significant increase of affordable housing in the neighborhood. Is it enough? Probably not; but it's the first positive step in the right direction, and we're hopeful here that Columbia will see it as such.
What's fascinating here is the way in which the community is holding Nick to the same standards that it is holding Columbia to-the insistence that an affordable housing piece be included as a term for any community board approval. Of course at this early stage, and with no zoning approval, there's no way that Sprayregen could promulgate an affordable housing plan with any specificity-the community has a better beef with area elected officials who have had lockjaw on the affordable housing issue.
The pols should be lined up in concert to demand that the city, state and university put forward such a plan for the area as a precondition for any Columbia expansion. In the absence of such principled action, Sprayregen becomes a convenient scapegoat for the community's frustration.
The Spectator also speculates that the defeat of the Sprayregen rezoning can be partially attributed to the ill-will spread by Columbia consultant Bill Lynch: "But some of the dissent may have come out of doubts over Sprayregen’s credibility and allegations that he cares more about the money in his pocket than the well-being of the neighborhood. Much of the criticism can be traced to former deputy mayor Bill Lynch, whose firm, Bill Lynch Associates, was hired by Columbia in April 2006 to lobby for its expansion plans."
We're less sure about this. The more likely source is the over all sense of powerlessness-and the frustrating lack of political leadership, underscored by the pusillanimous actions of the Manhattan BP and the failure of the West Harlem LDC to generate any sense of sanguinity over the prospects of a worthwhile CBA.
In another Spectator piece about the community board's discouragement with the LDC, one of the members of the negotiating group demurred: "Maritta Dunn, a former board member and member of the LDC, the body negotiating a community benefits agreement with Columbia, responded to board members’ accusations that politicians have co-opted the LDC and that CB9 representatives have not fought to be heard since the group’s creation. “The LDC is the only game in town,” Dunn said, adding that it only helps Columbia when board members are divided over the LDC. “We need to stop knocking it,” she added."
Maybe so, but many others remain unconvinced about the LDC's bona fides: “I never have blind faith,” community board member Norma Ramos said. “I’m never going to surrender my right to raise any issues and I‘ve been consistently raising the issue of the lack of Latino representation on the LDC and I’m not going to be silenced about that by being told that I am against the interest of the community.”
So it seems to us that Nick Sprayregen is really a victim of circumstances on all of this, and as much as we'd like to blame Bill Lynch, the real blame lies with the university and its political enablers. The real issue in the expansion debate is residential displacement and the concomitant need for affordable housing. The fact that the city and area electeds have allowed a newly-created West Harlem LDC to bear the burden of community concerns over these matters is a sorry example of buck passing.
What needs to be done now is for the university to become proactive on the affordable housing issue. Sprayregen has put an interesting and creative land swap concept on the table, one that could lead to the significant increase of affordable housing in the neighborhood. Is it enough? Probably not; but it's the first positive step in the right direction, and we're hopeful here that Columbia will see it as such.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Poverty of Culture Redux
In an insightful column today in the NY Daily News, Errol Louis sings the praises of Bill Cosby for the comedian's outspoken attack on the decline in cultural standards in parts of the African American community. As Louis says; "Cosby's straight talk and self-help solutions flow like a fresh breeze through the tangle of university jargon and cowardly excuses that so often turn discussions of inner-city problems into a muddle."
This is important stuff. There are issues in the Black community that are not easily remedied by policies imposed from outside-whether it's increases in certain forms of assistance, or the hair-brained check book morality scheme to pay people to behave better.
And the seriousness of these issues are certainly not going to be remedied by the nostrums proposed by self-styled progressives, whose contributions to the debate is to white wash the dysfunctions in a paroxysm of accusatory "blaming the victim" rhetoric. Here's how Maureen Lane of the DMI puts it, in her criticism of the Manhattan Institutes's Heather McDonald: "Heather's premise is that people are not doing things like, taking kids to school on time, going to PTA, going to doctor's appointments, because they have bad behavior and they just need to "do the right thing" like the rest of "us" (by which she must mean the presumably middle class viewers). Setting poor people outside society by drawing a "them versus us" dichotomy is a tried and true way for ideologues to frame arguments for not working directly on economic and public policy solutions to poverty."
Lane couldn't be more wrong-and save us from all of those who want to become saviours for folks whose salvation lies more with a radical trans valuation of the negative cultural norms that shackle them in place, than from the "policies' designed to uplift them. One can here the sarcasm dripping from Lane's lips as she utters the ultimate epithet: "middle class values."
These are the same values that enabled Lane herself to achieve some decent things in this culture, but she turns around and scorns them when discussing the problems of poverty. The question here is, What is more racist? Is holding people to a standard of behavior that you know will lead to success racist? Or is it a racist assumption that these folks, with different cutural values, are unable to achieve without a massive outside intervention? In fact, the latter comes really close to a "white man's burden" philosophy
In our view, having high standards for people, and believing that they can achieve by emulating them, is to treat them with a respect that the progressives never have for those who may be downtrodden-so afraid are they that they're not respecting their cultural differences that they can't see that the emperor has no clothes.
Change needs to come from a radical reordering of cultural imperatives; this is what Cosby and Dr. Alvin Poussaint are saying in their new book on the subject: "A house without a father is a challenge. A neighborhood without fathers is a catastrophe, and that's just about what we have today," write Cosby and Poussaint, citing startling statistics: Of about 16,000 murders in this country each year, more than half are committed by black men.Young black men are twice as likely to be unemployed as other American men. Although black people are just 12% of the general population, they are some 44% of prison inmates."
This does not mean that there's nothing that the larger mainstream society can do. It just means that the standard "progressive" victimology is a policy cul-du-sac, one that will perpetuate the very victimhood that these folks are always excoriating-generally for the benefit of the "benefactor class" of social workers, progressive think tank thinkers (one is reminded of the "Thinkery" in Aristophanes' Clouds), and government bureaucrats.
Which is exactly what Errol Lois understands as he rebuts the retrograde ideas of some of Cosby's detractors. One in particular, Earl Ofari Hutchinson of the LA Times, captures the old tired analysis: "This is hardly the call to action that can inspire and motivate underachieving blacks...," says columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson. "Cosby's blame the victim slam does nothing to encourage government officials and business leaders to provide greater resources and opportunities to aid those blacks that need help."
Hutchinson, stilled mired in the "culture of poverty" school emanating from the sixties critique of the white power structure, misses the point. The amount of resources devoted to these poverty problems has already been immense; and he's unable to see, so invested is he in the ideological prison that he's constructed, the degree to which the continued utilization of the standard liberal approach is ultimately doomed to failure.
Louis has the final word on all of this: "And sadly, Hutchinson speaks for plenty of others who would rather close their eyes to what is, like it or not, an unpretty picture for black families.
They are dead wrong. Many government and business leaders, who over the last 50 years have committed billions of public and private dollars to a long run of housing and social welfare programs, are closing their checkbooks as they watch troubled black families and neighborhoods continue to disintegrate." A change in perspective is long overdue.
This is important stuff. There are issues in the Black community that are not easily remedied by policies imposed from outside-whether it's increases in certain forms of assistance, or the hair-brained check book morality scheme to pay people to behave better.
And the seriousness of these issues are certainly not going to be remedied by the nostrums proposed by self-styled progressives, whose contributions to the debate is to white wash the dysfunctions in a paroxysm of accusatory "blaming the victim" rhetoric. Here's how Maureen Lane of the DMI puts it, in her criticism of the Manhattan Institutes's Heather McDonald: "Heather's premise is that people are not doing things like, taking kids to school on time, going to PTA, going to doctor's appointments, because they have bad behavior and they just need to "do the right thing" like the rest of "us" (by which she must mean the presumably middle class viewers). Setting poor people outside society by drawing a "them versus us" dichotomy is a tried and true way for ideologues to frame arguments for not working directly on economic and public policy solutions to poverty."
Lane couldn't be more wrong-and save us from all of those who want to become saviours for folks whose salvation lies more with a radical trans valuation of the negative cultural norms that shackle them in place, than from the "policies' designed to uplift them. One can here the sarcasm dripping from Lane's lips as she utters the ultimate epithet: "middle class values."
These are the same values that enabled Lane herself to achieve some decent things in this culture, but she turns around and scorns them when discussing the problems of poverty. The question here is, What is more racist? Is holding people to a standard of behavior that you know will lead to success racist? Or is it a racist assumption that these folks, with different cutural values, are unable to achieve without a massive outside intervention? In fact, the latter comes really close to a "white man's burden" philosophy
In our view, having high standards for people, and believing that they can achieve by emulating them, is to treat them with a respect that the progressives never have for those who may be downtrodden-so afraid are they that they're not respecting their cultural differences that they can't see that the emperor has no clothes.
Change needs to come from a radical reordering of cultural imperatives; this is what Cosby and Dr. Alvin Poussaint are saying in their new book on the subject: "A house without a father is a challenge. A neighborhood without fathers is a catastrophe, and that's just about what we have today," write Cosby and Poussaint, citing startling statistics: Of about 16,000 murders in this country each year, more than half are committed by black men.Young black men are twice as likely to be unemployed as other American men. Although black people are just 12% of the general population, they are some 44% of prison inmates."
This does not mean that there's nothing that the larger mainstream society can do. It just means that the standard "progressive" victimology is a policy cul-du-sac, one that will perpetuate the very victimhood that these folks are always excoriating-generally for the benefit of the "benefactor class" of social workers, progressive think tank thinkers (one is reminded of the "Thinkery" in Aristophanes' Clouds), and government bureaucrats.
Which is exactly what Errol Lois understands as he rebuts the retrograde ideas of some of Cosby's detractors. One in particular, Earl Ofari Hutchinson of the LA Times, captures the old tired analysis: "This is hardly the call to action that can inspire and motivate underachieving blacks...," says columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson. "Cosby's blame the victim slam does nothing to encourage government officials and business leaders to provide greater resources and opportunities to aid those blacks that need help."
Hutchinson, stilled mired in the "culture of poverty" school emanating from the sixties critique of the white power structure, misses the point. The amount of resources devoted to these poverty problems has already been immense; and he's unable to see, so invested is he in the ideological prison that he's constructed, the degree to which the continued utilization of the standard liberal approach is ultimately doomed to failure.
Louis has the final word on all of this: "And sadly, Hutchinson speaks for plenty of others who would rather close their eyes to what is, like it or not, an unpretty picture for black families.
They are dead wrong. Many government and business leaders, who over the last 50 years have committed billions of public and private dollars to a long run of housing and social welfare programs, are closing their checkbooks as they watch troubled black families and neighborhoods continue to disintegrate." A change in perspective is long overdue.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The Old Grey Mare...
We've been commenting for some time on what we feel is the dangerous nature of the governor's decision to grant drivers licenses to illegal immigrants-from a philosophical as well as security standpoint. So we were interested in how the governor was going to frame the policy when he spoke down at NYU yesterday.
Obviously, he was going to have to try to buttress the plan from a homeland security standpoint, but we were surprised when he dragged out former national security advisor Richard Clarke to perform this difficult task. As the NY Daily News reported: "Richard Clarke, who served in the Clinton and Bush administrations, disputed Spitzer foes who say giving illegal immigrants government IDs threatens public safety."
Now Clarke, besides being a bitter partisan fellow adept at telling the same story in different ways to different audiences, has the failures of 9/11-no matter the extent to which he bears personal culpability-high up on his resume. Even worse, however, when he was last seen hawking his book on 60 Minutes, he was telling a more disparaging account of the Bush administration than the one depicted in the book itself.
Well, he's baaack! Now he's once again contradicting himself on the drivers license plan for illegals. As the NY Post uncovers, Clarke's current position flatly contradicts the one he laid out last June in an Op-ed piece in the NY Times. According to the Post: "The governor quoted a statement from Clarke saying, "States should act to register immigrants, legal and illegal, who use our roadways as New York is doing." But in June, Clarke said: "The result is that potential terrorists here illegally can easily use phony licenses or, in many states, get real ones issued to them, along with credit cards and all of the other papers needed to blend into our society," he wrote."
Typical Clarke, but what about the amnesia over at the Times? In today's story the paper covers the Spitzer press event, but fails to mention the apparent contradictions in the security adviser's public statements-one that was even published on its own pages! Exacerbating the omission is the fact that the Times covers the Spitzer remarks but fails to address any of the opposition from other security analysts who perceive the governor's plan as a danger to public safety.
Put simply, the story lacks even a rudimentary balance, and concludes with the following tendentious observation: "Even before Mr. Clarke’s statement, some security experts had spoken favorably of the plan, saying it was a way to bring a hidden population into the open and ultimately make the identification system more secure, as well as a way to ensure more drivers are licensed and insured."
Looking at the piece, a Times reader would be hard pressed to understand just why only 22% of New Yorkers support the governor's plan; and the credibility of contradictory Clarke is left unchallenged. Which leaves it up to the NY Post to state the obvious in today's editorial: "Back on June 1, The New York Times published an opinion piece written by Clarke that argued precisely the opposite: "Potential terrorists here illegally can easily use phony licenses or, in many states, get real ones issued to them, along with credit cards and all of the other papers needed to blend into our society . . . Indeed, those arrested for allegedly planning to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey included illegal immigrants who apparently had little difficulty getting along in this country."
If you're looking for a strong reason to explain the decline of the NY Times, this small piece offers as good a rationale as any. In it we find a failure to question official pronouncements because of ideological agreement; and the absence of proper balance that would enable the reader to make her own mind up. The paper needs to find more news that's fit to print, since the current evidence dramatizes a lacuna that's big enough to drive a semi through.
Obviously, he was going to have to try to buttress the plan from a homeland security standpoint, but we were surprised when he dragged out former national security advisor Richard Clarke to perform this difficult task. As the NY Daily News reported: "Richard Clarke, who served in the Clinton and Bush administrations, disputed Spitzer foes who say giving illegal immigrants government IDs threatens public safety."
Now Clarke, besides being a bitter partisan fellow adept at telling the same story in different ways to different audiences, has the failures of 9/11-no matter the extent to which he bears personal culpability-high up on his resume. Even worse, however, when he was last seen hawking his book on 60 Minutes, he was telling a more disparaging account of the Bush administration than the one depicted in the book itself.
Well, he's baaack! Now he's once again contradicting himself on the drivers license plan for illegals. As the NY Post uncovers, Clarke's current position flatly contradicts the one he laid out last June in an Op-ed piece in the NY Times. According to the Post: "The governor quoted a statement from Clarke saying, "States should act to register immigrants, legal and illegal, who use our roadways as New York is doing." But in June, Clarke said: "The result is that potential terrorists here illegally can easily use phony licenses or, in many states, get real ones issued to them, along with credit cards and all of the other papers needed to blend into our society," he wrote."
Typical Clarke, but what about the amnesia over at the Times? In today's story the paper covers the Spitzer press event, but fails to mention the apparent contradictions in the security adviser's public statements-one that was even published on its own pages! Exacerbating the omission is the fact that the Times covers the Spitzer remarks but fails to address any of the opposition from other security analysts who perceive the governor's plan as a danger to public safety.
Put simply, the story lacks even a rudimentary balance, and concludes with the following tendentious observation: "Even before Mr. Clarke’s statement, some security experts had spoken favorably of the plan, saying it was a way to bring a hidden population into the open and ultimately make the identification system more secure, as well as a way to ensure more drivers are licensed and insured."
Looking at the piece, a Times reader would be hard pressed to understand just why only 22% of New Yorkers support the governor's plan; and the credibility of contradictory Clarke is left unchallenged. Which leaves it up to the NY Post to state the obvious in today's editorial: "Back on June 1, The New York Times published an opinion piece written by Clarke that argued precisely the opposite: "Potential terrorists here illegally can easily use phony licenses or, in many states, get real ones issued to them, along with credit cards and all of the other papers needed to blend into our society . . . Indeed, those arrested for allegedly planning to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey included illegal immigrants who apparently had little difficulty getting along in this country."
If you're looking for a strong reason to explain the decline of the NY Times, this small piece offers as good a rationale as any. In it we find a failure to question official pronouncements because of ideological agreement; and the absence of proper balance that would enable the reader to make her own mind up. The paper needs to find more news that's fit to print, since the current evidence dramatizes a lacuna that's big enough to drive a semi through.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Stringer Hilarity
Azi has posted a job listing from City Limits that has Scott Stringer searching for a Director of Communications. Here's what the blurb says: "Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer seeks a Director of Community Affairs and Constituent Services to implement a shared vision of progressive policies and community-based planning."
Could the Manhattan BP have reached any greater degree of unintended hilarity if he had tried? Who're they kidding? Didn't we just witness the kind of sellout over the Columbia expansion that would have made Quisling proud? Seriously, if the BP wants someone who knows about community-based planning, why doesn't he just give CPC's Tom Demott a call?
Could the Manhattan BP have reached any greater degree of unintended hilarity if he had tried? Who're they kidding? Didn't we just witness the kind of sellout over the Columbia expansion that would have made Quisling proud? Seriously, if the BP wants someone who knows about community-based planning, why doesn't he just give CPC's Tom Demott a call?
Clubs are Trump
In what we think is a historic agreement, the city has announced a new nightlife policy that creates a working partnership between the traditionally adversarial NYPD and the clubs. This is a working relationship and collaboration that the industry has long sought-particularly after the bad publicity from two years ago when a number of club-related (but not caused) homicides.
In addition, the new arrangement is the result of the hard work of the New York Night Life Association (NYNA), and its leadership, particularly Rob Bookman and Dave Rabin. Since we've helped NYNA off and on over the past few years, we know just how hard Rob and Dave labored to achieve yesterday's agreement with the city's police force. As Bookman told the Post: "No establishment has to fear calling the police again." The Times summarizes: "The police encouraged the clubs to report problems and seek help when needed. Club owners have been reluctant to call 911, fearing that they would blamed and subjected to tickets, arrests and challenges to their liquor licenses."
And a great deal of credit needs to go to Speaker Quinn, who we've criticized in the past on a number of issues. The NY Sun's take on this; "The nightclub industry and city officials led by the City Council speaker, Christine Quinn, have been at odds in the past after a year-long effort to tackle problems with the city's $9 billion nightlife industry, including underage drinking and unlicensed bouncers," misstates the situation. It was Quinn who spearheaded the diplomacy that led to yesterday's deal.
The deal symbolizes what should characterize all of the relationships between the city and area businesses: collaboration and not confrontation. All too often the neighborhood bar, restaurant or bodega is seen as a pinata to be beaten for revenue, and not as valued businesses that should be seen as an essential part of the city's mosaic.
In addition, the new arrangement is the result of the hard work of the New York Night Life Association (NYNA), and its leadership, particularly Rob Bookman and Dave Rabin. Since we've helped NYNA off and on over the past few years, we know just how hard Rob and Dave labored to achieve yesterday's agreement with the city's police force. As Bookman told the Post: "No establishment has to fear calling the police again." The Times summarizes: "The police encouraged the clubs to report problems and seek help when needed. Club owners have been reluctant to call 911, fearing that they would blamed and subjected to tickets, arrests and challenges to their liquor licenses."
And a great deal of credit needs to go to Speaker Quinn, who we've criticized in the past on a number of issues. The NY Sun's take on this; "The nightclub industry and city officials led by the City Council speaker, Christine Quinn, have been at odds in the past after a year-long effort to tackle problems with the city's $9 billion nightlife industry, including underage drinking and unlicensed bouncers," misstates the situation. It was Quinn who spearheaded the diplomacy that led to yesterday's deal.
The deal symbolizes what should characterize all of the relationships between the city and area businesses: collaboration and not confrontation. All too often the neighborhood bar, restaurant or bodega is seen as a pinata to be beaten for revenue, and not as valued businesses that should be seen as an essential part of the city's mosaic.
Licensed Lunacy
There's a public policy argument to be made in favor of granting drivers licenses illegal immigrants. Now it's not one that we'd make, or one that we think has much merit in this age of terrorism. But one of the biggest problems we have with something like this, is the fact that when Eliot Spitzer ran for office he made no mention of this boldly divergent public policy, one that departs dramatically from the current standard practices.
So it's interesting to read the governor's explanations for his initiative in today's NY Sun. As the Sun tells us: "Governor Spitzer said he has no intention of retreating from his contentious effort to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, insisting that the new policy would be more widely embraced if New Yorkers had a better understanding of its benefits."
If that's in fact the case, then the governor should have used the election campaign to educate the voters about the need to do something as radically new as this, since he believes that the polls aren't a good gauge of popular sentiment: "I'm not sure that the number accurately reflects the true public sentiment if it were presented in questions that reflected the underlying facts," Mr. Spitzer told the Sun." (An update is in order here. Juan Gonzales informs us that Spitzer did tell "immigrant leaders" about his intentions; it would have been nice, however, if he had told the 72% of New Yorkers who think that this is a bad idea).
And when he tells the Sun that he doesn't care about the polls that show that almost 75% of New Yorkers oppose the policy, ("I stand and govern based upon principle, not poll numbers. Humility has nothing to do with caving to poll numbers," he said. "Principle is what I've stood for, for nine years, and that's why I was elected by the largest margin by any governor in history.") he pointedly omits the political rationale that many folks see behind the governors move-a campaign promise to a number of powerful labor unions (and those "immigrant leaders").
Making all of this even more fascinating is the possibility, also examined in today's Sun, that most illegal immigrants would be reluctant to take advantage of the governor's generous offer. As the paper points out: "Far from the political debate on Governor Spitzer's plan to give undocumented immigrants valid driver's licenses, discussions are under way in New York City's immigrant-heavy neighborhoods about whether undocumented New Yorkers would even be willing to share their identities with the government."
Talk about money for nothing! As one illegal immigrant said: "Policies can be good today, but turn bad tomorrow." People are scared that, once they've been documented, their continued presence in the country will be at risk. Which raises the question of how much due diligence was done by the governor to determine whether his intended beneficiaries would not only appreciate his efforts, but actually utilize the license option. As one local Chinese-American official told the Sun about immigrant reactions to the new policy: "They say they are very happy with this new program, but they are not coming here today because they are very scared."
What's really at stake here is the country's immigration and homeland security policies. The governor's not waiting on the federal government, and by moving forward in this way he may be complicating the efforts to craft an immigration reform policy that is both fair and provides security to American citizens. In the process, he may also be damaging his own political stature.
So it's interesting to read the governor's explanations for his initiative in today's NY Sun. As the Sun tells us: "Governor Spitzer said he has no intention of retreating from his contentious effort to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, insisting that the new policy would be more widely embraced if New Yorkers had a better understanding of its benefits."
If that's in fact the case, then the governor should have used the election campaign to educate the voters about the need to do something as radically new as this, since he believes that the polls aren't a good gauge of popular sentiment: "I'm not sure that the number accurately reflects the true public sentiment if it were presented in questions that reflected the underlying facts," Mr. Spitzer told the Sun." (An update is in order here. Juan Gonzales informs us that Spitzer did tell "immigrant leaders" about his intentions; it would have been nice, however, if he had told the 72% of New Yorkers who think that this is a bad idea).
And when he tells the Sun that he doesn't care about the polls that show that almost 75% of New Yorkers oppose the policy, ("I stand and govern based upon principle, not poll numbers. Humility has nothing to do with caving to poll numbers," he said. "Principle is what I've stood for, for nine years, and that's why I was elected by the largest margin by any governor in history.") he pointedly omits the political rationale that many folks see behind the governors move-a campaign promise to a number of powerful labor unions (and those "immigrant leaders").
Making all of this even more fascinating is the possibility, also examined in today's Sun, that most illegal immigrants would be reluctant to take advantage of the governor's generous offer. As the paper points out: "Far from the political debate on Governor Spitzer's plan to give undocumented immigrants valid driver's licenses, discussions are under way in New York City's immigrant-heavy neighborhoods about whether undocumented New Yorkers would even be willing to share their identities with the government."
Talk about money for nothing! As one illegal immigrant said: "Policies can be good today, but turn bad tomorrow." People are scared that, once they've been documented, their continued presence in the country will be at risk. Which raises the question of how much due diligence was done by the governor to determine whether his intended beneficiaries would not only appreciate his efforts, but actually utilize the license option. As one local Chinese-American official told the Sun about immigrant reactions to the new policy: "They say they are very happy with this new program, but they are not coming here today because they are very scared."
What's really at stake here is the country's immigration and homeland security policies. The governor's not waiting on the federal government, and by moving forward in this way he may be complicating the efforts to craft an immigration reform policy that is both fair and provides security to American citizens. In the process, he may also be damaging his own political stature.
Hiram Trains for a Rematch
In yesterday's local political blogs, the future political fortunes of Hiram Monseratte got front and center attention. At the City Room, Jonathan Hicks focused on the councilman's strenuous physical fitness regimen: "In the last three months, City Councilman Hiram Monserrate has been on a fitness program and has lost 25 pounds. He said that he has been undertaking a regimen of weight lifting, running and kick boxing to trim down."
What needs to be said, is that Monseratte's new found health kick coincided with his support of Dr. Mehmet Oz's HealthCorps initiative that was funded by the City Council this year. At a press conference earlier in the year, Hiram stood with Dr. Oz and committed to the weight loss. He's proven to be a man of his word when it comes to being a role model for health.
The potential re-match between Monseratte and incumbent state senator John Sabini is, of course what most interests our local political observers; the election battle in 2006 saw Sabini narrowly defeat Monseratte by 260 votes, making him appear to be the most vulnerable of the Democratic incumbents. As Azi points out, Sabini's vulnerability is enhanced because of his recent drunk driving beef.
The Sabini court fight over this charge, highlighted by Liz's Daily Politics blog, will continue to underscore some of Monseratte's arguments that he is better suited to represent the 13th Senatorial district; but the real challenge for the incumbent will be the changing demographics in this largely Hispanic district.
What needs to be said, is that Monseratte's new found health kick coincided with his support of Dr. Mehmet Oz's HealthCorps initiative that was funded by the City Council this year. At a press conference earlier in the year, Hiram stood with Dr. Oz and committed to the weight loss. He's proven to be a man of his word when it comes to being a role model for health.
The potential re-match between Monseratte and incumbent state senator John Sabini is, of course what most interests our local political observers; the election battle in 2006 saw Sabini narrowly defeat Monseratte by 260 votes, making him appear to be the most vulnerable of the Democratic incumbents. As Azi points out, Sabini's vulnerability is enhanced because of his recent drunk driving beef.
The Sabini court fight over this charge, highlighted by Liz's Daily Politics blog, will continue to underscore some of Monseratte's arguments that he is better suited to represent the 13th Senatorial district; but the real challenge for the incumbent will be the changing demographics in this largely Hispanic district.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Feeding Frenzy-Not!
In today's NY Times the paper reports on the declining food stores at the area's food pantries. The declines mean that there will be a serious food shortage for those poor folks who often are forced to rely on the pantries to mitigate their hunger. As the Times says; "At the Campaign Against Hunger pantry in Brooklyn, which is usually a hub of activity as visitors catch up with one another on the latest gossip, fewer people are showing up since word got out that the cupboards were running bare. On one day, the middle aisle held 13 cans of corned beef, a single jar of peanut butter and a few hundred cans of spaghetti in sauce. The canned and fresh fruit were gone."
What this means is that more people, but especially kids, are likely to go hungry this winter-and it also puts the onus on the school breakfast program to fill in the breach. As we have reported, the city's school breakfast is only being accessed by around 29% of the eligible children-which puts NYC second to last among major cities.
The Health Corps has been working with the DOE in trying to establish an in-class breakfast program, the kind that has been successfully implemented elsewhere. In Newark, for instance, participation rates skyrocketed to over 90% once the eating venue was changed. The city has around 680,000 eligible children, and if the rates are raised it will mean the improvement of school functioning for kids who are often eating poorly and thus physically ill-prepared to do well in school.
The challenge ahead is to devise the kind of pilot program that both provides a nutritious first meal, and maximizes the breakfast participation rate. In our view, the experimentation here needs to involve the creative input of the private sector. The role of government is more effective steering and not rowing.
What this means is that more people, but especially kids, are likely to go hungry this winter-and it also puts the onus on the school breakfast program to fill in the breach. As we have reported, the city's school breakfast is only being accessed by around 29% of the eligible children-which puts NYC second to last among major cities.
The Health Corps has been working with the DOE in trying to establish an in-class breakfast program, the kind that has been successfully implemented elsewhere. In Newark, for instance, participation rates skyrocketed to over 90% once the eating venue was changed. The city has around 680,000 eligible children, and if the rates are raised it will mean the improvement of school functioning for kids who are often eating poorly and thus physically ill-prepared to do well in school.
The challenge ahead is to devise the kind of pilot program that both provides a nutritious first meal, and maximizes the breakfast participation rate. In our view, the experimentation here needs to involve the creative input of the private sector. The role of government is more effective steering and not rowing.
Driving Dishonesty
The debate over the issuing of drivers licenses to illegals, is just one part of a larger debate over the status of those folks who have entered the country illegally and now want to be allowed to stay-in essence, squatter's rights being elevated into a new form of civil rights. What's distressing to us, and we've done more to represent the rights of immigrant businesses than any other lobbying entity in NYC, is how proponents of the illegal cohort are so quick to label as racist any one who disagrees with their point-of-view.
A great deal of this has come out in the dispute over the actions of the Minutemen. The group, whose leader was violently bum rushed from a Columbia stage last year, advocates a citizen patrol of the US' southern border in order to stem the tide of illegals into the country. As far as we know, the group has not advocated any violence and yet they're characterized as a violent and racist vigilante organization. Which is what happens to almost anyone who disagrees with the concept of open borders.
What happens here, is that the narrative of the open borders movement features the use of the term, "anti-immigrant," in all contexts where opponents are objecting to policies involving illegal immigrants-thereby tendentiously blurring the distinction between those who struggled to come here legally, and those who purposefully skirted the country's laws. In a rhetorical nano-second, many of us who have fought for immigrants for years are turned into xenophobes and racists.
In addition, it should be pointed out that the fact that a great many people here illegally are also productive, doesn't take away from the realities of: (1) homeland security in an age of terrorism, and; (2) the large numbers of illegals engaged in criminal activity. Put simply, an open border-and those who deny they are open border advocates while opposing every proactive measure to close the border are just being dishonest-is an existential threat to the safety of all Americans.
It is also at the same time, a threat to the American national identity, since without an orderly immigration and assimilation process, our national identity will erode into meaninglessness-something that many of these open border advocates would welcome since they're not big fans of the American national identity in the first place (taking exception to the idea of what they call "American exceptionalism").
Which brings us to the Spitzer-driven drivers license issue, highlighted once again today in the NY Sun, and the NY Daily News. Underneath all of the mendacious public rhetoric lie the philosophical issues that we've outlined. We're more interested in creating a safe and orderly society, and this can't be done by the cavalier and open legitimization of those who've broken the laws to come here. The rule of law is vitiated when the state's chief executive moves, without any legislative mandate, to bestow the government's aura of legitimacy on people here illegally.
A great deal of this has come out in the dispute over the actions of the Minutemen. The group, whose leader was violently bum rushed from a Columbia stage last year, advocates a citizen patrol of the US' southern border in order to stem the tide of illegals into the country. As far as we know, the group has not advocated any violence and yet they're characterized as a violent and racist vigilante organization. Which is what happens to almost anyone who disagrees with the concept of open borders.
What happens here, is that the narrative of the open borders movement features the use of the term, "anti-immigrant," in all contexts where opponents are objecting to policies involving illegal immigrants-thereby tendentiously blurring the distinction between those who struggled to come here legally, and those who purposefully skirted the country's laws. In a rhetorical nano-second, many of us who have fought for immigrants for years are turned into xenophobes and racists.
In addition, it should be pointed out that the fact that a great many people here illegally are also productive, doesn't take away from the realities of: (1) homeland security in an age of terrorism, and; (2) the large numbers of illegals engaged in criminal activity. Put simply, an open border-and those who deny they are open border advocates while opposing every proactive measure to close the border are just being dishonest-is an existential threat to the safety of all Americans.
It is also at the same time, a threat to the American national identity, since without an orderly immigration and assimilation process, our national identity will erode into meaninglessness-something that many of these open border advocates would welcome since they're not big fans of the American national identity in the first place (taking exception to the idea of what they call "American exceptionalism").
Which brings us to the Spitzer-driven drivers license issue, highlighted once again today in the NY Sun, and the NY Daily News. Underneath all of the mendacious public rhetoric lie the philosophical issues that we've outlined. We're more interested in creating a safe and orderly society, and this can't be done by the cavalier and open legitimization of those who've broken the laws to come here. The rule of law is vitiated when the state's chief executive moves, without any legislative mandate, to bestow the government's aura of legitimacy on people here illegally.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Litterly Idiotic
We haven't commented yet on the idiocy of ticketing a six year old's hopscotch doodlings, but the editorial in today's NY Sun compels us to weigh-in as well. As we have said before, the focus on the city's poor business climate generally emphasizes the high levels of taxation. It is, however, equally important to emphasize the harsh-and so often irrational regulatory system that plagues neighborhood retailers all over the city.
It is not only the fines themselves-after all what can you say about a fruit stand owner who gets a thousand dollar ticket because his watermelons extended over the city's "five foot" demarcation line. It's also the adjudication process, whose rules must have been promulgated in collaboration with Franz Kafka.
The entire municipal code needs to be overhauled, and some real semblance of due process needs to be injected into the city's Byzantine administrative law process. Perhaps, the creation of a Debt Tribunal, separate from the agencies that issue the violations, would be a good first step.
It is not only the fines themselves-after all what can you say about a fruit stand owner who gets a thousand dollar ticket because his watermelons extended over the city's "five foot" demarcation line. It's also the adjudication process, whose rules must have been promulgated in collaboration with Franz Kafka.
The entire municipal code needs to be overhauled, and some real semblance of due process needs to be injected into the city's Byzantine administrative law process. Perhaps, the creation of a Debt Tribunal, separate from the agencies that issue the violations, would be a good first step.
Transfering Blame
Updating the transfer station blow-up that we have already commented on: there's an interesting piece on the issue in the City Room blog. What fascinates us is the way that the mayor, intent on wooing the assembly for his congestion tax plan, continues to orchestrate in ways that only embarrass Shelly-and can only be seen as counter-productive.
In fact, as Sewell's story reveals, the mayor unveiled a consultant's study that "proved" that the Gansevoort transfer station would be cheaper to build than the assembly alternative on 36th Street. Here's the money quote: "But it is unclear whether Mr. Silver will get behind the mayor’s plan or yet again throw a wrench in the administration’s works. Mr. Bloomberg said that Mr. Silver’s staff had not yet briefed the speaker on the thick report the mayor brandished in the Blue Room." (emphasis added)
Is he serious? Holding a press conference on a report that contradicts the Speaker's position before briefing him doesn't seem to be good politics, does it? And calling it a "disaster," as the NY Sun story this morning reports, if the plan doesn't pass isn't the best gauntlet to put before the assembly.
Shelly, for his part, continues to see the 36th Street site as preferable: "They seem to be ignoring the questions that they were asked, which is what does it cost to do the alternative site," Mr. Silver said in Lower Manhattan." The mayor responded by referring to the city's report, another indication that we're going to have to cease and desist from any further use of these municipal liars for hire since so many of these consultants appear willing to say anything for their employers.
Remember when the city's DOS hired consultants who found that the clustering of transfer stations in Williamsburgh didn't pose any environmental problems? We all got a good laugh out of that, and the mayor's obviously ignoring that advice with his new found environmental religion. All of which underscored what we said over a year ago: the mayor's plan, limited in garbage reduction scope and unmindful of Albany politics, was heading for the rocks.
In fact, as Sewell's story reveals, the mayor unveiled a consultant's study that "proved" that the Gansevoort transfer station would be cheaper to build than the assembly alternative on 36th Street. Here's the money quote: "But it is unclear whether Mr. Silver will get behind the mayor’s plan or yet again throw a wrench in the administration’s works. Mr. Bloomberg said that Mr. Silver’s staff had not yet briefed the speaker on the thick report the mayor brandished in the Blue Room." (emphasis added)
Is he serious? Holding a press conference on a report that contradicts the Speaker's position before briefing him doesn't seem to be good politics, does it? And calling it a "disaster," as the NY Sun story this morning reports, if the plan doesn't pass isn't the best gauntlet to put before the assembly.
Shelly, for his part, continues to see the 36th Street site as preferable: "They seem to be ignoring the questions that they were asked, which is what does it cost to do the alternative site," Mr. Silver said in Lower Manhattan." The mayor responded by referring to the city's report, another indication that we're going to have to cease and desist from any further use of these municipal liars for hire since so many of these consultants appear willing to say anything for their employers.
Remember when the city's DOS hired consultants who found that the clustering of transfer stations in Williamsburgh didn't pose any environmental problems? We all got a good laugh out of that, and the mayor's obviously ignoring that advice with his new found environmental religion. All of which underscored what we said over a year ago: the mayor's plan, limited in garbage reduction scope and unmindful of Albany politics, was heading for the rocks.
Pontificating Without a License
The DMI is at it again, this time in a blog post on the drivergate scandal. It seems that the resident blogger in question feels that the current imbrolio, one that has helped the governor's approval rate to plummet, is a Republican scam: "What we’re really seeing here is a partisan mudslinging contest between Governor Spitzer and Senate Republicans, who it appears are miffed that Spitzer has reveled in legislative sparring with them over the past 9 months and didn’t ask them first before coming out with his policy. There is such a cesspool of faulty logic, political pandering, and anti-immigrant invective here..."
Oh really? So the 52% or so of the Democrats who oppose Spitzer's license plan are what-brainwashed by the great right wing conspiracy. What's disturbing here is the complete absence of any recognition that the proliferation of illegals is a public safety nightmare-whether we talk about terrorism or simply the heinous criminality that cut down three kids in Newark, and Mary Nagle (raped and killed in New City).
What the Drum Majors and Majorettes don't acknowledge is the fact that they don't care about protecting the borders of this country, even in an era of terrorism. If the Democratic Part doesn't wise up on this issue, we'll all suffer egregiously in the near future.
Oh really? So the 52% or so of the Democrats who oppose Spitzer's license plan are what-brainwashed by the great right wing conspiracy. What's disturbing here is the complete absence of any recognition that the proliferation of illegals is a public safety nightmare-whether we talk about terrorism or simply the heinous criminality that cut down three kids in Newark, and Mary Nagle (raped and killed in New City).
What the Drum Majors and Majorettes don't acknowledge is the fact that they don't care about protecting the borders of this country, even in an era of terrorism. If the Democratic Part doesn't wise up on this issue, we'll all suffer egregiously in the near future.
Environmental Garbage
In yesterday's Daily Politics blog, and the Politicker as well, there's coverage of the mayor's press conference on the call for the assembly to give the green light to the opening of the Gansevoort transfer station. This locale was chosen under the mayor's "fair share" vision, one that calls on all of the boroughs to bear the garbage burden more equitably.
That's certainly a worthwhile objective, but as we have said on numerous occasions it begs the question of how to more efficiently-and fairly as well-dispose of the city's trash. The mayor has done what amounts to a classic case of misdirection; while everyone's watching the debate over "environmental justice," no one is paying attention to the fact that the city has no-that's none like in zero-realistic plan to reduce the waste that it exports.
On top of all of this, we're unable to see that this failure to reduce is costing the city's tax payers big time! Our most recent estimate is that the city is paying waste management $390 million a year for exporting the garbage in just three boroughs (not including Manhattan and Staten Island).
In addition, when we look at commercial waste, and this is important because some of the most noxious transfer stations in low income communities of color are privately owned, the mayor and the city council speaker(both were front and center at the press conference) nixed the garbage grinder pilot that could have been the first step towards eliminating the most environmentally objectionable putrescible commercial waste and the truck traffic that Assemblyman Espaillat finds so damaging.
As Daily Politics says about Adriano: "But Espaillat and his supporters have responded that this is a racial justice issue because reducing the number of garbage trucks in the outer boroughs will improve air quality and reduce asthma rates." If so, then all of these folks should be joining with Joel Rivera and Hiram Monseratte in their promotion of the garbage disposals for city food businesses. That is, if they can pull themselves away from all of this distracting poltical drama.
That's certainly a worthwhile objective, but as we have said on numerous occasions it begs the question of how to more efficiently-and fairly as well-dispose of the city's trash. The mayor has done what amounts to a classic case of misdirection; while everyone's watching the debate over "environmental justice," no one is paying attention to the fact that the city has no-that's none like in zero-realistic plan to reduce the waste that it exports.
On top of all of this, we're unable to see that this failure to reduce is costing the city's tax payers big time! Our most recent estimate is that the city is paying waste management $390 million a year for exporting the garbage in just three boroughs (not including Manhattan and Staten Island).
In addition, when we look at commercial waste, and this is important because some of the most noxious transfer stations in low income communities of color are privately owned, the mayor and the city council speaker(both were front and center at the press conference) nixed the garbage grinder pilot that could have been the first step towards eliminating the most environmentally objectionable putrescible commercial waste and the truck traffic that Assemblyman Espaillat finds so damaging.
As Daily Politics says about Adriano: "But Espaillat and his supporters have responded that this is a racial justice issue because reducing the number of garbage trucks in the outer boroughs will improve air quality and reduce asthma rates." If so, then all of these folks should be joining with Joel Rivera and Hiram Monseratte in their promotion of the garbage disposals for city food businesses. That is, if they can pull themselves away from all of this distracting poltical drama.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Building Inconsistency
In yesterday's NY Post there was an article on the David Weprin press conference against the mayor's congestion tax. At the presser, Weprin unveiled a number of alternatives and the Post focused on his proposal to raise fees to builders for their use of the streets in construction projects. As he told the Post: "The price for a three-month construction permit is $50, which encourages contractors to occupy street space beyond what is needed."
What was funny in all of this was the response from City Hall: "Mayoral aides appeared to dismiss the permit-hike idea saying the plan was based on "flawed logic." "Congestion isn't caused by dawdling construction. The construction industry has plenty of incentives to complete projects in a timely manner," one said."
Remember when the Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free issued its report on alternatives to the mayor's tax? The mayor's radio show response was that the unveiled alternatives did no address the funding issue for mass transit.
Well, we know that the increased construction in this city is in good measure a main culprit in greater traffic congestion-more so when you consider that the sheer volume of cars going into the CBD has remained relatively flat for the last ten years. So why not tax the big builders for their contribution to all of this, instead of shlubs who commute and make modest salaries?
In any case, the Weprin idea was a revenue enhancer. and the money raised could go to mass transit. It may be a drop in the bucket, but given the MTA deficit, what isn't?
What was funny in all of this was the response from City Hall: "Mayoral aides appeared to dismiss the permit-hike idea saying the plan was based on "flawed logic." "Congestion isn't caused by dawdling construction. The construction industry has plenty of incentives to complete projects in a timely manner," one said."
Remember when the Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free issued its report on alternatives to the mayor's tax? The mayor's radio show response was that the unveiled alternatives did no address the funding issue for mass transit.
Well, we know that the increased construction in this city is in good measure a main culprit in greater traffic congestion-more so when you consider that the sheer volume of cars going into the CBD has remained relatively flat for the last ten years. So why not tax the big builders for their contribution to all of this, instead of shlubs who commute and make modest salaries?
In any case, the Weprin idea was a revenue enhancer. and the money raised could go to mass transit. It may be a drop in the bucket, but given the MTA deficit, what isn't?
Liberty Not License
The controversy over the governor's plan to give drivers licenses of illegal aliens continues to roil, with a Siena College poll showing that 72% of all New Yorkers oppose the plan. Even a majority of Democrats polled think that it's not a good idea. Yet, as the NY Times reports this morning, the governor appears not to care what the public's view on all this is: “It’s what happens when you govern and make tough decisions, and do things that you believe are right, and don’t govern based on polls,” Mr. Spitzer said."
What's troubling in all of this, aside from the natioanl security implications of Spitzer's proposal, is the manner in which the governor has moved forward on it-no advanced warnings, no hearings, and no comprehensive report that clearly delineates the benefits that Spitzer feels are apparent in his initiative.
Without the benefit of a proper process, what awaits the governor is not very pretty. Opposition is gleefully lining up to attack the plan-both politically and legally. The furor has also managed to breathe new life into what had been the failing fortunes of Senate Majority Leade Joe Bruno-so much so that the NY Daily News' Bill Hammond, no friend of Bruno's, is counseling Spitzer to back down. As he writes this morning: "Spitzer must swallow his pride and put the brakes on his plan for issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Otherwise, it could drag him and what's left of his agenda off a cliff."
Strong words, but certainly good advice, as the governor's poll numbers continue to plummet and his editorial opponents see him going into free fall. As the Post opines this morning: "Read 'em and weep, Eliot. In a Siena College poll released yesterday, 72 percent of New Yorkers oppose the gov's license plan - while only 22 percent support it...Any way you look at it, those numbers add up to a political disaster for Eliot Spitzer."
We just can't think of why Eliot Spitzer, a man of great intelligence, would stick his head into this political oven. It's not only a terrible policy, but it's terribly unpopular as well. If Spitzer wants to show real courage this isn't the issue to use.
What's troubling in all of this, aside from the natioanl security implications of Spitzer's proposal, is the manner in which the governor has moved forward on it-no advanced warnings, no hearings, and no comprehensive report that clearly delineates the benefits that Spitzer feels are apparent in his initiative.
Without the benefit of a proper process, what awaits the governor is not very pretty. Opposition is gleefully lining up to attack the plan-both politically and legally. The furor has also managed to breathe new life into what had been the failing fortunes of Senate Majority Leade Joe Bruno-so much so that the NY Daily News' Bill Hammond, no friend of Bruno's, is counseling Spitzer to back down. As he writes this morning: "Spitzer must swallow his pride and put the brakes on his plan for issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Otherwise, it could drag him and what's left of his agenda off a cliff."
Strong words, but certainly good advice, as the governor's poll numbers continue to plummet and his editorial opponents see him going into free fall. As the Post opines this morning: "Read 'em and weep, Eliot. In a Siena College poll released yesterday, 72 percent of New Yorkers oppose the gov's license plan - while only 22 percent support it...Any way you look at it, those numbers add up to a political disaster for Eliot Spitzer."
We just can't think of why Eliot Spitzer, a man of great intelligence, would stick his head into this political oven. It's not only a terrible policy, but it's terribly unpopular as well. If Spitzer wants to show real courage this isn't the issue to use.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Handwriting on the Monsey Wal-Mart?
In today's Journal News, the paper reports on the stymied efforts of the Walmonster to make it into the final stages of the Ramapo review process. The Ramapo Planning Board is exercising proper due diligence in insisting that the store's developer provide as much detail as possible in regards to the mega impacts that Wal-Mart will have in the surrounding community. As the Journal says; "Since the Planning Board voted 5-1 in August against accepting a proposed environmental impact statement offered by the developer, the town has been awaiting revisions to the plan. The developer will have to first bring the new proposals to the Community Design and Review Board, which advises the Planning Board, before getting back onto the latter's agenda, Richard Ackerson, deputy town attorney for building, planning and zoning, said Friday."
But the big news in this morning's paper is the fact that Ramapo supervisor Chris St. Lawrence has apparently seen the light, particularly on the traffic nightmare that the Walmonster would generate, and is going public with his opposition to the store: "It's a regional store, but there's no regional solution," St. Lawrence said of traffic. "A store that size should be on a major highway, not on two-lane Route 59."
This is indeed good news, and it reflects the fact that the location chosen for this development is certainly far from ideal. It is why the project has instilled fierce opposition from our Alliance, and from the Monsey/Spring Valley communities: "Residents, merchants and local officials have expressed concerns about the traffic that the store would generate - 10,500 cars on Sundays and 8,000 on other days has been estimated by the Neighborhood Retail Alliance - and the impact it would have on side streets as well as main roads."
So, as the opposition hardens to this unnecessary intrusion on the surrounding residential neighborhoods, it is hoped that the developer, National Realty, will get the message: find a better location and stop throwing good money after bad.
But the big news in this morning's paper is the fact that Ramapo supervisor Chris St. Lawrence has apparently seen the light, particularly on the traffic nightmare that the Walmonster would generate, and is going public with his opposition to the store: "It's a regional store, but there's no regional solution," St. Lawrence said of traffic. "A store that size should be on a major highway, not on two-lane Route 59."
This is indeed good news, and it reflects the fact that the location chosen for this development is certainly far from ideal. It is why the project has instilled fierce opposition from our Alliance, and from the Monsey/Spring Valley communities: "Residents, merchants and local officials have expressed concerns about the traffic that the store would generate - 10,500 cars on Sundays and 8,000 on other days has been estimated by the Neighborhood Retail Alliance - and the impact it would have on side streets as well as main roads."
So, as the opposition hardens to this unnecessary intrusion on the surrounding residential neighborhoods, it is hoped that the developer, National Realty, will get the message: find a better location and stop throwing good money after bad.
Alternative Traffic Patterns
So the mayor wants to clean up our environment-apparently, it seems, at least one tax payer at a time. As AMNY pointed out on Saturday, Bloomberg reacted to the alternative congestion relief proposal advanced by our Congestion Tax Free NYC Committee, with the following observation: "Bloomberg ridiculed the coalition's proposal on his weekly radio show Friday, saying that it only addressed part of the overall issue. The advantage of his congestion pricing scheme, he argues, is that it not only reduces traffic but pours all the extra revenue from the fees into mass transit improvements."
Cha ching, cha ching! The shekels are out of the bag-it's all about the Benjamins for the billionaire Bloomberg. And has he really looked at the congestion tax's revenue projections-and compared them to the capital needs of the system? Here's his take on this: "So people that come up with a solution say they'll be fewer cars coming in -yeah that's great, but that's half the problem," he said. "Where's the money come from for the other side?"
And, once we determine that the revenues produced by the congestion tax-reduced astronomically by the ridiculous top-heavy administration cost-are inadequate, you can bet the the fees will rise like bakery yeast. Which means that-as we've said all along-the mayor's congestion plan is little else but another one of his revenue enhancement schemes, which is why the NY Times and the DMI crowd are so enthusiastically cheering him on.
So we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss alternatives to the congestion tax. In fact, we shouldn't be quick to do anything here-and especially because of the way in which the mayor has tried-in Bob Barker fashion-to bum rush us all to accept a poorly vetted idea, one that would never pass an independent smell test.
Cha ching, cha ching! The shekels are out of the bag-it's all about the Benjamins for the billionaire Bloomberg. And has he really looked at the congestion tax's revenue projections-and compared them to the capital needs of the system? Here's his take on this: "So people that come up with a solution say they'll be fewer cars coming in -yeah that's great, but that's half the problem," he said. "Where's the money come from for the other side?"
And, once we determine that the revenues produced by the congestion tax-reduced astronomically by the ridiculous top-heavy administration cost-are inadequate, you can bet the the fees will rise like bakery yeast. Which means that-as we've said all along-the mayor's congestion plan is little else but another one of his revenue enhancement schemes, which is why the NY Times and the DMI crowd are so enthusiastically cheering him on.
So we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss alternatives to the congestion tax. In fact, we shouldn't be quick to do anything here-and especially because of the way in which the mayor has tried-in Bob Barker fashion-to bum rush us all to accept a poorly vetted idea, one that would never pass an independent smell test.
Do as I Say, Not as I Do
In yesterday's NY Post, the paper reported on the humongous carbon footprint of Mayor Mike Bloomberg-you know, the same guy who has expressed such a concern over the environment that he wants to tax commuters in order to reduce congestion and clean up the air. In the colorful Post mode: "America's greenest mayor generates enough greenhouse gas to choke the Lincoln Tunnel."
So here's another case of someone who's concern for the environment extends to hectoring others to behave in certain ways while he himself flouts the greener lifestyle with audacious impunity. The next thing we'll here is that Bloomberg-a la Al Gore-has purchased enough "carbon credits" to offset his wanton disregard for the ideals he's advanced for all of the less regal among us (And perhaps cashing in on the scheme just like our newest Nobel laureate).
As the Post points out, with all of the mayor's properties; "That's a carbon footprint larger than what's produced by 18 average Americans, 53 Europeans or 404 Guatemalans. It's equivalent to keeping 69 cars a year on the road or lighting the Empire State Building for 4 ½ days." But that ain't all by a long shot.
This far flung carbon generating empire doesn't include the mayor's manner of transportation and his frequent jaunts to his Bermuda abode: "Bloomberg's carbon footprint swells to epic proportions when you include his penchant for reaching his far-flung getaways by one of the handful of private jets owned by his financial information firm, Bloomberg LP. In 2004 - before he took steps to conceal his weekend travel from the press - Bloomberg was averaging one four-hour round trip to Bermuda each month in his sleek Dassault Falcon 900.
Twelve such flights in a year would spew 40 tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, roughly as much as two Americans would produce in a year.
Now the mayor's PLaNYC seeks to cut the city's carbon emissions by a robust 7% in 2030-with a congestion tax being one of Bloomberg's key policy measures devised to achieve this laudable environmental goal. What gets us is that he has absolutely no sense of shame in this hypocritical advocacy. As the Post tells us: "The mayor says he has taken such steps himself. He's replaced incandescent light bulbs with more efficient fluorescent ones at City Hall."
We really shouldn't be surprised at all of this. As Steve Cuozzo pointed out, also in yesterday's NY Post, the mayor is extremely good at telling others how to live better. And in a real sense, Bloomberg's current environmental agenda emerges comfortably from his nanny mindset. As Cuozzo says; "For him, our waistlines, our sex lives, even the behavior of our pets are fair game for improvement. Just as rezoning will produce a more sleekly contoured New York, so will tinkering with our everyday habits yield a bountiful future where no one need be fat - or even, God forbid, stuck in traffic."
But why should Bloomberg, or Al Gore for that matter, practice what they preach. So many of the fawning glitterati are guilty of the same hypocrisy-advocating abstemiousness for others while they continue to live large, conscience assuaged, lecturing the peons on how to be better citizens of a world that they plunder at will for their own gratification.
We're from the Zero Mostel school, dramatized in The Producers: "When you got it, flaunt it!" Just don't flaunt it while scolding others to tighten their belts and live a supposed righteous lifestyle that you yourself won't deign to live. So as far as Mike Bloomberg is concerned, Tom Lehrer, commenting on the awarding of the Nobel Peace prize to Henry Kissinger is right a second time: "satire is now obsolete."
So here's another case of someone who's concern for the environment extends to hectoring others to behave in certain ways while he himself flouts the greener lifestyle with audacious impunity. The next thing we'll here is that Bloomberg-a la Al Gore-has purchased enough "carbon credits" to offset his wanton disregard for the ideals he's advanced for all of the less regal among us (And perhaps cashing in on the scheme just like our newest Nobel laureate).
As the Post points out, with all of the mayor's properties; "That's a carbon footprint larger than what's produced by 18 average Americans, 53 Europeans or 404 Guatemalans. It's equivalent to keeping 69 cars a year on the road or lighting the Empire State Building for 4 ½ days." But that ain't all by a long shot.
This far flung carbon generating empire doesn't include the mayor's manner of transportation and his frequent jaunts to his Bermuda abode: "Bloomberg's carbon footprint swells to epic proportions when you include his penchant for reaching his far-flung getaways by one of the handful of private jets owned by his financial information firm, Bloomberg LP. In 2004 - before he took steps to conceal his weekend travel from the press - Bloomberg was averaging one four-hour round trip to Bermuda each month in his sleek Dassault Falcon 900.
Twelve such flights in a year would spew 40 tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, roughly as much as two Americans would produce in a year.
Now the mayor's PLaNYC seeks to cut the city's carbon emissions by a robust 7% in 2030-with a congestion tax being one of Bloomberg's key policy measures devised to achieve this laudable environmental goal. What gets us is that he has absolutely no sense of shame in this hypocritical advocacy. As the Post tells us: "The mayor says he has taken such steps himself. He's replaced incandescent light bulbs with more efficient fluorescent ones at City Hall."
We really shouldn't be surprised at all of this. As Steve Cuozzo pointed out, also in yesterday's NY Post, the mayor is extremely good at telling others how to live better. And in a real sense, Bloomberg's current environmental agenda emerges comfortably from his nanny mindset. As Cuozzo says; "For him, our waistlines, our sex lives, even the behavior of our pets are fair game for improvement. Just as rezoning will produce a more sleekly contoured New York, so will tinkering with our everyday habits yield a bountiful future where no one need be fat - or even, God forbid, stuck in traffic."
But why should Bloomberg, or Al Gore for that matter, practice what they preach. So many of the fawning glitterati are guilty of the same hypocrisy-advocating abstemiousness for others while they continue to live large, conscience assuaged, lecturing the peons on how to be better citizens of a world that they plunder at will for their own gratification.
We're from the Zero Mostel school, dramatized in The Producers: "When you got it, flaunt it!" Just don't flaunt it while scolding others to tighten their belts and live a supposed righteous lifestyle that you yourself won't deign to live. So as far as Mike Bloomberg is concerned, Tom Lehrer, commenting on the awarding of the Nobel Peace prize to Henry Kissinger is right a second time: "satire is now obsolete."
Friday, October 12, 2007
Columbia Leaves the NYPD Hanging
As outrage continued to percolate up at Morningside Heights, and all over the city, because of a heinous hate crime, Columbia sat on possible evidence until, as the NY Daily News reports this morning, it eventually released potentially incriminating videotapes that it had held, citing "privacy" concerns.
Once again, when it comes to any question where the university's private issues might potentially conflict with the public interest, Columbia's first instinct is to protect it's own interests first. As the NY Post editorializes this morning: "Teachers College administrators' refusal to tender voluntary assistance to the NYPD in this matter is inexplicable. At best, it shows yet again the contempt Columbia University as a whole has for the community in which it resides, and into which it seeks to expand."
It's all Columbia, all of the time. And it's high time for the area's elected officials to hold the university's feet to the fire and insist that it come up with a good deal more concrete benefits for the surrounding community it wants to expand into. Enough of this institutional narcissism!
Once again, when it comes to any question where the university's private issues might potentially conflict with the public interest, Columbia's first instinct is to protect it's own interests first. As the NY Post editorializes this morning: "Teachers College administrators' refusal to tender voluntary assistance to the NYPD in this matter is inexplicable. At best, it shows yet again the contempt Columbia University as a whole has for the community in which it resides, and into which it seeks to expand."
It's all Columbia, all of the time. And it's high time for the area's elected officials to hold the university's feet to the fire and insist that it come up with a good deal more concrete benefits for the surrounding community it wants to expand into. Enough of this institutional narcissism!
My Way or the Highway-Not the Only Way
As the Congestion Commission begins to evaluate the merits of the mayor's expensive congestion tax scheme, opponents of the taxing mechanism submitted a number of less expensive alternatives-both to implement and to commuters pockets-for the commission to review. The NY Times reports on the proposed alternatives this morning, "Raising parking meter rates in Manhattan, creating more taxi stands and putting in place a series of other measures could achieve the same level of traffic reduction as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, according to a report by a group opposed to the mayor’s proposal."
Under the terms of the legislation, the commission is required to examine alternatives to the congestion tax, and while we're confident that there are any number of feasible alternatives, we're less so about the ability of the commission to separate the wheat from the chaff. Where is its staff?
Without the technical means to do so, the commission will be left with the option of making a political decision that is not based in ant way on sure technical grounds. What this means is that, should the body opt for the congestion tax, its decision will be subject to legal challenge, one that we feel will inevitably be successful.
What's remarkable in all of this is the fact that you have a cacophony of environmental voices weighing in on the putative beauty of the mayor's plan, yet the supposed public interest choir remains absolutely silent on the need for the plan to be subject to environmental review-a remarkable case of lockjaw from folks who will go to court on a moments notice if they feel that some developer has avoided an environmental review.
Their silence on this issue in regards to the congestion tax, it they're unable to find their voices fairly soon, will be to their long lasting shame. They will be exposed as cherry picking hypocrites; but even worse, their silence will potentially lead to the legal defeat of a plan that they've placed so much faith in.
The essence of the proposed alternatives-put forward by our own benefactor, Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free-is to find specific measures that directly impact on the city's congestion problem: "Chief among the measures is a proposal to increase greatly the number of metered parking spaces in Manhattan by putting meters on many blocks where parking is now free. The study also proposes raising the rate for on-street parking, doubling it in many areas and increasing it even more in the busiest parts of Manhattan."
In fact, as Crain's is reporting, and the NY Sun as well, Governor Spitzer is adopting one of the opponent's proposals: "The Spitzer administration is planning to convert a West Street garage from private parking to bus parking, potentially removing 175 commuter and tourist buses from idling along the lower Manhattan riverfront." It's a good start, and this is just one of the things that the city can do-before it puts additional tax burdens on commuters.
Under the terms of the legislation, the commission is required to examine alternatives to the congestion tax, and while we're confident that there are any number of feasible alternatives, we're less so about the ability of the commission to separate the wheat from the chaff. Where is its staff?
Without the technical means to do so, the commission will be left with the option of making a political decision that is not based in ant way on sure technical grounds. What this means is that, should the body opt for the congestion tax, its decision will be subject to legal challenge, one that we feel will inevitably be successful.
What's remarkable in all of this is the fact that you have a cacophony of environmental voices weighing in on the putative beauty of the mayor's plan, yet the supposed public interest choir remains absolutely silent on the need for the plan to be subject to environmental review-a remarkable case of lockjaw from folks who will go to court on a moments notice if they feel that some developer has avoided an environmental review.
Their silence on this issue in regards to the congestion tax, it they're unable to find their voices fairly soon, will be to their long lasting shame. They will be exposed as cherry picking hypocrites; but even worse, their silence will potentially lead to the legal defeat of a plan that they've placed so much faith in.
The essence of the proposed alternatives-put forward by our own benefactor, Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free-is to find specific measures that directly impact on the city's congestion problem: "Chief among the measures is a proposal to increase greatly the number of metered parking spaces in Manhattan by putting meters on many blocks where parking is now free. The study also proposes raising the rate for on-street parking, doubling it in many areas and increasing it even more in the busiest parts of Manhattan."
In fact, as Crain's is reporting, and the NY Sun as well, Governor Spitzer is adopting one of the opponent's proposals: "The Spitzer administration is planning to convert a West Street garage from private parking to bus parking, potentially removing 175 commuter and tourist buses from idling along the lower Manhattan riverfront." It's a good start, and this is just one of the things that the city can do-before it puts additional tax burdens on commuters.
The author of the Appleseed report, Hugh O'Neil, told the Times that the 13 traffic relief measures proposed could reduce city congestion by 7-11%. He admitted, however, that this was a "rough" estimate: “I would fully acknowledge that those numbers are speculative and would need to be subject to further analysis,” he said. “I think what the numbers legitimately show is that there are real options, real world alternatives, many of which are much simpler to implement than what the city has proposed.”
What is refreshing here, is the acknowledgement of uncertainty-something that is glaringly missing from the mayor's pronouncements, and from the huzzahs of the mayoral toadies-many of whom are in this environmental business and should definitely know better. So what is needed now is a recognition by the commission that it cannot adequately address the issues at hand without a full EIS, one that examines all of the potential reduction measures-their costs as well as their benefits-and bases a final determination on legitimate data and not self-serving rhetoric.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Limited Sense
In today's papers there are reports that Council Speaker Chris Queen may be considering repealing the city's term limits law. As Quinn coyly tells the NY Daily News: "We haven't taken a final decision yet on what we're doing on term limits...We obviously, myself and my colleagues, have to come to a final decision soon."
The possibility doesn't sit well with the NY Post editorialists who lash out at the prospects of seeing any more of the current term-limited occupants of the 51 council seats: "This is not something for which the public is clamoring. Quite the opposite. As far as the people are concerned, the issue is settled." Probably so, but is it a good idea that shouldn't be reasonably altered?
We think that a change is over due here. When the term limits referendum was first being considered a number of years ago, and we were asked for our opinion, we responded tongue-in-cheek: "While we are philosophically opposed to term limits, we're going to make an exception for this council." Whenever you examine the actual members of the body, as well as its legislative actions, there's always the temptation to say, "Throw the bums out!" The response is, however, a knee-jerk one.
The City Council, as it is currently situated within the City Charter, is considerably less powerful than the mayor. We have a strong executive form of municipal government, and while the two terms is just about right for the mayor, it simply doesn't work for the council-whose members are almost immediately scrambling for new jobs as soon as they assume their current council positions. In addition, with the loss of seniority and continuity the council is fair game for any strong mayor; so much so that the system of checks and balances gets attenuated.
We've seen this on a number of occasions with Speaker Quinn, but to be fair it could easily happen to any speaker whose tenure is so short lived, So if, as the NY Sun also points out, the speaker is seriously considering this, than it should be a policy that is forwarded in the right manner. Coouncilmembers should be granted an additional term, but the new law shouldn't go into effect for the current office holders. This way the principle can be advanced without the cries that the measure is self-interested-insuring that the initiative will be given a more reasoned examination.
The possibility doesn't sit well with the NY Post editorialists who lash out at the prospects of seeing any more of the current term-limited occupants of the 51 council seats: "This is not something for which the public is clamoring. Quite the opposite. As far as the people are concerned, the issue is settled." Probably so, but is it a good idea that shouldn't be reasonably altered?
We think that a change is over due here. When the term limits referendum was first being considered a number of years ago, and we were asked for our opinion, we responded tongue-in-cheek: "While we are philosophically opposed to term limits, we're going to make an exception for this council." Whenever you examine the actual members of the body, as well as its legislative actions, there's always the temptation to say, "Throw the bums out!" The response is, however, a knee-jerk one.
The City Council, as it is currently situated within the City Charter, is considerably less powerful than the mayor. We have a strong executive form of municipal government, and while the two terms is just about right for the mayor, it simply doesn't work for the council-whose members are almost immediately scrambling for new jobs as soon as they assume their current council positions. In addition, with the loss of seniority and continuity the council is fair game for any strong mayor; so much so that the system of checks and balances gets attenuated.
We've seen this on a number of occasions with Speaker Quinn, but to be fair it could easily happen to any speaker whose tenure is so short lived, So if, as the NY Sun also points out, the speaker is seriously considering this, than it should be a policy that is forwarded in the right manner. Coouncilmembers should be granted an additional term, but the new law shouldn't go into effect for the current office holders. This way the principle can be advanced without the cries that the measure is self-interested-insuring that the initiative will be given a more reasoned examination.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Dinkins' Reach Exceeds His Grasp
Liz is reporting on Chris Quinn's ABNY speech this morning and she gets a reaction from David Dinkins about who could possibly become the next mayor: "My views on who can be mayor, and I'm not trying to denigrate the people who are running, but almost anybody can be mayor. Getting elected is another thing! But if George Bush can get elected president of the United States, it seems to be damn near anybody could be mayor."
We rather think that DD didn't need to go that far to come up with a better analogy on mayoral qualifications. There is a more appropriate example closer to home.
We rather think that DD didn't need to go that far to come up with a better analogy on mayoral qualifications. There is a more appropriate example closer to home.
Mayor Johnny One Note
In yesterday's NY Daily News, the paper reported on the mayor's continued shilling for his congestion tax-in spite of the MTA's own report that the money needed for the necessary capital improvements. As the News points out: "Successful implementation of the city plan will require the MTA to provide a full complement of new and enhanced service," the report says. "Neither the operating nor capital costs associated with these improvements are provided for."
Well, never mind! The MTA's analysis points to the fact that the entire congestion scheme was never fully thought out. In the first place, all of the needed infrastructure upgrades must be put in place if the system is gonna be able to accommodate the increased ridership. Secondly, the revenue stream needs to be fully examined to determine whether the cash flow will be adequate to fund the improvements. Finally, the role of the fare and tolls in this calculus needs to be simultaneously factored into the discussion in order to get a legitimate handle on all of the costs.
Of course, while costs need to be examined with a keener eye, we also need to have a better idea about the actual benefits that will accrue. We can't accept the mayor's usual, "Because I said so," response to critics who point out that his congestion relief projections haven't been independently vetted. Only a full EIS-done by independent analysts- can do this.
On the congestion relief front, there was an interesting piece on the City Room Blog that looked at the choice of the 86th Street congestion boundary. Increasingly, it looks as if it was arbitrarily chosen with out regard to its traffic ramifications. As the blog post points out: "But where is Midtown? And, even more vexing for planners considering the mayor’s proposed congestion pricing plan, where is the city’s central business district? And how should the boundaries of the toll zone that drivers have to pay to enter on weekdays correspond to the (possibly undefined) boundaries of those amorphous regions? These are the kind of questions City Hall’s planners wrestled with before setting the zone’s northern boundary at 86th Street –- though that designation is far from final."
But you see, "City Hall wrestling" is not a substitute for sober evaluation. We really don't need the mayor playing pin the tail on the neighborhood behind closed doors. And we don't need self-appointed traffic guardians telling us that the boundaries work well from their own perspective. As the Times points out, "...residents near that boundary who are worried about added traffic, idling cars and excessive regulations following the designation to their street. Some people suggested the line should be farther downtown, closer to Midtown. Others wondered why it wasn’t farther north, rather than cutting through the middle of the Upper East Side and Upper West Side."
The larger point, however, may be that the idling and the extra congestion may be a feature of all of the boundary neighborhoods-and if it is, than there needs to be the proper environmental review of just what these impacts will be. The fact that the boundary may be arbitrary adds to the necessity of such a review. As a former transportation commissioner says; “I don’t think that 86th in any way is a firm boundary,” he said. “It is something that has been picked. It could have been 79th or 96th.” Some due diligence, you think?
Well, never mind! The MTA's analysis points to the fact that the entire congestion scheme was never fully thought out. In the first place, all of the needed infrastructure upgrades must be put in place if the system is gonna be able to accommodate the increased ridership. Secondly, the revenue stream needs to be fully examined to determine whether the cash flow will be adequate to fund the improvements. Finally, the role of the fare and tolls in this calculus needs to be simultaneously factored into the discussion in order to get a legitimate handle on all of the costs.
Of course, while costs need to be examined with a keener eye, we also need to have a better idea about the actual benefits that will accrue. We can't accept the mayor's usual, "Because I said so," response to critics who point out that his congestion relief projections haven't been independently vetted. Only a full EIS-done by independent analysts- can do this.
On the congestion relief front, there was an interesting piece on the City Room Blog that looked at the choice of the 86th Street congestion boundary. Increasingly, it looks as if it was arbitrarily chosen with out regard to its traffic ramifications. As the blog post points out: "But where is Midtown? And, even more vexing for planners considering the mayor’s proposed congestion pricing plan, where is the city’s central business district? And how should the boundaries of the toll zone that drivers have to pay to enter on weekdays correspond to the (possibly undefined) boundaries of those amorphous regions? These are the kind of questions City Hall’s planners wrestled with before setting the zone’s northern boundary at 86th Street –- though that designation is far from final."
But you see, "City Hall wrestling" is not a substitute for sober evaluation. We really don't need the mayor playing pin the tail on the neighborhood behind closed doors. And we don't need self-appointed traffic guardians telling us that the boundaries work well from their own perspective. As the Times points out, "...residents near that boundary who are worried about added traffic, idling cars and excessive regulations following the designation to their street. Some people suggested the line should be farther downtown, closer to Midtown. Others wondered why it wasn’t farther north, rather than cutting through the middle of the Upper East Side and Upper West Side."
The larger point, however, may be that the idling and the extra congestion may be a feature of all of the boundary neighborhoods-and if it is, than there needs to be the proper environmental review of just what these impacts will be. The fact that the boundary may be arbitrary adds to the necessity of such a review. As a former transportation commissioner says; “I don’t think that 86th in any way is a firm boundary,” he said. “It is something that has been picked. It could have been 79th or 96th.” Some due diligence, you think?
Take Out the Papers and the Trash
In today's NY Daily News an Op-Ed contributor really nails it with a wonderful rant about the city's sanitation enforcement procedures. Columnist Dolores Prida asks when did she "become my brother's sweeper...?" Prida wants to know why homeowners are ticketed because a bunch of litterbugs drop debris in front of her East Harlem home. As she says, "Nobody had bothered to tell me that homeowners are punished for the debris passersby leave in front of their homes - both on the sidewalk and on the street, up to 18 inches from the curb."
Indeed. And what about store owners who are similarly ticketed-or given a summons because rice that was packaged by a manufacturer in Louisiana failed to hold its moisture-and therefore its weight-in the New York winter. Welcome to the Big Apple where everything that moves-or doesn't-is liable to subject to one fine or another.
Poor Prida! Here's a woman who has resorted to paying a super at a nearby building to sweep for her, yet the summonses keep on coming. And forget about going down to fight the fine: "Through the years I've made my case at hearings before the Environmental Control Board's stone-faced judges and written letters to the local Community Board and my Council member.
The results: nada."
Welcome to world of the neighborhood retailer-a frustrating existence of incomprehensible regulations and opaque adjudication procedures. And, as Prida points out, this all amounts to a hidden tax: "The annual cost of this travesty is the equivalent of a second, hidden property tax for the individual homeowner. This year my bill for sweeping or not sweeping my brother's trash will be more than $1,000."
The city's administrative proceedings as well as its municipal code, is badly in need of an overhaul. Dolores Prida's experience is the one that all shopkeepers in the city are forced to deal with every day-and the city treats the complaints with a deaf ear. Is it any wonder that NYC is one of the most expensive places to live and do business in? Imagine what we all could gain if thew city cleaned house of all of these useless ALJs enforcing arcane regs that do little if anything to protect the public interest.
Indeed. And what about store owners who are similarly ticketed-or given a summons because rice that was packaged by a manufacturer in Louisiana failed to hold its moisture-and therefore its weight-in the New York winter. Welcome to the Big Apple where everything that moves-or doesn't-is liable to subject to one fine or another.
Poor Prida! Here's a woman who has resorted to paying a super at a nearby building to sweep for her, yet the summonses keep on coming. And forget about going down to fight the fine: "Through the years I've made my case at hearings before the Environmental Control Board's stone-faced judges and written letters to the local Community Board and my Council member.
The results: nada."
Welcome to world of the neighborhood retailer-a frustrating existence of incomprehensible regulations and opaque adjudication procedures. And, as Prida points out, this all amounts to a hidden tax: "The annual cost of this travesty is the equivalent of a second, hidden property tax for the individual homeowner. This year my bill for sweeping or not sweeping my brother's trash will be more than $1,000."
The city's administrative proceedings as well as its municipal code, is badly in need of an overhaul. Dolores Prida's experience is the one that all shopkeepers in the city are forced to deal with every day-and the city treats the complaints with a deaf ear. Is it any wonder that NYC is one of the most expensive places to live and do business in? Imagine what we all could gain if thew city cleaned house of all of these useless ALJs enforcing arcane regs that do little if anything to protect the public interest.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Licensed Media Obfuscation
The growing controversy over the granting of drivers licenses to illegal immigrants has gotten a good deal of bipartisan opposition-with such disparate lumineries as Mike Bloomberg and Ed Koch questioning the wisdom of the Spitzer policy. The most forceful opposition, and some would say the most credible, has come from NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.
Kelly's concern is, of course, the issue of terrorism and the belief that the governor's initiative would make us all less safe. What is strange, however, is the way in which this morning's NY Times story frames the debate. Saying that the Spitzer policy "finds support," the paper does what seems to us to be an exhaustive search for "security" and "terrorism" experts who support what the governor wants to do.
What the paper doesn't do, and this is certainly a puzzle, is cite the views of Kelly-or anyone that anyone has ever heard of as a terrorism expert. Some professor at West Point is the best the paper could do? All of this is obviously designed to hawk the Times' own view on the issue. To wit: "But the governor’s policy is drawing support from some terrorism and security experts, who, like Mr. Spitzer, regard it as a way of bringing a hidden population into the open and ultimately making the system more secure, not to mention getting more drivers on the road licensed and insured."
If the Times had any really recognized terrorism expert on board for this piece, that person would have been the lead. Instead we get a headline that, when the full story is examined, doesn't even accurately lay out what the article reports. In fact, the story leans more heavily on those who oppose the governor's policy.
The key for us is the following observation: "The success of the policy, they say, will rest on the reliability of new technology that Mr. Spitzer wants installed in Department of Motor Vehicles offices to verify the authenticity of passports and other documents that the illegal immigrants will be required to submit when applying for licenses." Now we don't know about you, but does any one really want to rely on the personnel at the DMV for their security from terrorism?
What the critics get right is that it is possible to give illegals some form of secondary license-much as non-drivers get DMV ids for identification purposes-without corrupting the identification process for citizens. As one county clerk told the Times: "Mr. Merola added that his concerns would have been allayed if the governor had proposed creating a second class of driver’s license for the illegal immigrants. Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his group has generally opposed giving licenses to people who cannot prove they are here legally. However, he said he would not necessarily object to a system like the one Mr. Spitzer is proposing, as long as the verification technology was adequate to prevent fraud."
The governor for his part, and as the former chief law enforcement officer of New York State, seems to be reacting quite emotionally to the justified criticism of his policy. This is not part of some right wing rant, it's about safety and putting the rights of citizens over those of people who have broken the law to get into the country.
So when Spitzer says, “We are not talking about letting more people into this country,” he said, “we are talking about being practical about those who are already here,” he is simply missing the point. As the NY Post editorial points out this morning, the only issue here is insuring the safety of New Yorkers.
Kelly's concern is, of course, the issue of terrorism and the belief that the governor's initiative would make us all less safe. What is strange, however, is the way in which this morning's NY Times story frames the debate. Saying that the Spitzer policy "finds support," the paper does what seems to us to be an exhaustive search for "security" and "terrorism" experts who support what the governor wants to do.
What the paper doesn't do, and this is certainly a puzzle, is cite the views of Kelly-or anyone that anyone has ever heard of as a terrorism expert. Some professor at West Point is the best the paper could do? All of this is obviously designed to hawk the Times' own view on the issue. To wit: "But the governor’s policy is drawing support from some terrorism and security experts, who, like Mr. Spitzer, regard it as a way of bringing a hidden population into the open and ultimately making the system more secure, not to mention getting more drivers on the road licensed and insured."
If the Times had any really recognized terrorism expert on board for this piece, that person would have been the lead. Instead we get a headline that, when the full story is examined, doesn't even accurately lay out what the article reports. In fact, the story leans more heavily on those who oppose the governor's policy.
The key for us is the following observation: "The success of the policy, they say, will rest on the reliability of new technology that Mr. Spitzer wants installed in Department of Motor Vehicles offices to verify the authenticity of passports and other documents that the illegal immigrants will be required to submit when applying for licenses." Now we don't know about you, but does any one really want to rely on the personnel at the DMV for their security from terrorism?
What the critics get right is that it is possible to give illegals some form of secondary license-much as non-drivers get DMV ids for identification purposes-without corrupting the identification process for citizens. As one county clerk told the Times: "Mr. Merola added that his concerns would have been allayed if the governor had proposed creating a second class of driver’s license for the illegal immigrants. Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his group has generally opposed giving licenses to people who cannot prove they are here legally. However, he said he would not necessarily object to a system like the one Mr. Spitzer is proposing, as long as the verification technology was adequate to prevent fraud."
The governor for his part, and as the former chief law enforcement officer of New York State, seems to be reacting quite emotionally to the justified criticism of his policy. This is not part of some right wing rant, it's about safety and putting the rights of citizens over those of people who have broken the law to get into the country.
So when Spitzer says, “We are not talking about letting more people into this country,” he said, “we are talking about being practical about those who are already here,” he is simply missing the point. As the NY Post editorial points out this morning, the only issue here is insuring the safety of New Yorkers.
Monday, October 08, 2007
MTA: "Check Please!"
The NY Times is reporting today that the mayor's traffic tax will have to come with a huge price tag. Here's the paper's lead: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to ease traffic congestion by charging motorists who drive into the busiest parts of Manhattan would cost hundreds of millions of dollars for new bus and subway services and mass transit improvements to accommodate tens of thousands of new riders, transportation officials say."
The MTA's actual estimate here is $767 million-and that's their estimate. Once cost overruns and unanticipated charges are factored in, this price tag will only get higher. This cost is a result of the anticipated ridership increase if the mayor is able to tax folks enough to disincentive driving into the CBD.
It also means that the $8 initial fee will escalate in conjunction with the higher capital costs. As the Times puts it: "Eventually, the transit agency said, revenues from congestion pricing would help cover the costs." Which means that there will not only be a higher congestion tax, but the fare will have to be raised to cover interim costs as well ("unfunded capital costs").
Another interesting item in the Times article is a report from the NYS DOT: "A second report, by the State Department of Transportation, said that congestion pricing would affect state highways and transportation lines outside the jurisdiction of the transit agency. But it said it did not have enough data to predict traffic changes and could not estimate the costs..."
This seems to mean that there will be a traffic ripple effect, and that no one can really know how the mayor's plan will impact areas outside of the CBD-something that has led us to demand the full EIS be done on this tax scheme. It is an unsupportable shot in the dark that will inevitably be paid for by perpetually escalating fees. As plan foe Richard Brodsky told the Times: “You’re bumping up against almost $1 billion in unfunded capital costs...Both reports are saying there are tremendous uncertainties. You have to have all these mass transit improvements in place before the plan goes into effect. And you’re probably going to see the $8 fee doubled almost immediately.”
The breaks need to be put on all of this, and a full evaluation of all aspects of the scheme needs to be done before there is any determination is made about what's in the public interest. No one should be simply taking the mayor's word.
The MTA's actual estimate here is $767 million-and that's their estimate. Once cost overruns and unanticipated charges are factored in, this price tag will only get higher. This cost is a result of the anticipated ridership increase if the mayor is able to tax folks enough to disincentive driving into the CBD.
It also means that the $8 initial fee will escalate in conjunction with the higher capital costs. As the Times puts it: "Eventually, the transit agency said, revenues from congestion pricing would help cover the costs." Which means that there will not only be a higher congestion tax, but the fare will have to be raised to cover interim costs as well ("unfunded capital costs").
Another interesting item in the Times article is a report from the NYS DOT: "A second report, by the State Department of Transportation, said that congestion pricing would affect state highways and transportation lines outside the jurisdiction of the transit agency. But it said it did not have enough data to predict traffic changes and could not estimate the costs..."
This seems to mean that there will be a traffic ripple effect, and that no one can really know how the mayor's plan will impact areas outside of the CBD-something that has led us to demand the full EIS be done on this tax scheme. It is an unsupportable shot in the dark that will inevitably be paid for by perpetually escalating fees. As plan foe Richard Brodsky told the Times: “You’re bumping up against almost $1 billion in unfunded capital costs...Both reports are saying there are tremendous uncertainties. You have to have all these mass transit improvements in place before the plan goes into effect. And you’re probably going to see the $8 fee doubled almost immediately.”
The breaks need to be put on all of this, and a full evaluation of all aspects of the scheme needs to be done before there is any determination is made about what's in the public interest. No one should be simply taking the mayor's word.
CU and FCRC
In yesterday's NY Daily News the paper's Errol Louis writes an epitaph for Develop Don't Destroy, the group that has tried to stop the Atlantic Yards project. In his column Louis points out that Daniel Goldstein, DDD's leader, is a relative newcomer to the area and his opposition is standing in the way of a myriad of benefits that could accrue to other less fortunate citizens of the Prospect Heights neighborhood.
Louis particularly objects to the David vs. Goliath narrative that opponents have promoted: "What might have once appeared to be a David-Goliath struggle of a few courageous Brooklynites fighting against a big, bad developer is actually a small group of Davids harming the interests of a thousand other Davids - fellow Brooklynites desperate for the 2,000-plus units of affordable housing that the development would provide."
Which brings us to the comparison between the two major eminent domain fights in the city-Atlantic Yards and Columbia. Our position is obviously biased by the fact that we have and continue to work for FCRC on the Nets coming to Brooklyn-something that we've always seen as meritorious. That being said, the use of the state power to take people's property should always be seen as problematic and, as we have commented, shouldn't be done without really good cause.
What strikes us about Columbia, in contrast with the FCRC efforts, is the almost total lack of engagement with the West Harlem community-and its leading business owner Nick Sprayregen. On top of this, there appears to be little community benefit on the table, certainly nothing that approaches the kind of affordable housing deal that was crafted in Brooklyn. Columbia seems to feel that its expansion, and its expansion alone, is something that should generate the concomitant community obeisance. "Just be thankful that we're here", seems to underscore the university's rhetoric.
The major issue all over the city is affordable housing-for the middle class as well as for the poor. There is no question that CU's expansion should be stymied if the university is unable to devise some concrete effort in this area. All of the community's elected officials should be four square behind this bedrock principle.
Louis particularly objects to the David vs. Goliath narrative that opponents have promoted: "What might have once appeared to be a David-Goliath struggle of a few courageous Brooklynites fighting against a big, bad developer is actually a small group of Davids harming the interests of a thousand other Davids - fellow Brooklynites desperate for the 2,000-plus units of affordable housing that the development would provide."
Which brings us to the comparison between the two major eminent domain fights in the city-Atlantic Yards and Columbia. Our position is obviously biased by the fact that we have and continue to work for FCRC on the Nets coming to Brooklyn-something that we've always seen as meritorious. That being said, the use of the state power to take people's property should always be seen as problematic and, as we have commented, shouldn't be done without really good cause.
What strikes us about Columbia, in contrast with the FCRC efforts, is the almost total lack of engagement with the West Harlem community-and its leading business owner Nick Sprayregen. On top of this, there appears to be little community benefit on the table, certainly nothing that approaches the kind of affordable housing deal that was crafted in Brooklyn. Columbia seems to feel that its expansion, and its expansion alone, is something that should generate the concomitant community obeisance. "Just be thankful that we're here", seems to underscore the university's rhetoric.
The major issue all over the city is affordable housing-for the middle class as well as for the poor. There is no question that CU's expansion should be stymied if the university is unable to devise some concrete effort in this area. All of the community's elected officials should be four square behind this bedrock principle.
Water Boarding: DEP Says Lien on Me
In yesterday's NY Times, the paper focused on the continuing battle between the city's DEP and New York's homeowners over unpaid water bills. The article takes a preview look at a consultant's report that suggested that the city should "get tough" with deadbeats
"A national consulting firm that spent nine months examining New York’s flawed water billing system has recommended that the city turn up the pressure on deadbeat customers by shutting off service to single-family houses and placing liens on multifamily buildings and commercial properties where the owners have not paid their bills."
In our view, and the Times piece does too little to emphasize this point, the fault lies more with the incompetence of the DEP and it's Water Board appendage. The fact remains, that a huge proportion of the outstanding water bills would not withstand a good legal challenge-something that was brought to our attention when we represented the Water Group, a consulting firm that helps businesses straighten out their DEP bills.
What the Water Group found, in case after case, was that the city's bills were bogus-and in case after case they proved this an resolved the outstanding money owed in a fairer fashion. In a situation over at Columbia Presbyterian a multi-million outstanding bill couldn't get paid because nobody over at the DEP could explain how the bill was derived. And let's not forget that a little over ten years ago the DEP routinely sent erroneous bills to its homeowner customers.
The Times story disappoints especially because the same reporter had written an excellent piece on the inefficiencies of the DEP earlier in the year, an article that prompted the agency to hire the consultants: "after reports in The New York Times that showed poor record keeping had prevented the city from collecting on tens of thousands of accounts, many more than a decade old and some totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars."
But the issue goes beyond inefficient record-keeping-since the data underling the bills is what is so often faulty. The NY Daily News gets this in yesterday's editorial that excoriates the Water Board: "The city's Water Board is gearing up to sock New York homeowners with a huge rate increase, the second such hike in just a few months. We wish we could explain why the board has to boost its bills. But we can't tell you the reason because the board is clueless as to why its books are out of balance. Inept? Absolutely. Outrageous? You bet. A bureaucracy crying out for intense attention from the mayor? Yes. Yes. Yes."
The editorial goes on to get at some of the outrageous inefficiencies that we've already touched on: "Bills get mailed to wrong addresses, or are addressed to people who moved years ago. Some customers are never charged for water they use. And when customers stop paying, the board does nothing. Its tally of uncollected bills is now an astronomical $560 million."
So now the department wants the power to place liens on people's properties. This, if allowed to happen, would amount to little more than a license to steal. The whole department needs to be sent up the river-and a competent replacement needs to be put in place before any one's property is placed at risk.
Thankfully Counclimen Weprin and Gennaro are not buying the DEP's lament. As the NY Post reported on Sunday: "But Weprin and Gennaro both still express strong reservations about water-lien sales, saying the faulty water-billing system has to be entirely overhauled first.
"I think the stand-alone water-lien sales are not the panacea some people are making it," Weprin said." Good for them!
"A national consulting firm that spent nine months examining New York’s flawed water billing system has recommended that the city turn up the pressure on deadbeat customers by shutting off service to single-family houses and placing liens on multifamily buildings and commercial properties where the owners have not paid their bills."
In our view, and the Times piece does too little to emphasize this point, the fault lies more with the incompetence of the DEP and it's Water Board appendage. The fact remains, that a huge proportion of the outstanding water bills would not withstand a good legal challenge-something that was brought to our attention when we represented the Water Group, a consulting firm that helps businesses straighten out their DEP bills.
What the Water Group found, in case after case, was that the city's bills were bogus-and in case after case they proved this an resolved the outstanding money owed in a fairer fashion. In a situation over at Columbia Presbyterian a multi-million outstanding bill couldn't get paid because nobody over at the DEP could explain how the bill was derived. And let's not forget that a little over ten years ago the DEP routinely sent erroneous bills to its homeowner customers.
The Times story disappoints especially because the same reporter had written an excellent piece on the inefficiencies of the DEP earlier in the year, an article that prompted the agency to hire the consultants: "after reports in The New York Times that showed poor record keeping had prevented the city from collecting on tens of thousands of accounts, many more than a decade old and some totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars."
But the issue goes beyond inefficient record-keeping-since the data underling the bills is what is so often faulty. The NY Daily News gets this in yesterday's editorial that excoriates the Water Board: "The city's Water Board is gearing up to sock New York homeowners with a huge rate increase, the second such hike in just a few months. We wish we could explain why the board has to boost its bills. But we can't tell you the reason because the board is clueless as to why its books are out of balance. Inept? Absolutely. Outrageous? You bet. A bureaucracy crying out for intense attention from the mayor? Yes. Yes. Yes."
The editorial goes on to get at some of the outrageous inefficiencies that we've already touched on: "Bills get mailed to wrong addresses, or are addressed to people who moved years ago. Some customers are never charged for water they use. And when customers stop paying, the board does nothing. Its tally of uncollected bills is now an astronomical $560 million."
So now the department wants the power to place liens on people's properties. This, if allowed to happen, would amount to little more than a license to steal. The whole department needs to be sent up the river-and a competent replacement needs to be put in place before any one's property is placed at risk.
Thankfully Counclimen Weprin and Gennaro are not buying the DEP's lament. As the NY Post reported on Sunday: "But Weprin and Gennaro both still express strong reservations about water-lien sales, saying the faulty water-billing system has to be entirely overhauled first.
"I think the stand-alone water-lien sales are not the panacea some people are making it," Weprin said." Good for them!
Friday, October 05, 2007
Send in the Accountants
In this morning's Crain's In$ider, the newsletter reports on the fluctuating dollar figures being thrown around concerning the supposed fiscal pay-off from a congestion tax. This is an extremely serious issue, one that we have commented on before by saying that the entire scheme was badly in need of a forensic accountant.
As Crain's points out, the MTA's Lee Sander and the mayor himself have widely disparate takes on the congestion tax take; "Estimates vary widely about how much money could be raised by congestion pricing fees. MTA chief Lee Sander is saying $100 million to $200 million a year,
while the Bloomberg administration has been estimating $325 million to $350 million."
This is all rather dizzying, and points to the haste and bad faith that has gone into the selling of the congestion scheme. Even the congestion tax fans are calling for a more accurate estimate from the Congestion Commission: "The pro-congestion pricing group Campaign for New York’s Future wrote to the panel asking it to refine the numbers to come up with a more reliable estimate."
Now, if the revenue numbers are in dispute, can you imagine what that says about the congestion data itself? We have a suspicion that the old reliable 6.3% ain't gonna stand up to any independent scrutiny. Which gets us back to our original argument: this entire production needs to be subject to an EIS that examines, not only the environmental issues, but the economic and social ones as well.
As Crain's points out, the MTA's Lee Sander and the mayor himself have widely disparate takes on the congestion tax take; "Estimates vary widely about how much money could be raised by congestion pricing fees. MTA chief Lee Sander is saying $100 million to $200 million a year,
while the Bloomberg administration has been estimating $325 million to $350 million."
This is all rather dizzying, and points to the haste and bad faith that has gone into the selling of the congestion scheme. Even the congestion tax fans are calling for a more accurate estimate from the Congestion Commission: "The pro-congestion pricing group Campaign for New York’s Future wrote to the panel asking it to refine the numbers to come up with a more reliable estimate."
Now, if the revenue numbers are in dispute, can you imagine what that says about the congestion data itself? We have a suspicion that the old reliable 6.3% ain't gonna stand up to any independent scrutiny. Which gets us back to our original argument: this entire production needs to be subject to an EIS that examines, not only the environmental issues, but the economic and social ones as well.
Laboring for Affordable Housing
In today's NY Post the paper reports on the joint effort between the UFT and Comptroller Bill Thompson's office to build affordable housing for teachers. As the paper says: "The buildings, which are to go up in the Melrose section by 2009, will offer 234 units to qualifying teachers, teachers' aides and school administrators, with rents ranging from $806 for a studio to $1,412 for a three-bedroom."
This is, of course, a fabulous idea and it underscores that the concept of affordability doesn't need to be restricted to people who are at or below the poverty line. The cost of housing in the city is getting to be so out of control that municipal workers are finding it hard to find decent places to live. As Thompson pointed out to Metro: “With the cost of living rising in New York City, there’s no better way for us to invest in our teachers than to help them afford the cost of housing,” said Thompson, who noted almost 30 percent of city households pay half their incomes for shelter."
Clearly, however, this is no more than a good start. As NY1 reported yesterday, "The 234 rental units would only benefit a fraction of the city's teachers, teaching aides, principals and assistant principals..." The program would enable the teachers to pay only about 30% of their income for housing, a number that is way below the 50% average that most families are currently paying.
The housing plan here is called "workforce housing," and it is a concept that is being advanced by the Central Labor Council and its executive director Ed Ott. Ott, who was featured in an Observer story on this topic last week. The CLC is very interested in advancing the workforce housing idea, which is why we had Nick Sprayregen reach out to the group when he developed his idea for an affordable housing plan in a swap of properties with Columbia University.
The idea makes practical and political sense and, as the Observer story pointed out; "It is also clear that the labor council can offer something to for-profit developers—although Mr. Ott is clear that he would enter into a partnership only if it would lead to a significant number of affordable apartments and a pro-union management.“I think if unions are involved, it’s reassuring to people in the neighborhood,” Mr. Ott said. Financial partners, he added, “also want us to use our political strength, which we feel is part of our capital and which we are proud of.”
All of this plays into the city's overwhelming need to help keep the middle class in the city. The key in all of this is to find good spots for building-which brings us to Columbia's 18 acre expansion area. As CPC Commissioner Battaglia told Lee Bollinger, affordable housing needs to be an essential ingredient in the Columbia plan; and it must transcend a theoretical commitment that includes some money but no concrete building plan.
So the UFT plan is a really good start. As Randi Weingarten told the Post: "This measure, in particular, will help in a critical area by creating the first workforce housing development that educators can actually afford," she said." Now let's expand this great idea into West Harlem-it's time that Columbia thought outside of its own blue and white box.
This is, of course, a fabulous idea and it underscores that the concept of affordability doesn't need to be restricted to people who are at or below the poverty line. The cost of housing in the city is getting to be so out of control that municipal workers are finding it hard to find decent places to live. As Thompson pointed out to Metro: “With the cost of living rising in New York City, there’s no better way for us to invest in our teachers than to help them afford the cost of housing,” said Thompson, who noted almost 30 percent of city households pay half their incomes for shelter."
Clearly, however, this is no more than a good start. As NY1 reported yesterday, "The 234 rental units would only benefit a fraction of the city's teachers, teaching aides, principals and assistant principals..." The program would enable the teachers to pay only about 30% of their income for housing, a number that is way below the 50% average that most families are currently paying.
The housing plan here is called "workforce housing," and it is a concept that is being advanced by the Central Labor Council and its executive director Ed Ott. Ott, who was featured in an Observer story on this topic last week. The CLC is very interested in advancing the workforce housing idea, which is why we had Nick Sprayregen reach out to the group when he developed his idea for an affordable housing plan in a swap of properties with Columbia University.
The idea makes practical and political sense and, as the Observer story pointed out; "It is also clear that the labor council can offer something to for-profit developers—although Mr. Ott is clear that he would enter into a partnership only if it would lead to a significant number of affordable apartments and a pro-union management.“I think if unions are involved, it’s reassuring to people in the neighborhood,” Mr. Ott said. Financial partners, he added, “also want us to use our political strength, which we feel is part of our capital and which we are proud of.”
All of this plays into the city's overwhelming need to help keep the middle class in the city. The key in all of this is to find good spots for building-which brings us to Columbia's 18 acre expansion area. As CPC Commissioner Battaglia told Lee Bollinger, affordable housing needs to be an essential ingredient in the Columbia plan; and it must transcend a theoretical commitment that includes some money but no concrete building plan.
So the UFT plan is a really good start. As Randi Weingarten told the Post: "This measure, in particular, will help in a critical area by creating the first workforce housing development that educators can actually afford," she said." Now let's expand this great idea into West Harlem-it's time that Columbia thought outside of its own blue and white box.
Pestilence and PlaNYC 2030
In yesterday's City Room Blog, Sewell Chan highlights the report, issued on behalf of the pest control industry, that rates New York as the leading rat city in the United States. As Chan points Out: "In an 11-page research paper [pdf] financed by the pest-control industry, the two men looked at 32 large American cities and concluded that New York is the city most at risk of rodent infestations."
We reviewed the paper but were unable to really get a handle on all of the risk factors that led the two researchers to rate NYC so highly on the rat scale. In general, there is a whole list of variables but getting past the categories to a more comprehensive understanding of the whys and wherefores of the rat attack isn't easy. The closest we get to some kind of a smoking gun is the observation that New York's age and high population density is a key factor.
Now we have commented on all of this before, and while we had no idea that NYC was as highly rated as the two researchers believe, we did know that we have a serious problem that contributes to the spread of disease. We also know that the city has an important weapon that it can use in the fight against the rat infestation: food waste disposers.
The use of disposers, currently illegal for food stores and restaurants, would go along way towards limiting the food source that allows the rat population to grow. In turn, the city would be able to dramatically improve the public health in all New York neighborhoods. In addition, the reduction of food waste would lead to the reduction in the number of noxious transfer stations that plague many inner city communities.
As Reuters points out, quoting one of the report's authors, cities need to be proactive: "Kaukeinen said the 2007 Rodent Risk Assessment, which was sponsored by rodent control brand d-CON, would be used to urge cities to spend more on taking a pro-active approach against rats." We know of no more proactive approach than the implementation of a commercial food waste disposer program.
We reviewed the paper but were unable to really get a handle on all of the risk factors that led the two researchers to rate NYC so highly on the rat scale. In general, there is a whole list of variables but getting past the categories to a more comprehensive understanding of the whys and wherefores of the rat attack isn't easy. The closest we get to some kind of a smoking gun is the observation that New York's age and high population density is a key factor.
Now we have commented on all of this before, and while we had no idea that NYC was as highly rated as the two researchers believe, we did know that we have a serious problem that contributes to the spread of disease. We also know that the city has an important weapon that it can use in the fight against the rat infestation: food waste disposers.
The use of disposers, currently illegal for food stores and restaurants, would go along way towards limiting the food source that allows the rat population to grow. In turn, the city would be able to dramatically improve the public health in all New York neighborhoods. In addition, the reduction of food waste would lead to the reduction in the number of noxious transfer stations that plague many inner city communities.
As Reuters points out, quoting one of the report's authors, cities need to be proactive: "Kaukeinen said the 2007 Rodent Risk Assessment, which was sponsored by rodent control brand d-CON, would be used to urge cities to spend more on taking a pro-active approach against rats." We know of no more proactive approach than the implementation of a commercial food waste disposer program.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
CPC Questions Columbia
In yesterday's City Planning Commission hearing, there was-contrary to some of our own acerbic commentary-some serious questioning of a number of aspect's of the university's expansion plan. As the Spectator reports, one of the key issues raised was the absence of affordable housing in the CU vision: "In a question-and-answer session, City Planning Commissioners contested the University’s commitment to providing affordable housing for residents who would be displaced."
This is right on target, and credit here goes to Commissioner Angela Battaglia who told the university; “Not only would I expect the housing would be the same or better quality, but I would expect the rents would be the same,” said commissioner Angela Battaglia, who also questioned whether it was necessary for Columbia to build buildings as tall as it currently plans."
In addition, Commissioner Irwin Cantor questioned the use of eminent domain in the strongest terms. Cantor "said that by threatening to use eminent domain on businesses that refuse to sell, the University is “holding the owner hostage.” This is an issue that it is refreshing to see raised, since so many elected officials-owning little or no property of their own-seem to treat the takings clause of the constitution as a minor matter.
The university, however, feels that it's own self-interest is so overridingly in the public interest that anyone who opposes the taking of property needs to be squashed-in the same way that Lenin once remarked about revolution that, "you can't make an omelet with breaking a few eggs." That is why Columbia's PR goon squad continues to hammer away at Nick Sprayregen for his temerity in wanting to keep his warehouses.
Hence the latest piece in The Observer that brings up the fact that Sprayregen sold an East Side property to Con Edison last year. The reason this is relevant comes from the fact that CU and its minions are trying to allege that the only reason NS is giving CU a hard time is to drive up the cost of acquisition-i.e., that there's no priniciple, only principal at work here. The money quote: "Supporters of Columbia’s expansion, who see Mr. Sprayregen as a major obstacle to the proposal’s passage in the City Council, say that the sale shows that he is hiding behind a veil of principle but will eventually sell to the university just as he did to Con Ed. Word of the sale appeared on flyers distributed by Columbia’s supporters at a public hearing in August under the heading, “Inform and Empower Our West Harlem Community.”
The allegation-and the analogy-is, however, totally bogus. In the first place to say that Nick had in any way willingly deeded his property over to the utility is total nonsense. The reality is here that Con Ed has the authority as a public utility to exercise ED. Given this authority, it is hard to see how Columbia's claque can compare the situation to the land-grabbing actions of a private, non-tax paying entity like Columbia.
In addition, anyone who is put in Sprayregen's position is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation." The untenable nature of the dilemma is-ironically of course-illustrated by Reverend Reggie Williams, CU's most fervent cheerleader: “It is disingenuous to make the argument against eminent domain when you stand to benefit by driving up the price.”
How's that again? So if you fight eminent domain-well, because it is your property Reggie-than you're a hypocrite because your fighting might actually get you closer to the real market value of your holding. They obviously aren't teaching logic in the seminary.
The last word should belong to Sprayregen, someone who's being battered by the booty capitalist scavengers who are looking to batten on the Sprayregen remains, after Columbia chews up the lion's share of the carcass: "Mr. Sprayregen said that he is opposing Columbia’s use of eminent domain for two reasons: out of principle, and also because it gives the university the power to seize the property through condemnation if he does not accept its offering price.
“We are prepared to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” he said. “I am not going to be squeezed into negotiating with eminent domain hanging over my head. If eminent domain is taken off the table, I can make a rational decision with an even playing field. Otherwise, it is a basic form of extortion.”
This is right on target, and credit here goes to Commissioner Angela Battaglia who told the university; “Not only would I expect the housing would be the same or better quality, but I would expect the rents would be the same,” said commissioner Angela Battaglia, who also questioned whether it was necessary for Columbia to build buildings as tall as it currently plans."
In addition, Commissioner Irwin Cantor questioned the use of eminent domain in the strongest terms. Cantor "said that by threatening to use eminent domain on businesses that refuse to sell, the University is “holding the owner hostage.” This is an issue that it is refreshing to see raised, since so many elected officials-owning little or no property of their own-seem to treat the takings clause of the constitution as a minor matter.
The university, however, feels that it's own self-interest is so overridingly in the public interest that anyone who opposes the taking of property needs to be squashed-in the same way that Lenin once remarked about revolution that, "you can't make an omelet with breaking a few eggs." That is why Columbia's PR goon squad continues to hammer away at Nick Sprayregen for his temerity in wanting to keep his warehouses.
Hence the latest piece in The Observer that brings up the fact that Sprayregen sold an East Side property to Con Edison last year. The reason this is relevant comes from the fact that CU and its minions are trying to allege that the only reason NS is giving CU a hard time is to drive up the cost of acquisition-i.e., that there's no priniciple, only principal at work here. The money quote: "Supporters of Columbia’s expansion, who see Mr. Sprayregen as a major obstacle to the proposal’s passage in the City Council, say that the sale shows that he is hiding behind a veil of principle but will eventually sell to the university just as he did to Con Ed. Word of the sale appeared on flyers distributed by Columbia’s supporters at a public hearing in August under the heading, “Inform and Empower Our West Harlem Community.”
The allegation-and the analogy-is, however, totally bogus. In the first place to say that Nick had in any way willingly deeded his property over to the utility is total nonsense. The reality is here that Con Ed has the authority as a public utility to exercise ED. Given this authority, it is hard to see how Columbia's claque can compare the situation to the land-grabbing actions of a private, non-tax paying entity like Columbia.
In addition, anyone who is put in Sprayregen's position is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation." The untenable nature of the dilemma is-ironically of course-illustrated by Reverend Reggie Williams, CU's most fervent cheerleader: “It is disingenuous to make the argument against eminent domain when you stand to benefit by driving up the price.”
How's that again? So if you fight eminent domain-well, because it is your property Reggie-than you're a hypocrite because your fighting might actually get you closer to the real market value of your holding. They obviously aren't teaching logic in the seminary.
The last word should belong to Sprayregen, someone who's being battered by the booty capitalist scavengers who are looking to batten on the Sprayregen remains, after Columbia chews up the lion's share of the carcass: "Mr. Sprayregen said that he is opposing Columbia’s use of eminent domain for two reasons: out of principle, and also because it gives the university the power to seize the property through condemnation if he does not accept its offering price.
“We are prepared to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” he said. “I am not going to be squeezed into negotiating with eminent domain hanging over my head. If eminent domain is taken off the table, I can make a rational decision with an even playing field. Otherwise, it is a basic form of extortion.”
Bollinger's "New Frontier," Who are the Indians?
In yesterday's NY Sun Columbia president Lee Bollinger eloquently laid out his "new frontier" vision of a university campus that would be host to the kind of scientific research that will put fear in the hearts of diseases everywhere. As he put it:
"Columbia plans to meet this challenge by assembling one of the greatest and most diverse concentrations of brain power anywhere in the world. A key part of the university's proposed expansion in the Manhattanville area of West Harlem will provide the opportunity to add approximately 500 new researchers, who will collaborate across traditional academic boundaries to address the signal challenges of our time."
It just really comforts us to know that Columbia will be there for us-and there's no ailment that scares us anymore with Sheriff Bollinger and his research posse on the trail of disease. It is, however, a vision that encompasses more than just the cures for all of those diseases that have so far resisted our medical knowledge. No, Bollinger has bigger aims than just that. His real goal here-and who would have thought that this could have been seen as part of the revitalization of a "blighted" 18 acre area of West Harlem-is to save the planet: "For the first time in history, it is now possible to imagine an integrated global society. Yet it will elude us if we do not focus far more resources, talent, and energy on figuring out how to sustain the health of our planet and those inhabiting it."
And to think that Nick Sprayregen is worrying selfishly about his little bitty warehouses. What strikes us here, is what Bollinger's vision doesn't encompass-the actual folks who live in and around the expansion footprint. Given the enormity of his vision of the future, Bollinger can perhaps be forgiven if he's unable to wrap himself around the concerns of all of the little people and their mundane survival worries.
Where are the current residents of West Harlem in the following foreshadowing of a greater tomorrow? "In upper Manhattan our scientists will not only study this future, they will invent it if we can offer them the state-of-the-art facilities they need to excel. The problems of the world demanding our attention call for a new combination of academic and technological expertise, and with it, new ways of organizing space for teaching and research. The result will be a buzzing community of diverse perspectives and expertise that reflects the historic dynamism of this City at its best."
The answer? They are disappeared; joined up with Ralph Ellison and his band of invisible men. Putting aside the Bollinger hubris for a moment-our last image of Columbia after all was the portrait of a snarky looking Iranian nutcase addressing the university-isn't it a bit much to outline such a future and to completely ignore all of the folks who now live and work in the neighborhood? Maybe, like the Indians of the Old West, they will be found on some nice reservations away from all of the elite research. How Columbia of him!
"Columbia plans to meet this challenge by assembling one of the greatest and most diverse concentrations of brain power anywhere in the world. A key part of the university's proposed expansion in the Manhattanville area of West Harlem will provide the opportunity to add approximately 500 new researchers, who will collaborate across traditional academic boundaries to address the signal challenges of our time."
It just really comforts us to know that Columbia will be there for us-and there's no ailment that scares us anymore with Sheriff Bollinger and his research posse on the trail of disease. It is, however, a vision that encompasses more than just the cures for all of those diseases that have so far resisted our medical knowledge. No, Bollinger has bigger aims than just that. His real goal here-and who would have thought that this could have been seen as part of the revitalization of a "blighted" 18 acre area of West Harlem-is to save the planet: "For the first time in history, it is now possible to imagine an integrated global society. Yet it will elude us if we do not focus far more resources, talent, and energy on figuring out how to sustain the health of our planet and those inhabiting it."
And to think that Nick Sprayregen is worrying selfishly about his little bitty warehouses. What strikes us here, is what Bollinger's vision doesn't encompass-the actual folks who live in and around the expansion footprint. Given the enormity of his vision of the future, Bollinger can perhaps be forgiven if he's unable to wrap himself around the concerns of all of the little people and their mundane survival worries.
Where are the current residents of West Harlem in the following foreshadowing of a greater tomorrow? "In upper Manhattan our scientists will not only study this future, they will invent it if we can offer them the state-of-the-art facilities they need to excel. The problems of the world demanding our attention call for a new combination of academic and technological expertise, and with it, new ways of organizing space for teaching and research. The result will be a buzzing community of diverse perspectives and expertise that reflects the historic dynamism of this City at its best."
The answer? They are disappeared; joined up with Ralph Ellison and his band of invisible men. Putting aside the Bollinger hubris for a moment-our last image of Columbia after all was the portrait of a snarky looking Iranian nutcase addressing the university-isn't it a bit much to outline such a future and to completely ignore all of the folks who now live and work in the neighborhood? Maybe, like the Indians of the Old West, they will be found on some nice reservations away from all of the elite research. How Columbia of him!
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
City Plans, and God laughs
A hearing on the Columbia expansion will be held today down at the offices of the City Planning Commission on Reade Street. Why bother? The CPC is an absolute anachronism, and under its current leadership it is a joke as well. Nothing that will transpire today, or in the "deliberations" leading up to the preordained vote in a couple of weeks, means a damn thing-except for the number of trees that the city's Burden will be able to inveigle out of the university.
The real deal making will take place after the CPC vote, as the expansion project wends its way down to the City Council. What has happened, as The New York Observer article points out today, is that the actions of BP Stringer has possibly loosened the logjam so that a substantive negotiation can go forward.
What is clear, however, is that the Stringer goody bag, if it isn't the harbinger of something substantially more meaningful, is way to little to off-set the expansion' impact. AS CB 9 advisor, Professor Ron Schiffman says; “At best, the rough calculation was that it could meet maybe 10 percent of the indirect and direct displacement,” said Ron Schiffman, a former city Planning Commission member who is advising the West Harlem community board on behalf of the Pratt Institute, where he is a professor."
What is also clear is that Stringer felt that he didn't have the strength to tackle the expansion plan directly. And he's probably right, but the reasons lie as much with his own abilities as they do with the limitations that all BPs face in the ULURP process. But the criticism he's facing owes more to his initial posturing on behalf of the community-a charade that underscored the Clint Eastwood observation of having a mouth issuing checks that a body couldn't cash.
What remains to be seen is the extent to which the Stringer ante will be followed by the creation of a significant housing pot that address the displacement issue, as we have said, in the here and now. Here's Stringer's best face: “I wanted a discussion about it, and the best way to do that was not simply to advocate for the fund but to set it up and get money for it,” Mr. Stringer said. “Now as the process goes forward, this will be the basis for a discussion. The housing fund will be a road map.”
We shall see-and the extent to which the council, with real power to derail, can avoid aping Stringer's court eunuch command performance will determine whether equity and fairness emerges from all of the university's strong arm tactics. The role of the LDC in all of this is still, at least at this juncture, unclear-although. Pat Jones, the head of the group charged with negotiating a CBA with Columbia, is clearly unhappy with what she sees as Stringer's meddling, As she told the BP in a draft letter: “Your actions can only be perceived as dangerous and counterproductive to this negotiation process...Your publicized agreement with Columbia University,” the draft states, “can wrongfully lead to the conclusion that Columbia has successfully negotiated a Community Benefits Agreement.” ”
Ouch! So we are now in the phony war phase of the ULURP process-with the beautification brigade in full regalia down on Reade Street. The mayor has no interest in negotiating much here-his hands being full with the Columbia water buckets under both his arms. It will be up to the council to carve out an independent role, something it has had difficulty doing on big issues such as this one.
The real deal making will take place after the CPC vote, as the expansion project wends its way down to the City Council. What has happened, as The New York Observer article points out today, is that the actions of BP Stringer has possibly loosened the logjam so that a substantive negotiation can go forward.
What is clear, however, is that the Stringer goody bag, if it isn't the harbinger of something substantially more meaningful, is way to little to off-set the expansion' impact. AS CB 9 advisor, Professor Ron Schiffman says; “At best, the rough calculation was that it could meet maybe 10 percent of the indirect and direct displacement,” said Ron Schiffman, a former city Planning Commission member who is advising the West Harlem community board on behalf of the Pratt Institute, where he is a professor."
What is also clear is that Stringer felt that he didn't have the strength to tackle the expansion plan directly. And he's probably right, but the reasons lie as much with his own abilities as they do with the limitations that all BPs face in the ULURP process. But the criticism he's facing owes more to his initial posturing on behalf of the community-a charade that underscored the Clint Eastwood observation of having a mouth issuing checks that a body couldn't cash.
What remains to be seen is the extent to which the Stringer ante will be followed by the creation of a significant housing pot that address the displacement issue, as we have said, in the here and now. Here's Stringer's best face: “I wanted a discussion about it, and the best way to do that was not simply to advocate for the fund but to set it up and get money for it,” Mr. Stringer said. “Now as the process goes forward, this will be the basis for a discussion. The housing fund will be a road map.”
We shall see-and the extent to which the council, with real power to derail, can avoid aping Stringer's court eunuch command performance will determine whether equity and fairness emerges from all of the university's strong arm tactics. The role of the LDC in all of this is still, at least at this juncture, unclear-although. Pat Jones, the head of the group charged with negotiating a CBA with Columbia, is clearly unhappy with what she sees as Stringer's meddling, As she told the BP in a draft letter: “Your actions can only be perceived as dangerous and counterproductive to this negotiation process...Your publicized agreement with Columbia University,” the draft states, “can wrongfully lead to the conclusion that Columbia has successfully negotiated a Community Benefits Agreement.” ”
Ouch! So we are now in the phony war phase of the ULURP process-with the beautification brigade in full regalia down on Reade Street. The mayor has no interest in negotiating much here-his hands being full with the Columbia water buckets under both his arms. It will be up to the council to carve out an independent role, something it has had difficulty doing on big issues such as this one.
Sun Spots Flaws in Columbia's Expansion
In yesterday's NY Sun the paper did what no other outlet has yet done: it took a strong stand for property rights, and questioned whether the Columbia expansion merited the use of eminent domain. As it said: "The expansion would make Columbia a world scale university and seal its place as one of the city's crown jewels, but the university's refusal to rule out asking the city or state to use eminent domain to clear the way for its expansion has made a lot of us wonder whether it's worth the price in terms of the potential damage to property rights in Manhattan."
The importance of the Sun's editorial stance here lies in the way in which the paper questions why it is necessary for the university to resort to taking other people's property when other developers in Manhattan have been able to aggregate large parcels of land through normal acquisition processes. In addition, the Sun points out-as we have on numerous occasions-how other elite universities have managed to expand without bulldozing property rights. Columbia, however, really couldn't be bothered with an effort to collaborate with its neighbors.
And the Sun goes beyond pointing out how Harvard successfully manged to aggregate 200 acres up in Alston without condemnation; it shows how NYU has been able to go into the private real estate market and expand in a neighborhood that is far pricier than West Harlem. Yet CU wails that it would be too expensive and time consuming to refrain from the use of eminent domain; to which the Sun responds: "For Columbia, with its roughly $6 billion endowment, to bewail the city's high land costs and despair of buying Manhattan property on the open market is an ironical turn."
Which brings us to the issue of community benefit. When BP Stringer folded like a cheap suit on the expansion proposal, hiding behind a zoning plan that may have a mitigating impact only if our life spans suddenly and dramatically increase, our main critique was that the Stringer Spaniel didn't ask anything of the university that would mitigate its expansion in the present tense-something tangible in the here and now. What's compelling in the Columbia plan that makes the use of eminent domain an absolute necessity?
It's certainly not its job creation, since most of the immediate community won't be able to benefit because of education and skill levels. Is it the potential cure for Alzheimer's, something that Bollinger has been touting? Even allowing for hyperbole on the president's part, it hard to see just how this speculative scientific breakthrough demands that the university take away the properties of local business owners.
In our view, and we've said it on numerous occasions, the use of eminent domain requires that the community payoff be extraordinary-thousands of units of decent housing would be a consideration in this regard. But Columbia sits back and really offers nothing, expecting that a supine political class will obediently do its bidding.
We shall see. When a concrete proposal that will benefit the community is put on the table-and it will be put-the integrity of local electeds will be put to the test in what we always describe as the "golden opportunity to fail." If, however, the labor movement gets behind the effort, the failure will mean the premature retirement of the pusillanimous. Now that's a failure that the office holder will seek to avoid at all costs. Stay tuned.
The importance of the Sun's editorial stance here lies in the way in which the paper questions why it is necessary for the university to resort to taking other people's property when other developers in Manhattan have been able to aggregate large parcels of land through normal acquisition processes. In addition, the Sun points out-as we have on numerous occasions-how other elite universities have managed to expand without bulldozing property rights. Columbia, however, really couldn't be bothered with an effort to collaborate with its neighbors.
And the Sun goes beyond pointing out how Harvard successfully manged to aggregate 200 acres up in Alston without condemnation; it shows how NYU has been able to go into the private real estate market and expand in a neighborhood that is far pricier than West Harlem. Yet CU wails that it would be too expensive and time consuming to refrain from the use of eminent domain; to which the Sun responds: "For Columbia, with its roughly $6 billion endowment, to bewail the city's high land costs and despair of buying Manhattan property on the open market is an ironical turn."
Which brings us to the issue of community benefit. When BP Stringer folded like a cheap suit on the expansion proposal, hiding behind a zoning plan that may have a mitigating impact only if our life spans suddenly and dramatically increase, our main critique was that the Stringer Spaniel didn't ask anything of the university that would mitigate its expansion in the present tense-something tangible in the here and now. What's compelling in the Columbia plan that makes the use of eminent domain an absolute necessity?
It's certainly not its job creation, since most of the immediate community won't be able to benefit because of education and skill levels. Is it the potential cure for Alzheimer's, something that Bollinger has been touting? Even allowing for hyperbole on the president's part, it hard to see just how this speculative scientific breakthrough demands that the university take away the properties of local business owners.
In our view, and we've said it on numerous occasions, the use of eminent domain requires that the community payoff be extraordinary-thousands of units of decent housing would be a consideration in this regard. But Columbia sits back and really offers nothing, expecting that a supine political class will obediently do its bidding.
We shall see. When a concrete proposal that will benefit the community is put on the table-and it will be put-the integrity of local electeds will be put to the test in what we always describe as the "golden opportunity to fail." If, however, the labor movement gets behind the effort, the failure will mean the premature retirement of the pusillanimous. Now that's a failure that the office holder will seek to avoid at all costs. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Mike's Busman's Horrorday
Mike Bloomberg went to Europe on a "busman's holiday," and ended up riding a bus with Ken the Red Livingston-in what became an unintended Mastercard moment. While in London Bloomberg inveighed against the profligacy of conservatives who run up big budget deficits. Who's writing his scripts?
In the first place, as the NY Post points out in its editorial this morning, the mayor needs to "heal himself" before casting aspersions at others. As the paper says: "Look who's calling whom a spendthrift: Mayor Mike - who's presided over the biggest jumps in city outlays in decades, much of it paid for with plastic - says President Bush and other conservatives in Washington are nuts for spending so much and running deficits."
This is a case of "Luxury Product" Mike calling the kettle gold. Here's a mayor who doesn't understand a thing about streamlining government and reinventing service delivery-and someone who will tax New Yorkers because he claims that they badly want the services that the city offers. And don't forget Bloomberg has said that NYC's municipal hospitals are better than those in the private sector-just don't hold your breathe waiting for Mike to check into Metropolitan any time soon.
And now Bloomberg is riding a bus in London with the despicable Ken Livingston just so he can hawk another new tax on New Yorkers-the congestion "fee." Let's not forget that London has already raised its fee and drivers are now paying around $20 a trip for the privilege of entering the city. It says a lot about the mayor that he's willing to play footsie with an anti-Semite, Islamo-fascist-loving Communist as long as it's promoting the interests of one Mike Bloomberg. Can't imagine Rudy riding a bus with Red Ken-maybe throwing him under one.
So Bloomberg is once again trying to-chameleon-like-change his political coloration by hypocritically going after free spending conservatives. As the Post points out, however: "But his own budget-bloating - and credit-card abuse - is a big problem for New Yorkers, too.
Before he spends another dime on anything else, we know exactly what Hizzoner needs to buy: a mirror."
In the first place, as the NY Post points out in its editorial this morning, the mayor needs to "heal himself" before casting aspersions at others. As the paper says: "Look who's calling whom a spendthrift: Mayor Mike - who's presided over the biggest jumps in city outlays in decades, much of it paid for with plastic - says President Bush and other conservatives in Washington are nuts for spending so much and running deficits."
This is a case of "Luxury Product" Mike calling the kettle gold. Here's a mayor who doesn't understand a thing about streamlining government and reinventing service delivery-and someone who will tax New Yorkers because he claims that they badly want the services that the city offers. And don't forget Bloomberg has said that NYC's municipal hospitals are better than those in the private sector-just don't hold your breathe waiting for Mike to check into Metropolitan any time soon.
And now Bloomberg is riding a bus in London with the despicable Ken Livingston just so he can hawk another new tax on New Yorkers-the congestion "fee." Let's not forget that London has already raised its fee and drivers are now paying around $20 a trip for the privilege of entering the city. It says a lot about the mayor that he's willing to play footsie with an anti-Semite, Islamo-fascist-loving Communist as long as it's promoting the interests of one Mike Bloomberg. Can't imagine Rudy riding a bus with Red Ken-maybe throwing him under one.
So Bloomberg is once again trying to-chameleon-like-change his political coloration by hypocritically going after free spending conservatives. As the Post points out, however: "But his own budget-bloating - and credit-card abuse - is a big problem for New Yorkers, too.
Before he spends another dime on anything else, we know exactly what Hizzoner needs to buy: a mirror."
Columbia Comparisons
There's a very good piece on the Columbia expansion in an edition of USA Today that ran last week. The article focuses on the conflict between the university and good portions of the community, but we think that the most important aspect of the piece lies in the contrast that the paper makes between Columbia and some of its Ivy League competitors.
What emerges here is that urban universities are more and more coming out from "behind the fortresses." Faced with the contiguous challenges of crime and economic disadvantage, universities see that they need to become proactive-and many are in ways that we believe puts the Columbia effort to shame. As one keen observer points out,
"Universities have come out from behind the fortresses," says Bruce Katz, director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution. A rise in homelessness and crime starting in the late 1980s prompted schools to get more engaged, he says. "Many university presidents are really a part of that small network of big employers who have an enormous amount of influence on how cities grow and evolve," Katz says. "So they've taken on more of a civic responsibility."
The University of Pennsylvania (with Rachele Lipsky as one of its esteemed graduates) leads the way in this regard. As the university's former president told USA Today:
"Universities have both the resources and appetite to expand and historically have done it by displacing local residents, many of whom were poor and minorities," says Judith Rodin, the former Penn president who spearheaded the initiatives. Penn recognized that it shared the community's problems. "Universities are trying to teach their students about civic engagement," Rodin says. "And I'm not sure you can do that responsibly without being a good role model of civic engagement as an institution."
How does this stance compare with Columbia's? Can anyone really say that CU is acting as a good role model in the pursuit of its own "God's little acres"? Or how about the Yale example? "Yale University in New Haven, Conn., has helped develop more than 1,000 units of affordable housing and made physical improvements to downtown, says Michael Morand, a Yale associate vice president. Such efforts have helped strengthen the relationship between the 250-acre downtown campus and adjoining neighborhoods, says Jerry Tureck, who has lived nearby for 25 years."
Where are Columbia's affordable housing units? Instead, its policy appears to be a search and destroy mission as it pursues its own version of lebensraum-with Scott Stringer as the Rumpkowski of the local Judenrat. And as far as the 6,000 jobs-always a questionable number that developers frequently use with no independent verification-how many in the surrounding neighborhoods will be able to qualify? As CB9 Chair Reyes-Montblanc points out: "He also says the jobs at the university will be beyond the educational or skill level of many in the neighborhood."
The sad fact here is that much could be accomplished if the university simply altered its bogarting philosophy and engaged its critics directly. Perhaps this is simply something that its chief consultant desperately wants to avoid.
What emerges here is that urban universities are more and more coming out from "behind the fortresses." Faced with the contiguous challenges of crime and economic disadvantage, universities see that they need to become proactive-and many are in ways that we believe puts the Columbia effort to shame. As one keen observer points out,
"Universities have come out from behind the fortresses," says Bruce Katz, director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution. A rise in homelessness and crime starting in the late 1980s prompted schools to get more engaged, he says. "Many university presidents are really a part of that small network of big employers who have an enormous amount of influence on how cities grow and evolve," Katz says. "So they've taken on more of a civic responsibility."
The University of Pennsylvania (with Rachele Lipsky as one of its esteemed graduates) leads the way in this regard. As the university's former president told USA Today:
"Universities have both the resources and appetite to expand and historically have done it by displacing local residents, many of whom were poor and minorities," says Judith Rodin, the former Penn president who spearheaded the initiatives. Penn recognized that it shared the community's problems. "Universities are trying to teach their students about civic engagement," Rodin says. "And I'm not sure you can do that responsibly without being a good role model of civic engagement as an institution."
How does this stance compare with Columbia's? Can anyone really say that CU is acting as a good role model in the pursuit of its own "God's little acres"? Or how about the Yale example? "Yale University in New Haven, Conn., has helped develop more than 1,000 units of affordable housing and made physical improvements to downtown, says Michael Morand, a Yale associate vice president. Such efforts have helped strengthen the relationship between the 250-acre downtown campus and adjoining neighborhoods, says Jerry Tureck, who has lived nearby for 25 years."
Where are Columbia's affordable housing units? Instead, its policy appears to be a search and destroy mission as it pursues its own version of lebensraum-with Scott Stringer as the Rumpkowski of the local Judenrat. And as far as the 6,000 jobs-always a questionable number that developers frequently use with no independent verification-how many in the surrounding neighborhoods will be able to qualify? As CB9 Chair Reyes-Montblanc points out: "He also says the jobs at the university will be beyond the educational or skill level of many in the neighborhood."
The sad fact here is that much could be accomplished if the university simply altered its bogarting philosophy and engaged its critics directly. Perhaps this is simply something that its chief consultant desperately wants to avoid.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Schools for a Scoundrel
In this morning's NY post the Manhattan Institute's Sol Stern reviews the latest missive from the over-rated Jonathan Kozol-someone who has been writing the same book on America's schools for the past three decades. As Stern points out; "Let me explain: According to his publisher, every Kozol book is a "courageous expose" of racism in America's inner-city public schools, and the PR campaign always paints the author suffering physically alongside the families and children he writes about."
There is no one who has been as egregiously wrong as Kozol about the failures of our schools. And there has been no one who has been as famously rewarded for his misconceptions-precisely because these misconceptions fit so comfortably into a Weltanschauung that our Ed schools dole out like pablum to the uninitiated. It's always about racism and an uncaring political culture, and never about a culture of poverty that sends unprepared and unmotivated kids into the worst schools.
What's always strange is how recent immigrants from certain cultures manage to succeed in the very same schools that others can't seem to navigate. Not to mention the fact that there is often, at least in the middle schools, a culture of disruptive violence that prevents the learning process for those who are motivated.
Now, however, Kozol is campaigning against the No Child Left Behind Act, legislation that is certainly not without flaws. Kozol's complaint addresses the horror of "teaching to the test," something that "creates unbearable pressures in urban classrooms, driving young teachers out of the profession." What an absolute crock!
First of all, as Stern points out, Kozol offers nothing but his own anecdotal evidence for this assertion. Secondly, there has been much research on the teacher drop out rate in the first five years-and the "unbearable pressure" of test teaching isn't even on the list of reasons for early teacher departure. Kozol feels that the testing atmosphere dulls the idealism of our young teachers: "You see, the law mandates annual reading and math tests - which results in a "miserable drill-and-kill curriculum of robotic 'teaching to the test' " - and idealistic, well-educated young teachers just can't take it."
No Jonathan that ain't it. Most of the young teachers who leave do so because they were unprepared for the reality of the urban classroom-and their idealism, when challenged in this way, shrivels and dies. As someone who was forced into such a classroom many years ago, I can say that there was little in the Ed School preparation that prepared me for what I confronted during these five years-disruptive students and disinterested parents who saw the school as an alien environment.
What's really scary here, is that it appears that Kozol is the "expert" advisor that the Ed Schools are leaning on to prepare young teachers. As Stern points out, "And that's a pretty good explanation for why new teachers are left clueless about what they are about to face in the urban classroom."
There is no one who has been as egregiously wrong as Kozol about the failures of our schools. And there has been no one who has been as famously rewarded for his misconceptions-precisely because these misconceptions fit so comfortably into a Weltanschauung that our Ed schools dole out like pablum to the uninitiated. It's always about racism and an uncaring political culture, and never about a culture of poverty that sends unprepared and unmotivated kids into the worst schools.
What's always strange is how recent immigrants from certain cultures manage to succeed in the very same schools that others can't seem to navigate. Not to mention the fact that there is often, at least in the middle schools, a culture of disruptive violence that prevents the learning process for those who are motivated.
Now, however, Kozol is campaigning against the No Child Left Behind Act, legislation that is certainly not without flaws. Kozol's complaint addresses the horror of "teaching to the test," something that "creates unbearable pressures in urban classrooms, driving young teachers out of the profession." What an absolute crock!
First of all, as Stern points out, Kozol offers nothing but his own anecdotal evidence for this assertion. Secondly, there has been much research on the teacher drop out rate in the first five years-and the "unbearable pressure" of test teaching isn't even on the list of reasons for early teacher departure. Kozol feels that the testing atmosphere dulls the idealism of our young teachers: "You see, the law mandates annual reading and math tests - which results in a "miserable drill-and-kill curriculum of robotic 'teaching to the test' " - and idealistic, well-educated young teachers just can't take it."
No Jonathan that ain't it. Most of the young teachers who leave do so because they were unprepared for the reality of the urban classroom-and their idealism, when challenged in this way, shrivels and dies. As someone who was forced into such a classroom many years ago, I can say that there was little in the Ed School preparation that prepared me for what I confronted during these five years-disruptive students and disinterested parents who saw the school as an alien environment.
What's really scary here, is that it appears that Kozol is the "expert" advisor that the Ed Schools are leaning on to prepare young teachers. As Stern points out, "And that's a pretty good explanation for why new teachers are left clueless about what they are about to face in the urban classroom."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
