The City Council held a hearing yesterday on a bill, Intro 640, that would mandate the recycling of plastic bags in stores larger than 5,000 square feet. The Alliance is opposed to the bill as currently drafted and we made our objections known at the hearing. As the City Room blog pointed out: “The plastic bag recycling, aside from being a headache, will also impose some significant costs on the stores,” said Richard Lipsky of the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, one of the bill’s most vehement critics."
One of our biggest concerns is the apparent lack of concern at the council about the costs and obligations that are being foisted on local stores. The record-keeping responsibilities-the idea that store owners can easily manage to weigh and record the weights of the bags they collect-are impractical and, because of the city enforcement mechanisms, potentially costly as well.
And the idea that somehow all of this is good for the stores, that plastic bag recycling will become a "profit center," as someone from the Plastic Bag Alliance alleged, is too ludicrous to give any credence to. As Mitch Klein of Krasdale Foods pointed out at the hearing yesterday, this is going to cost independent supermarkets plenty-and there's nothing in the bill that gives the stores any relief, while the plastic bag manufacturers really have no fiscal exposure in all of this.
This factor was brought out in this morning's S.I. Advance story, where the paper indicated that one of the lobbyists that represents supplier interests is Councilman McMahon'e brother Tom: "The American Chemistry Council, a trade association, testified yesterday in favor of the bill. The council employs the Albany lobbying firm of Brown McMahon & Weinraub LLC, of which McMahon's brother, Thomas, is a principal. The lobbying firm has earned $18,000 this year for its efforts."
The councilman, for his part, said that there was really no conflict here: "The councilman said there is no conflict of interest because he favored the legislation before he knew of the involvement of his brother, who was not present yesterday. He also said he would publicly disclose the relationship prior to taking a vote, for which a date is not yet set."
The point, however, is that the bill doesn't place nearly enough obligations on the deep-pocketed bag manufacturers ant the chemical resin suppliers-the local stores who employ tens of thousands of folks and contribute millions to the local economy are literally left holding the bag. If that's true, and we believe it is, than the conflict becomes manifest.
This legislation needs a lot of work in order to make it both equitable and workable; and we hope that the Speaker will realize this and take an active role in insuring that the interests of store owners and their employees are looked after.
Friday, November 30, 2007
A Community Resigned to its Fate
As we mentioned yesterday, (and thanks to Liz for the link) three of the board members of the West Harlem LDC resigned from the body to protest its lack of transparency and authenticity. As our client Nick Sprayregen told the Observer: "Further, I for one, do not want to be a signatory to a document that could represent such a sell-out of the community and that represents something that is not what the community wants.”
This is all so expected. As soon as we found out that Jesse James Masyr was "hired" to represent the LDC in its negotiations for a Community Benefits Agreement we knew that a sell-out was likely on the way. The last time that Jesse did the CBA tango was over at the Bronx Terminal Market where, working for the developer Related, he helped BP Carrion to craft an agreement that his mentors found acceptable-so much so that they heaped considerable gratitude on the leader of the borough. One knowledgeable observer called this a "subversion of the land use process"-and the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.The only thing a genuine community hires Masyr for is to draw up its last will and testament.
And the fact that, as we've commented before, Masyr has an agreement with the LDC to work "pro bono," except for the proviso that he can be compensated at a later date by a third party. We know that it ain't Tom DeMott that's gonna cut old Jesse a big check. It's time to reprise "The Sting," with Masyr in the Paul Newman role. Metro's headline today says it all: "Columbia plan ‘rigged’?
All of which underscores the hilarity of Masyr's comments to the Observer: "“This has not been a behind the scenes process,” Mr. Masyr said. “We are probably a bit too transparent to really be able to negotiate. When it becomes apparent that not everybody was pulling in the same direction, we have a problem.”
And while you are negotiating this kind of CBA you don't need folks who want to aggressively advocate on behalf of local residents and businesses: "Our mission is clear, our vision is clear. We are going to negotiate a community benefits agreement,” the lawyer, Jesse Masyr, said. “I think that you could make the argument that two out of the three members never really intended to fulfill the mission of the LDC.”
Unlike, for instance, Susan Russell, gal Friday to Councilman Bob Jackson, someone whose only raison d'etre in life is to make sure that the community gets every last benefit from the rapacious university developer. Au Contraire you say? We must have the wrong Susan Russell; this Russell is the Terrier to the Stringer Spaniel-and she's carrying Masyr's water in a blue and white bucket. As she told the Spectator: “It’s not like people are trying to exclude others, but there has to be a certain level of practicality there,” she said. “Everyone on that board is absolutely dedicated to this community, and I can say that without hesitation.”
Say what? Sounds quite Orwellian to us-on the order of "all the pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others." Which is all the more reason why this land use process needs the dose of disinfectant that labor is threatening to bring to it. Enough with the faux CBAs and the legerdemain practiced by those to whom justice means, just us.
Update
Crain's writes the following on the CBA trail:
COLUMBIA TALKS
"Three people who oppose Columbia University’s Manhattanville expansion resigned
Wednesday from the West Harlem Local Development Corp., the organization that is negotiating
a package of community benefits to compensate for lost businesses and residences.
A school source says the resignations herald a pending agreement on the
package and that the three left so that they would not be party to the terms. But one of those who resigned, business owner Nick Sprayregen, says he did so to inform the public that the parties are nowhere near an accord—which as an LDC member he could
not do because he was under a gag agreement. Only Wednesday did the LDC begin
talking with its lawyer about enforcement mechanisms in case Columbia doesn’t keep
its promises, he says."
Clearly, there will be an agreement negotiated that reflects the interests of CU more than it does any genuine grass roots sentiment. All of which was part of the hand writing on the wall when Jesse James came to West Harlem.
This is all so expected. As soon as we found out that Jesse James Masyr was "hired" to represent the LDC in its negotiations for a Community Benefits Agreement we knew that a sell-out was likely on the way. The last time that Jesse did the CBA tango was over at the Bronx Terminal Market where, working for the developer Related, he helped BP Carrion to craft an agreement that his mentors found acceptable-so much so that they heaped considerable gratitude on the leader of the borough. One knowledgeable observer called this a "subversion of the land use process"-and the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.The only thing a genuine community hires Masyr for is to draw up its last will and testament.
And the fact that, as we've commented before, Masyr has an agreement with the LDC to work "pro bono," except for the proviso that he can be compensated at a later date by a third party. We know that it ain't Tom DeMott that's gonna cut old Jesse a big check. It's time to reprise "The Sting," with Masyr in the Paul Newman role. Metro's headline today says it all: "Columbia plan ‘rigged’?
All of which underscores the hilarity of Masyr's comments to the Observer: "“This has not been a behind the scenes process,” Mr. Masyr said. “We are probably a bit too transparent to really be able to negotiate. When it becomes apparent that not everybody was pulling in the same direction, we have a problem.”
And while you are negotiating this kind of CBA you don't need folks who want to aggressively advocate on behalf of local residents and businesses: "Our mission is clear, our vision is clear. We are going to negotiate a community benefits agreement,” the lawyer, Jesse Masyr, said. “I think that you could make the argument that two out of the three members never really intended to fulfill the mission of the LDC.”
Unlike, for instance, Susan Russell, gal Friday to Councilman Bob Jackson, someone whose only raison d'etre in life is to make sure that the community gets every last benefit from the rapacious university developer. Au Contraire you say? We must have the wrong Susan Russell; this Russell is the Terrier to the Stringer Spaniel-and she's carrying Masyr's water in a blue and white bucket. As she told the Spectator: “It’s not like people are trying to exclude others, but there has to be a certain level of practicality there,” she said. “Everyone on that board is absolutely dedicated to this community, and I can say that without hesitation.”
Say what? Sounds quite Orwellian to us-on the order of "all the pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others." Which is all the more reason why this land use process needs the dose of disinfectant that labor is threatening to bring to it. Enough with the faux CBAs and the legerdemain practiced by those to whom justice means, just us.
Update
Crain's writes the following on the CBA trail:
COLUMBIA TALKS
"Three people who oppose Columbia University’s Manhattanville expansion resigned
Wednesday from the West Harlem Local Development Corp., the organization that is negotiating
a package of community benefits to compensate for lost businesses and residences.
A school source says the resignations herald a pending agreement on the
package and that the three left so that they would not be party to the terms. But one of those who resigned, business owner Nick Sprayregen, says he did so to inform the public that the parties are nowhere near an accord—which as an LDC member he could
not do because he was under a gag agreement. Only Wednesday did the LDC begin
talking with its lawyer about enforcement mechanisms in case Columbia doesn’t keep
its promises, he says."
Clearly, there will be an agreement negotiated that reflects the interests of CU more than it does any genuine grass roots sentiment. All of which was part of the hand writing on the wall when Jesse James came to West Harlem.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Labor's New Vision
There's a new land use dynamic on the way, and the leader of the new direction is the Central Labor Council. As the NY Daily News' Juan Gonzales points out this morning: "The city's major union leaders have secretly approved a new campaign to block future redevelopment projects in the city unless each includes tough new livable wage and affordable housing guarantees, the Daily News has learned."
This new initiative could very well change the entire land use review process, and create a major challenge to the way in which development decisions are made. As Gonzales says: "Ever since the heyday of master builder Robert Moses, the city's labor unions have routinely backed the real estate industry's big development projects as a source of construction jobs. Now, organized labor and the real estate industry could be on a collision course."
And it should be clear to everyone that labor is the one player in the city's political process that has the ability to alter the way business is done. This is not only a major step, it is a welcome one as well. It can pave the way for the ending of sweetheart deals and phony community benefits agreements that leave small businesses and neighborhoods out in the cold.
One of the major focuses in all of this is affordable housing. Here's what one labor person told Gonzales: "[Mayor] Bloomberg and [Deputy Mayor Daniel] Doctoroff are upzoning dozens of neighborhoods all over town," one top union leader said. "They're creating huge windfalls for developers, trading air rights all over the place that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, our union members can't even afford to live in this city anymore. This has to stop."
Which brings us to Columbia and Willets Point-both making news today. On the Columbia front, Lipsky client Nick Sprayregen will be joining two other members of the West Harlem LDC at City Hall, Tom DeMott and Luisa Henriquez, to announce their resignation from the board that was supposed to be set up to negotiate a CBA with the university. Their experience with this Potemkin Village underscores our earlier point about the nmew ULURP sham: CBAs that are in reality backroom political deals.
As the press release for the three members points out: "Three board members of the West Harlem Local Development Corporation, a not-for-profit entity specifically created to negotiate a community benefits agreement with Columbia University in connection with its proposed expansion into West Harlem, will resign from the LDC citing back-door dealing and a rigged process. Tom DeMott, Nick Sprayregen and Luisa Henriquez who represent tenants in the area and businesses and residents facing forced removal within the footprint say that the block voting of most elected officials, a rigged land review process, and marginalization of the community have made it impossible for the LDC to function as intended and that it is now merely serving as a cover for behind-the scenes-negotiations."
The fact that the CU expansion has gone this far without a single local official saying word one about affordable housing-or any other word about anything-highlights the need for labor to step into a policy void. And the CLC has already initiated discussions with Sprayregen that would lead to a land swap with Columbia and the building of 1,000 units of housing.
As far as Willets Point goes, the City Council will be holding a hearing today on the potential redevelopment of the huge site-and if they stay on message here, the labor movement should resist any development of the area before a comprehensive benefit plan is devised. No pig-in-a-poke, and Doctoroff carte blanche, that will leave labor and the council outside looking in when this deal is finally done.
So what is labor looking to do here? "Among the reforms the labor leaders want are major changes to the city's zoning laws, greater transparency in development projects and stronger teeth in the city's land review procedures, known as ULURP. Exactly what we have been clamoring for over the past two decades."
And if the political elites are tone deaf? "If they can't reach agreement with City Hall and the City Council, the union chiefs say, they will launch a major public relations campaign, mobilize their members to attend City Council hearings and gear up to elect new candidates in the 2009 municipal elections who support the campaign." Let the games begin!
Update
Newsday has an interesting Willets Point story today-and the central theme, also present in the Columbia expansion fight, is over the definition of what constitutes blight. As one business owner told the paper the city itself is at fault for any blight: "The Bloomberg administration cites blight and pollution as its primary concerns about the current properties. But Bono, one of 10 business owners who formed the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association to fight the redevelopment, maintains the land is not contaminated and that the city itself is to blame for the blight."
Yet, as is typical in cases like these, proponents of redevelopment cite activities or certain businesses that don't meet the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, as a reason to, well, throw the baby out with the bathwater. As our friend Evan Stavisky tells the paper: "...that while there are many legitimate businesses in Willets Point, the area has been "a haven for chop shops and questionable characters."
Wholesale removal, though, seems a bit extreme when it is reported that over 2,500 people are employed in the area, and that many of these folks are entry level workers who would find it difficult to get work elsewhere. We're curious to see how this all plays out in light of the new vision of labor.
This new initiative could very well change the entire land use review process, and create a major challenge to the way in which development decisions are made. As Gonzales says: "Ever since the heyday of master builder Robert Moses, the city's labor unions have routinely backed the real estate industry's big development projects as a source of construction jobs. Now, organized labor and the real estate industry could be on a collision course."
And it should be clear to everyone that labor is the one player in the city's political process that has the ability to alter the way business is done. This is not only a major step, it is a welcome one as well. It can pave the way for the ending of sweetheart deals and phony community benefits agreements that leave small businesses and neighborhoods out in the cold.
One of the major focuses in all of this is affordable housing. Here's what one labor person told Gonzales: "[Mayor] Bloomberg and [Deputy Mayor Daniel] Doctoroff are upzoning dozens of neighborhoods all over town," one top union leader said. "They're creating huge windfalls for developers, trading air rights all over the place that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, our union members can't even afford to live in this city anymore. This has to stop."
Which brings us to Columbia and Willets Point-both making news today. On the Columbia front, Lipsky client Nick Sprayregen will be joining two other members of the West Harlem LDC at City Hall, Tom DeMott and Luisa Henriquez, to announce their resignation from the board that was supposed to be set up to negotiate a CBA with the university. Their experience with this Potemkin Village underscores our earlier point about the nmew ULURP sham: CBAs that are in reality backroom political deals.
As the press release for the three members points out: "Three board members of the West Harlem Local Development Corporation, a not-for-profit entity specifically created to negotiate a community benefits agreement with Columbia University in connection with its proposed expansion into West Harlem, will resign from the LDC citing back-door dealing and a rigged process. Tom DeMott, Nick Sprayregen and Luisa Henriquez who represent tenants in the area and businesses and residents facing forced removal within the footprint say that the block voting of most elected officials, a rigged land review process, and marginalization of the community have made it impossible for the LDC to function as intended and that it is now merely serving as a cover for behind-the scenes-negotiations."
The fact that the CU expansion has gone this far without a single local official saying word one about affordable housing-or any other word about anything-highlights the need for labor to step into a policy void. And the CLC has already initiated discussions with Sprayregen that would lead to a land swap with Columbia and the building of 1,000 units of housing.
As far as Willets Point goes, the City Council will be holding a hearing today on the potential redevelopment of the huge site-and if they stay on message here, the labor movement should resist any development of the area before a comprehensive benefit plan is devised. No pig-in-a-poke, and Doctoroff carte blanche, that will leave labor and the council outside looking in when this deal is finally done.
So what is labor looking to do here? "Among the reforms the labor leaders want are major changes to the city's zoning laws, greater transparency in development projects and stronger teeth in the city's land review procedures, known as ULURP. Exactly what we have been clamoring for over the past two decades."
And if the political elites are tone deaf? "If they can't reach agreement with City Hall and the City Council, the union chiefs say, they will launch a major public relations campaign, mobilize their members to attend City Council hearings and gear up to elect new candidates in the 2009 municipal elections who support the campaign." Let the games begin!
Update
Newsday has an interesting Willets Point story today-and the central theme, also present in the Columbia expansion fight, is over the definition of what constitutes blight. As one business owner told the paper the city itself is at fault for any blight: "The Bloomberg administration cites blight and pollution as its primary concerns about the current properties. But Bono, one of 10 business owners who formed the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association to fight the redevelopment, maintains the land is not contaminated and that the city itself is to blame for the blight."
Yet, as is typical in cases like these, proponents of redevelopment cite activities or certain businesses that don't meet the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, as a reason to, well, throw the baby out with the bathwater. As our friend Evan Stavisky tells the paper: "...that while there are many legitimate businesses in Willets Point, the area has been "a haven for chop shops and questionable characters."
Wholesale removal, though, seems a bit extreme when it is reported that over 2,500 people are employed in the area, and that many of these folks are entry level workers who would find it difficult to get work elsewhere. We're curious to see how this all plays out in light of the new vision of labor.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Goodby Dolly
The news that City Planning Commissioner Dolly Williams was leaving the body because of a conflict of interest didn't do much to move us; we just don't hold the Commission in enough regard to really react to the news. Others, however feel differently. As the NY Sun reports, DDD's Daniel Goldstein looks favorably upon Williams' removal because of conflicts involving Atlantic Yards, and her replacement by Shirley McRae, a sometime critic of the project: "As for the new commissioner: "It's got to be an improvement over someone who's just been fined over conflicts of interest," Mr. Goldstein said. He added that he was encouraged by Ms. McRae's critical perspective on the Atlantic Yards issue during her time on the local community board."
Goldstein should really temper his enthusiasm, it tends to place too much emphasis on the import of all of this minor maneuvering. After all, a conflict at the planning commission, a body that faithfully discharges the mayor's will, has little impact on the resolution of any individual issue; it's not a venue where democracy is exercised.
And the fact that the state named Forest Taylor as an ombudsman is even less noteworthy. In the years that Taylor was supposedly Gifford Miller's chief of staff. we can't recall a more evanescent figure in out 25 years of lobbying the city council. An ombudsman is nothing more than an emotional release point for those with a particular beef; not, like Goldstein, for those who want the whole project to disappear.
The problem here lies with the development process rather than the behavior of planning commissioners. The selection of developers and of sites; the decisions about what should be built-all are more significant than the parsing of the review process. Over the past 25 years there's been only a few of us who have successfully, and consistently, stopped developments from happening.
Under the current administration, however, the scope of possible opposition has narrowed-a situation that is exacerbated by the relationship between current council leadership and the mayor. When you add to this the fact that a handful of developers-really two-have been treated as favored nations, you can see just how limited the whole scope of potential opposition has become.
So, in reference to the leaving of Dolly Williams we're reminded of the old proverb: "the law punishes the thief who steals the goose from off of the common; but lets the greater felon loose, who steals the commons from the goose."
Goldstein should really temper his enthusiasm, it tends to place too much emphasis on the import of all of this minor maneuvering. After all, a conflict at the planning commission, a body that faithfully discharges the mayor's will, has little impact on the resolution of any individual issue; it's not a venue where democracy is exercised.
And the fact that the state named Forest Taylor as an ombudsman is even less noteworthy. In the years that Taylor was supposedly Gifford Miller's chief of staff. we can't recall a more evanescent figure in out 25 years of lobbying the city council. An ombudsman is nothing more than an emotional release point for those with a particular beef; not, like Goldstein, for those who want the whole project to disappear.
The problem here lies with the development process rather than the behavior of planning commissioners. The selection of developers and of sites; the decisions about what should be built-all are more significant than the parsing of the review process. Over the past 25 years there's been only a few of us who have successfully, and consistently, stopped developments from happening.
Under the current administration, however, the scope of possible opposition has narrowed-a situation that is exacerbated by the relationship between current council leadership and the mayor. When you add to this the fact that a handful of developers-really two-have been treated as favored nations, you can see just how limited the whole scope of potential opposition has become.
So, in reference to the leaving of Dolly Williams we're reminded of the old proverb: "the law punishes the thief who steals the goose from off of the common; but lets the greater felon loose, who steals the commons from the goose."
Heavy-Handed Calorie Reprise
The City Room blog is reporting on the second effort by the Department of Health to impose a menu labeling scheme on some local restaurants-the first such attempt fell by the judicial waste side in September. As the blog points out: "Then, in September, a United States District Court judge struck down the rule, saying the way it was worded conflicted with federal regulations. But the judge, Richard J. Howell, provided suggestions in his decision for ways the city could avoid running afoul of federal law, and city officials vowed to do so.
And now they have done just that, with the same uninformed commentary by self-appointed guardians of the public health who no zero about fast food restaurants and, less understandably, apparently are ignorant of some basic health issues. Here's what one such expert told the hearing held yesterday: “It is a common-sense measure that poses no risk to anyone,” said Amy J. Schwartz, executive director of the Public Health Association of New York City.
Ms. Schwartz told the hearing panel that studies have shown people eating outside the home consume 15 percent fewer calories when they are given the calorie count of menu items."
That, my friends, is an absolute lie! It is, however, quite fair in the minds of the advocates to lie as long as it is deemed to be in a good cause. There are no peer-reviewed studies that indicate that folks are consuming less when their made aware of the calories they're eating. And the only study done in New York City was done by the DOH itself.
What did that study "find?" It found that consumers at Subway! supposedly consumed 50 less calories when the calorie counts were made available. 50-at a restaurant that markets its healthy alternative status (leaving aside the fact that the study was done by the very department seeking to impose the menu rules).
The fact is that there are no social science studies that give any degree of confidence about the efficacy of what the department of health is doing. There are some studies that do show that consumers, when they are informed about calorie counts, actually choose the higher calorie items. assuming a more tasty alternative in their choice.
So, once again, the city is performing a social experiment at the expense of local restaurant owners. No harm, Ms Schwartz? The loss of local business, and the potential loss of employment could be a serious harm to neighborhood economies; but the DOH is undeterred and hasn't bothered to do any cost/benefit analysis, so sure are they in their own rectitude.
Hopefully, the industry will also challenge this rule as successfully as it did for the first. Heaven protect us from a government imbued with a sense of its own benevolence.
And now they have done just that, with the same uninformed commentary by self-appointed guardians of the public health who no zero about fast food restaurants and, less understandably, apparently are ignorant of some basic health issues. Here's what one such expert told the hearing held yesterday: “It is a common-sense measure that poses no risk to anyone,” said Amy J. Schwartz, executive director of the Public Health Association of New York City.
Ms. Schwartz told the hearing panel that studies have shown people eating outside the home consume 15 percent fewer calories when they are given the calorie count of menu items."
That, my friends, is an absolute lie! It is, however, quite fair in the minds of the advocates to lie as long as it is deemed to be in a good cause. There are no peer-reviewed studies that indicate that folks are consuming less when their made aware of the calories they're eating. And the only study done in New York City was done by the DOH itself.
What did that study "find?" It found that consumers at Subway! supposedly consumed 50 less calories when the calorie counts were made available. 50-at a restaurant that markets its healthy alternative status (leaving aside the fact that the study was done by the very department seeking to impose the menu rules).
The fact is that there are no social science studies that give any degree of confidence about the efficacy of what the department of health is doing. There are some studies that do show that consumers, when they are informed about calorie counts, actually choose the higher calorie items. assuming a more tasty alternative in their choice.
So, once again, the city is performing a social experiment at the expense of local restaurant owners. No harm, Ms Schwartz? The loss of local business, and the potential loss of employment could be a serious harm to neighborhood economies; but the DOH is undeterred and hasn't bothered to do any cost/benefit analysis, so sure are they in their own rectitude.
Hopefully, the industry will also challenge this rule as successfully as it did for the first. Heaven protect us from a government imbued with a sense of its own benevolence.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wise Observations
In today's Real Estate blog in the Observer, Matthew Schuerman highlights a couple of important points. In the first place he points out that Commissioner Phillips, a one time foe turned friend, made it clear that she saw the Sprayregen land swap as a key feature of an improved expansion plan: "Ms. Phillips took the floor. She listed a number of elements of the plan that she wished would be changed, among them, a land swap between the moving company Tuck-It-Away and Columbia to reduce the need for eminent domain."
Hooray for Karen, someone who understands the essence of a development partnership and can clearly see why CU's plan falls short. Also kudos need to go out to Commissioner Cantor who abstained from an approval because of the eminent domain issue: "But, while lauding the economic development that Columbia’s expansion promises to bring to upper Manhattan, Mr. Cantor objected to the state’s possible use of eminent domain to acquire some commercial properties that Columbia could not buy outright, on the grounds that less government was good government, and that, over the next 20 years, land owners would be stuck in limbo, unable to improve their parcels and yet unwilling to sell them off."
What's apparent is that the ED issue here is causing a certain degree of skittishness, and even New York's Burden expressed the wish that the use of this method wouldn't be necessary. As the Spectator pointed out: "Emphasizing her hope that eminent domain will not be necessary, Burden said, “Approval of the Columbia University plan would not be a vote in favor of eminent domain, and it is altogether possible that Columbia’s plan will be fully realized without eminent domain.”
Yes it certainly is possible, but we'll need to see a large dose of good faith and political will exercised before we're sanguine about averting a mega-battle over this contentious issue. Stay tuned, because these things will be front and center in the coming weeks.
Hooray for Karen, someone who understands the essence of a development partnership and can clearly see why CU's plan falls short. Also kudos need to go out to Commissioner Cantor who abstained from an approval because of the eminent domain issue: "But, while lauding the economic development that Columbia’s expansion promises to bring to upper Manhattan, Mr. Cantor objected to the state’s possible use of eminent domain to acquire some commercial properties that Columbia could not buy outright, on the grounds that less government was good government, and that, over the next 20 years, land owners would be stuck in limbo, unable to improve their parcels and yet unwilling to sell them off."
What's apparent is that the ED issue here is causing a certain degree of skittishness, and even New York's Burden expressed the wish that the use of this method wouldn't be necessary. As the Spectator pointed out: "Emphasizing her hope that eminent domain will not be necessary, Burden said, “Approval of the Columbia University plan would not be a vote in favor of eminent domain, and it is altogether possible that Columbia’s plan will be fully realized without eminent domain.”
Yes it certainly is possible, but we'll need to see a large dose of good faith and political will exercised before we're sanguine about averting a mega-battle over this contentious issue. Stay tuned, because these things will be front and center in the coming weeks.
CPC Plans, and God Laughs
As expected, the City Planning Commission voted yesterday to approve the expansion of Columbia University into West Harlem. The Commission, whose majority is controlled by the mayor, faithfully did what it was told to do-and did so without any recognition of the potential negative impact that expansion would have on existing businesses or residents.
Keep in mind that the EIS determined that up to 5,000 local residents were in danger of either direct or indirect displacement; yet nothing in the Commission's "modification" addresses this salient issue, or indicates how and where these folks are going to find affordable housing. Some planning!
Yet, it must be said, that CPC did as much as could be expected from an agency without any scope of independent action; and don't forget all of the wonderful landscaping that Commissioner Burden has included-not really comprehending the irony of providing landscaping for an area that will witness the displacement of people from their homes and businesses from their locations. You know, you may be forced out, but think of all the pretty trees that will take your place. There's a reason we call Amanda "New York's Burden."
At the same time, we were surprised by the fortitude of our old friend Karen Phillips, the one dissenting Commission voice. As the NY Daily News reports: "Only Commissioner Karen Phillips voted against the expansion, citing concerns that it could cause "economic, cultural and social damage" to the surrounding area." What Phillips went on to say was that the real contribution that CU's expansion will bring should not been done at the expense of the local community.
The local did come out and forcefully express their displeasure at the whole exercise in faux democracy. As the NY Post reports: "Dozens of Harlem residents shouted their opposition to the development during the meeting. One opponent, Tom DeMott, threw fistfuls of green paper he called "Bollinger Dollars," in reference to university President Lee Bollinger. Another, Nellie Bailey, called Columbia's expansion "a plan to dismantle and restructure Harlem. You are driving blacks, Latinos and working-class whites out of Harlem."
The Commission did, however, do one substantive change to the Columbia scheme. It knocked out the large academic buildings that CU had planned for the East Side of Broadway. Here's the Post's take: "Columbia's plan won the key approval only after the commission made several changes, including replacing two research buildings on Broadway with university housing and lowering the height of both buildings. "The commission has been particularly concerned that the proposed concentration of six academic research buildings fronting along Broadway would potentially diminish the ability to create a vibrant and active corridor," said Amanda Burden, director of city planning."
How interesting! That's exactly the area that has been proposed for the land swap between CU and property owner Nick Sprayregen-and CPC designates it for "university housing." A better idea is, of course, housing for locals and not just student transients-something that is central to the Sprayregen swap. We simply can't get over the Commission's callous disregard of the housing issue. Well, we guess that's what happens when you turn a planning agency over to New York's version of Lady Bird Johnson.
But, as the Spectator reports this morning, housing is in the picture-just not for local residents: "Columbia also announced on Monday that it would build nearly 1,000 housing units for employees, in an effort to offset the increased demand for housing that the expansion will generate. In addition, the University agreed to contribute $4 million to legal-aid services for Manhattanville tenants, including protection from unlawful harassment or eviction."
So, once again, Columbia looks to take care of its own, and the heck with any one else. All of which means that it will be up to the City Council to craft a better compromise, a road that has been paved by the Commission's passage of both the CU plan as well as the community board's 197-a plan. As the City Room blog pointed out yesterday: "The plan now goes to the City Council, which is expected to modify it before giving final approval."
Keep in mind that the EIS determined that up to 5,000 local residents were in danger of either direct or indirect displacement; yet nothing in the Commission's "modification" addresses this salient issue, or indicates how and where these folks are going to find affordable housing. Some planning!
Yet, it must be said, that CPC did as much as could be expected from an agency without any scope of independent action; and don't forget all of the wonderful landscaping that Commissioner Burden has included-not really comprehending the irony of providing landscaping for an area that will witness the displacement of people from their homes and businesses from their locations. You know, you may be forced out, but think of all the pretty trees that will take your place. There's a reason we call Amanda "New York's Burden."
At the same time, we were surprised by the fortitude of our old friend Karen Phillips, the one dissenting Commission voice. As the NY Daily News reports: "Only Commissioner Karen Phillips voted against the expansion, citing concerns that it could cause "economic, cultural and social damage" to the surrounding area." What Phillips went on to say was that the real contribution that CU's expansion will bring should not been done at the expense of the local community.
The local did come out and forcefully express their displeasure at the whole exercise in faux democracy. As the NY Post reports: "Dozens of Harlem residents shouted their opposition to the development during the meeting. One opponent, Tom DeMott, threw fistfuls of green paper he called "Bollinger Dollars," in reference to university President Lee Bollinger. Another, Nellie Bailey, called Columbia's expansion "a plan to dismantle and restructure Harlem. You are driving blacks, Latinos and working-class whites out of Harlem."
The Commission did, however, do one substantive change to the Columbia scheme. It knocked out the large academic buildings that CU had planned for the East Side of Broadway. Here's the Post's take: "Columbia's plan won the key approval only after the commission made several changes, including replacing two research buildings on Broadway with university housing and lowering the height of both buildings. "The commission has been particularly concerned that the proposed concentration of six academic research buildings fronting along Broadway would potentially diminish the ability to create a vibrant and active corridor," said Amanda Burden, director of city planning."
How interesting! That's exactly the area that has been proposed for the land swap between CU and property owner Nick Sprayregen-and CPC designates it for "university housing." A better idea is, of course, housing for locals and not just student transients-something that is central to the Sprayregen swap. We simply can't get over the Commission's callous disregard of the housing issue. Well, we guess that's what happens when you turn a planning agency over to New York's version of Lady Bird Johnson.
But, as the Spectator reports this morning, housing is in the picture-just not for local residents: "Columbia also announced on Monday that it would build nearly 1,000 housing units for employees, in an effort to offset the increased demand for housing that the expansion will generate. In addition, the University agreed to contribute $4 million to legal-aid services for Manhattanville tenants, including protection from unlawful harassment or eviction."
So, once again, Columbia looks to take care of its own, and the heck with any one else. All of which means that it will be up to the City Council to craft a better compromise, a road that has been paved by the Commission's passage of both the CU plan as well as the community board's 197-a plan. As the City Room blog pointed out yesterday: "The plan now goes to the City Council, which is expected to modify it before giving final approval."
E-RAT-ic Policy
The issue of the week over at the Gotham Gazette deals with the city's Sisyphean efforts to combat the rat. What strikes us, and we've seen the same mantra when Sewell Chan did the story a while back over at the NY Times, is the emphasis on food waste: "Faced with the burgeoning rat population, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani formed a rat task force in 2000. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has stepped up the effort. As part of it the city has tried to shift the emphasis from poisoning to depriving rats of their food."
What do you know! Just what we've been promoting with our Intro 133, a bill that would allow food stores and restaurants to use commercial food waste disposers.Isn't it interesting just how disconnected city policy making is. On the one hand, we have the effort to restrict the rat's food supply; while on the other, we have the concerted effort to not even allow a pilot program for waste disposers that would do more for eliminating the rat banquet than any other single measure. Go figure.
What do you know! Just what we've been promoting with our Intro 133, a bill that would allow food stores and restaurants to use commercial food waste disposers.Isn't it interesting just how disconnected city policy making is. On the one hand, we have the effort to restrict the rat's food supply; while on the other, we have the concerted effort to not even allow a pilot program for waste disposers that would do more for eliminating the rat banquet than any other single measure. Go figure.
Cabbie Knows Best
In an Op-ed piece done for the Sunday Daily News, cab driver Nick Stern demonstrated that it's so often the folks on the ground who are able to see things most clearly-rather than the philosophic elites ensconced in the municipal Thinkery. As Stern rightly observed: "I drive a yellow cab on the night shift, and let me assure you that Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal is a cynical game of three-card monte that unfairly targets working people who can least afford it."
What Stern points out, is that the city could achieve considerable congestion relief without any congestion tax if it only enforced the law: "Because, Mr. Mayor, if you really want to reduce congestion, you should start by enforcing existing traffic and parking laws and dealing with major headaches that, by my lights, are the real reason congestion is intolerable."
Indeed that's true, but why hasn't the city gone the enforcement route first? The reason, it appears to us, lies with the fact that a zero tolerance policy on double parking and No Standing zones would affect the city's elites. As Stern says; "First, No Standing laws are being abused left and right. Go ahead, drive down 50th or 52nd Sts. heading east between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. any weekday. What do you see? Rows of black cars and limos parked and double-parked all along the street, reducing traffic to a single lane. When cars try to make a turn onto the avenues, there is no room for other cars to pass as pedestrian density prevents vehicles from quickly going left or right. Where are the tow trucks?"
So instead we have a Tax First policy that unfairly targets the city's middle class, while the CEOs and the swells from the exclusive clubs are given a free ride to congest to their hearts content. In fact, it appears that the entire object of congestion taxing is to make midtown safe for the limos.
Update
In this morning's Insider, the newsletter reports on one consultant's view that the mayor's complex monitoring system is just too complex and expensive-and it won't ease congestion for very long: "Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan gets a harsh dose of reality from a transportation technology company offering to build the system. Skymeter, a Toronto firm
that uses GPS to track and charge vehicles, says the E-ZPass-based system proposed by
the mayor would be too complex and “prohibitively expensive” to modify, and would not ease traffic for long. Chief Executive Bern Grush concludes that the proposal—which
grew from the mayor’s sustainability initiative—is “unsustainable.”
Which is exactly what we have been saying all along-and the reason why we've called for the forensic accounting on the entire scheme; from revenues to mitigation analysis. It simply won't withstand any independent review.
What Stern points out, is that the city could achieve considerable congestion relief without any congestion tax if it only enforced the law: "Because, Mr. Mayor, if you really want to reduce congestion, you should start by enforcing existing traffic and parking laws and dealing with major headaches that, by my lights, are the real reason congestion is intolerable."
Indeed that's true, but why hasn't the city gone the enforcement route first? The reason, it appears to us, lies with the fact that a zero tolerance policy on double parking and No Standing zones would affect the city's elites. As Stern says; "First, No Standing laws are being abused left and right. Go ahead, drive down 50th or 52nd Sts. heading east between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. any weekday. What do you see? Rows of black cars and limos parked and double-parked all along the street, reducing traffic to a single lane. When cars try to make a turn onto the avenues, there is no room for other cars to pass as pedestrian density prevents vehicles from quickly going left or right. Where are the tow trucks?"
So instead we have a Tax First policy that unfairly targets the city's middle class, while the CEOs and the swells from the exclusive clubs are given a free ride to congest to their hearts content. In fact, it appears that the entire object of congestion taxing is to make midtown safe for the limos.
Update
In this morning's Insider, the newsletter reports on one consultant's view that the mayor's complex monitoring system is just too complex and expensive-and it won't ease congestion for very long: "Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan gets a harsh dose of reality from a transportation technology company offering to build the system. Skymeter, a Toronto firm
that uses GPS to track and charge vehicles, says the E-ZPass-based system proposed by
the mayor would be too complex and “prohibitively expensive” to modify, and would not ease traffic for long. Chief Executive Bern Grush concludes that the proposal—which
grew from the mayor’s sustainability initiative—is “unsustainable.”
Which is exactly what we have been saying all along-and the reason why we've called for the forensic accounting on the entire scheme; from revenues to mitigation analysis. It simply won't withstand any independent review.
Monday, November 26, 2007
CPC Preview
The NY Sun previews today's expected City Planning Commission vote to approve the Columbia expansion plan. The paper focuses heavily on the eminent domain issues and quotes Norman Siegal, Nick Sprayregen's attorney on this thorny issue: "They should find out whether eminent domain will be an aspect of this," the lawyer, Norman Siegel, said. "But they're reluctant to enter into the fray about the merits of eminent domain both on the Columbia plan and in general. So they're punting to the state."
Of course, the use of eminent domain would rely on whether or not the land in question is "blighted," a definition that has in many cases been used quite expansively. As the Sun points out; "Critics of eminent domain say the state's condemnation of property — no matter how small — in a dynamic neighborhood for a private development would be a heavy-handed abuse of the state's power."
What makes this issue even more problematic is the fact that the Empire State Development Corporation, the agency charged with the blight determination, is using the same consultant-AKRF-as Columbia. A court has already ruled that this joint exercise is quite a conflict, one that raises questions about any determination that ESDC makes.
All of which makes the proposed land swap between the university and Nick that much more compelling. There's always the possibility that the ED issue gets entangled in the conflict question, and the whole process gets delayed by years. Here's the Sun's take on the swap: "One of the commercial landowners, Tuck-It-Away storage, has proposed a land swap with Columbia that would give the university control over the 400,000 square feet of property it wants from the company, a lobbyist for the storage company, Richard Lipsky, said. It is unclear whether Columbia is interested or whether the other storage company with land in the area, Hudson North American, or the two gas station owners would go along.
A spokeswoman for Columbia did not return a call for comment." It's time for that call CU.
Of course, the use of eminent domain would rely on whether or not the land in question is "blighted," a definition that has in many cases been used quite expansively. As the Sun points out; "Critics of eminent domain say the state's condemnation of property — no matter how small — in a dynamic neighborhood for a private development would be a heavy-handed abuse of the state's power."
What makes this issue even more problematic is the fact that the Empire State Development Corporation, the agency charged with the blight determination, is using the same consultant-AKRF-as Columbia. A court has already ruled that this joint exercise is quite a conflict, one that raises questions about any determination that ESDC makes.
All of which makes the proposed land swap between the university and Nick that much more compelling. There's always the possibility that the ED issue gets entangled in the conflict question, and the whole process gets delayed by years. Here's the Sun's take on the swap: "One of the commercial landowners, Tuck-It-Away storage, has proposed a land swap with Columbia that would give the university control over the 400,000 square feet of property it wants from the company, a lobbyist for the storage company, Richard Lipsky, said. It is unclear whether Columbia is interested or whether the other storage company with land in the area, Hudson North American, or the two gas station owners would go along.
A spokeswoman for Columbia did not return a call for comment." It's time for that call CU.
Community First Breathe of Fresh Air
In yesterday's El Diario, the paper editorializes against the Columbia expansion plan because of the university's failure to integrate its vision into that of the community's. As the editorial points out: "New York City owes its greatness to vibrant neighborhoods. Columbia’s expansion should fit into the community’s vision—not the other way around. The Commission should take its cue from Board 9."
What a radical notion! It's good to see that there are some journalists who understand that the Columbia ubber alles approach is inequitable, and will lead to the displacement of long time residents and businesses.Unless, of course, the expansion plan gets modified to better reflect community needs.
From what we hear, the community folks will be out in force down at CPC on Reade Street today at 1:00 PM. We've never seen the voice of the people fall on so many deaf ears; but the commissioners at the planning commission raise tone deafness to an art form-with New York's Burden leading the elitist charge. There was never a planning commissioner more suited to the reflexive use of the rubber stamp than Amanda; someone who elevates architecture way above the needs of real people.
What a radical notion! It's good to see that there are some journalists who understand that the Columbia ubber alles approach is inequitable, and will lead to the displacement of long time residents and businesses.Unless, of course, the expansion plan gets modified to better reflect community needs.
From what we hear, the community folks will be out in force down at CPC on Reade Street today at 1:00 PM. We've never seen the voice of the people fall on so many deaf ears; but the commissioners at the planning commission raise tone deafness to an art form-with New York's Burden leading the elitist charge. There was never a planning commissioner more suited to the reflexive use of the rubber stamp than Amanda; someone who elevates architecture way above the needs of real people.
Swap Spitting Contest
Last week in the Spectator the paper ruminates about the proposed land swap plan put forward by property owner Nick Sprayregen. A number of interesting observations are brought forth in the story, chief among them is the university's public willingness to talk about the idea: "Columbia Senior Executive Vice President Robert Kasdin expressed his willingness to negotiate if Sprayregen were to propose his land swap to the University. “Columbia looks forward to hearing more directly from him,” Kasdin said."
Very interesting. The university would be wise to do so, since it will afford it the opportunity to generate considerable political good will. Right now, with the City Planning Commission on tap today-and a robust community protest expected to great its expected rubber stamp approval-Columbia is taking its lumps.
The most serious Achilles heal in the expansion proposal is the total lack of any housing in the 18 acre footprint of the development. Columbia has stressed that it wants to be involved in the building of affordable housing, but it doesn't appear that the university has seriously went out of its way to identify any actual locations to do it. The creation of a "Housing Trust Fund," without any identified build area, starts to take on the appearance of a sinister scam; one that belies any serious intention on the university's part to do any good for the locals facing displacement.
Therefore, the Sprayregen swap plan has the potential to be of all around utility: Nick gets to keep his property; the university gets rid of its strongest critic, someone who has the potential to delay its expansion; and the community gets around 1,000 units of housing. Oh, and the Bloomberg administration gets another notch on its five year plan for affordable housing-something that it needs since it is apparently falling short of its laudable goals.
Of course, all of this depends on the promulgation of a plan that is both economically and politically sound. The Spectator comments on the fact that Columbia and Sprayregen have yet to talk: "Yet Sprayregen still has not directly presented his proposed property trade to Columbia. He explained that the idea has been “out there” for a while and that the University’s lack of response “shows their utter belligerence and lack of desire to compromise.”
But Columbia spokesperson La-Verna Fountain emphasized that representatives have been in touch with Sprayregen and his family for years. She explained that Columbia has not responded to the property exchange proposal because it is against University policy to negotiate through the press."
It's really unclear whether Columbia is serious about negotiating with Sprayregen, but its public comments do indicate that there may be a decent opening to do so. The need for a well thought-out plan, however, must come first since Sprayregen's labor allies want to get a feel for the feasibility of the effort before climbing on board. This key aspect of the potential swap negotiation is now underway-and a solid outline of a building plan should be ready in a week or so.
Once this happens, serious multi-sided discussions-involving Sprayregen, labor, Columbia and key political decision makers-will take place as the ULURP clock moves into its final phase. In these kinds of things very little happens until the eleventh hour.
What are we to make, though, of the public comments of one Reggie Williams, central casting's answer to Al Sharpton. Williams has been recruited to be the community face for Columbia's expansion, and has taken on the role of Sprayregen-baiter. As he told the Spectator: "Reverend Reggie Williams of the Coalition for the Future of Manhattanville, a pro-expansion group organized by lobbyists for Columbia, called Sprayregen’s proposed land trade an “eleventh hour swap,” and cited it as evidence that Sprayregen is trying to circumvent the development process."
Well, what to make of this nonsense? Sprayregen's trying to "circumvent" a process that has, as one of its essential features, the taking of the property that his family has owned for over three decades. Shame on Nick! Williams is acting here as Columbia's Repo man; except for the fact that the property in question doesn't belong to Columbia.
Williams goes on to question whether Sprayregen is representing the community's interests; while never questioning the extent to which the university's expansion effort is thinly disguised self-aggrandisement. Of course, in trying to save his property Nick is acting in his own economic interest-just as Columbia's doing.
The only question here is how can the CU plan better reflect the over all good of the greatest number of West Harlem residents. What Sprayregen is proposing is an opportunity for the university to complement its expansion effort with an additional aspect that addresses a crucial community need. If it does, and we believe so, than the negotiations should begin as soon as the Sprayregen plan is ready for a full unveiling.
Very interesting. The university would be wise to do so, since it will afford it the opportunity to generate considerable political good will. Right now, with the City Planning Commission on tap today-and a robust community protest expected to great its expected rubber stamp approval-Columbia is taking its lumps.
The most serious Achilles heal in the expansion proposal is the total lack of any housing in the 18 acre footprint of the development. Columbia has stressed that it wants to be involved in the building of affordable housing, but it doesn't appear that the university has seriously went out of its way to identify any actual locations to do it. The creation of a "Housing Trust Fund," without any identified build area, starts to take on the appearance of a sinister scam; one that belies any serious intention on the university's part to do any good for the locals facing displacement.
Therefore, the Sprayregen swap plan has the potential to be of all around utility: Nick gets to keep his property; the university gets rid of its strongest critic, someone who has the potential to delay its expansion; and the community gets around 1,000 units of housing. Oh, and the Bloomberg administration gets another notch on its five year plan for affordable housing-something that it needs since it is apparently falling short of its laudable goals.
Of course, all of this depends on the promulgation of a plan that is both economically and politically sound. The Spectator comments on the fact that Columbia and Sprayregen have yet to talk: "Yet Sprayregen still has not directly presented his proposed property trade to Columbia. He explained that the idea has been “out there” for a while and that the University’s lack of response “shows their utter belligerence and lack of desire to compromise.”
But Columbia spokesperson La-Verna Fountain emphasized that representatives have been in touch with Sprayregen and his family for years. She explained that Columbia has not responded to the property exchange proposal because it is against University policy to negotiate through the press."
It's really unclear whether Columbia is serious about negotiating with Sprayregen, but its public comments do indicate that there may be a decent opening to do so. The need for a well thought-out plan, however, must come first since Sprayregen's labor allies want to get a feel for the feasibility of the effort before climbing on board. This key aspect of the potential swap negotiation is now underway-and a solid outline of a building plan should be ready in a week or so.
Once this happens, serious multi-sided discussions-involving Sprayregen, labor, Columbia and key political decision makers-will take place as the ULURP clock moves into its final phase. In these kinds of things very little happens until the eleventh hour.
What are we to make, though, of the public comments of one Reggie Williams, central casting's answer to Al Sharpton. Williams has been recruited to be the community face for Columbia's expansion, and has taken on the role of Sprayregen-baiter. As he told the Spectator: "Reverend Reggie Williams of the Coalition for the Future of Manhattanville, a pro-expansion group organized by lobbyists for Columbia, called Sprayregen’s proposed land trade an “eleventh hour swap,” and cited it as evidence that Sprayregen is trying to circumvent the development process."
Well, what to make of this nonsense? Sprayregen's trying to "circumvent" a process that has, as one of its essential features, the taking of the property that his family has owned for over three decades. Shame on Nick! Williams is acting here as Columbia's Repo man; except for the fact that the property in question doesn't belong to Columbia.
Williams goes on to question whether Sprayregen is representing the community's interests; while never questioning the extent to which the university's expansion effort is thinly disguised self-aggrandisement. Of course, in trying to save his property Nick is acting in his own economic interest-just as Columbia's doing.
The only question here is how can the CU plan better reflect the over all good of the greatest number of West Harlem residents. What Sprayregen is proposing is an opportunity for the university to complement its expansion effort with an additional aspect that addresses a crucial community need. If it does, and we believe so, than the negotiations should begin as soon as the Sprayregen plan is ready for a full unveiling.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Congestion Plan Re-Make
The NY Daily News' Adam Lisberg is reporting (can't seem to find the online link) that the vaunted Congestion Commission is thinking an overhaul of the mayor's plan-quoting Marc Shaw the commission's chair. We're not sure what all of this means, because the changes being examined-narrowing the congestion zone, and exempting Manhattan residents-aren't what's causing all of the outside Manhattan opposition.
In this morning's Crain's Insider the newsletter discusses the K&K alternative to the mayor's plan: "Transportation consultant Brian Ketcham has been floating a modified version of congestion pricing that would move the boundary south to 60th Street from 86th Street and toll the East River bridges. Ketcham and fellow consultant Carolyn Konheim have been arguing for East Rivertolls for years without success. Insiders say the idea could catch on if congestion pricing proponents believe their plan is in trouble; this week’s Quinnipiac Poll shows
a decline in public support."
While the K&K plan does have a greater degree of efficacy from a management perspective, it does little to address the major objections of opponents of the congestion tax-that it's an unfair burden on the citry's already over-taxed middle class. And it certainly doesn't address the MTA governance issue.
All a call to toll the bridges will do, is to really galvanize the intensity of outer borough opposition to the tax; and will harden assembly opposition at the same time. Keep in mind that it's the three legislative bodies that will make the final call on this, no matter what the handmaidens on the commission decide to do.
In this morning's Crain's Insider the newsletter discusses the K&K alternative to the mayor's plan: "Transportation consultant Brian Ketcham has been floating a modified version of congestion pricing that would move the boundary south to 60th Street from 86th Street and toll the East River bridges. Ketcham and fellow consultant Carolyn Konheim have been arguing for East Rivertolls for years without success. Insiders say the idea could catch on if congestion pricing proponents believe their plan is in trouble; this week’s Quinnipiac Poll shows
a decline in public support."
While the K&K plan does have a greater degree of efficacy from a management perspective, it does little to address the major objections of opponents of the congestion tax-that it's an unfair burden on the citry's already over-taxed middle class. And it certainly doesn't address the MTA governance issue.
All a call to toll the bridges will do, is to really galvanize the intensity of outer borough opposition to the tax; and will harden assembly opposition at the same time. Keep in mind that it's the three legislative bodies that will make the final call on this, no matter what the handmaidens on the commission decide to do.
Fare Arguments
Governor Spitzer, like Mighty Mouse, has come to save the day; and has seemingly done so by at least temporarily holding the base subway and bus fare at $2. This temporary reprieve has been heralded at the NY Daily News as a testimony to its own circulation-driven campaign to keep the fare down: "Bully to Gov. Spitzer for responding to the clear popular will as expressed in the Daily News' Halt the Hike campaign. Bully to him for searching the netherworld of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's finances for the money to hold the base subway and bus fare at $2 through 2010."
Getting into the team spirit at the News, Mike Lupica, the paper's sports guru turned political savant, also weighs in in his predictably hyperbolic style and lauds the governor for finally standing up for the little guy: "Sometimes everything isn't measured in hundreds of millions for a ballplayer, just the fare for the bus or for the subway. Gov. Spitzer did everything he could to keep those fares right where they are Tuesday...Spitzer stood and spoke up for all those who take those two-dollar rides and need those rides to get them to school and back, to their jobs and back, even to their dreams, who sometimes can't afford a weekly MetroCard or a monthly card."
Lupica's really wearing thin in the front of the paper, and whoever thought it would be a good idea to bring the bantam battler up in weight class should probably begin to re-think the decision. After all, to dramatize the desperate measure of a pol in the midst of a free-fall as the act of a Churchill at the brink of a world war is an indication of a scribe with little historical or political gravitas.
And to top it off Little Mike goes to Mark Green for reinforcing commentary! Green tells us the following: "Eighty percent of New Yorkers wake up worrying about subways or schools or both," Green said. "If this shows anything, it shows that Eliot is beginning to focus on bread-and-butter issues where he can deliver results that matter." Really?
To us, it only shows that the governor, desperately in need of a win, did the easiest thing he could possibly do: pander to what the folks want; a decision that may come back to haunt him unless a serious effort is made to totally revamp the entire transit governance system. As Nicole Gelinas points out, in quit a different take on all of this over at the NY Post, the light at the end of this tunnel is an oncoming train: "Short term, this "good news" may not be as good as it seems. Longer term, the MTA's finances are still a mess, and yesterday's deal likely makes its future problems a little bit bigger - so a future fare hike will be bigger, too."
The MTA's fiscal house is in tatters, and the deteriorating situation demands that the entire system be addressed in a comprehensive way. There is, after all, nothing sacrosanct about the public authority that has been set up to run the region's mass transit apparatus; and was originally designed to insulate elected officials from accountability. It may, after all, have finally outlived its usefulness.
So instead of continuing to call for a congestion tax, the NY Daily News should be calling for a summit meeting to radically reform the dysfunctional transit governing authority. Here's the paper unwise take on the confluence of the fare hike and the congestion tax: "One interesting finding of a Quinnipiac University poll was that most New Yorkers would support congestion pricing to halt a transit fare hike. That's good; congestion pricing is designed to hold fares down. No, Mayor Bloomberg's plan to charge drivers $8 for entering Manhattan (minus tolls) will play no role in holding the line on fares right now. And no, congestion-pricing money would not subsidize subway and bus operations. But the cash would be used to expand transit with projects like the Second Ave. subway and to maintain the system in good repair."
So let's get this straight. The agency that can't be trusted with operating the current system efficiently should be given a congestion tax blank check. What the News conveniently leaves out, is the fact that the Q-Poll found that although New Yorkers might support a congestion tax to keep the fare down, they had little confidence that the money would really go for that purpose. As Mickey Carroll has said: "Big problem: New Yorkers don't trust the MTA. Two thirds doubt that, whatever is promised, the money really will keep transit fares from rising. More than half want an MTA guarantee to hold fares down for a specific length of time."
The people apparently have more sagacity than the editorialists on this issue. The whole system's a mess, one that won't get better, and will only get worse, by throwing more money at it.
Getting into the team spirit at the News, Mike Lupica, the paper's sports guru turned political savant, also weighs in in his predictably hyperbolic style and lauds the governor for finally standing up for the little guy: "Sometimes everything isn't measured in hundreds of millions for a ballplayer, just the fare for the bus or for the subway. Gov. Spitzer did everything he could to keep those fares right where they are Tuesday...Spitzer stood and spoke up for all those who take those two-dollar rides and need those rides to get them to school and back, to their jobs and back, even to their dreams, who sometimes can't afford a weekly MetroCard or a monthly card."
Lupica's really wearing thin in the front of the paper, and whoever thought it would be a good idea to bring the bantam battler up in weight class should probably begin to re-think the decision. After all, to dramatize the desperate measure of a pol in the midst of a free-fall as the act of a Churchill at the brink of a world war is an indication of a scribe with little historical or political gravitas.
And to top it off Little Mike goes to Mark Green for reinforcing commentary! Green tells us the following: "Eighty percent of New Yorkers wake up worrying about subways or schools or both," Green said. "If this shows anything, it shows that Eliot is beginning to focus on bread-and-butter issues where he can deliver results that matter." Really?
To us, it only shows that the governor, desperately in need of a win, did the easiest thing he could possibly do: pander to what the folks want; a decision that may come back to haunt him unless a serious effort is made to totally revamp the entire transit governance system. As Nicole Gelinas points out, in quit a different take on all of this over at the NY Post, the light at the end of this tunnel is an oncoming train: "Short term, this "good news" may not be as good as it seems. Longer term, the MTA's finances are still a mess, and yesterday's deal likely makes its future problems a little bit bigger - so a future fare hike will be bigger, too."
The MTA's fiscal house is in tatters, and the deteriorating situation demands that the entire system be addressed in a comprehensive way. There is, after all, nothing sacrosanct about the public authority that has been set up to run the region's mass transit apparatus; and was originally designed to insulate elected officials from accountability. It may, after all, have finally outlived its usefulness.
So instead of continuing to call for a congestion tax, the NY Daily News should be calling for a summit meeting to radically reform the dysfunctional transit governing authority. Here's the paper unwise take on the confluence of the fare hike and the congestion tax: "One interesting finding of a Quinnipiac University poll was that most New Yorkers would support congestion pricing to halt a transit fare hike. That's good; congestion pricing is designed to hold fares down. No, Mayor Bloomberg's plan to charge drivers $8 for entering Manhattan (minus tolls) will play no role in holding the line on fares right now. And no, congestion-pricing money would not subsidize subway and bus operations. But the cash would be used to expand transit with projects like the Second Ave. subway and to maintain the system in good repair."
So let's get this straight. The agency that can't be trusted with operating the current system efficiently should be given a congestion tax blank check. What the News conveniently leaves out, is the fact that the Q-Poll found that although New Yorkers might support a congestion tax to keep the fare down, they had little confidence that the money would really go for that purpose. As Mickey Carroll has said: "Big problem: New Yorkers don't trust the MTA. Two thirds doubt that, whatever is promised, the money really will keep transit fares from rising. More than half want an MTA guarantee to hold fares down for a specific length of time."
The people apparently have more sagacity than the editorialists on this issue. The whole system's a mess, one that won't get better, and will only get worse, by throwing more money at it.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Congestion Tax Support Drops: Right on Q
More follow up on the just released Q-Poll on the proposed congestion tax. As the NY Post reports this morning: "Mayor Bloomberg's efforts to make the case for congestion pricing seem to be having the opposite effect - as nearly two thirds of New Yorkers now oppose the idea, according to a poll released yesterday." Familiarity does seem to breed contempt here, and we believe that much of this disdain is related to the controversy over the MTA's fare hike proposal.
Apparently, the ire at the transit agency is spilling over into an overall skepticism about any plan that taxes the folks and earmarks the funds for an MTA that has lost the trust of New Yorkers. As the NY Daily News points out: "Congestion pricing support fell even if the money it raised would help forestall MTA fare hikes, the poll found." That's because, as the Q-Poll's Mickey Carroll said, "Big problem: New Yorkers don't trust the MTA. Two thirds doubt that, whatever is promised, the money really will keep transit fares from rising. More than half want an MTA guarantee to hold fares down for a specific length of time."
This underscores what we've been saying-and Melinda Katz's testimony reinforces the point: the entire governance system needs to be overhauled before any new taxes are implemented for any transit project. Here's the relevant Katz passage: "THE MTA, IN CONTRADICTION TO ALL OF THEIR PUBLIC EXPRESSIONS ABOUT THE USE OF CONGESTION TAX REVENUES, IS PLANNING ON USING THESE DOLLARS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE HAVE A FULL ACCOUNTING OF HOW CONGESTION TAXES ARE MEANT TO BE SPENT, AND THE METHOD FOR UTILIZING THESE FUNDS SHOULD BE MEMORIALIZED IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT."
All of which leaves us somewhat bemused by the reactions of a few of the congestion tax supporters, folks who could see the silver lining in the eye of a hurricane. As Newsday reports, "Some of congestion pricing's staunchest advocates chose to view the Quinnipiac poll as a positive, but incomplete, snapshot of the city's attitude toward the plan...'Today's poll demonstrates, yet again, that New Yorkers support congestion pricing when revenues are reinvested into the mass transit system," O'Laughlin said in a statement. 'Of course, New Yorkers want reasonable transit fares; we also want better bus service in all five boroughs, a full-length Second Avenue subway and other much-needed investments.'"
Who to believe? O'Laughlin, who represents something called the Campaign for New York's Future (and can we get an accounting from these astro turf groups?), wants us to think that the people are really on his side-all they apparently need is better worded questions. On the other hand, wily Gene Russianoff, a congestion tax supporter gets it.
As Gene told Newsday: "It doesn't make sense to deal with these financial issues piecemeal," said Gene Russianoff, a staff attorney for the Straphangers Campaign and a member of the state congestion pricing commission that will recommend a plan to lawmakers in January. He supports the mayor's plan, but thinks some of the money should be used to subsidize fares."I think the public is ahead of the mayor, the governor and the MTA," he said. "They've earned their rocket science degree and figured out that these two political realities are related."
So we are apparently headed for, well, we think an Albany style train wreck, one that leaves the mayor with egg on his face. It appears that, once again, when confronted with having to deal with a complex political process, the mayor's coming up short on policy seychel. Congestion relief, we believe, will have to come from a different direction.
Apparently, the ire at the transit agency is spilling over into an overall skepticism about any plan that taxes the folks and earmarks the funds for an MTA that has lost the trust of New Yorkers. As the NY Daily News points out: "Congestion pricing support fell even if the money it raised would help forestall MTA fare hikes, the poll found." That's because, as the Q-Poll's Mickey Carroll said, "Big problem: New Yorkers don't trust the MTA. Two thirds doubt that, whatever is promised, the money really will keep transit fares from rising. More than half want an MTA guarantee to hold fares down for a specific length of time."
This underscores what we've been saying-and Melinda Katz's testimony reinforces the point: the entire governance system needs to be overhauled before any new taxes are implemented for any transit project. Here's the relevant Katz passage: "THE MTA, IN CONTRADICTION TO ALL OF THEIR PUBLIC EXPRESSIONS ABOUT THE USE OF CONGESTION TAX REVENUES, IS PLANNING ON USING THESE DOLLARS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE HAVE A FULL ACCOUNTING OF HOW CONGESTION TAXES ARE MEANT TO BE SPENT, AND THE METHOD FOR UTILIZING THESE FUNDS SHOULD BE MEMORIALIZED IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT."
All of which leaves us somewhat bemused by the reactions of a few of the congestion tax supporters, folks who could see the silver lining in the eye of a hurricane. As Newsday reports, "Some of congestion pricing's staunchest advocates chose to view the Quinnipiac poll as a positive, but incomplete, snapshot of the city's attitude toward the plan...'Today's poll demonstrates, yet again, that New Yorkers support congestion pricing when revenues are reinvested into the mass transit system," O'Laughlin said in a statement. 'Of course, New Yorkers want reasonable transit fares; we also want better bus service in all five boroughs, a full-length Second Avenue subway and other much-needed investments.'"
Who to believe? O'Laughlin, who represents something called the Campaign for New York's Future (and can we get an accounting from these astro turf groups?), wants us to think that the people are really on his side-all they apparently need is better worded questions. On the other hand, wily Gene Russianoff, a congestion tax supporter gets it.
As Gene told Newsday: "It doesn't make sense to deal with these financial issues piecemeal," said Gene Russianoff, a staff attorney for the Straphangers Campaign and a member of the state congestion pricing commission that will recommend a plan to lawmakers in January. He supports the mayor's plan, but thinks some of the money should be used to subsidize fares."I think the public is ahead of the mayor, the governor and the MTA," he said. "They've earned their rocket science degree and figured out that these two political realities are related."
So we are apparently headed for, well, we think an Albany style train wreck, one that leaves the mayor with egg on his face. It appears that, once again, when confronted with having to deal with a complex political process, the mayor's coming up short on policy seychel. Congestion relief, we believe, will have to come from a different direction.
Garbage in Gotham
In a post on the Gotham Gazette's website, Gail Robinson references our objection to the Gazette's discussion of how to dispose of food waste: "Instead, the alliance thinks New Yorkers should put their food waste down the drain to be ground up by a disposal and then go into the sewage system. This was not an option in the game, in part because New York’s sewer system is already overburdened, and garbage disposals seem to have made little dent in the five boroughs."
What the GG folks don't acknowledge, no matter what they may misconstrue about the new generation of food waste disposers, is the utter silliness of the composting option, and the advantages of going forward with disposers. It reminds us of the old saying about democracy: "it's the worst form of government, except for all the others." And the fact that the city's sewers are in bad shape is irrelevant-the upgrades need to be done with or without the introduction of waste disposers.
The main problem that the sewers face is attendant to the overflows that occur when there's a storm. The city needs more catch basins to prevent the harmful run-offs when it does rain hard. Once built, the catch basins will handle all of the overflow problems, and the food waste processing will be a literal non sequitor.
The key issue here, however, is the way in which the elimination of food waste could spur recycling. The elimination of putrescible contaminants-no easy task we agree-would pave the way for a single stream collection that would enable the source separation that was ultimately both feasible as well as profitable to the city.
Now we agree with Gail that the current use of residential disposers is de minimis. That situation devolves from the fact that the use is optional and no one pays for their garbage removal. If folks paid a disposal fee, you can bet that this would change pretty quickly. But the question is, not whether disposers are widely in use, but whether their use is advisable from a solid waste stand point.
And let's not forget that the biomass generated when food waste is ultimately processed at a waste water treatment facility, is a better end product then the compost that comes from the standard food waste processing methods; and as Dr. Ham has underscored, is much cheaper to boot.
The implementation of commercial food waste disposers, however-as was put forward in Intro 133-would have other useful public policy goals. We have outlined them here, here and here. But let's just say that if the city continues in its current direction we will all be held hostage to the cost of landfilling-both the fiscal as well as the environmental-for many years to come.
What the GG folks don't acknowledge, no matter what they may misconstrue about the new generation of food waste disposers, is the utter silliness of the composting option, and the advantages of going forward with disposers. It reminds us of the old saying about democracy: "it's the worst form of government, except for all the others." And the fact that the city's sewers are in bad shape is irrelevant-the upgrades need to be done with or without the introduction of waste disposers.
The main problem that the sewers face is attendant to the overflows that occur when there's a storm. The city needs more catch basins to prevent the harmful run-offs when it does rain hard. Once built, the catch basins will handle all of the overflow problems, and the food waste processing will be a literal non sequitor.
The key issue here, however, is the way in which the elimination of food waste could spur recycling. The elimination of putrescible contaminants-no easy task we agree-would pave the way for a single stream collection that would enable the source separation that was ultimately both feasible as well as profitable to the city.
Now we agree with Gail that the current use of residential disposers is de minimis. That situation devolves from the fact that the use is optional and no one pays for their garbage removal. If folks paid a disposal fee, you can bet that this would change pretty quickly. But the question is, not whether disposers are widely in use, but whether their use is advisable from a solid waste stand point.
And let's not forget that the biomass generated when food waste is ultimately processed at a waste water treatment facility, is a better end product then the compost that comes from the standard food waste processing methods; and as Dr. Ham has underscored, is much cheaper to boot.
The implementation of commercial food waste disposers, however-as was put forward in Intro 133-would have other useful public policy goals. We have outlined them here, here and here. But let's just say that if the city continues in its current direction we will all be held hostage to the cost of landfilling-both the fiscal as well as the environmental-for many years to come.
Monday, November 19, 2007
AQute Congestion Skepticism
The Daily Politics blog is reporting that the Q-Poll on congestion taxing is out, and lo and behold, the public's getting even more skeptical about the merits of the plan. As Liz tells us: "Today’s Q poll finds that Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan continues has fallen further out of favor among New York City voters - even those in Manhattan, who used to support the pay-to-drive proposal. Overall, opposition has grown to 61-33 from 52-41 in July and 57-36 in August."
So we're guessing here that the proponents of the plan were dead wrong when they opined that the reason the folks were opposed was because they didn't understand all of the scheme's benefits-Not! It now turns out that the more the public found out about the plan, the more they have begun to detest it.
And one of the big reasons-no surprise to us-is that people don't trust the MTA. You see, most of the folks would support the tax if the money were used to keep the fare hike away. Not many of these folks, however, believe that even if the plan were passed that the money would be utilized for this purpose by the transit agency. "As Q's Mickey Carrol says: "Big problem: New Yorkers don't trust the MTA. Two thirds doubt that, whatever is promised, the money really will keep transit fares from rising. More than half want an MTA guarantee to hold fares down for a specific length of time."
So all of the elites and enviros are way off base on this, and once again the people are exhibiting a great deal more sense. It is now time to inter this bad experiment and figure out some better ways to deal with congestion.
Update
The NY Times' City Room blog takes note of the Q Poll as well-with the following appropriate headline: Is Manhattan Turning Against Congestion Pricing? Apparently, even in Manhattan, familiarity's breeding contempt: "Manhattan voters, who supported congestion pricing by a margin of 54 percent to 36 percent in Quinnipiac’s last such poll, in August, are just about evenly split, with 46 percent supporting it and 47 percent opposed."
So we're guessing here that the proponents of the plan were dead wrong when they opined that the reason the folks were opposed was because they didn't understand all of the scheme's benefits-Not! It now turns out that the more the public found out about the plan, the more they have begun to detest it.
And one of the big reasons-no surprise to us-is that people don't trust the MTA. You see, most of the folks would support the tax if the money were used to keep the fare hike away. Not many of these folks, however, believe that even if the plan were passed that the money would be utilized for this purpose by the transit agency. "As Q's Mickey Carrol says: "Big problem: New Yorkers don't trust the MTA. Two thirds doubt that, whatever is promised, the money really will keep transit fares from rising. More than half want an MTA guarantee to hold fares down for a specific length of time."
So all of the elites and enviros are way off base on this, and once again the people are exhibiting a great deal more sense. It is now time to inter this bad experiment and figure out some better ways to deal with congestion.
Update
The NY Times' City Room blog takes note of the Q Poll as well-with the following appropriate headline: Is Manhattan Turning Against Congestion Pricing? Apparently, even in Manhattan, familiarity's breeding contempt: "Manhattan voters, who supported congestion pricing by a margin of 54 percent to 36 percent in Quinnipiac’s last such poll, in August, are just about evenly split, with 46 percent supporting it and 47 percent opposed."
Bollinger's Gem of a Notion
The hunger strike by some Columbia students was settled, more or less, the other day with the university agreeing to adopt certain initiatives and around $50 million of programmatic concessions. As the Spectator reported: "In light of the strikers' demands, Columbia has committed to several Academic initiatives. These include, subject to faculty approval, the shift of Major Cultures to a seminar-style class, and "unprecedented" student input in the faculty hiring process for the Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race. Additionally, a review of the Office of Multicultural Affairs will include the consideration of creating a Multi-Cultural Affairs office in the Arts and Sciences."
What was missing, however, was any concession around the student's demands that the university recognize the community's issues with the Columbia expansion plan. As one CB9 board member told the paper: “This is the end of phase one of student activism to demand changes necessary to make them not only 21st century professionals but 21st century citizens,” Community Board Nine member Dr. Vicky Gholson said. “I was very disappointed that Columbia could not collectively come together and give the students demonstrative and tangible signs complying with demands in relation to the Columbia expansion.”
What it does indicate, as the editorial in Saturday's NY Post highlighted, is that the university will be held to a higher monetary threshold when it comes to the community benefits side of the expansion process: "Bollinger opted to give in on several of the kiddies' demands - including an appreciable expansion of Columbia's ethnic-studies endeavors and a beefed-up freshman brainwashing (that is, orientation) program for next fall. All silly stuff, but essentially harmless - and, again, Columbia can afford to indulge its children. Note, however, the one significant student demand Bollinger declined to honor: a promise to halt the university's planned $7 billion expansion into Harlem. That will go forward. Meanwhile, his willingness to drop such swag on a few dyspeptic kids certainly won't go unnoticed. Clearly, Columbia has cash to spare - so Bollinger shouldn't be surprised when some of the university's neighbors start getting antsy about their share."
Indeed! What's clear is that Columbia has adopted a rope-a-dope strategy with the CBA-and its community response stands in sharp contrast with other Ivy League university expansion efforts. This was underscored at a forum held last week. The discussion-appropriately titled in the NY Times, "When the Gown Devours the Town,"-brought out some interesting observations; and the comments from former UPenn president Judith Rodin were particularly illuminating.
Rodin underscored our point about the fact that the university has a great potential to help its surrounding neighborhoods, but often eschews this more enlightened role in pursuing its own self-interest: "Dr. Rodin argued that universities play a critical role in cities as engines of economic development and as major employers. Sadly, she added, “in the name of redevelopment,” universities have often contributed to “the destruction of the neighborhoods around them.”
Rodin went on to point out, and in the process unintentionally perhaps, her comments served to embarrass CU president Lee Bollinger: "Universities have “a lot of great potential” to be partners with cities, but too often are more like “the 4,000-pound gorillas, exercising their interests in a way that isn't always neighborhood-friendly.” Finally, Dr. Rodin suggested that universities should engage with their communities as part of their responsibility to train responsible citizens."
Ouch! Bollinger's response, however, bordered on the surreal: "There are many issues that we face. One of them is the so-called problem of gentrification. And the point that I will want to make in the discussion is that of all the institutions that can help deal with the problem of gentrification — however one wants to define that — universities are really critically important as a solution to that, and not really as a contributing cause."
Well, perhaps, universities per se aren't the cause of gentrification, but Columbia certainly is-at least if we look at the universities own EIS which predicts that three to five thousand current residents will be either directly or indirectly displaced. So we can say that Bollinger is being a bit disingenuous in his remarks.
He does go on to remark: “As long as we can do this kind of growth in the right ways, with the right interests of the neighborhood taken into account, it should be a great thing for everyone.” That is, as long as CU can walk the walk as well as Bollinger can talk the talk."
What was missing, however, was any concession around the student's demands that the university recognize the community's issues with the Columbia expansion plan. As one CB9 board member told the paper: “This is the end of phase one of student activism to demand changes necessary to make them not only 21st century professionals but 21st century citizens,” Community Board Nine member Dr. Vicky Gholson said. “I was very disappointed that Columbia could not collectively come together and give the students demonstrative and tangible signs complying with demands in relation to the Columbia expansion.”
What it does indicate, as the editorial in Saturday's NY Post highlighted, is that the university will be held to a higher monetary threshold when it comes to the community benefits side of the expansion process: "Bollinger opted to give in on several of the kiddies' demands - including an appreciable expansion of Columbia's ethnic-studies endeavors and a beefed-up freshman brainwashing (that is, orientation) program for next fall. All silly stuff, but essentially harmless - and, again, Columbia can afford to indulge its children. Note, however, the one significant student demand Bollinger declined to honor: a promise to halt the university's planned $7 billion expansion into Harlem. That will go forward. Meanwhile, his willingness to drop such swag on a few dyspeptic kids certainly won't go unnoticed. Clearly, Columbia has cash to spare - so Bollinger shouldn't be surprised when some of the university's neighbors start getting antsy about their share."
Indeed! What's clear is that Columbia has adopted a rope-a-dope strategy with the CBA-and its community response stands in sharp contrast with other Ivy League university expansion efforts. This was underscored at a forum held last week. The discussion-appropriately titled in the NY Times, "When the Gown Devours the Town,"-brought out some interesting observations; and the comments from former UPenn president Judith Rodin were particularly illuminating.
Rodin underscored our point about the fact that the university has a great potential to help its surrounding neighborhoods, but often eschews this more enlightened role in pursuing its own self-interest: "Dr. Rodin argued that universities play a critical role in cities as engines of economic development and as major employers. Sadly, she added, “in the name of redevelopment,” universities have often contributed to “the destruction of the neighborhoods around them.”
Rodin went on to point out, and in the process unintentionally perhaps, her comments served to embarrass CU president Lee Bollinger: "Universities have “a lot of great potential” to be partners with cities, but too often are more like “the 4,000-pound gorillas, exercising their interests in a way that isn't always neighborhood-friendly.” Finally, Dr. Rodin suggested that universities should engage with their communities as part of their responsibility to train responsible citizens."
Ouch! Bollinger's response, however, bordered on the surreal: "There are many issues that we face. One of them is the so-called problem of gentrification. And the point that I will want to make in the discussion is that of all the institutions that can help deal with the problem of gentrification — however one wants to define that — universities are really critically important as a solution to that, and not really as a contributing cause."
Well, perhaps, universities per se aren't the cause of gentrification, but Columbia certainly is-at least if we look at the universities own EIS which predicts that three to five thousand current residents will be either directly or indirectly displaced. So we can say that Bollinger is being a bit disingenuous in his remarks.
He does go on to remark: “As long as we can do this kind of growth in the right ways, with the right interests of the neighborhood taken into account, it should be a great thing for everyone.” That is, as long as CU can walk the walk as well as Bollinger can talk the talk."
The Naked Emperor
As we have been saying all along, when it comes to school reform in NYC there's a lot less than meets the eye. Of course one of the major reasons for this, is the fact that the Bloombergistas have spent considerable time and money in an elaborate disinformation campaign-one that combines spin with a velvet fist of intimidation.
In today's NY Daily News, Sol Stern one of the most perceptive critics of the school system around (which means, among other things. that he's not out there angling for a grant) writes a scathing critique of the first five years of mayoral control of the city schools. The money quote: "Five years later, we have new, unimpeachable data on the schools that allows us to assess whether the mayor's promise to deliver a much bigger education bang for the taxpayers' buck has been fulfilled. The short answer: not by a long shot."
What Stern points out, is that the meager improvement in test results-and this is giving the DOE the benefit of the doubt-have come on the heels of a better than 50% increase in school spending: "The 2003 budget for the schools, Bloomberg's first, was $12.5 billion, including pension costs and debt service. About $1.2 billion of this total came from federal education funds, another $5.6 billion from the state, and $5.6 billion from direct city contributions. The current budget, including pension and debt service, stands at $19.7 billion. This represents an increase of $7 billion - more than 50% - in total education spending in five years."
Yikes! That's like Horton Hatches a Who. The gestation period here has brought forth something on the order of a still birth-an observation that is underscored in yesterday's Daily News editorial; even while the paper bent over backwards to be charitable concerning the results of the recent NAEP tests: "How did we do? We bombed reading, aced fourth-grade math and squeaked by on eighth-grade math. The results were the very definition of "needs improvement" and stand in marked contrast to the gains seen on state math and reading exams."
So what does this all mean? To us it means that the reform of the city's schools is no simple management legerdemain; there is simply too many intractable problems that relate more to the culture of poverty than to the manner in which school governance is handled. It should also be seen as a cautionary tale for those electoral wannabes who promise to raise the bar in a Panglossian way-it simply ain't that simple.
The final word here goes to the prescient Stern: "These results may surprise people who have heard so much from the Bloomberg administration about "historic" gains on the state's math and reading tests...The reality is that $7 billion in extra education spending has so far produced only pennies' worth of academic improvement in most grades. The sooner we all face up to that bottom line, the sooner we can start speaking honestly about how to remedy the situation."
Update
In this morning's NY Times, there's a short story on an upsurge in teacher resignations. The following citation, along with DOE's response, illustrates some of what we are saying about spin versus reality at the ed agency:
"The numbers showed that “losing good teachers is the predominant staffing issue that the City Department of Education needs to address,” said Randi Weingarten, the president of the union. Chris Cerf, a deputy chancellor at the Education Department, said in a statement that the numbers were inaccurate, and called the release of the figures a “media stunt.”
In today's NY Daily News, Sol Stern one of the most perceptive critics of the school system around (which means, among other things. that he's not out there angling for a grant) writes a scathing critique of the first five years of mayoral control of the city schools. The money quote: "Five years later, we have new, unimpeachable data on the schools that allows us to assess whether the mayor's promise to deliver a much bigger education bang for the taxpayers' buck has been fulfilled. The short answer: not by a long shot."
What Stern points out, is that the meager improvement in test results-and this is giving the DOE the benefit of the doubt-have come on the heels of a better than 50% increase in school spending: "The 2003 budget for the schools, Bloomberg's first, was $12.5 billion, including pension costs and debt service. About $1.2 billion of this total came from federal education funds, another $5.6 billion from the state, and $5.6 billion from direct city contributions. The current budget, including pension and debt service, stands at $19.7 billion. This represents an increase of $7 billion - more than 50% - in total education spending in five years."
Yikes! That's like Horton Hatches a Who. The gestation period here has brought forth something on the order of a still birth-an observation that is underscored in yesterday's Daily News editorial; even while the paper bent over backwards to be charitable concerning the results of the recent NAEP tests: "How did we do? We bombed reading, aced fourth-grade math and squeaked by on eighth-grade math. The results were the very definition of "needs improvement" and stand in marked contrast to the gains seen on state math and reading exams."
So what does this all mean? To us it means that the reform of the city's schools is no simple management legerdemain; there is simply too many intractable problems that relate more to the culture of poverty than to the manner in which school governance is handled. It should also be seen as a cautionary tale for those electoral wannabes who promise to raise the bar in a Panglossian way-it simply ain't that simple.
The final word here goes to the prescient Stern: "These results may surprise people who have heard so much from the Bloomberg administration about "historic" gains on the state's math and reading tests...The reality is that $7 billion in extra education spending has so far produced only pennies' worth of academic improvement in most grades. The sooner we all face up to that bottom line, the sooner we can start speaking honestly about how to remedy the situation."
Update
In this morning's NY Times, there's a short story on an upsurge in teacher resignations. The following citation, along with DOE's response, illustrates some of what we are saying about spin versus reality at the ed agency:
"The numbers showed that “losing good teachers is the predominant staffing issue that the City Department of Education needs to address,” said Randi Weingarten, the president of the union. Chris Cerf, a deputy chancellor at the Education Department, said in a statement that the numbers were inaccurate, and called the release of the figures a “media stunt.”
HealthCorps Front and Center
In yesterday's NY Post there's a feature story on Dr. Mehmet Oz and the HealthCorps program that he founded over three years ago. As the story points out: "His fat-fighting program, already in 33 city schools around the five boroughs, acts like the Peace Corps, putting recent college grads into schools to help kids learn about good nutrition, stress management and weight control. "We got $2 million from the City Council last year for this program. [Schools Chancellor] Joel Klein is a major supporter," he says."
The design of the HealthCorps, jump-started with the support of City Councilman Joel Rivera, is to activate young people to become health advocates in their own neighborhoods-with a core belief that real change needs to come from the ground up, and not from the top down. Mandates and edicts from officialdom aren't effective; young people pushing their peers, families and communities can be so much more transformative.
Upcoming for the HealthCorps are two innovative outreach programs that will imvolve students, schools and communities. The first is the "Healthy Bodega" program that was started by the NYC DOH. HC will be working with the Department on increasing the access to low fat milk and fresh fruits and vegetables in neighborhoods where obesity is most prevalent.
Initially, the program's focus has been to try to promote the inventorying of these products in the city's bodegas. Now, however, as of the first of the year, NYS WIC is providing eligible consumers with vouchers for all of these items so the health bodega focus is going to be on developing an educational partnership between the stores and communities in order to promote healthier eating. There is no incompatibility between healthy communities and a healthy economic climate in the neighborhood.
HealthCorps will also be working with the DOE on the development of a pilot program for a school classroom breakfast. As we have said before, classroom breakfast is important for educational achievement as well as health; and the city's participation rate needs to be radically improved. HC will not only be working in the schools, it will also be working with neighborhood health organizations to create grass roots support for the pilot effort.
The HealthCorps is just starting to generate a health awareness in the city's schools and communities. The key to future success will be grounded on the program's ability to inspire young people to change-while continuing to generate the support from key elected officials such as Joel Rivera. As the program expands, it is necessary for others to pick up on Rivera's enthusiasm and provide the resources neede to make the HC even more effective.
The design of the HealthCorps, jump-started with the support of City Councilman Joel Rivera, is to activate young people to become health advocates in their own neighborhoods-with a core belief that real change needs to come from the ground up, and not from the top down. Mandates and edicts from officialdom aren't effective; young people pushing their peers, families and communities can be so much more transformative.
Upcoming for the HealthCorps are two innovative outreach programs that will imvolve students, schools and communities. The first is the "Healthy Bodega" program that was started by the NYC DOH. HC will be working with the Department on increasing the access to low fat milk and fresh fruits and vegetables in neighborhoods where obesity is most prevalent.
Initially, the program's focus has been to try to promote the inventorying of these products in the city's bodegas. Now, however, as of the first of the year, NYS WIC is providing eligible consumers with vouchers for all of these items so the health bodega focus is going to be on developing an educational partnership between the stores and communities in order to promote healthier eating. There is no incompatibility between healthy communities and a healthy economic climate in the neighborhood.
HealthCorps will also be working with the DOE on the development of a pilot program for a school classroom breakfast. As we have said before, classroom breakfast is important for educational achievement as well as health; and the city's participation rate needs to be radically improved. HC will not only be working in the schools, it will also be working with neighborhood health organizations to create grass roots support for the pilot effort.
The HealthCorps is just starting to generate a health awareness in the city's schools and communities. The key to future success will be grounded on the program's ability to inspire young people to change-while continuing to generate the support from key elected officials such as Joel Rivera. As the program expands, it is necessary for others to pick up on Rivera's enthusiasm and provide the resources neede to make the HC even more effective.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Columbia Held to Account
According to the Observer, the West Harlem LDC has upped the ante for the Columbia expansion to $100 million; with the money to be dedicated for affordable housing. As Matt Scheurman wrote:
Harlem Hits Columbia Up for $100 M.-Plus
As the deadline for City Council action on Columbia University’s expansion comes closer, the local development corporation established to negotiate the all-important community benefits agreement has asked the school to donate an amount “well in excess of $100 million” toward creating more affordable housing in the neighborhood, according to an individual source familiar with the negotiations.
The affordable-housing fund is one of several outstanding issues, but may be the hardest to resolve before Dec. 19, when the Council breaks for the holidays. University spokeswoman La-Verna Fountain said Columbia would not comment on the negotiations.
The source said that the school, while it had not offered its own number, understood it had to contribute more, and in a more timely way, than the $20 million that Borough President Scott M. Stringer secured through an agreement in September.
Harlem Hits Columbia Up for $100 M.-Plus
As the deadline for City Council action on Columbia University’s expansion comes closer, the local development corporation established to negotiate the all-important community benefits agreement has asked the school to donate an amount “well in excess of $100 million” toward creating more affordable housing in the neighborhood, according to an individual source familiar with the negotiations.
The affordable-housing fund is one of several outstanding issues, but may be the hardest to resolve before Dec. 19, when the Council breaks for the holidays. University spokeswoman La-Verna Fountain said Columbia would not comment on the negotiations.
The source said that the school, while it had not offered its own number, understood it had to contribute more, and in a more timely way, than the $20 million that Borough President Scott M. Stringer secured through an agreement in September.
All of which makes for some interesting negotiations as the City Council end game approaches. The key issue here, is that no matter how much CU puts into a fund there's a need to identify land that can be used for the building of the housing. Therefore, the swap proposal put forth by Nick Sprayregen becomes more germane-it's the only realistic option that identifies an actual spot for the housing to be built.
Testing the Truth
Today's stories-here, here and here-about the results of the school system's federal tests results, reveal that there's a lot to worry about, and that the vaunted DOE press machine can't disguise an underlying truth: the city's putative school achievements leave a lot to be desired; and critics of the Bloombergistas reforms are more right than not. The results also underscore why it is so important to have independent criticism, and why the top-down governance approach of the DOE is not a panacea by any means.
We come to this issue from a good deal of personal experience. Thrust into teaching over forty years ago, we entered the arena with a healthy skepticism of the bureaucracy at 110 Livingston Street-a building that symbolized the sclerotic nature of the system in the face of new challenges. What we found, however, was that the student population had changed and that the traditional approaches needed to change as well.
Which was why we initially supported the community control movement-the bureaucracy and central control needed to be dismantled and new innovative approaches needed to be tried. We taught classes on the street in opposition to the teacher's strike, and we marched in solidarity with the community's efforts to change the status quo.
What we learned, however, was that the problems that existed were not exclusively structural-the system wasn't the only culprit. A great deal of the challenge was generated by the breakdown of families and a rising drug epidemic. Which meant that any real change had to be two-fold: a community renewal was needed that addressed the underlying social dysfunction; and a systemic change was needed that adapted the educational environment to some of the new challenges.
Instead, what we got in school decentralization was a hybrid system that combined the worst aspects of both centralization and decentralization-and the ensuing three decades saw a continued deterioration of educational achievement. Enter the Bloomberg management gurus, folks who saw the educational system as a problem for management reform.
The problem, as Andrew Wolf and others have chronicled, is that the management experts lacked educational expertise, and the educational experts brought in were full of new age nonsense that was really potentially damaging to the kinds of kids in the educational system. Now, six years later, the chickens have come home to roost, and the attempt to stifle criticism is dangerous to the well-being of students, parents and teachers.
So what we get in the chancellor's response to the test results is, as the NY Daily News calls it, "spin city." As the News says: "Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said the scores from last spring were "good" overall, but critics called them a disappointment." More importantly, the gap between the results from the widely applauded state test results and the federal scores, indicate that the latter may have been watered down, and hence the results hold less meaning.
As Randi Weingarten told the Times: “When scores become so high stakes, then you have to really think about and ensure the reliability of these testing systems,” she said, adding that the federal scores “call into question the reliability of the New York State testing system." What this does is shed a harsh light on all of the pompous posturing of the DOE PR machine.
As one critic points out: "But a range of other educators said the results undercut the city’s reputation as a beacon of school improvement. Michael J. Petrilli, a researcher at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington, said the city did not seem to be improving any more than the rest of the state. “That to me seems quite damning to the Bloomberg administration,” he said." This is especially true when Atlanta and Washington showed marked improvement on the national tests.
It also serves to underscore the legitimacy of the criticisms that have been levelled by Diane Ravitch and Andrew Wolf-in spite of all of the woofing done by toadies to shut the critics up. Ravitch's comments to the NY Post, then, need to be taking very seriously: "If New York state says that eighth-grade performance is up, and NAEP says that it's flat in New York for eighth grade, I would trust the NAEP numbers," said NYU professor and education historian Diane Ravitch."
It's high time that the educational reforms launched by the Bloomberg administration be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny. If sunlight is the best disinfectant than the smoke an mirrors coming out of Tweed needs to be counteracted quickly; and if Wolf is correct about the T&G programs in today's NY Sun, real damage is being done and a thorough review of what's being wrought from Chambers Street must begin immediately.
We come to this issue from a good deal of personal experience. Thrust into teaching over forty years ago, we entered the arena with a healthy skepticism of the bureaucracy at 110 Livingston Street-a building that symbolized the sclerotic nature of the system in the face of new challenges. What we found, however, was that the student population had changed and that the traditional approaches needed to change as well.
Which was why we initially supported the community control movement-the bureaucracy and central control needed to be dismantled and new innovative approaches needed to be tried. We taught classes on the street in opposition to the teacher's strike, and we marched in solidarity with the community's efforts to change the status quo.
What we learned, however, was that the problems that existed were not exclusively structural-the system wasn't the only culprit. A great deal of the challenge was generated by the breakdown of families and a rising drug epidemic. Which meant that any real change had to be two-fold: a community renewal was needed that addressed the underlying social dysfunction; and a systemic change was needed that adapted the educational environment to some of the new challenges.
Instead, what we got in school decentralization was a hybrid system that combined the worst aspects of both centralization and decentralization-and the ensuing three decades saw a continued deterioration of educational achievement. Enter the Bloomberg management gurus, folks who saw the educational system as a problem for management reform.
The problem, as Andrew Wolf and others have chronicled, is that the management experts lacked educational expertise, and the educational experts brought in were full of new age nonsense that was really potentially damaging to the kinds of kids in the educational system. Now, six years later, the chickens have come home to roost, and the attempt to stifle criticism is dangerous to the well-being of students, parents and teachers.
So what we get in the chancellor's response to the test results is, as the NY Daily News calls it, "spin city." As the News says: "Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said the scores from last spring were "good" overall, but critics called them a disappointment." More importantly, the gap between the results from the widely applauded state test results and the federal scores, indicate that the latter may have been watered down, and hence the results hold less meaning.
As Randi Weingarten told the Times: “When scores become so high stakes, then you have to really think about and ensure the reliability of these testing systems,” she said, adding that the federal scores “call into question the reliability of the New York State testing system." What this does is shed a harsh light on all of the pompous posturing of the DOE PR machine.
As one critic points out: "But a range of other educators said the results undercut the city’s reputation as a beacon of school improvement. Michael J. Petrilli, a researcher at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington, said the city did not seem to be improving any more than the rest of the state. “That to me seems quite damning to the Bloomberg administration,” he said." This is especially true when Atlanta and Washington showed marked improvement on the national tests.
It also serves to underscore the legitimacy of the criticisms that have been levelled by Diane Ravitch and Andrew Wolf-in spite of all of the woofing done by toadies to shut the critics up. Ravitch's comments to the NY Post, then, need to be taking very seriously: "If New York state says that eighth-grade performance is up, and NAEP says that it's flat in New York for eighth grade, I would trust the NAEP numbers," said NYU professor and education historian Diane Ravitch."
It's high time that the educational reforms launched by the Bloomberg administration be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny. If sunlight is the best disinfectant than the smoke an mirrors coming out of Tweed needs to be counteracted quickly; and if Wolf is correct about the T&G programs in today's NY Sun, real damage is being done and a thorough review of what's being wrought from Chambers Street must begin immediately.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Sitt Down?
The Observer has one of Matt Scheurman's usually thoughtful pieces, this one's on the feud over the development of Coney Island. In it, the focus is on the city's dislike of Mr. Sitt and its attempt to make an end run of his considerable leverage in the area: "Now, $150 million later, Mr. Sitt has gained about 80 percent of the amusement area and a reputation as a land speculator. On Nov. 8, Mayor Bloomberg revealed a plan to redevelop Coney Island into the largest urban amusement area in the country, mapping out a strategy to divest Mr. Sitt of the land he has painstakingly assembled."
Not so fast. As Crain's reported the other day, the city apparently has acted precipitously with regard to Sitt and the development of the area: "Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s Coney Island redevelopment plan faces opposition from city and state lawmakers, sources say. Insiders were shocked when the mayor announced the plan last week without securing support from Assemblyman Alec Brook-Krasny, state Sen. Diane Savino and City Councilman Domenic Recchia."
To this we could add State Senator Carl Kruger, who represents a sliver of Coney, and whose influence in this regard would exceed Savino's due to his close relationship with Majority Leader Bruno. In addition, it should be pointed out, that Sitt has been cultivating the right elected officials and his ability to play rope-a-dope with the Bloombergistas shouldn't be underestimated.
What Sitt needs, however, is a better development plan, one that incorporates community sentiment and makes his efforts to build something significant easier to accomplish. In all likelihood, this will eventually happen only under new political configurations circa 2009.
Not so fast. As Crain's reported the other day, the city apparently has acted precipitously with regard to Sitt and the development of the area: "Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s Coney Island redevelopment plan faces opposition from city and state lawmakers, sources say. Insiders were shocked when the mayor announced the plan last week without securing support from Assemblyman Alec Brook-Krasny, state Sen. Diane Savino and City Councilman Domenic Recchia."
To this we could add State Senator Carl Kruger, who represents a sliver of Coney, and whose influence in this regard would exceed Savino's due to his close relationship with Majority Leader Bruno. In addition, it should be pointed out, that Sitt has been cultivating the right elected officials and his ability to play rope-a-dope with the Bloombergistas shouldn't be underestimated.
What Sitt needs, however, is a better development plan, one that incorporates community sentiment and makes his efforts to build something significant easier to accomplish. In all likelihood, this will eventually happen only under new political configurations circa 2009.
Garbage Obfuscation
The entire debate around what to do with the city's tens of thousands of daily tons of garbage continues to be debated-just not with any degree of clarity. This lack of clarity is owed to the fact that the debate is dominated by folks who, like the one trick pony, have only a narrow perspective on solving the problem.
These environmentalists-still imbued with the quasi-religiosity that characterized the Earth Day movement-haven't yet come up with any decent new ideas, at least ones that don't involve thrusting more responsibilities on to stores. The latest plastic bag initiative is symbolic of this mindset; there's nothing that the stores can't be required to do face of the failure of the city's curbside effort to meet the overblown expectations of the environmental advocates.
Which brings us to the current Gotham Gazette post on the subject of garbage (and the discussion by Liz). The Gothamites pose the question this way: "Your home trash sorting is a tiny piece of the city's waste management puzzle. Once it all leaves your curbside, the real debate kicks in. How should we transport our garbage? Which neighborhoods should have the facilities that process and sort our garbage -- along with the diesel-spewing trucks that transport it? How much money should the city spend to sort out recyclables and make sure they're really recycled? How far should we truck our trash?"
Except they leave out one crucial, and ultimately revolutionary variable: the elimination of food waste contamination; an elimination that could allow for the single stream collection and recycling of over 95% of the city's garbage-without the duplication of a curbside program. So, what does the GG say about food waste?
Unfortunately, what it says is mostly irrelevant and counterproductive-reflective of the environmental "mobilization of bias" that sees the elimination of food waste only through an impractically bucolic composting methodology. Here's their take on how to recycle 22% of the city's waste stream: "If New Yorkers went all out and composted food scraps and other compostables with our yard waste, up to 30 percent of the city's refuse by some counts could avoid the landfill."
This is so lame it's laughable-reminiscent of the DSNY pamphlet that describes how the NYC homeowner can use worms to better compost. This will go over real well on the East Side in the multi-million dollar co-ops, and in the housing projects of the South Bronx where the residents see quite enough wild life, than you very much. The Gazette doesn't once mention food waste disposers-the one methodology that can efficiently remove food waste, and do so by converting it into a biomass that is the functional equivalent (although more nutrient rich) of compost.
The ideal long-term plan would be to convert all of the city into a food waste disposer methodology that would gradually remove the putrescibles from the waste stream. Once removed, the remaining garbage-uncontaminated by wet waste-could be single stream collected and separated out for recycling.
The Gazette is right when it tells us: "Beyond where the trash goes and how it gets there, officials estimate it could eventually be cheaper for the city to recycle than simply dump the trash in a landfill or incinerator. The city pays $206 per ton to take away recyclable metal, glass and plastic, while it pays $167 per ton to get rid of refuse (unrecycled trash), according to the Independent Budget Office. The Independent Budget Office has concluded the cost of recycling for the city could go lower than the cost per ton for refuse if New Yorkers recycled more of their garbage."
In the long run, however, we're all dead, and if the recycling methodology isn't altered the cheaper recycling goals will never be reached. The last word here belongs to Mike Bloomberg who told the League of Conservation Voters the following when he first ran for office: "I believe that in lower density areas of the City, food waste and yard waste composting should be encouraged on a voluntary basis. In the higher density areas, the threat of vermin and a lack of storage may make composting impractical. There are alternatives. The use of food waste disposal systems has now been legalized in the City. Improvements in design of these systems minimizes the impact upon our sewer system. As long as waste treatment facilities can assure that our harbor and bay waters are not endangered by use of garbage grinders, their use should be encouraged. Efforts by private charities such as City Harvest, in cooperation with area schools, institutions and restaurants, further minimizes waste and helps those in need by delivering excess food to distribution points for those who need it."
It's time to go back to the future Mike. We can reduce the billion dollar a year boondoggle bonus to Waste Management, et al. And ultimately, if we do, the trivial siting issues that have been raised to a crucial status, precisely because the Bloombergistas have no effective garbage reduction strategy, will be relegated to a historical footnote.
These environmentalists-still imbued with the quasi-religiosity that characterized the Earth Day movement-haven't yet come up with any decent new ideas, at least ones that don't involve thrusting more responsibilities on to stores. The latest plastic bag initiative is symbolic of this mindset; there's nothing that the stores can't be required to do face of the failure of the city's curbside effort to meet the overblown expectations of the environmental advocates.
Which brings us to the current Gotham Gazette post on the subject of garbage (and the discussion by Liz). The Gothamites pose the question this way: "Your home trash sorting is a tiny piece of the city's waste management puzzle. Once it all leaves your curbside, the real debate kicks in. How should we transport our garbage? Which neighborhoods should have the facilities that process and sort our garbage -- along with the diesel-spewing trucks that transport it? How much money should the city spend to sort out recyclables and make sure they're really recycled? How far should we truck our trash?"
Except they leave out one crucial, and ultimately revolutionary variable: the elimination of food waste contamination; an elimination that could allow for the single stream collection and recycling of over 95% of the city's garbage-without the duplication of a curbside program. So, what does the GG say about food waste?
Unfortunately, what it says is mostly irrelevant and counterproductive-reflective of the environmental "mobilization of bias" that sees the elimination of food waste only through an impractically bucolic composting methodology. Here's their take on how to recycle 22% of the city's waste stream: "If New Yorkers went all out and composted food scraps and other compostables with our yard waste, up to 30 percent of the city's refuse by some counts could avoid the landfill."
This is so lame it's laughable-reminiscent of the DSNY pamphlet that describes how the NYC homeowner can use worms to better compost. This will go over real well on the East Side in the multi-million dollar co-ops, and in the housing projects of the South Bronx where the residents see quite enough wild life, than you very much. The Gazette doesn't once mention food waste disposers-the one methodology that can efficiently remove food waste, and do so by converting it into a biomass that is the functional equivalent (although more nutrient rich) of compost.
The ideal long-term plan would be to convert all of the city into a food waste disposer methodology that would gradually remove the putrescibles from the waste stream. Once removed, the remaining garbage-uncontaminated by wet waste-could be single stream collected and separated out for recycling.
The Gazette is right when it tells us: "Beyond where the trash goes and how it gets there, officials estimate it could eventually be cheaper for the city to recycle than simply dump the trash in a landfill or incinerator. The city pays $206 per ton to take away recyclable metal, glass and plastic, while it pays $167 per ton to get rid of refuse (unrecycled trash), according to the Independent Budget Office. The Independent Budget Office has concluded the cost of recycling for the city could go lower than the cost per ton for refuse if New Yorkers recycled more of their garbage."
In the long run, however, we're all dead, and if the recycling methodology isn't altered the cheaper recycling goals will never be reached. The last word here belongs to Mike Bloomberg who told the League of Conservation Voters the following when he first ran for office: "I believe that in lower density areas of the City, food waste and yard waste composting should be encouraged on a voluntary basis. In the higher density areas, the threat of vermin and a lack of storage may make composting impractical. There are alternatives. The use of food waste disposal systems has now been legalized in the City. Improvements in design of these systems minimizes the impact upon our sewer system. As long as waste treatment facilities can assure that our harbor and bay waters are not endangered by use of garbage grinders, their use should be encouraged. Efforts by private charities such as City Harvest, in cooperation with area schools, institutions and restaurants, further minimizes waste and helps those in need by delivering excess food to distribution points for those who need it."
It's time to go back to the future Mike. We can reduce the billion dollar a year boondoggle bonus to Waste Management, et al. And ultimately, if we do, the trivial siting issues that have been raised to a crucial status, precisely because the Bloombergistas have no effective garbage reduction strategy, will be relegated to a historical footnote.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Plan on the Spitz
Facing the inevitable-continuing poll plummeting and a disaster for Democrats-Governor Spitzer cashiered all of the variants of his drivers license plan for illegal immigrants. AS the NY Times reports this morning; "Gov. Eliot Spitzer is abandoning his plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, saying that opposition is just too overwhelming to move forward with such a policy."
Acknowledging the dismal reality-particularly after yesterday's Siena Poll came out showing the governor's approval rating looking up at Governor Pataki's worst showings-Spitzer came to realize that the light at the end of this tunnel was an oncoming train. As the NY Post observed this morning: "The decision to wave the white flag was cemented as a Siena Research Institute poll released yesterday showed Spitzer with his lowest approval ratings ever - with just 25 percent of voters saying they would support his re-election if the vote were held today."
This is a collapse of historic proportions, and it raises the question of whether or not Spitzer can ever recover from the free fall. His only saving grace is that he's got three years to rebound from this disastrous first year. Nothing in the past year, however, should give anyone confidence in his ability to do so. He's going to have to get smarter fast.
Acknowledging the dismal reality-particularly after yesterday's Siena Poll came out showing the governor's approval rating looking up at Governor Pataki's worst showings-Spitzer came to realize that the light at the end of this tunnel was an oncoming train. As the NY Post observed this morning: "The decision to wave the white flag was cemented as a Siena Research Institute poll released yesterday showed Spitzer with his lowest approval ratings ever - with just 25 percent of voters saying they would support his re-election if the vote were held today."
This is a collapse of historic proportions, and it raises the question of whether or not Spitzer can ever recover from the free fall. His only saving grace is that he's got three years to rebound from this disastrous first year. Nothing in the past year, however, should give anyone confidence in his ability to do so. He's going to have to get smarter fast.
Columbia Speedway and the LDC Speed Bump
In today's Crain's Insider the newsletter continues its coverage of the Columbia expansion plan with a report on the intervention of Charlie Rangel. Rangel, to his credit, is trying to jump start the sluggish negotiations between the West Harlem LDC and the university: "Meanwhile, Rep. Charlie Rangel has stepped into the negotiations over community benefits. He wrote a letter on behalf of the LDC, saying that the terms Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer named for his approval of the expansion—including a $20 million housing fund paid by Columbia—should be viewed as a starting point. Rangel says the Stringer agreement should not detract from the LDC’s claims about what constitutes adequate compensation for local businesses and residents."
This is promising because, absent the congressman's initiative, the rest of the area's elected officials quiescence was going to lead to very little positive for the community and the local businesses. Political will is exactly what has been missing, and Rangel's belief that the Stringer negotiated benefits should be seen as "ante," is spot on.
In the same report, Crain's speculates that the City Council could wrap up its deliberations over the CU expansion before the end of the year. While this is certainly a possibility, it makes little sense to fast track a vote before the outstanding CBA issues are resolved.
This is promising because, absent the congressman's initiative, the rest of the area's elected officials quiescence was going to lead to very little positive for the community and the local businesses. Political will is exactly what has been missing, and Rangel's belief that the Stringer negotiated benefits should be seen as "ante," is spot on.
In the same report, Crain's speculates that the City Council could wrap up its deliberations over the CU expansion before the end of the year. While this is certainly a possibility, it makes little sense to fast track a vote before the outstanding CBA issues are resolved.
Wasted Days, and Wasted Nights
As we have been speculating, the West Harlem LDC is having great difficulty coming up with a consensus on the items that it would like to see in a community benefits agreement. In yesterday's Crain's Insider, the newsletter reported that the LDC couldn't get its act together: "Discussions about a community benefits agreement as part of the Columbia University expansion have stalled because both sides are waiting for the other to initiate a
proposal, insiders say."
It's the old, "a camel is a horse put together by committee," scenario-with no strong community leadership and an LDC that is being advised by Jesse James Masyr, the proverbial fox in the chicken coop. All of which leaves the community reps on the LDC stymied: "Members of the West Harlem Local Development Corp., which represents community interests, are frustrated. One insider says they feel outdone by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, who won
concessions from Columbia, including a $20 million housing fund. But they don’t believe that Stringer’s pact compensates adequately for the displacement of businesses and residents."
Something, however, must give here. The LDC is being relied on to garner the kind of concessions that will allow the City Council to give the project a green light when it votes on the development shortly after the first of the year. Without the LDC's input, the Council may be left to its own creative devices-and the proposed Nick Sprayregen land swap, in exchange for a chunk of affordable housing, may just be thrust front and center as part of an overall community benefit.
proposal, insiders say."
It's the old, "a camel is a horse put together by committee," scenario-with no strong community leadership and an LDC that is being advised by Jesse James Masyr, the proverbial fox in the chicken coop. All of which leaves the community reps on the LDC stymied: "Members of the West Harlem Local Development Corp., which represents community interests, are frustrated. One insider says they feel outdone by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, who won
concessions from Columbia, including a $20 million housing fund. But they don’t believe that Stringer’s pact compensates adequately for the displacement of businesses and residents."
Something, however, must give here. The LDC is being relied on to garner the kind of concessions that will allow the City Council to give the project a green light when it votes on the development shortly after the first of the year. Without the LDC's input, the Council may be left to its own creative devices-and the proposed Nick Sprayregen land swap, in exchange for a chunk of affordable housing, may just be thrust front and center as part of an overall community benefit.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Governor's Masochism Tango
We just can't figure out why Governor Spitzer continues to hold on to his tarred and feathered license plan. Masochism is the only rationale we can come up with. He should, however, follow Bill Hammond's advice in the NY Daily News today, and simply cease and desist: "Gov. Spitzer should pull the plug on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants - right now. Immediately."
And, as Hammond reminds us, he should do so not only for his own sake, but for the entire Democratic party; "But now the damage is spreading, weakening every Democrat it touches, up to and including Hillary Clinton." And yet, Spitzer continues to waffle. In the NY Sun this morning, we're told that he's looking to take this issue nationally where, as incredible as it sounds, there;'s even less support for the concept of giving illegals licenses.
The governor should just stop the bleeding and do the following: "He's got to pull his plan off the table completely, so no one can pretend it's a live proposal. If he wants to save face, he can appoint a commission to study the issue and build consensus on a solution - which is what he should have done in the first place." But then again, all of the entertainment would stop and we'd be left to talk about Troopergate.
And, as Hammond reminds us, he should do so not only for his own sake, but for the entire Democratic party; "But now the damage is spreading, weakening every Democrat it touches, up to and including Hillary Clinton." And yet, Spitzer continues to waffle. In the NY Sun this morning, we're told that he's looking to take this issue nationally where, as incredible as it sounds, there;'s even less support for the concept of giving illegals licenses.
The governor should just stop the bleeding and do the following: "He's got to pull his plan off the table completely, so no one can pretend it's a live proposal. If he wants to save face, he can appoint a commission to study the issue and build consensus on a solution - which is what he should have done in the first place." But then again, all of the entertainment would stop and we'd be left to talk about Troopergate.
Unpalatable Fare
The NY Times continues to editorialize against a fare increase, blithely unaware of just how much its own arguments go a long way towards refuting the rationale for the mayor's congestion tax plan. In an ironic twist, they argue that the fare increase actually threatens the mayor's proposal, but remain clueless as to just why this is so: "The rush to a fare increase could also help to subvert Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, which Albany must act on by the end of March. If congestion pricing — which calls for a fee to drive into parts of Manhattan — is approved, it should generate a considerable amount of money for mass transit."
What's missing here is something that the Times pointed out last summer. The congestion relief that the mayor envisions comes with a huge price tag that the expensive system he proposes will fall far short of actually covering-and, as the paper has remarked elsewhere, there's no reason to give the agency a nickel until a greater degree of transparency is attained on how the MTA is governed.
Therefore, before we do anything, a full re-organization of the transit governing system needs to be implemented. Otherwise, the continued fare-hiking, and a new congestion tax, will end up pouring money down an unaccountable black hole.
What's missing here is something that the Times pointed out last summer. The congestion relief that the mayor envisions comes with a huge price tag that the expensive system he proposes will fall far short of actually covering-and, as the paper has remarked elsewhere, there's no reason to give the agency a nickel until a greater degree of transparency is attained on how the MTA is governed.
Therefore, before we do anything, a full re-organization of the transit governing system needs to be implemented. Otherwise, the continued fare-hiking, and a new congestion tax, will end up pouring money down an unaccountable black hole.
Teacher's Pet
The news is a never ending source of amusement. In yesterday's NY Sun, the paper reported on the fact that Kathryn Wylde, noted educator and critic, had resigned from her position on a commission studying the impact of mayoral control of the schools, because the panel's creator, Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, was "too critical" of the Bloomberg administration's school policies.
This is the same Wylde who famously had the chutzpah to criticize Diane Ravitch, a real educational, in what appears to be a continuing effort to be the mayor's chief flack; something that's worth a lot more than $1 a year. In an understatement Ms. Wylde told the Sun: "...she also felt uncomfortable serving on a commission headed by such an outspoken critic, as she often works closely with the Bloomberg administration on school programs."
In fact, it's hard to tell where Wlyde ends and Bloomberg begins, since she is always out in front on almost all of the key Bloomberg initiatives, most lately on congestion pricing. So if the mayor has a dim view of lobbyists in general, it apparently doesn't apply to the one lobbyist who represents the most influential and wealthiest New Yorkers. This is beyond irony, and we can't wait to see the upcoming Times story on the untoward influence of big business in the Bloomberg administration (just kidding).
It all goes back to the "mobilization of bias." The status and legitimacy of the city's real estate elites is unquestioned, even when there's an over all effort to identify and minimize the role of money in city politics. So we have the silly figurine of KW, reading copy that was written for her on subjects which she has no expertise; and doing so with an air of droit du seigneur that characterizes her elevation to a hallowed position in the New York City's "Thinkery."
This is the same Wylde who famously had the chutzpah to criticize Diane Ravitch, a real educational, in what appears to be a continuing effort to be the mayor's chief flack; something that's worth a lot more than $1 a year. In an understatement Ms. Wylde told the Sun: "...she also felt uncomfortable serving on a commission headed by such an outspoken critic, as she often works closely with the Bloomberg administration on school programs."
In fact, it's hard to tell where Wlyde ends and Bloomberg begins, since she is always out in front on almost all of the key Bloomberg initiatives, most lately on congestion pricing. So if the mayor has a dim view of lobbyists in general, it apparently doesn't apply to the one lobbyist who represents the most influential and wealthiest New Yorkers. This is beyond irony, and we can't wait to see the upcoming Times story on the untoward influence of big business in the Bloomberg administration (just kidding).
It all goes back to the "mobilization of bias." The status and legitimacy of the city's real estate elites is unquestioned, even when there's an over all effort to identify and minimize the role of money in city politics. So we have the silly figurine of KW, reading copy that was written for her on subjects which she has no expertise; and doing so with an air of droit du seigneur that characterizes her elevation to a hallowed position in the New York City's "Thinkery."
Doctoroff Withdrawal
New York magazine is reporting (and Liz is citing) that Deputy Dan may be looking for a new gig, because he "wants to run his own show." The news is bound to send shock waves over at the Related Company's headquarters on Columbus Circle; after all, for the past six years it's been an open secret in city government that Related CEO Steve Ross and Deputy Dan are joined at the hip, and that the company has a favored nation status when it comes to city projects.
Probably the best example of this, is the sweetheart deal that Dan gave to Related on the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market. Without any competitive bid whatsoever, the Doctoroff beneficiary was able to "purchase" the old BTM for less than a dollar a square foot. In the process, city procurement rules were bent better than Yuri Geller bends iron; with the City Council seemingly turned to stone just like Lot's wife. In the process, the COIB rolled over and played dead concerning the Doctoroff/Ross relationship.
So, as they say, God speed to The Deputy, and the funniest line in the New York piece is the following: "...the view is that Doctoroff is waiting to wrap up Bloomberg’s congestion-pricing plan before making any decisions." Well, the fate of that venture is very much up in the air, but we guess that we're the only ones who see irony in the fact that, in just six years The Deputy has engineered more car-dependent projects than any single official post-Moses (Robert, that is); and has done so in the most asthma infested areas of the city.
So we wish Dan well, and are reminded of the Shakespearean observation: "Nothing became him so much as his leaving." The question that remains is, will anyone look back on this blatant favoritism and reconsider the lionizing of the Bloomberg tenure?
Probably the best example of this, is the sweetheart deal that Dan gave to Related on the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market. Without any competitive bid whatsoever, the Doctoroff beneficiary was able to "purchase" the old BTM for less than a dollar a square foot. In the process, city procurement rules were bent better than Yuri Geller bends iron; with the City Council seemingly turned to stone just like Lot's wife. In the process, the COIB rolled over and played dead concerning the Doctoroff/Ross relationship.
So, as they say, God speed to The Deputy, and the funniest line in the New York piece is the following: "...the view is that Doctoroff is waiting to wrap up Bloomberg’s congestion-pricing plan before making any decisions." Well, the fate of that venture is very much up in the air, but we guess that we're the only ones who see irony in the fact that, in just six years The Deputy has engineered more car-dependent projects than any single official post-Moses (Robert, that is); and has done so in the most asthma infested areas of the city.
So we wish Dan well, and are reminded of the Shakespearean observation: "Nothing became him so much as his leaving." The question that remains is, will anyone look back on this blatant favoritism and reconsider the lionizing of the Bloomberg tenure?
Affordable Housing Shortage?
In a post done by the Observer's Matt Scheurman, there's a discussion of the IBO report's focus on the ability of the Bloomberg administration to live up to its goal of creating 165,000 units of affordable housing: "...it questions whether he will be able to meet his goal of building new affordable housing, as opposed to merely preserving existing units." The report says: “Funding the remaining units to meet the plan’s new construction goals, however, may pose more of a challenge.” (than simply preserving what exists)
All of which should be of prime consideration when it comes to the review of the Columbia expansion plan by the City Council early next year-since the plan to develop 18 acres lacks any affordable housing componnent. If, as we have read, the university is willing to fund an affordable housing initiative, than the Council should insist that it be part of the expansion plan itself.
It goes without saying, then, that the swap proposal put forth by West Harlem property owner Nick Sprayregen, affords the best opportunity for the university and the Bloomberg administartion to close the current gap in the mayor's laudable affordable housing goal. Stay tuned.
All of which should be of prime consideration when it comes to the review of the Columbia expansion plan by the City Council early next year-since the plan to develop 18 acres lacks any affordable housing componnent. If, as we have read, the university is willing to fund an affordable housing initiative, than the Council should insist that it be part of the expansion plan itself.
It goes without saying, then, that the swap proposal put forth by West Harlem property owner Nick Sprayregen, affords the best opportunity for the university and the Bloomberg administartion to close the current gap in the mayor's laudable affordable housing goal. Stay tuned.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Can the Plan on Traffic
Our favorite traffic analyst, Brian Ketcham, holds court today in the NY Daily News with a trenchant critique of the mayor's congestion tax plan. That's not to say that we agree with Ketcham's own conclusions, but his analysis of the mayor's overly complex and costly scheme is right on target.
The key point of attack is on the expensive grid system that the mayor's plan proposes: "Charging cars and trucks to get into the central business district makes perfect sense - but the rest of this scheme would be a logistical nightmare. All trips would be screened and photographed, some many times, and payments and locations recorded, producing a database of great concern to the American Civil Liberties Union - but adding little revenue."
Ketcham also feels strongly that until the current mass transit funding system is fixed, the fare shouldn't be raised: "Across the city, people are fed up with traffic. And they don't want to pay more for transit until it gets better. That's why we should immediately halt the MTA fare and toll hike process so we can determine whether a simpler congestion charging plan could net a reliable $500 million a year for fares and capital improvements."
Brian's solution, the tolling of the East River bridges, is something that we believe is also unacceptable-the mass transit fix, think Rockland as well, needs to come before any new tax scheme is put in place. And any system where wealthy New Jersey commuters are paying less than middle income New Yorkers is simply not a good plan.
So when Ketcham says; "New York needs congestion pricing. But to succeed, congestion pricing itself needs to be transformed into a more sensible version of the mayor's costly, headache-prone proposal."-we say let's improve the system before the taxers are let loose.
The key point of attack is on the expensive grid system that the mayor's plan proposes: "Charging cars and trucks to get into the central business district makes perfect sense - but the rest of this scheme would be a logistical nightmare. All trips would be screened and photographed, some many times, and payments and locations recorded, producing a database of great concern to the American Civil Liberties Union - but adding little revenue."
Ketcham also feels strongly that until the current mass transit funding system is fixed, the fare shouldn't be raised: "Across the city, people are fed up with traffic. And they don't want to pay more for transit until it gets better. That's why we should immediately halt the MTA fare and toll hike process so we can determine whether a simpler congestion charging plan could net a reliable $500 million a year for fares and capital improvements."
Brian's solution, the tolling of the East River bridges, is something that we believe is also unacceptable-the mass transit fix, think Rockland as well, needs to come before any new tax scheme is put in place. And any system where wealthy New Jersey commuters are paying less than middle income New Yorkers is simply not a good plan.
So when Ketcham says; "New York needs congestion pricing. But to succeed, congestion pricing itself needs to be transformed into a more sensible version of the mayor's costly, headache-prone proposal."-we say let's improve the system before the taxers are let loose.
Driving Us Crazy at the NY Times
In yesterday's NY Times the paper did what it usually does, drive us crazy on the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. It's not that the paper consciously shills for the pro position on this issue; its more on what it chooses to focus on, and what it tends to ignore.
The story in this case was examining the impact that the governor's policy shifts on the drivers license for illegals would have on the illegals themselves. The paper, however, adds a new twist by looking at the schools that profit from the immigrant business-both legal and illegal.
Our concerns here are not so much with the story itself, a piece that we found both informative and balanced. One driving school owner made the following well-reasoned point: “Of course it’ll be good from a business point of view,” said Mr. Iqbal, whose customers are from Pakistan, India and Eastern Europe, among other places. “And I understand the advantages: Now we can identify a person — if someone is living here with no ID, then we know who he is. But we have to make sure these IDs would not be abused. If they’re lenient about issuing them, one person can have multiple licenses.”
So, from Mr. Iqbal-and more so than from the NY Times Editorial Board- we get the idea that there needs to be some care taken before we proceed in this area. He even alerts us to the security issue by describing the lively trafficking in phony IDs.
We also get a sense that many illegals don't approve the governor's amended plan because they'd rather continue to stay below the government radar. As one legal immigrant told the Times about one of his illegal relatives: "Mr. Chavez said his cousin Pablo would rather not risk the scrutiny that holding Mr. Spitzer’s limited license might expose him to. “He’d rather stay as he is now,” said Mr. Chavez, 21. “He doesn’t want to be in a government database.”
So we like the Times story. What we're concerned with, as we've said, is the things that the paper chooses to focus on, and what it ignores. There's nothing wrong with yesterday's story; it explores the impact of government policy on a group that's most personally impacted. But where's the story on the 77% of Americans-and 72% of New Yorkers- who think that the NY governor is daft?
Many years ago, the political scientists Bachrach and Baratz wrote about "decisions," and "non-decisions." They were examining the ways in which local governmental power structures make policy. What they found was that it was often more significant to ignore the decisions made by the locality, and instead focus on those issues and policy areas that were ignored so that they never even made it to the larger policy-making agenda.
The so-called non-decisions were generally not considered because of a certain "mobilization of bias" in the locality, a conforming ideology that unconsciously hid certain issues from view. And so it goes with the NY Times. The average New Yorker's views on the drivers license question get shuffled aside for the more compelling-in the paper's worldview-look at the angst of the dispossessed. The end result is a one-sided coverage of an important issue.
The story in this case was examining the impact that the governor's policy shifts on the drivers license for illegals would have on the illegals themselves. The paper, however, adds a new twist by looking at the schools that profit from the immigrant business-both legal and illegal.
Our concerns here are not so much with the story itself, a piece that we found both informative and balanced. One driving school owner made the following well-reasoned point: “Of course it’ll be good from a business point of view,” said Mr. Iqbal, whose customers are from Pakistan, India and Eastern Europe, among other places. “And I understand the advantages: Now we can identify a person — if someone is living here with no ID, then we know who he is. But we have to make sure these IDs would not be abused. If they’re lenient about issuing them, one person can have multiple licenses.”
So, from Mr. Iqbal-and more so than from the NY Times Editorial Board- we get the idea that there needs to be some care taken before we proceed in this area. He even alerts us to the security issue by describing the lively trafficking in phony IDs.
We also get a sense that many illegals don't approve the governor's amended plan because they'd rather continue to stay below the government radar. As one legal immigrant told the Times about one of his illegal relatives: "Mr. Chavez said his cousin Pablo would rather not risk the scrutiny that holding Mr. Spitzer’s limited license might expose him to. “He’d rather stay as he is now,” said Mr. Chavez, 21. “He doesn’t want to be in a government database.”
So we like the Times story. What we're concerned with, as we've said, is the things that the paper chooses to focus on, and what it ignores. There's nothing wrong with yesterday's story; it explores the impact of government policy on a group that's most personally impacted. But where's the story on the 77% of Americans-and 72% of New Yorkers- who think that the NY governor is daft?
Many years ago, the political scientists Bachrach and Baratz wrote about "decisions," and "non-decisions." They were examining the ways in which local governmental power structures make policy. What they found was that it was often more significant to ignore the decisions made by the locality, and instead focus on those issues and policy areas that were ignored so that they never even made it to the larger policy-making agenda.
The so-called non-decisions were generally not considered because of a certain "mobilization of bias" in the locality, a conforming ideology that unconsciously hid certain issues from view. And so it goes with the NY Times. The average New Yorker's views on the drivers license question get shuffled aside for the more compelling-in the paper's worldview-look at the angst of the dispossessed. The end result is a one-sided coverage of an important issue.
Food Co-optation
There's an interesting story on a new Bronx food co-op in yesterday's NY Times. The story highlights some of the on-going discussions about the importance-and availability-of fresh fruit and vegetables in the city's low income neighborhoods.
Here are the comments of Zena Nelson, the founder of the food venture: "Ms. Nelson had noticed, with some annoyance, the success of large marketers, like Whole Foods Market, in selling organic foods to an affluent clientele. “Why is it that people with higher incomes were able to buy better food at lower prices,” she exclaimed, “but people with lower incomes were buying worse food at higher prices? This is stupid!” We're really not sure just what world Ms. Nelson's living in, but we're quite sure that her understanding of marketing and the economics of food distribution and retailing needs bolstering.
First of all, Whole Foods ain't discounting to anyone, and the chain's price structure would insure that any store it opened up in a low income area would be doomed to failure-on price alone. Secondly, in spite of Ms. Nelson's belief that there's a huge market for good organic produce in these neighborhoods (“Some people say poor people are not going to buy organic,” she said. “But many poor people are from Africa or the Caribbean or Latin America. Most of their grandparents grew up on farms."), the fact remains that for whatever reason the demand for fresh fruit and vegetables of all kinds is low in these areas, a fact that will make the products both scarce as well as expensive.
The key, as always in our economic system, rests with generating the kind of demand that will eventually lead to the availability of good produce at reasonable prices. This is something that we don't hear any discussion of in the NY Times, a paper that hasn't done a single, non-demonizing, article on the economics of food retailing in low income areas in the past twenty years. All we hear about is the lack, the insufficiency, and the poor quality of the stores-both bodegas and supermarkets-in low-income neighborhoods.
So instead of focusing on the realities of the market-and, yes, the amazing economic success stories involving a whole class of immigrant entrepreneurs-we get a new age romanticizing of a non-capitalist business. Why not focus on how to use the existing distribution network to increase both the supply of, and demand for, fresh produce? Now that would be a positive kind of immigrant story, and we're left to wonder why the Times hasn't understood to do it.
Here are the comments of Zena Nelson, the founder of the food venture: "Ms. Nelson had noticed, with some annoyance, the success of large marketers, like Whole Foods Market, in selling organic foods to an affluent clientele. “Why is it that people with higher incomes were able to buy better food at lower prices,” she exclaimed, “but people with lower incomes were buying worse food at higher prices? This is stupid!” We're really not sure just what world Ms. Nelson's living in, but we're quite sure that her understanding of marketing and the economics of food distribution and retailing needs bolstering.
First of all, Whole Foods ain't discounting to anyone, and the chain's price structure would insure that any store it opened up in a low income area would be doomed to failure-on price alone. Secondly, in spite of Ms. Nelson's belief that there's a huge market for good organic produce in these neighborhoods (“Some people say poor people are not going to buy organic,” she said. “But many poor people are from Africa or the Caribbean or Latin America. Most of their grandparents grew up on farms."), the fact remains that for whatever reason the demand for fresh fruit and vegetables of all kinds is low in these areas, a fact that will make the products both scarce as well as expensive.
The key, as always in our economic system, rests with generating the kind of demand that will eventually lead to the availability of good produce at reasonable prices. This is something that we don't hear any discussion of in the NY Times, a paper that hasn't done a single, non-demonizing, article on the economics of food retailing in low income areas in the past twenty years. All we hear about is the lack, the insufficiency, and the poor quality of the stores-both bodegas and supermarkets-in low-income neighborhoods.
So instead of focusing on the realities of the market-and, yes, the amazing economic success stories involving a whole class of immigrant entrepreneurs-we get a new age romanticizing of a non-capitalist business. Why not focus on how to use the existing distribution network to increase both the supply of, and demand for, fresh produce? Now that would be a positive kind of immigrant story, and we're left to wonder why the Times hasn't understood to do it.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Coney Heads
The Coney Island planning process continues to amuse us-with the latest coming from Mike Clancy's post on the Runnin' Scared blog. In a further explication of the meaning of the city's announcement for the amusement area Clancy, who was first out of the box on the issue yesterday, opines that it could well mean the death knell for Thor Equities' Joe Sitt: "The upshot, two hours of Powerpoint later: Bloomberg is moving ahead with plans to revamp the amusement district, but Joe Sitt's condos-by-the-boardwalk plan is off the table—and the city plans on salting the earth to make sure things stay that way."
Perhaps, but perhaps not. As the blog points out all of this hinges on the parkland alienation process, taking currently designated parkland, de-designating it for other use; and taking land now owned by Sitt and making it parkland instead. This should not be seen as a slam dunk.
Here's the explanation of the president of the Coney Island Development Corporation, Lynn Kelly: "State legislation, explained Kelly, would be required next spring to "alienate" the parking-lot site; the city would then transmogrify the amusement district into new parkland via its ULURP land-use process." Are you beginning to see any problems here, especially considering the city's ham-handed approach to all things Albany?
And one last point. As Metro indicates, even the fans of the plan aren't totally sold on all of its features: "Dick Zigun, president of Coney Island USA, praised the city for stepping in and preserving the amusements, but he also said the plan needs some “fine tuning” regarding the type of retail the city hopes to attract and whether new buildings would be taller than the parachute jump. “Can we do what Paris does, where nothing goes higher than its national monument?” he asked."
Can we? Perhaps the better question is can we get five separate property owners to agree with the city so that the plan can go forward without the use of eminent domain, something that Doctoroff has pledged not to use. As AMNY tells us: "To make the plan work, however, three large swaths of land must be rezoned and much of the property must be acquired by the city -- including 10 acres now owned by a private developer, Thor Equities, which has its own revitalization plans for the neighborhood." This doesn't seem like a really good bet.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. As the blog points out all of this hinges on the parkland alienation process, taking currently designated parkland, de-designating it for other use; and taking land now owned by Sitt and making it parkland instead. This should not be seen as a slam dunk.
Here's the explanation of the president of the Coney Island Development Corporation, Lynn Kelly: "State legislation, explained Kelly, would be required next spring to "alienate" the parking-lot site; the city would then transmogrify the amusement district into new parkland via its ULURP land-use process." Are you beginning to see any problems here, especially considering the city's ham-handed approach to all things Albany?
And one last point. As Metro indicates, even the fans of the plan aren't totally sold on all of its features: "Dick Zigun, president of Coney Island USA, praised the city for stepping in and preserving the amusements, but he also said the plan needs some “fine tuning” regarding the type of retail the city hopes to attract and whether new buildings would be taller than the parachute jump. “Can we do what Paris does, where nothing goes higher than its national monument?” he asked."
Can we? Perhaps the better question is can we get five separate property owners to agree with the city so that the plan can go forward without the use of eminent domain, something that Doctoroff has pledged not to use. As AMNY tells us: "To make the plan work, however, three large swaths of land must be rezoned and much of the property must be acquired by the city -- including 10 acres now owned by a private developer, Thor Equities, which has its own revitalization plans for the neighborhood." This doesn't seem like a really good bet.
Coney Island: Amusing Park and Deride
The mayor has unveiled his long anticipated plan for the revitalization of Coney Island, and to say that there's a few kinks in the city's plan is probably an understatement, As the NY Times reports this morning, the plan calls for the designation of a fifteen acre parkland area that, "would create the nation’s largest urban amusement park, promote the development of stores and 4,500 apartments along Surf Avenue and preserve historic attractions like the Parachute Jump."
The proposal, if implemented, would be a dagger in the heart of Joe Sitt, the real estate developer who owns around 11 acres of land in and around the designated area. In a prepared statement, cited in the NY Daily News this morning, Sitt's company expressed its disappointment with the city's plan: "We're disappointed by the mayor's presentation, but are optimistic that a deal can be reached between the city, the land owners and the community to make Coney Island an even greater place to live and visit..."
According to Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, Sitt lacks the ability to run the planned amusement facility. As the Times reports: "Mr. Doctoroff said yesterday that the city wanted to find an experienced, world-class amusement park operator to run the district, which is “a very different business than building a shopping center.”
Which sets the stage for a major confrontation, since Sitt has a number of influential political allies that would complicate any eminent domain inspired city action. Given this dynamic, and the fact that the proposal needs to be vetted by the legislature since it calls for the creation of parkland, we can't agree with Rich Calder's assessment in today's Post: "The mayor's plan for a new, 21st century Coney Island is a death knell for developer Joe Sitt's controversial, $1.5 billion proposal to build a glitzy, Vegas-style entertainment complex in the heart of the amusement district."
Hardly. With major zoning and legislative hurdles, the city's grandiosity seems to us much like all the other Coney Island dreams-visions that sit gathering dust in some room down at the Department of City Planning. We're reminded of the dust-up over the city's effort to put a recycling facility at Gansevoort on the West Side-an area that has the same parkland situation as the Coney Island area will. All of the city's huffing and puffing hasn't budged the assembly opponents of that plan, and we envision the same thing happening with the Coney Island dream.
The fact remains that Joe Sitt, and a number of other property owners, will not be sitting around wringing their hands waiting for the municipal Repo man to knock on their door. The city bulldozer will not be coming to Coney Island anytime soon; not unless the property owners are brought into a deal that they can support.
The proposal, if implemented, would be a dagger in the heart of Joe Sitt, the real estate developer who owns around 11 acres of land in and around the designated area. In a prepared statement, cited in the NY Daily News this morning, Sitt's company expressed its disappointment with the city's plan: "We're disappointed by the mayor's presentation, but are optimistic that a deal can be reached between the city, the land owners and the community to make Coney Island an even greater place to live and visit..."
According to Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, Sitt lacks the ability to run the planned amusement facility. As the Times reports: "Mr. Doctoroff said yesterday that the city wanted to find an experienced, world-class amusement park operator to run the district, which is “a very different business than building a shopping center.”
Which sets the stage for a major confrontation, since Sitt has a number of influential political allies that would complicate any eminent domain inspired city action. Given this dynamic, and the fact that the proposal needs to be vetted by the legislature since it calls for the creation of parkland, we can't agree with Rich Calder's assessment in today's Post: "The mayor's plan for a new, 21st century Coney Island is a death knell for developer Joe Sitt's controversial, $1.5 billion proposal to build a glitzy, Vegas-style entertainment complex in the heart of the amusement district."
Hardly. With major zoning and legislative hurdles, the city's grandiosity seems to us much like all the other Coney Island dreams-visions that sit gathering dust in some room down at the Department of City Planning. We're reminded of the dust-up over the city's effort to put a recycling facility at Gansevoort on the West Side-an area that has the same parkland situation as the Coney Island area will. All of the city's huffing and puffing hasn't budged the assembly opponents of that plan, and we envision the same thing happening with the Coney Island dream.
The fact remains that Joe Sitt, and a number of other property owners, will not be sitting around wringing their hands waiting for the municipal Repo man to knock on their door. The city bulldozer will not be coming to Coney Island anytime soon; not unless the property owners are brought into a deal that they can support.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Is Wal-Mart's Trayf in Monsey?
In the Ramapo supervisor election, the incumbent, and Wal-Mart opponent, Chris St.Lawrence came away with a greater than 4,000 vote margin-mostly because of the wave of support he received from the Ramapo Orthodox community. As the Journal News reports today, the Hasidic neighborhoods voted overwhelmingly for St. Lawrence-a vote that was likely boosted by the supervisor's public announcement of his opposition to the Walmonster.
In some areas, St. Lawrence's opponent couldn't seem to buy a vote: "If democracy means that those who vote get a voice, then the voice appeared to go Tuesday to the ultra-orthodox community in and around Monsey. At one New Square polling place, Mele got one vote to St. Lawrence's 1,111, according to unofficial results. Those tallies also showed a score of 906 to zero for St. Lawrence at another New Square location."
The Orthodox community has made its opposition to Wal-Mart crystal clear, and the St. Lawrence announcement can be seen as a recognition of this political reality. In response the community delivered, and we're certainly hopeful that the newly re-elected supervisor will do the same.
In some areas, St. Lawrence's opponent couldn't seem to buy a vote: "If democracy means that those who vote get a voice, then the voice appeared to go Tuesday to the ultra-orthodox community in and around Monsey. At one New Square polling place, Mele got one vote to St. Lawrence's 1,111, according to unofficial results. Those tallies also showed a score of 906 to zero for St. Lawrence at another New Square location."
The Orthodox community has made its opposition to Wal-Mart crystal clear, and the St. Lawrence announcement can be seen as a recognition of this political reality. In response the community delivered, and we're certainly hopeful that the newly re-elected supervisor will do the same.
License Sobriety Test
The drivers license issue looks as if it might become the gift that keeps on giving-at least for a NYS Republican party looking to get off of life-supports. In today's NY Times, the paper reports on the growing fears among Congressional Democrats that the license policy can and will be held against them in next years election. As the Times puts it: "The opposition is especially strong among Democrats bracing for the prospect of tough re-election battles next year in politically moderate and conservative regions of New York; they have begun to speak out on the issue and, in many cases, have disavowed the plan."
All of which puts Governor Spitzer in the political doghouse, and makes the license advocates look kind of like Typhoid Mary: “It’s hugely unpopular,” said Representative Michael Arcuri, a first-term Democrat from central New York whom Republicans hope to defeat next year. “I don’t think it would be wise to move forward with it at this point.”
And less we forget about the cause of all of this underlying political sentiment, there's the Times story this morning on the killings in Newark-all of the suspects are in the country illegally, and a number had been arrested before, but not detained or deported because of the concerns manifested by the DMI crowd about the sensibility of the rights of illegals (has a nice oxymoronic ring to it, doesn't it?).
Here's the money quote to remind us what this fight's all about: "The $3 million bail set for Mr. Godinez included half a million dollars stemming from an outstanding arrest warrant from 2003. Mr. Godinez was accused of taking part in the violent robbery of three people outside a bar in Irvington, N.J." And, oh yes, all of these killers are believed to be members of M-13, a violent Salvadoren gang. Some economic contribution!
Update
The license issue won't only impact the congressional races. As the NY Post reports this morning, Hilllary has felt the impact of Hurricane Elliot as well, and could feel it even more if a bill being introduced by Pete King gets traction: "In a move that could put Sen. Hillary Clinton on the spot, Rep. Pete King will soon introduce a bill in Congress that would block New York and other states from providing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues," King (R-L.I.) told The Post."
And the issue has already hurt her in New Hamphshire, which prompts this from the Post editorialists: "By contrast, there's a real clarity to the licenses-for-illegals question: "Yes" is a vote for illegal immigration. "No" is a vote against it. Is that fair? Probably not. But who should expect otherwise when the issue is eligibility for a document virtually all law-abiding Americans have - and value - but that Spitzer proposes to give willy-nilly to people whose very presence in the country is a violation of the law?
It is Clinton's misfortune that her governor decided to force the issue in her home state just as the presidential race was moving to the top of the stretch."
All of which puts Governor Spitzer in the political doghouse, and makes the license advocates look kind of like Typhoid Mary: “It’s hugely unpopular,” said Representative Michael Arcuri, a first-term Democrat from central New York whom Republicans hope to defeat next year. “I don’t think it would be wise to move forward with it at this point.”
And less we forget about the cause of all of this underlying political sentiment, there's the Times story this morning on the killings in Newark-all of the suspects are in the country illegally, and a number had been arrested before, but not detained or deported because of the concerns manifested by the DMI crowd about the sensibility of the rights of illegals (has a nice oxymoronic ring to it, doesn't it?).
Here's the money quote to remind us what this fight's all about: "The $3 million bail set for Mr. Godinez included half a million dollars stemming from an outstanding arrest warrant from 2003. Mr. Godinez was accused of taking part in the violent robbery of three people outside a bar in Irvington, N.J." And, oh yes, all of these killers are believed to be members of M-13, a violent Salvadoren gang. Some economic contribution!
Update
The license issue won't only impact the congressional races. As the NY Post reports this morning, Hilllary has felt the impact of Hurricane Elliot as well, and could feel it even more if a bill being introduced by Pete King gets traction: "In a move that could put Sen. Hillary Clinton on the spot, Rep. Pete King will soon introduce a bill in Congress that would block New York and other states from providing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues," King (R-L.I.) told The Post."
And the issue has already hurt her in New Hamphshire, which prompts this from the Post editorialists: "By contrast, there's a real clarity to the licenses-for-illegals question: "Yes" is a vote for illegal immigration. "No" is a vote against it. Is that fair? Probably not. But who should expect otherwise when the issue is eligibility for a document virtually all law-abiding Americans have - and value - but that Spitzer proposes to give willy-nilly to people whose very presence in the country is a violation of the law?
It is Clinton's misfortune that her governor decided to force the issue in her home state just as the presidential race was moving to the top of the stretch."
More Licensed Poll-Axing
NY1 is reporting on its just conducted poll on Governor Spitzer's new drivers license plan. The results, while predictably revealing deep opposition to the governor's new proposal, are surprising when it comes to Latino voters: "The poll shows the majority of both Democrats and Latino voters are at odds with the licensing proposal, as are residents across the board in New York State. According to the poll, Latino voters did not like the original plan and also do not approve of the new proposal. Fifty-two percent reject it; 33 percent are in favor; and 15 percent did not respond.
What this shows is that the pandering being done by some elected officials may not be so politically astute. Latinos, most of whom are here legally, have as much resentment over giving illegals special treatment, as do any other ethnic group. In addition, the mainstream of the Democratic is resolute against this silliness as well. Only the NY Times and the DMI remain convinced, and the Democratic Party needs to be careful that these head-in-the-clouds folks don't drag them over the precipice.
What this shows is that the pandering being done by some elected officials may not be so politically astute. Latinos, most of whom are here legally, have as much resentment over giving illegals special treatment, as do any other ethnic group. In addition, the mainstream of the Democratic is resolute against this silliness as well. Only the NY Times and the DMI remain convinced, and the Democratic Party needs to be careful that these head-in-the-clouds folks don't drag them over the precipice.
Stigma!
In what has become expected from the Drum Major Institute, a group that feels that beating the drums for illegal immigrants is in the ultimate good of the country, we have another post on the drivers license scandal. In the missive, the resident documented Drummer-as tone deaf politically as one could be-calls for the governor to return to his original single tier license plan.
This advocacy comes on top of the just recently released Rassmussen Poll that shows that 77% of Americans think this is just a terrible idea. In the view of the DMI this apparently means that all of these folks, unable to understand the nuances of the issue, have been bamboozled by CNN's Lou Dobbs.
The three tiered system, a proposal that almost no one supports, is seen by the progressive policy group as the imposition of a stigma, akin to Hawthorne's scarlet letter: "By highlighting residents’ immigration status with a scarlet letter – indicated by the type of license people receive – the new proposal will give the green light to employers to treat immigrants differently based on their immigration status. Armed with this information, employers will likely continue to threaten their undocumented workers with deportation when those employees demand fair pay or complain about workplace safety violations."
So let's get this straight. It's wrong to treat illegal immigrants differently because, well, they're illegal! And what about the "demand fair pay" stuff? This all reminds us of the C. Wright Mills coined term-"crackpot rationality." In Mills' view, the term meant to treat a discussion of the implementation of means in a rational manner, in spite of the fact that an overall objective might was just plain crazy (like planning for World War Three).
In this case, the Drummers accept unquestionably the rights and the beneficence of a massive group of people who got into the country by illegal means-something that the vast majority of Americans find to be abhorrent. It comes down to a basic disrespect for the laws and sovereignty of our country; and this is without bringing in the national security and public safety concerns that this massive undocumented wave generates.
Frankly the fact that supposedly one in four illegals were fired under other tiered license systems doesn't prompt the slightest bit of rachmones, except with those people who in their hearts want two things: blanket amnesty for everyone here; and no aggressive border control policy. Where do the Drummers stand on the border fence? On the deportation of illegals arrested for a serious crime? Or any crime?
Instead we have the appeals to the economic contributions of these ghost workers. Do we believe that the country needs many of these workers? You bet we do. Yet until we get a better control over all of this, we can't start to anoint the illegals with all sorts of rights and privileges. In what country do non-citizens get rights conferred on them (we're thinking of in-state tuition breaks) that even the country's citizens don't get?
Which is why the license issue will continue to resonate-and may very well become the third rail 0f 2008. As the Washington Times remarked yesterday, "The numbers break down to 88 percent of Republicans, 75 percent of independents and even 68 percent of Democrats in opposition. Consider that last part: More than two-thirds of Democrats oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens, even though at the recent debate, only Mr. Dodd raised his hand when NBC's Tim Russert asked which Democratic hopefuls oppose licenses for illegals. Expect to hear more from Republicans on this subject.
And expect the issue to continue to roil New York State politics next year; and watch for a Siena Poll due out shortly that looks as if it will underscore this point. The governor's actions, and the license thing is not the only misstep, have given Senate Republicans a new life-an ideological and emotional resuscitation that, while hard to quantify, will mean a renewed sense of commitment for a downtrodden party.
As Assemblyman McEneny has said (cited by Liz), the governor transformed and reinvigorated the Senate Republicans from what had become the "Ottoman Empire" of New York State; "He's actually managed to transform (Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno) from a heavy to a victim; that really takes something."
All of this goes right over the head of the bienpensants at the DMI. This time, however, the politics of the issue threatens to blow them all both out of the water and over the border.
This advocacy comes on top of the just recently released Rassmussen Poll that shows that 77% of Americans think this is just a terrible idea. In the view of the DMI this apparently means that all of these folks, unable to understand the nuances of the issue, have been bamboozled by CNN's Lou Dobbs.
The three tiered system, a proposal that almost no one supports, is seen by the progressive policy group as the imposition of a stigma, akin to Hawthorne's scarlet letter: "By highlighting residents’ immigration status with a scarlet letter – indicated by the type of license people receive – the new proposal will give the green light to employers to treat immigrants differently based on their immigration status. Armed with this information, employers will likely continue to threaten their undocumented workers with deportation when those employees demand fair pay or complain about workplace safety violations."
So let's get this straight. It's wrong to treat illegal immigrants differently because, well, they're illegal! And what about the "demand fair pay" stuff? This all reminds us of the C. Wright Mills coined term-"crackpot rationality." In Mills' view, the term meant to treat a discussion of the implementation of means in a rational manner, in spite of the fact that an overall objective might was just plain crazy (like planning for World War Three).
In this case, the Drummers accept unquestionably the rights and the beneficence of a massive group of people who got into the country by illegal means-something that the vast majority of Americans find to be abhorrent. It comes down to a basic disrespect for the laws and sovereignty of our country; and this is without bringing in the national security and public safety concerns that this massive undocumented wave generates.
Frankly the fact that supposedly one in four illegals were fired under other tiered license systems doesn't prompt the slightest bit of rachmones, except with those people who in their hearts want two things: blanket amnesty for everyone here; and no aggressive border control policy. Where do the Drummers stand on the border fence? On the deportation of illegals arrested for a serious crime? Or any crime?
Instead we have the appeals to the economic contributions of these ghost workers. Do we believe that the country needs many of these workers? You bet we do. Yet until we get a better control over all of this, we can't start to anoint the illegals with all sorts of rights and privileges. In what country do non-citizens get rights conferred on them (we're thinking of in-state tuition breaks) that even the country's citizens don't get?
Which is why the license issue will continue to resonate-and may very well become the third rail 0f 2008. As the Washington Times remarked yesterday, "The numbers break down to 88 percent of Republicans, 75 percent of independents and even 68 percent of Democrats in opposition. Consider that last part: More than two-thirds of Democrats oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens, even though at the recent debate, only Mr. Dodd raised his hand when NBC's Tim Russert asked which Democratic hopefuls oppose licenses for illegals. Expect to hear more from Republicans on this subject.
And expect the issue to continue to roil New York State politics next year; and watch for a Siena Poll due out shortly that looks as if it will underscore this point. The governor's actions, and the license thing is not the only misstep, have given Senate Republicans a new life-an ideological and emotional resuscitation that, while hard to quantify, will mean a renewed sense of commitment for a downtrodden party.
As Assemblyman McEneny has said (cited by Liz), the governor transformed and reinvigorated the Senate Republicans from what had become the "Ottoman Empire" of New York State; "He's actually managed to transform (Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno) from a heavy to a victim; that really takes something."
All of this goes right over the head of the bienpensants at the DMI. This time, however, the politics of the issue threatens to blow them all both out of the water and over the border.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Sic Transit Dinero
In our previous post we commented on the confusion surrounding the various analyses of the city's congestion problem, a confusion exacerbated by the absence of any independent review. Well, the confusion extends to the funding stream that the congestion tax is supposed to supplement. For a long time, we've been saying that we need some good accountants to examine the various funding mechanisms for mass transit, yet all we've seen so far doing the analysis, is the usual public accounting firm of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe.
This is all further underscored by a Pete Donohue story on the far hike in this morning's NY Daily News. As the story highlights: "NYC Transit's subways and buses move 7 million riders a day - but City Hall picks up just a sliver of the cost." But why is this so? And shouldn't the city be spending more of its own money on an essential public service?
Certainly, many of the transit advocates and almost all elected officials believe this should be the case. The Straphangers Gene Russianoff makes this point: "The city needs to up its very limited funding for the subways and buses system that makes our economy possible." But, if so, why are we putting the congestion tax horse before the MTA governance and finance cart?
In addition, even proponents of the congestion tax disagree with the mayor's assumption that the levy will be sufficient to meet the capital budget needs of the transit system. All of which underscores our point here: there is so much confusion on every side of this mass transit/congestion policy debate, that to simply plow ahead blindly with the congestion tax is short sighted, and is doomed to be ineffective at achieving almost all of the stated objectives articulated by its proponents.
This is all further underscored by a Pete Donohue story on the far hike in this morning's NY Daily News. As the story highlights: "NYC Transit's subways and buses move 7 million riders a day - but City Hall picks up just a sliver of the cost." But why is this so? And shouldn't the city be spending more of its own money on an essential public service?
Certainly, many of the transit advocates and almost all elected officials believe this should be the case. The Straphangers Gene Russianoff makes this point: "The city needs to up its very limited funding for the subways and buses system that makes our economy possible." But, if so, why are we putting the congestion tax horse before the MTA governance and finance cart?
In addition, even proponents of the congestion tax disagree with the mayor's assumption that the levy will be sufficient to meet the capital budget needs of the transit system. All of which underscores our point here: there is so much confusion on every side of this mass transit/congestion policy debate, that to simply plow ahead blindly with the congestion tax is short sighted, and is doomed to be ineffective at achieving almost all of the stated objectives articulated by its proponents.
Which Decongestants Work the Best?
There's a story on traffic congestion in today's NY Sun, that focuses on traffic congestion policy, and suggests that the city's failure to enforce existing laws is a major contributor to the congestion problem. As the paper points out, "The politics of where and when the New York Police Department enforces traffic laws is coming under scrutiny as Mayor Bloomberg pushes a congestion-pricing proposal to ease traffic in Midtown Manhattan."
The questioning of traffic enforcement policy came from Congressman Anthony Weiner, a firm opponent of the mayor's congestion tax: "I have a feeling — not to accuse anyone of doing something cynical — but they haven't been doing all they can to enforce existing laws because they need to continue the rationale for the plan they have out there," Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat of Brooklyn and Queens, said at an October 25 hearing on congestion pricing."
The suggestion, of course, immediately gets a rebuttal from fans of the proposed congestion tax, who ridiculed the whole idea as a conspiracy theory with little basis in reality. All of which seems to underscore the point that we've continually made about this whole debate: little of it is built on any empirical data, and the confusion between correlation and causation plagues all of the arguments-pro and con.
The fact remains, that we're all aware of the existence of congestion, and Weiner's flip remark about enforcement underlies a more serious observation that selective enforcement may be one of the most crucial reasons behind the congestion crunch. At least it should be a testable hypothesis, one that should be explored before an elaborate tax scheme is implemented.
Instead we get this from the mayor's spokesman: "Any suggestion that we're not enforcing traffic laws and regulations is absurd," a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, John Gallagher, said in an e-mail message yesterday. "Congestion is and has been a huge problem in this city, and to suggest that it's artificially manufactured just isn't dealing with reality."
So we all continue to talk past each other and, in the absence of a thorough review by independent experts, the debate takes on a surreal quality. In the process, the mayor continues his carbon devouring peregrinations, unmindful of the hypocrisy involved in his "do what I say, not what I do" approach.
The questioning of traffic enforcement policy came from Congressman Anthony Weiner, a firm opponent of the mayor's congestion tax: "I have a feeling — not to accuse anyone of doing something cynical — but they haven't been doing all they can to enforce existing laws because they need to continue the rationale for the plan they have out there," Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat of Brooklyn and Queens, said at an October 25 hearing on congestion pricing."
The suggestion, of course, immediately gets a rebuttal from fans of the proposed congestion tax, who ridiculed the whole idea as a conspiracy theory with little basis in reality. All of which seems to underscore the point that we've continually made about this whole debate: little of it is built on any empirical data, and the confusion between correlation and causation plagues all of the arguments-pro and con.
The fact remains, that we're all aware of the existence of congestion, and Weiner's flip remark about enforcement underlies a more serious observation that selective enforcement may be one of the most crucial reasons behind the congestion crunch. At least it should be a testable hypothesis, one that should be explored before an elaborate tax scheme is implemented.
Instead we get this from the mayor's spokesman: "Any suggestion that we're not enforcing traffic laws and regulations is absurd," a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, John Gallagher, said in an e-mail message yesterday. "Congestion is and has been a huge problem in this city, and to suggest that it's artificially manufactured just isn't dealing with reality."
So we all continue to talk past each other and, in the absence of a thorough review by independent experts, the debate takes on a surreal quality. In the process, the mayor continues his carbon devouring peregrinations, unmindful of the hypocrisy involved in his "do what I say, not what I do" approach.
Profile in Courage: Bill Perkins
There's a wonderful profile of State Senator Bill Perkins in the latest Spectator. The article in question focuses on the fact that Perkins is the only local elected official that has taken a public position in favor of the community's opposition to the Columbia expansion plan. As one CB9 board member, Michael Palma, told the paper: “He is really the only politician to be sticking out his neck and taking a clear position on the issue.”
But why is this so? Where are the elected officials who truly represent the voice of the people? Even if you believe that the university should expand, there's plenty of opportunity for a city councilmember or a state assemblymember to insert herself into the fray and fight for greater communiity equities.
Instead we have gotten an epidemic of weak knees and lockjaw. It certainly puzzles us, and we're inclined to believe Palma's further observation in this matter: "Though not as polarizing, politicians who have been unclear about their views have also drawn fire from CB9 members who feel that time is running out and political support is necessary. Palma said that he thinks Jackson and others are “sitting on the fence” and taking the “wait and see” approach, so they detract attention. “I think quietly they support the plan but do not want to take a position on it because of the community position,” he said."
It looks as if Palma is right about this, but if so, it means that the community is lacking the strong leadership it needs to gain a measure of community benefits that won't be available if Columbia doesn't see any compelling need to be proactive on the community's behalf. After all, if the elcted leaders won't stand up, why should the university?
It remains to be seen how this will all effect the future political ambitions of Council Member Jackson, someone who's rumored to be interested in Denny Farrell's assembly seat. What's clear from our perspective, however, is that Bill Perkins is a warrior. and between him and the push of labor for affordable housing there's a nice opening for a deal that will garner more community benefits that the efforts of the West Harlem LDC are likely to bring forth.
But why is this so? Where are the elected officials who truly represent the voice of the people? Even if you believe that the university should expand, there's plenty of opportunity for a city councilmember or a state assemblymember to insert herself into the fray and fight for greater communiity equities.
Instead we have gotten an epidemic of weak knees and lockjaw. It certainly puzzles us, and we're inclined to believe Palma's further observation in this matter: "Though not as polarizing, politicians who have been unclear about their views have also drawn fire from CB9 members who feel that time is running out and political support is necessary. Palma said that he thinks Jackson and others are “sitting on the fence” and taking the “wait and see” approach, so they detract attention. “I think quietly they support the plan but do not want to take a position on it because of the community position,” he said."
It looks as if Palma is right about this, but if so, it means that the community is lacking the strong leadership it needs to gain a measure of community benefits that won't be available if Columbia doesn't see any compelling need to be proactive on the community's behalf. After all, if the elcted leaders won't stand up, why should the university?
It remains to be seen how this will all effect the future political ambitions of Council Member Jackson, someone who's rumored to be interested in Denny Farrell's assembly seat. What's clear from our perspective, however, is that Bill Perkins is a warrior. and between him and the push of labor for affordable housing there's a nice opening for a deal that will garner more community benefits that the efforts of the West Harlem LDC are likely to bring forth.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Quinn For Licensing Illegals
In today's Daily Politics blog, Liz reveals that Speaker Quinn has thrown herself into the drivers license fray-on the side of the governor's original plan to license illegals. Let's parse this sentence. It appears to us, that Quinn believes two things: number one that Hispanics will be the key swing demographic, and the license issue will help her resonate with this constituency; and secondly that the NY Times, which has shilled for the open border remorselessly, is another key component to her potential electoral success.
At the same time, it may very well be that the position she's taking here, while useful in a Democratic primary, will prove to be deadly in a general election. The position of Mayor Bloomberg-"The bottom line is we should be giving driver's licenses to people knowing who they are and making sure that they have a right to have them, and we should make sure particularly when it comes to guns that you can only use a secure driver's license to buy guns."-also has the potential to throw the Quinn express off the rails in a more moderately oriented general election. Stay tuned.
Update: NY1 is reporting that Mayor Bloomberg is mulling over whether the city will go to court in an effort to block the governor's revised three tiered license plan: "A mayoral spokesman says the city is still reviewing whether the licenses would be "sufficient identification for city government functions, such as applying for welfare or a homeless shelter."
At the same time, it may very well be that the position she's taking here, while useful in a Democratic primary, will prove to be deadly in a general election. The position of Mayor Bloomberg-"The bottom line is we should be giving driver's licenses to people knowing who they are and making sure that they have a right to have them, and we should make sure particularly when it comes to guns that you can only use a secure driver's license to buy guns."-also has the potential to throw the Quinn express off the rails in a more moderately oriented general election. Stay tuned.
Update: NY1 is reporting that Mayor Bloomberg is mulling over whether the city will go to court in an effort to block the governor's revised three tiered license plan: "A mayoral spokesman says the city is still reviewing whether the licenses would be "sufficient identification for city government functions, such as applying for welfare or a homeless shelter."
Farely Outrageous
We've been arguing all along that it doesn't make much sense to impose a congestion tax if the money's being earmarked for the coffers of the MTA. This was a theme that was underscored by Councilwoman Melinda Katz in her recent testimony before one of the Congestion Commission hearings: "THE MTA, IN CONTRADICTION TO ALL OF THEIR PUBLIC EXPRESSIONS ABOUT THE USE OF CONGESTION TAX REVENUES, IS PLANNING ON USING THESE DOLLARS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE HAVE A FULL ACCOUNTING OF HOW CONGESTION TAXES ARE MEANT TO BE SPENT, AND THE METHOD FOR UTILIZING THESE FUNDS SHOULD BE MEMORIALIZED IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT."
Until there is some degree of confidence in the MTA's ability to be both transparent and efficient, how can we ask commuters to fork over more bucks to the agency-whether its for a congestion tax or a fare hike. This was one of the themes that was on display in Brooklyn last night at an MTA fare hike hearing.
As the NY Times points out on its City Room blog, the hearing was characterized by a deep level of citizen mistrust: "Many spoke of a deep distrust of the authority. And they said they believed yesterday’s hearing was a formality and that the increase was a foregone conclusion." Given this prevalent attitude, one that was shared by the elected officials who testified, why create another pool of money for this unaccountable agency?
One of the key reasons for skepticism here, is the feeling that-much like with all the lottery money that doesn't go to education as promised-the MTA will not come forward with the transit improvements to make the congestion relief work on a practical level. This skepticism was on display the other day at the Bronx hearing of the Commission, where Riverdale officials bemoaned the lack of transit options for their community: "Officials representing upscale Riverdale, where many residents use their cars, all objected, arguing the neighborhood is already underserved by public transit, with few improvements offered."
So, as we have said many times before, the congestion plan needs to be subjected to a forensic accounting. Too much has been promised for the use of proceeds, and many of the promises are themselves contradictory. Which leaves us with the fare hike fight. Here, even Speaker Quinn, a proponent of congestion taxing, understands the folly of throwing good money after bad when it comes to the MTA-especially since, as the NY Daily News points out: "The MTA admittedly will end this year with a sizable surplus and doesn't need increases to balance next year's budget."
But if you won't give the agency more transit rider loot, why hit the car commuters? The MTA is badly in need of a hostile corporate takeover; when will our elected officials stop hectoring and posturing, and just act?
Until there is some degree of confidence in the MTA's ability to be both transparent and efficient, how can we ask commuters to fork over more bucks to the agency-whether its for a congestion tax or a fare hike. This was one of the themes that was on display in Brooklyn last night at an MTA fare hike hearing.
As the NY Times points out on its City Room blog, the hearing was characterized by a deep level of citizen mistrust: "Many spoke of a deep distrust of the authority. And they said they believed yesterday’s hearing was a formality and that the increase was a foregone conclusion." Given this prevalent attitude, one that was shared by the elected officials who testified, why create another pool of money for this unaccountable agency?
One of the key reasons for skepticism here, is the feeling that-much like with all the lottery money that doesn't go to education as promised-the MTA will not come forward with the transit improvements to make the congestion relief work on a practical level. This skepticism was on display the other day at the Bronx hearing of the Commission, where Riverdale officials bemoaned the lack of transit options for their community: "Officials representing upscale Riverdale, where many residents use their cars, all objected, arguing the neighborhood is already underserved by public transit, with few improvements offered."
So, as we have said many times before, the congestion plan needs to be subjected to a forensic accounting. Too much has been promised for the use of proceeds, and many of the promises are themselves contradictory. Which leaves us with the fare hike fight. Here, even Speaker Quinn, a proponent of congestion taxing, understands the folly of throwing good money after bad when it comes to the MTA-especially since, as the NY Daily News points out: "The MTA admittedly will end this year with a sizable surplus and doesn't need increases to balance next year's budget."
But if you won't give the agency more transit rider loot, why hit the car commuters? The MTA is badly in need of a hostile corporate takeover; when will our elected officials stop hectoring and posturing, and just act?
(Sand)Bagging Supermarkets
There's more today on the Speaker's sojourn over to Whole Foods yesterday. As the NY Sun reports: 'The City Council's proposed plastic bags recycling program is getting a boost from big business and a political bigwig, with superstore Whole Foods and a niece of the president, Lauren Bush, getting behind the plan."
What concerns us here, is the fact that the proposed legislation was crafted without any input from the city's retail food industry-but did receive considerable advice from plastic industry reps who have no local businesses in New York. This makes no sense.
If the speaker feels that the recycling of plastic bags is so important that it needs to be located in the city's retail stores, than she should have looked for feedback from an industry that not only employs tens of thousands of New Yorkers, but is being burdened into oblivion by high taxes and onerous regulations.
Instead, she uses Whole Foods, an upscale, non-union and unrepresentative store, for a photo-op on the proposed law. Why not try to use a 5,000 superette in East Harlem? According to the Daily Politics yesterday, the speaker did seek another supermarket for the event; there were, however, no sacrificial lambs willing to step forward.
But can you blame these stores, who weren't informed about the law beforehand, for not wishing to be made a prop for legislation that most don't look forward to? So the speaker went to Whole Foods where the plastic bag recycling was presented as a snap by company representatives, a fantasy that we rebutted for the News: "Whole Foods has run a plastic bag recycling program for 25 years. It’s no burden, said Christina Minardi, Whole Food’s regional president. But Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance said Whole Foods can afford its recycling because it deals in "high- markup goods."
This Whole Foods fantasy is given credence in the Sun story when the company tells the paper, "...businesses "must assume their share of responsibility" in protecting the environment. According to Ms. Minardi, Whole Foods already recycles plastic bags and even pays customers 10 cents for each returned bag, which adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year." With plastic grocery bags fetching around 1/5 of a penny on the recycling market, well, you do the math here
So the company that makes a fortune selling arugula, and can spread hundreds of thousands of dollars around to encourage upscale consumers to recycle, is now an exemplar for small supermarkets in the South Bronx where 99% of the customers have never heard of arugula, and where if you tried to sell the stuff at Whole Foods prices you'd be out of business in a week. As we told the Sun; "A lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, has a different view of the plan. He said large businesses like Whole Foods "can afford to spread goodwill," and are not representative of small businesses that he says would lose revenue complying with the recycling program."
This entire discussion has begun to have an otherworldly quality to it. Pat Brodhagen, who represents the Food Industry Alliance, a trade group for the supermarket industry, even found a way to be supportive of the bill before she canvassed her members. As she told the NY Times: "It’s important for folks to understand that plastic bags are ubiquitous, and that everyone who uses them needs to be invested in them. Given this new attention to bags and the environment, of all the positions that have been floated, the notion of recycling them is the most intelligent, in our view.” She said a ban on non-biodegradable plastic bags — as San Francisco has enacted — would not work in New York."
No mention here about the regulatory burden, just an acquiescence to what we like to call "speaker inevitability," or making the best of a bad situation. This kind of stance, however, does a disservice to the industry-particularly the smallest retailers that the FIA often fails to represent as assiduously as it does the larger markets. There's a need for greater honesty in the debate ahead.
What concerns us here, is the fact that the proposed legislation was crafted without any input from the city's retail food industry-but did receive considerable advice from plastic industry reps who have no local businesses in New York. This makes no sense.
If the speaker feels that the recycling of plastic bags is so important that it needs to be located in the city's retail stores, than she should have looked for feedback from an industry that not only employs tens of thousands of New Yorkers, but is being burdened into oblivion by high taxes and onerous regulations.
Instead, she uses Whole Foods, an upscale, non-union and unrepresentative store, for a photo-op on the proposed law. Why not try to use a 5,000 superette in East Harlem? According to the Daily Politics yesterday, the speaker did seek another supermarket for the event; there were, however, no sacrificial lambs willing to step forward.
But can you blame these stores, who weren't informed about the law beforehand, for not wishing to be made a prop for legislation that most don't look forward to? So the speaker went to Whole Foods where the plastic bag recycling was presented as a snap by company representatives, a fantasy that we rebutted for the News: "Whole Foods has run a plastic bag recycling program for 25 years. It’s no burden, said Christina Minardi, Whole Food’s regional president. But Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance said Whole Foods can afford its recycling because it deals in "high- markup goods."
This Whole Foods fantasy is given credence in the Sun story when the company tells the paper, "...businesses "must assume their share of responsibility" in protecting the environment. According to Ms. Minardi, Whole Foods already recycles plastic bags and even pays customers 10 cents for each returned bag, which adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year." With plastic grocery bags fetching around 1/5 of a penny on the recycling market, well, you do the math here
So the company that makes a fortune selling arugula, and can spread hundreds of thousands of dollars around to encourage upscale consumers to recycle, is now an exemplar for small supermarkets in the South Bronx where 99% of the customers have never heard of arugula, and where if you tried to sell the stuff at Whole Foods prices you'd be out of business in a week. As we told the Sun; "A lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, has a different view of the plan. He said large businesses like Whole Foods "can afford to spread goodwill," and are not representative of small businesses that he says would lose revenue complying with the recycling program."
This entire discussion has begun to have an otherworldly quality to it. Pat Brodhagen, who represents the Food Industry Alliance, a trade group for the supermarket industry, even found a way to be supportive of the bill before she canvassed her members. As she told the NY Times: "It’s important for folks to understand that plastic bags are ubiquitous, and that everyone who uses them needs to be invested in them. Given this new attention to bags and the environment, of all the positions that have been floated, the notion of recycling them is the most intelligent, in our view.” She said a ban on non-biodegradable plastic bags — as San Francisco has enacted — would not work in New York."
No mention here about the regulatory burden, just an acquiescence to what we like to call "speaker inevitability," or making the best of a bad situation. This kind of stance, however, does a disservice to the industry-particularly the smallest retailers that the FIA often fails to represent as assiduously as it does the larger markets. There's a need for greater honesty in the debate ahead.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Plastic Policy
Today, as the NY Times is reporting on its blog, Speaker Quinn joined with Lauren Bush, the president's niece, at a Whole Foods store to promote the council's plastic bag legislation. We're unsure as to why the 73,000 sq. ft. Whole Foods was chosen as a representative venue, but we can't think of a store in New York that is less typical of the average retail outlet.
In fact, according to the reports that we've heard the upscale food retailer is going to pay customers ten cents a bag if it is returned to the store-which is some trick since five bags are worth about one penny. What this underscores is the fact that Whole Foods, unlike most New York supermarkets, is able to subsidize its bag recycling because it not only has ample space, but it also has much higher margins than the average food store. In addition, as a Times story earlier this year pointed out, Whole Foods customers, unlike the average borough consumers, are high-end, environmentally conscious shoppers who will be more likely to respond to the voluntary recycling system being proposed.
As one food executive told us, if his stores were able to charge its customers in East Harlem and the South Bronx the kind of prices that Whole Foods routinely gets from its customers, they would be able to easily afford to pay 10 cents for a recycled bag. The reality, however, is that New York supermarkets are being squeezed by high rents and real estate taxes, so much so that the Manhattan supermarket is rapidly becoming a vanishing breed.
In addition, with the city becoming urgently concerned with an obesity epidemic, and the access to fresh fruits and vegetables for low income New Yorkers, does it make sense to increase the cost of doing business for these vital retail services? Is the Speaker serious when she says that this regulation won't have a major economic impact on the stores? Has an economic impact study been done? Is it even being considered as part of this bill?
The reality is that the current bill version puts local stores right in the middle of the regulatory cross hairs-while holding the bag manufacturers harmless for their product. There's a $2,000 a day penalty for stores that fail to comply with the statute! This regulation alone is not the death knell of the supermarket industry, but it's part of an escalating regulatory and taxation pattern that is slowly killing off all independent retailers in the city.
And what about the provisions for recycling the bags. Is there a pick-up service in place to do the work? And who's responsible for paying for the recycling. At a penny for every five bags there's no one gonna get rich here on the recycling value alone. Therefore, the recycling must be subsidized. And read the relevant language in the bill: "A manufacturer whose plastic carryout bags are sold or distributed to a store subject to the provisions of this chapter shall make arrangements with the operator, upon the operator’s request, for the collection, transport and recycling of plastic carryout bags consistent with the provisions of this chapter. Such arrangements may include contracts or other agreements with third parties."
What exactly does "make the arrangements" mean? Make no mistake about it, this is a costly operation and, unlike the bottle bill, there's no aluminum to subsidize the pick-ups. How do you propose third party recycling pick-ups when there's no one doing the business, and you haven't a clue about its cost?
And doesn't the bag manufacturer have any fiduciary responsibility? Isn't it interesting that the bag industry, which obviously had a hand-or input-in the crafting of the bill, was present at the press announcement but the food industry wasn't? Is there any correlation here?
Lastly, at least for now, why do the chain drug stores below the 5,000 sq. ft. threshold get a pass, while the small independently owned supermarket gets the privilege of inclusion? There's a long way before this bill gets its final burden. What's really needed, however, is a more engaged industry. This is just the latest, but it won't be the last so-called good intention, that local stores will be forced to foot the bill for.
In fact, according to the reports that we've heard the upscale food retailer is going to pay customers ten cents a bag if it is returned to the store-which is some trick since five bags are worth about one penny. What this underscores is the fact that Whole Foods, unlike most New York supermarkets, is able to subsidize its bag recycling because it not only has ample space, but it also has much higher margins than the average food store. In addition, as a Times story earlier this year pointed out, Whole Foods customers, unlike the average borough consumers, are high-end, environmentally conscious shoppers who will be more likely to respond to the voluntary recycling system being proposed.
As one food executive told us, if his stores were able to charge its customers in East Harlem and the South Bronx the kind of prices that Whole Foods routinely gets from its customers, they would be able to easily afford to pay 10 cents for a recycled bag. The reality, however, is that New York supermarkets are being squeezed by high rents and real estate taxes, so much so that the Manhattan supermarket is rapidly becoming a vanishing breed.
In addition, with the city becoming urgently concerned with an obesity epidemic, and the access to fresh fruits and vegetables for low income New Yorkers, does it make sense to increase the cost of doing business for these vital retail services? Is the Speaker serious when she says that this regulation won't have a major economic impact on the stores? Has an economic impact study been done? Is it even being considered as part of this bill?
The reality is that the current bill version puts local stores right in the middle of the regulatory cross hairs-while holding the bag manufacturers harmless for their product. There's a $2,000 a day penalty for stores that fail to comply with the statute! This regulation alone is not the death knell of the supermarket industry, but it's part of an escalating regulatory and taxation pattern that is slowly killing off all independent retailers in the city.
And what about the provisions for recycling the bags. Is there a pick-up service in place to do the work? And who's responsible for paying for the recycling. At a penny for every five bags there's no one gonna get rich here on the recycling value alone. Therefore, the recycling must be subsidized. And read the relevant language in the bill: "A manufacturer whose plastic carryout bags are sold or distributed to a store subject to the provisions of this chapter shall make arrangements with the operator, upon the operator’s request, for the collection, transport and recycling of plastic carryout bags consistent with the provisions of this chapter. Such arrangements may include contracts or other agreements with third parties."
What exactly does "make the arrangements" mean? Make no mistake about it, this is a costly operation and, unlike the bottle bill, there's no aluminum to subsidize the pick-ups. How do you propose third party recycling pick-ups when there's no one doing the business, and you haven't a clue about its cost?
And doesn't the bag manufacturer have any fiduciary responsibility? Isn't it interesting that the bag industry, which obviously had a hand-or input-in the crafting of the bill, was present at the press announcement but the food industry wasn't? Is there any correlation here?
Lastly, at least for now, why do the chain drug stores below the 5,000 sq. ft. threshold get a pass, while the small independently owned supermarket gets the privilege of inclusion? There's a long way before this bill gets its final burden. What's really needed, however, is a more engaged industry. This is just the latest, but it won't be the last so-called good intention, that local stores will be forced to foot the bill for.
Developing Congestion
We have argued for a while about the inconsistencies involved in the Bloombergistas support for a congestion tax, and their seemingly contradictory support of development that causes more congestion. In fact, so great is the contrast between the two positions, that Brian Ketcham has joked that the current mayor's trying to undo all of the environmental damage done in the past five years by the former mayor.
Well, the contrasts may in fact be even more contemporaneous, and might demonstrate a form of policy schizophrenia that deserves a good shrink. As the NY Daily News reports this morning, there are a lot of folks on the Far West Side who are up in arms about the zoning proposal for the area that calls for the building of an additional 20,000 parking spaces. Assemblyman Richard Gottfried gets this confusion just right: "It sounds to me like the development people are not talking to the environmental people at City Hall," said Assemblyman Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan), who represents the area. "It would encourage more people to drive cars into the central business district. If you build off-street parking, they will come."
And the confusion extends of course to the corporate supporters of the mayor's congestion tax who rail against the dangers of asthma on the one hand, while they build their auto-dependent projects in the nabes where respiratory diseases are rampant. We're thinking of two real estate entities in particular, Related and Vronado, firms that frankly are threatening to give hypocrisy a bad name with their phony environmental shilling.
You simply can't have it both ways. If you're going to battle the evils of congestion, at some point you're gonna need to reduce the kinds of development that causes it-in spades. We have suggested a box store moratorium in regards to this dilemma. Once again, Gottfried gets it right: "Gottfried, though, said more parking will create more congestion. "If increased development is going to be accompanied by increased automobile traffic, it will strangle itself," he said."
And while we're at it, isn't it time for the press to examine the incestuous relationship between this administration and the two aforementioned real estate companies? An editorial in today's Daily News only touches the surface of the intertwining that has led to aggrandizement at the expense of neighborhoods.
Here's the News' take on the "special relationship" between Vronado, Related and the city-in regards to the new Penn Station: "Clearly, Vornado and Related are positioned to reap a bonanza. But the zoning rules say that in exchange, they must make transportation improvements. Which is where the plan to build a new Penn Station enters the picture. Even a $1 billion contribution to the project would be dramatically less than the value that's been created for them by the city and state. Which is why Spitzer and Bloomberg must hold them to every penny of their obligations while shielding New York taxpayers."
While we're at it, let's begin to look at all of the special deals involving these two favored nations over the past five years. A close examination would underscore just how much the supposed "above special interests" mantra of the current administration is simply a chimera.
Well, the contrasts may in fact be even more contemporaneous, and might demonstrate a form of policy schizophrenia that deserves a good shrink. As the NY Daily News reports this morning, there are a lot of folks on the Far West Side who are up in arms about the zoning proposal for the area that calls for the building of an additional 20,000 parking spaces. Assemblyman Richard Gottfried gets this confusion just right: "It sounds to me like the development people are not talking to the environmental people at City Hall," said Assemblyman Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan), who represents the area. "It would encourage more people to drive cars into the central business district. If you build off-street parking, they will come."
And the confusion extends of course to the corporate supporters of the mayor's congestion tax who rail against the dangers of asthma on the one hand, while they build their auto-dependent projects in the nabes where respiratory diseases are rampant. We're thinking of two real estate entities in particular, Related and Vronado, firms that frankly are threatening to give hypocrisy a bad name with their phony environmental shilling.
You simply can't have it both ways. If you're going to battle the evils of congestion, at some point you're gonna need to reduce the kinds of development that causes it-in spades. We have suggested a box store moratorium in regards to this dilemma. Once again, Gottfried gets it right: "Gottfried, though, said more parking will create more congestion. "If increased development is going to be accompanied by increased automobile traffic, it will strangle itself," he said."
And while we're at it, isn't it time for the press to examine the incestuous relationship between this administration and the two aforementioned real estate companies? An editorial in today's Daily News only touches the surface of the intertwining that has led to aggrandizement at the expense of neighborhoods.
Here's the News' take on the "special relationship" between Vronado, Related and the city-in regards to the new Penn Station: "Clearly, Vornado and Related are positioned to reap a bonanza. But the zoning rules say that in exchange, they must make transportation improvements. Which is where the plan to build a new Penn Station enters the picture. Even a $1 billion contribution to the project would be dramatically less than the value that's been created for them by the city and state. Which is why Spitzer and Bloomberg must hold them to every penny of their obligations while shielding New York taxpayers."
While we're at it, let's begin to look at all of the special deals involving these two favored nations over the past five years. A close examination would underscore just how much the supposed "above special interests" mantra of the current administration is simply a chimera.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Indian Giver
As if the governor didn't have enough tsuris, he now takes another controversial position-this time on the Native Americans right to sell cigarettes without charging any taxes. In this morning's NY Times we find that Spitzer has renegged on his promise-we should know since we were in the meeting-to enforce the law on these sales.
Now as AG he was firm that the state's right to insure that Native American sellers are put on the same plane as all other retailers in the state was settled law-and he told us that, once elected, he would do just that. Instead: "The governor had promised during the election to begin collecting the taxes during the current fiscal year, which ends on March 31, but the administration revealed in its latest budget forecast yesterday that it was no longer planning on the $200 million coming in from the collections."
Which is really bad news for all of those convenience store operators who are losing their shirts to the unfair competition. The Spitzer announcement brought this response from Jim Calvin, the mead of the New York Association of Convenience Stores: "(Spitzer) promised during the campaign and vowed in the early days of his administration to follow through and restore the level playing field for all retailers of tobacco and motor fuel," said James Calvin, president of the New York Association of Convenience Stores."
So this becomes just another example of the mercurial nature of the governor-shedding promises like a sheep being clipped of its wool. As the Buffalo News reported today: "Spitzer was steadfast in the past about the state's rights in the matter. "The notion that somehow the anomaly is New York trying to collect these taxes is just wrong. Virtually every other state collects them, and it is proper that we do so," he said in an interview earlier this year."
Now as AG he was firm that the state's right to insure that Native American sellers are put on the same plane as all other retailers in the state was settled law-and he told us that, once elected, he would do just that. Instead: "The governor had promised during the election to begin collecting the taxes during the current fiscal year, which ends on March 31, but the administration revealed in its latest budget forecast yesterday that it was no longer planning on the $200 million coming in from the collections."
Which is really bad news for all of those convenience store operators who are losing their shirts to the unfair competition. The Spitzer announcement brought this response from Jim Calvin, the mead of the New York Association of Convenience Stores: "(Spitzer) promised during the campaign and vowed in the early days of his administration to follow through and restore the level playing field for all retailers of tobacco and motor fuel," said James Calvin, president of the New York Association of Convenience Stores."
So this becomes just another example of the mercurial nature of the governor-shedding promises like a sheep being clipped of its wool. As the Buffalo News reported today: "Spitzer was steadfast in the past about the state's rights in the matter. "The notion that somehow the anomaly is New York trying to collect these taxes is just wrong. Virtually every other state collects them, and it is proper that we do so," he said in an interview earlier this year."
Fidler on the Routes
Councilman Lew Fidler has put together a comprehensive alternative plan to the mayor's proposed congestion tax. As the NY Sun reports this morning: "From the far reaches of southeastern Brooklyn, a City Council member whose district has no subway stops, Lewis Fidler, is mounting a one-man campaign against Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal."
We love Lew, and we think that he's spent a great deal of thought on this alternative, but to say that he's engaged in a one man fight does overlook the efforts of so many others all over the city. Suffice it to say, however, that the Fidler plan demonstrates that there are any number of alternative possibilities that don't involve taxing middle class commuters from the outlying areas of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx.
What we like about the plan is that it looks to fund a number of transportation initiatives through a small regional payroll tax that spreads the balance of payments more equitably across income levels: The council member's proposal calls for a .0033% regional payroll tax to be paid by businesses in the city: "Sounding like John Edwards during his "two Americas" speech, Mr. Fidler said congestion pricing stresses the city's economic differences and is morally wrong. "We don't just want to be a city of rich people and poor people," he said. "I don't think they thought it out as fully as they needed to."
Of course, as we have stated ad nauseum, there's no way to evaluate the Fidler plan for efficacy-or any other plan-because there's really no review mechanism in place that could contrast and compare alternatives in any thing that resembles an empirical manner. In spite of this, the Fidler concept was praised by Commission member Richard Brodsky: "Mr. Fidler's proposal, is exactly what this debate needs, which is a workable, bold concept that responds to the city's needs in ways that don't have the defects of the mayor's plan."
Finally, on the thoughtful council member front, there's the testimony of councilwoman Melinda Katz. Katz questioned whether the mayor's plan fit into any larger regional transportation plan, a concern that's magnified by the recent furor over the MTA's fare hike proposal. As she said: THE PROPOSAL TO TAX COMMUTERS AND TRUCKS GOING INTO THE CONGESTING PRICING ZONE (CPZ) CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY ANALYZED OUTSIDE OF A MUCH WIDER PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM CONTEXT. RECENTLY, THE MTA HAS MADE STATEMENTS REGARDING AN INCREASE IN FARES FOR THE SUBWAY AND BUS SYSTEM. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE LACK OF COORDINATION. IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO PASS A PLAN THAT ON THE ONE HAND IS MEANT TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF MASS TRANSIT WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND THE FARES ARE BEING RAISED MAKING MASS TRANSIT A MUCH LESS ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVE.
All of which underscores the extent to which the enthusiasm for the mayor's proposal has begun to ebb significantly. The last word on this belongs to Richard Brodsky: "Mr. Brodsky, a critic of congestion pricing, said alternatives to the plan are surfacing because the momentum behind congestion pricing is fading."
We love Lew, and we think that he's spent a great deal of thought on this alternative, but to say that he's engaged in a one man fight does overlook the efforts of so many others all over the city. Suffice it to say, however, that the Fidler plan demonstrates that there are any number of alternative possibilities that don't involve taxing middle class commuters from the outlying areas of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx.
What we like about the plan is that it looks to fund a number of transportation initiatives through a small regional payroll tax that spreads the balance of payments more equitably across income levels: The council member's proposal calls for a .0033% regional payroll tax to be paid by businesses in the city: "Sounding like John Edwards during his "two Americas" speech, Mr. Fidler said congestion pricing stresses the city's economic differences and is morally wrong. "We don't just want to be a city of rich people and poor people," he said. "I don't think they thought it out as fully as they needed to."
Of course, as we have stated ad nauseum, there's no way to evaluate the Fidler plan for efficacy-or any other plan-because there's really no review mechanism in place that could contrast and compare alternatives in any thing that resembles an empirical manner. In spite of this, the Fidler concept was praised by Commission member Richard Brodsky: "Mr. Fidler's proposal, is exactly what this debate needs, which is a workable, bold concept that responds to the city's needs in ways that don't have the defects of the mayor's plan."
Finally, on the thoughtful council member front, there's the testimony of councilwoman Melinda Katz. Katz questioned whether the mayor's plan fit into any larger regional transportation plan, a concern that's magnified by the recent furor over the MTA's fare hike proposal. As she said: THE PROPOSAL TO TAX COMMUTERS AND TRUCKS GOING INTO THE CONGESTING PRICING ZONE (CPZ) CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY ANALYZED OUTSIDE OF A MUCH WIDER PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM CONTEXT. RECENTLY, THE MTA HAS MADE STATEMENTS REGARDING AN INCREASE IN FARES FOR THE SUBWAY AND BUS SYSTEM. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE LACK OF COORDINATION. IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO PASS A PLAN THAT ON THE ONE HAND IS MEANT TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF MASS TRANSIT WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND THE FARES ARE BEING RAISED MAKING MASS TRANSIT A MUCH LESS ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVE.
All of which underscores the extent to which the enthusiasm for the mayor's proposal has begun to ebb significantly. The last word on this belongs to Richard Brodsky: "Mr. Brodsky, a critic of congestion pricing, said alternatives to the plan are surfacing because the momentum behind congestion pricing is fading."
Crying Wolf on Congestion Plan
In today's NY Sun, the paper's Andrew Wolf calls out the mayor on the congestion tax plan in a column appropriately titled, "In Praise of Congestion." In the piece Wolf, who we have disagreed with on some of our box store fights, but who we acknowledge as one of the shrewdest political observers around, questions whether the plan to charge commuters a $8 tax will have any impact on the congestion in the CBD.
He goes on to point out, that the mayor's claims that the congestion relief idea will reduce asthma and other related health conditions is, well frankly, not credible, and will likely exacerbate conditions in neighborhoods that are suffering the most: "The mayor uses images of children suffering from asthma to promote his scheme. Those children don't live in the areas that will supposedly "benefit" from his scheme. They do live in areas of the Bronx that could experience increases in congestion — and presumably asthma rates — as drivers and truckers seek to avoid the tax by using roads such as the Major Deegan, the Bruckner and the Cross Bronx to avoid the congestion levy."
Wolf also details that in so many cases the drive into Manhattan from Riverdale-or from any other of the less accessible nabes-is much more convenient and quicker than the available mass transit alternatives-and that these trips are so often good for the city's economy (hence the title of the piece). In addition, the current proposed tax is one that he sees as likely to rise because of the minuscule impact the $8 fee will have on traffic reduction.
And in the end, the tax on commuters will also fail to generate the needed dollars for mass transit improvement; "There will be virtually no improvement in mass transit that to accommodate extra riders. The Daily News suggested last week that after expenses there will hardly be any extra funds generated by the Bloomberg scheme to improve subways and buses." This whole scheme, in other words, is a tax and spend, without the mend.
He goes on to point out, that the mayor's claims that the congestion relief idea will reduce asthma and other related health conditions is, well frankly, not credible, and will likely exacerbate conditions in neighborhoods that are suffering the most: "The mayor uses images of children suffering from asthma to promote his scheme. Those children don't live in the areas that will supposedly "benefit" from his scheme. They do live in areas of the Bronx that could experience increases in congestion — and presumably asthma rates — as drivers and truckers seek to avoid the tax by using roads such as the Major Deegan, the Bruckner and the Cross Bronx to avoid the congestion levy."
Wolf also details that in so many cases the drive into Manhattan from Riverdale-or from any other of the less accessible nabes-is much more convenient and quicker than the available mass transit alternatives-and that these trips are so often good for the city's economy (hence the title of the piece). In addition, the current proposed tax is one that he sees as likely to rise because of the minuscule impact the $8 fee will have on traffic reduction.
And in the end, the tax on commuters will also fail to generate the needed dollars for mass transit improvement; "There will be virtually no improvement in mass transit that to accommodate extra riders. The Daily News suggested last week that after expenses there will hardly be any extra funds generated by the Bloomberg scheme to improve subways and buses." This whole scheme, in other words, is a tax and spend, without the mend.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Astringent Stringer
Demonstrating that there's nothing as as intemperate as a politician with a wounded ego, Manhattan BP Scott Stringer, exhibiting once again the lack of temperance and wisdom that would qualify him for higher office, turned thumbs down on the re-zoning plan put forward by West Harlem property owner Nick Sprayregen. As the Spectator reports this morning, Stringer not only said no to Sprayregen, but he did so with classless insults as well.
Stringer found fault with the re-zoning plan because, and you really have to read this to believe it, he claimed it was "illegal." Now this is the same official who swore that he'd lie down in front of the bus if Columbia was going to use eminent domain to remove property owners from the expansion zone-that is until he cut his own side deal, a deal that cut out the community. And, adding insult to injury, he's calling Sprayregen's proposal selfish and illegal!
The BP backlash is cited this morning in the Crain's Insider, and the newsletter notes the payback side of the decision: "Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer will announce today that he opposes Nick Sprayregen’s rezoning application in West Harlem. Sprayregen, who owns property where Columbia University wants to build, has proposed zoning his land for residential use and swapping parcels with the school. Stringer’s decision is not surprising. He green-lighted Columbia’s rezoning in September, and Sprayregen has been accusing him of going back on his word."
As one CB 9 board member said, acutely characterizing the Stringer ignominy: “If there’s anyone who should be calling anyone’s activity illegal it should be Mr. Sprayregen and his family,” CB9 member Vicky Gholson said. “They have been victimized.” A sentiment that is echoed by Board 9 chair, Jordi Reyes-Montblanc: "Reyes-Montblanc added that Stringer’s feelings about Sprayregen’s proposal “exquisitely expressed” his own views—but about Columbia’s expansion plan."
You know the more we think about it, the acumen exhibited by Stringer may in fact qualify him for a post in the Spitzer administration, where being in a hole always seems to necessitate further digging. What remains, however, is the observation that the office of BP in general (and particularly Stringer's performance in it) is much like a prehensile tale, a vestigial organ with no possibly good use
Stringer found fault with the re-zoning plan because, and you really have to read this to believe it, he claimed it was "illegal." Now this is the same official who swore that he'd lie down in front of the bus if Columbia was going to use eminent domain to remove property owners from the expansion zone-that is until he cut his own side deal, a deal that cut out the community. And, adding insult to injury, he's calling Sprayregen's proposal selfish and illegal!
The BP backlash is cited this morning in the Crain's Insider, and the newsletter notes the payback side of the decision: "Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer will announce today that he opposes Nick Sprayregen’s rezoning application in West Harlem. Sprayregen, who owns property where Columbia University wants to build, has proposed zoning his land for residential use and swapping parcels with the school. Stringer’s decision is not surprising. He green-lighted Columbia’s rezoning in September, and Sprayregen has been accusing him of going back on his word."
As one CB 9 board member said, acutely characterizing the Stringer ignominy: “If there’s anyone who should be calling anyone’s activity illegal it should be Mr. Sprayregen and his family,” CB9 member Vicky Gholson said. “They have been victimized.” A sentiment that is echoed by Board 9 chair, Jordi Reyes-Montblanc: "Reyes-Montblanc added that Stringer’s feelings about Sprayregen’s proposal “exquisitely expressed” his own views—but about Columbia’s expansion plan."
You know the more we think about it, the acumen exhibited by Stringer may in fact qualify him for a post in the Spitzer administration, where being in a hole always seems to necessitate further digging. What remains, however, is the observation that the office of BP in general (and particularly Stringer's performance in it) is much like a prehensile tale, a vestigial organ with no possibly good use
Weiner's Decongestable
With all of the sycophancy going on, it's refreshing to see that Congressman Anthony Weiner has two hands holding on to his integrity. In this morning's NY Post, the former mayoral candidate lays out an excellent critique of the congestion tax plan: "But the idea for dealing with the critical challenge of traffic mitigation is too expensive and places an unfair burden on New York City residents. Worst of all, it ultimately would fail to achieve our shared goals of improving the environment and fostering mobility."
Weiner goes on to point out that there are a myriad of good ways, short of a tax, that the mayor could begin to implement in the congestion relief effort. One in particular that we lime is his suggestion about trucks. As we have been saying all along, the $21 truck tax has nothing whatever to do with any congestion relief, and functions solely as a tax on small businesses.
As Weiner says, we need a better way to address the truck problem: "There are more cars on the road these days - but a lot more trucks, a 30 percent rise since 1998. We should give truck drivers incentives to do deliveries during off-peak hours - and also give companies good reason (such as tax credits) to agree to only accept deliveries only at times of lighter traffic. I also support dramatic increases in bridge and tunnel tolls during for trucks during "prime time" - and reduced or free off-peak passage."
This is a good start. We would add that some attention needs to be paid to small contractors, service vehicles that can't do their vital business at off-peak hours. Not all truck traffic is for delivering to stores in the CBD.
And Weiner hits the nail in the head as far as the inequitable nature of the congestion tax: "Improving our environment will require us all to make sacrifices. But the PlaNYC proposal whacks residents of the five boroughs while letting many suburban commuters off scot-free. If you live in Manhattan or cross into Midtown over the East River bridges, PlaNYC would hit you with an $8 car tax. But Long Island or Westchester residents who take the Midtown Tunnel or Triborough Bridge would pay nothing - because the plan gives these suburban drivers credit for their tolls. If anyone should get a free pass, it should be residents of New York City, not our friends in the suburbs."
Not to mention the fact that the tax itself will be eaten up by the exorbitant administrative costs involved with installing and monitoring thousands of cameras. Here Weiner gets it as well: "The PlaNYC congestion-pricing scheme requires installing and maintaining hundreds of cameras and license-plate scanners; that's an enormously expensive big-government solution to our Midtown traffic woes. Nearly 40 percent of the "car tax" receipts would go not to improving mass transit, but to upkeep of the machines and the giant bureaucracy behind them."
So what we need is to go back to the drawing board on the congestion front. The current plan, ill thought out, and way to unfair and expensive, needs to be replaced by a more targeted approach that reduces congestion without penalizing New Yorkers with an unnecessary tax.
Weiner goes on to point out that there are a myriad of good ways, short of a tax, that the mayor could begin to implement in the congestion relief effort. One in particular that we lime is his suggestion about trucks. As we have been saying all along, the $21 truck tax has nothing whatever to do with any congestion relief, and functions solely as a tax on small businesses.
As Weiner says, we need a better way to address the truck problem: "There are more cars on the road these days - but a lot more trucks, a 30 percent rise since 1998. We should give truck drivers incentives to do deliveries during off-peak hours - and also give companies good reason (such as tax credits) to agree to only accept deliveries only at times of lighter traffic. I also support dramatic increases in bridge and tunnel tolls during for trucks during "prime time" - and reduced or free off-peak passage."
This is a good start. We would add that some attention needs to be paid to small contractors, service vehicles that can't do their vital business at off-peak hours. Not all truck traffic is for delivering to stores in the CBD.
And Weiner hits the nail in the head as far as the inequitable nature of the congestion tax: "Improving our environment will require us all to make sacrifices. But the PlaNYC proposal whacks residents of the five boroughs while letting many suburban commuters off scot-free. If you live in Manhattan or cross into Midtown over the East River bridges, PlaNYC would hit you with an $8 car tax. But Long Island or Westchester residents who take the Midtown Tunnel or Triborough Bridge would pay nothing - because the plan gives these suburban drivers credit for their tolls. If anyone should get a free pass, it should be residents of New York City, not our friends in the suburbs."
Not to mention the fact that the tax itself will be eaten up by the exorbitant administrative costs involved with installing and monitoring thousands of cameras. Here Weiner gets it as well: "The PlaNYC congestion-pricing scheme requires installing and maintaining hundreds of cameras and license-plate scanners; that's an enormously expensive big-government solution to our Midtown traffic woes. Nearly 40 percent of the "car tax" receipts would go not to improving mass transit, but to upkeep of the machines and the giant bureaucracy behind them."
So what we need is to go back to the drawing board on the congestion front. The current plan, ill thought out, and way to unfair and expensive, needs to be replaced by a more targeted approach that reduces congestion without penalizing New Yorkers with an unnecessary tax.
Wylde Thing
We just can't resist weighing in on the orchestrated attack against educational guru Diane Ravitch by the NYC Partnership's Kathy Wylde. The sheer audacity of the whole thing, outlined yesterday in the NY Sun, astounds us-with a corporate lobbyist lacking any educational background, going after someone who has spent her entire life exposing educational failures with a deftness and independence that Wylde could only dream of.
And on top of this, the Wylding of Ravitch isn't even in her own words, but comes from a crib sheet supplied by the DOE. AS the Sun points out, "Ms. Wylde said the idea for the piece was her own, but that she wrote it with the help of a research file composed by the Education Department that chronicles Ms. Ravitch's policy positions over the years. The seven-page document, titled "Diane Ravitch: Then and Now," tallies quotations by Ms. Ravitch on nearly a dozen topics, comparing comments she made in the 1990s to statements in recent years."
What chutzpah! It's bad enough that the bumbling bureaucrats think that they have the ability and expertise to attack Ravitch, but what possesses the always available Wylde to think that her limited perspective and background qualifies her to weigh in as the DOE's munecha?
It's also bad enough that the Partnership's leader is speaking out of both sides of her mouth on congestion pricing-with a new found environmental sensibility that is belied by the mall building of all of her key partners in the Partnership. Now, to go along with her freshly minted Sierra Club membership, she's an educational expert as well?
The real issue here, and its one that we've commented on before, is the way in which the DOE acts more like the DOD in its ruthless approach to dissent. Here's what we said in response to Sol Stern's scathing analysis of the educrats: "There is a fascinating analysis piece, one of many that is done by the inimitable Sol Stern, that focuses on the reality behind the mayoral PR campaign about how well the schools are doing under Bloomberg's stewardship. In many ways, the elaborate mayoral burnishing is reminiscent of the current campaign on congestion taxing-lavish spending on media relations designed to conceal some unpleasant truths lying beneath the surface of all the glitter."
So now it continues in a more ruthless way, as Ravitch points out to the Sun: "Ms. Ravitch said her most serious concern with the Bloomberg administration is the way it responds to dissent. She said that many educators who are professionally reliant on support from the city, through grants or contracts, fear voicing any differing opinions."
It's a variant of the Marx Brother's line: "Who're gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?" And Ravitch lays it all out in an editorial blasting Wylde and the DOE in today's NY Post: "This attack, I have learned from published accounts, was orchestrated by the New York City Department of Education, which compiled a secret dossier about my views and turned it over to Wylde. I am at the top of the Department's enemies list. This is a frightening way for a public agency to behave."
It is, as Ravitch, Sol Stern and Andrew Wolf have all pointed out, the way that an agency behaves when it has a good deal to hide. It is an agency that will go to great lengths to do bureaucratic sleight-of-hands, and when that doesn't work on seasoned educational experts, the agency will bring out corporate toadies to do ghost-written character assassination.
And on top of this, the Wylding of Ravitch isn't even in her own words, but comes from a crib sheet supplied by the DOE. AS the Sun points out, "Ms. Wylde said the idea for the piece was her own, but that she wrote it with the help of a research file composed by the Education Department that chronicles Ms. Ravitch's policy positions over the years. The seven-page document, titled "Diane Ravitch: Then and Now," tallies quotations by Ms. Ravitch on nearly a dozen topics, comparing comments she made in the 1990s to statements in recent years."
What chutzpah! It's bad enough that the bumbling bureaucrats think that they have the ability and expertise to attack Ravitch, but what possesses the always available Wylde to think that her limited perspective and background qualifies her to weigh in as the DOE's munecha?
It's also bad enough that the Partnership's leader is speaking out of both sides of her mouth on congestion pricing-with a new found environmental sensibility that is belied by the mall building of all of her key partners in the Partnership. Now, to go along with her freshly minted Sierra Club membership, she's an educational expert as well?
The real issue here, and its one that we've commented on before, is the way in which the DOE acts more like the DOD in its ruthless approach to dissent. Here's what we said in response to Sol Stern's scathing analysis of the educrats: "There is a fascinating analysis piece, one of many that is done by the inimitable Sol Stern, that focuses on the reality behind the mayoral PR campaign about how well the schools are doing under Bloomberg's stewardship. In many ways, the elaborate mayoral burnishing is reminiscent of the current campaign on congestion taxing-lavish spending on media relations designed to conceal some unpleasant truths lying beneath the surface of all the glitter."
So now it continues in a more ruthless way, as Ravitch points out to the Sun: "Ms. Ravitch said her most serious concern with the Bloomberg administration is the way it responds to dissent. She said that many educators who are professionally reliant on support from the city, through grants or contracts, fear voicing any differing opinions."
It's a variant of the Marx Brother's line: "Who're gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?" And Ravitch lays it all out in an editorial blasting Wylde and the DOE in today's NY Post: "This attack, I have learned from published accounts, was orchestrated by the New York City Department of Education, which compiled a secret dossier about my views and turned it over to Wylde. I am at the top of the Department's enemies list. This is a frightening way for a public agency to behave."
It is, as Ravitch, Sol Stern and Andrew Wolf have all pointed out, the way that an agency behaves when it has a good deal to hide. It is an agency that will go to great lengths to do bureaucratic sleight-of-hands, and when that doesn't work on seasoned educational experts, the agency will bring out corporate toadies to do ghost-written character assassination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
