Giving Them a Run for His Money

As we have been saying for the past year, the mayor's pursuit of a special interest-his own ambition-has been the undergirding for his miraculous transformation into poverty crusader and an environmental activist. Whether or not you feel all of this is in the public interest or not depends on your own political perspective.

Now, however, the cat's about to get out of the bag-and the coy speculation about the mayor's political future looks like it's gonna turn into something a bit more significant; as today's NY Times story about a confab of alter kocher independents fuels talk of a presidetial plunge: "Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run."

What strikes us here about all of this is the ideological bipartisanship that appears to underlay all of this speculation. The term, of course, contains just a bit of irony-as some of the political oldsters, worrying over their own obsolescence, talk about the compelling need for less partisanship if we're going to be able to properly address the country's problems: "Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”

This is without question a complete crock. The abjuring of ideology from the country's political dialogue is a complete misreading of the current political stalemate. The stalemate devolves from two starkly divergent world views, and bipartisanship is not only no panacea, it amounts to little more than gibberish when you get beyond the drooling over the prospects of someone spending a billion dollars to buy the country's highest office.

Partisanship and its ideological underpinnings are essential to facing forcefully the challenges of Islamic terrorism, illegal immigration, the health care crisis, and the restructuring of the American economy to address a number of other political issues. And, of course, it's important to emphasize that the mayor's own Nanny world view will generate its own potential for political gridlock-not to mention the revenge of all of the "special interests" if by some miracle he would be elevated to the presidency.

The fact of the matter is that Mike Bloomberg's political views do not resonate all that well with the vast majority of Americans, and his minority presidency would create a new form of gridlock, whether it was post partisan or not. Which makes the following comment by former Governor Boren and former Senator Nunn in today's NY Daily News rather droll: "Today, we are a house divided," they wrote to other politicians invited to the powwow. "We believe that the next President must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available - without regard to political party - to help lead our nation."

All of this back to the future bipartisan banter is useful only for camouflaging the ambitious musing of the mayor; after all, no one really cares what all of these political has-beens have to say. And isn't it ridiculous, in the middle of a political campaign, to cite the need for bipartisanship as a rationale for all of this? Here's what Boren said to the NY Post: "But if we don't see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy."

So we've got the oldsters longing for a renewed political relevance teaming up with Daddy Warbucks to create this faux issue, one that is sure to stimulate the masses if a billion dollar ad campaign is used on its behalf. Perhaps so, but trust us here, it will have nothing to do whatsoever with solving some of the perilous problems that the country faces today.

Poverty Pimps

In the 1970's Mayor Ed Koch coined the term "poverty pimps" to describe the social service empires created by the likes of Ramon Velez. Ever since then, poverty has become a lucrative industry for a slew of foundations and academic consultants. What all of these minions fail to understand is that a well functioning economic system is always a better remedy for poverty than any of their schemes-particularly for the Black and Latino masses that they pretend to be so concerned about. Or, as Tom Lehrer says in his "The Folk Song Army:" "We all hate poverty, war, and injustice-unlike the rest of you squares."

So now it's Mike Bloomberg's turn at the wheel. With all the fervor of a newly hire Ford Foundation consultant, the mayor is out to find the magic elixir for poverty. This year he has pioneered for New York's poor a Mexican initiative that will pay folks to behave more industriously. As Errol Louis optimistically tells us in a column yesterday: "Scholars and pundits will be watching the anti-poverty initiative to see whether the innovative ideas - like giving cash rewards to students and parents for things like getting a library card or attending parent-teacher meetings - really change people's behavior."

Errol needs to carefully look at how all of that mishogos will be evaluated-and who will be assigned the review task. With the mayor's money in play, the house odds are likely to yield predictable results; with independent auditing given short shrift.

What's really fascinating in all this, is how the mayor stands on Rudy's shoulders. The fact remains that Mike Bloomberg in 1993 would have been so over his head in dealing with NYC's culture of political poverty that he would have been a hopeless failure; the city needed a sea change that Giuliani created, a change that allowed a Mike Bloomberg to emerge as a competent technocratic leader in its wake.

The irony, of course, is that Rudy is scorned locally, while Mayor Mike basks in 70% approval ratings while contemplating his own run for the presidency. In yesterday's weekly musing Little Mike Lupica brings home this point with the following snarky observation: "By the way, how is it possible that the murder rate could have gone down with somebody other than Rudy as mayor?"

How indeed? Not to mention the welfare roles that plummeted when the former mayor took a tough approach to fraud, and to the generational perpetuation of a birthright to the dole. Now Mayor Mike comes in on third base and everyone marvels at the triple he hit.

Which brings us to yesterday's front page NY Times story about Bloomberg's search for a new definition of poverty. Why this is front page news eludes us, but it does put front and center the mayor's national aspiration to appear to be an innovative thinker on all many of issues.

Of course, this search for a new definition has a certain political positioning motive. As the Times wrote: "The politics of determining a poverty level are intense because the number largely determines eligibility for numerous federal entitlement programs. And, perhaps as important, it is used by people across the political spectrum as they debate how well this nation cares for its less fortunate."

Yes, there it is-"caring." The mayor as had any number of political epiphanies-the environment comes immediately to mind; and inherent in all of them is the caring motif. Yet in all of these rather banal sentiments we detect the standard stale bromides of a senescent progressivism that continues to look towards expanding the role of government at the expense of middle class tax payers.

Here's the money quote: "Though city officials insist they are approaching this undertaking without bias, it is almost impossible to separate the process from politics. Douglas J. Besharov, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, is watching the New York experiment intently and not without some cynicism that the city will come up with a far too generous formula. "It is highly likely they will come up with a higher poverty rate," he said. "It is perfectly safe politically in New York and it certainly is a good P.R. device for the mayor who wants to be a poverty crusader.”

Crusader indeed, but one whose ability to ride his progressive steed is built on the less than liberal notion of accountability and tough love that the former mayor pioneered in a city whose political class was petrified in amber. All we're seeing from Mayor Mike is old whine in better and more expensive packaging. They offer nothing of innovative value for the country.

Gansevoort Redux

In today's NY Times, the paper reports on the press conference held by State Senator Carl Kruger on the plans to redevelop Coney Island. Kruger warned that any plan would have to be subjected to a full state environmental review-before any alienation of the parkland could go forward. As the NY Post writes today: "Kruger produced an advisory opinion from the state Department of Environmental Conservation saying its signoff is required prior to any request made to Albany to engage in land swaps involving parks."

If it feels like deja vu, then you're recalling the fight over the recycling center on the West Side, the one that the city lost because state electeds wouldn't approve of the alienation of the Hudson River parkland. As the Times points out, the intervention of the DEC could well delay this disposition process for a year or more: "The advisory opinion, issued Nov. 30, does not address the Coney Island plan directly, but contends that an environmental impact review, a process that could take a year or more, is required for any change in public parkland to non park use, and must be completed before state approval is sought."

As we pointed out yesterday, and as the Times reiterates today, this throws down the gauntlet to the new deputy mayor for economic development: "It is likely to present Robert C. Lieber, the mayor’s new deputy mayor of economic development, with one of his first big challenges as he takes office on Jan. 8. He has already been deeply involved in the Coney Island proposal in his current position as head of the city’s Economic Development Corporation."

What this means is that the city will have to tread cautiously over the redevelopment of the area, much more so then if just the city council was involved; the state legislature has been much less a junior partner of the mayor than the city's legislature. So, as long as Kruger and others are in his corner, Joe Sitt may very well be sitting pretty.

The More Things Change: Lieber and Small Business

The announcement yesterday that EDC head Robert Lieber was appointed by the mayor to replace Deputy Dan serves to send a consistent message: apparently nothing's going to change down at City Hall in regards to the lack of concern for small business and neighborhood retailers. We hope we're wrong, but there's certainly no indication that anything will be different. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Some within city government said he had not done enough to reach out to neighborhood residents and business owners where developments are planned."

What's new here? Deputy Dan ran roughshod over neighborhoods and small businesses in the service of his real estate friends. Lieber's actions regarding the Willets Point development, and his planning around Coney Island are a clear indication that the more things change with the Bloombertgistas, the more they stay the same. As Councilman Avella told the Times: "In my opinion, the institutional arrogance that has permeated the E.D.C. for years has not changed under him,” said City Councilman Tony Avella, chairman of the council’s subcommittee on zoning and franchises."

In fact, Lieber continues the trend of hiring folks from the financial sector who simply have no clue about what the economic engine is for the city's diverse neighborhoods. In fact, for the past six years economic development-from newsstands and bodegas, to supermarkets and small distributors-has simply ignored the little guys who make up the bulk of the city's aggregate economic activity.

So we'll see if Mr. Lieber is able to break out of this mold now that he's got his own shoes to fill. The Iron Triangle will be a huge test for him, and we hope that Peter Vallone Sr. is right when he tells the Times: "He’s been trying, literally with both hands tied behind his back, to do the right thing,” Mr. Vallone said. “The point is he really is trying, which hasn’t happened before now.”

The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding; but we don't see either the Willets Point or Coney Island ending well for the locals. The mayor, however, continues to believe that those who come from his own insular world are the ones who are best trained to rule. As he told the NY Sun: "His skills and experience in the private sector and in city government will serve him well as he fills some very big shoes here at City Hall." For us, though, those skills and experience amount to little more than a "trained incapacity" to understand and deal with those sectors that don't breathe the same rarefied air as the mayor and his cohort of masters of the universe.

Money in Politics: The Mayor and "Special Interests"

We have been commenting now for some time about the illusion that Mike Bloomberg's wealth somehow places him "above politics," and the special interests that the good government groups characterize as the source of all evil in the political system. It is the weltanschauung that leads to all of the campaign finance laws, and the often absurd efforts to rid the democratic system of lobbyists.

It is, however, rendered as theater of the absurd when a multi-billionaire enters into the arena; now the stacked deck gives way to the casino owner who is able to win consistently because of the control that comes from owning the joint and being able to set the house odds. So it goes with Mayor Mike and his money-something that the intrepid Ray Rivera is starting to look at in the NY Times-continuing with a story today on the three blind mice COIB ruling regarding the Bloomberg Foundation.

Let's remember how the mayor successfully portrayed himself as the "ant-politician" two years ago while running for re-election. As the NY Times told us: "In his speech, Mr. Bloomberg defined himself as a sort of antipolitician who, free from the messy impositions of "donors, special interests, patronage or partisanship," has focused solely on what is best for all New Yorkers. He said that mayors "solve problems not by taking both sides of big issues, but by deciding what's right and then going after it," and that "honest leadership that doesn't waver or blow with the wind."

What all of this rodomontade amounts to is a slick shining of a gullible public; and an incurious media that all too often has played the useful idiot when it comes to the mayor. The tide, though appears to be turning, and the Wizard won't look so awesome when you get to look behind the curtain. The fact remains that Mike Bloomberg continues to pursue one gigantic special interest-his own ambition.

Whether its congestion taxing and a new found interest in the environment, or an educational "reform" agenda that employs scores of public relations staffers to convince folks that the agenda is bearing remarkable fruit in the face of mounting contradictory evidence; it all comes down to advancing the Bloomberg brand.

There's one intriguing line in today's Times story: "He is also a philanthropist whose private giving often involves nonprofit agencies active in civic and neighborhood affairs." Rivera's next step should be to get behind this curtain. Who knows where all of the intersections lead? One thing's for certain: It ain't all about the pursuit of the public good.

Nick's Knock

In today's NY Post Nick Sprayregen lays down the eminent domain gauntlet to Columbia: "I remain steadfast that Columbia has met its match in me. I will not back down; I'll do everything I can to show the ESDC and the courts why eminent domain should not be used here. If need be, I will litigate this matter all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court."

At the same time, however, Nick recognizes that the re-zoning is a good thing since, "For too long, this area has been subject to an antiquated designation as a manufacturing zone. Thanks to this rezoning, much of West Harlem can now smartly be revitalized into a vibrant mixed-use community." The question still remains: Will the new plan be as good as it can be for the West Harlem community?

The answer to that lies to a great extent with Columbia and the area's elected officials. If a consensus can be reached over a swap of properties, all of the landowners can become part of the revitalization effort-and West Harlem can be at least partially incorporated into the university's expansion vision.

Columbia's Housing Benefits

According to today's Spectator, the amount of money that Columbia has pledged for affordable housing in the CBA doesn't appear to be much more than the original $24 million that it had agreed to invest when BP Stringer had signed on to the deal. That being said, the city has apparently ponied up a large amount to fill in the breach: "The memorandum includes the $24 million Columbia previously announced it would spend on affordable housing and an additional $20 million toward “inclined services” intended to meet other requirements for quality-of-life improvement, Russell said. The City has pledged an additional $150 million separate from the benefits memorandum toward affordable housing in the Community Board 9 area of West Harlem."

If so, then the university has struck a real good deal for itself, since the taxpayers are footing the bill for any new housing in and around the expansion area. We'd be willing to bet, however, that Columbia will be willing to invest even more if the right situation presents itself. Stay tuned on this.

And we're also certain that local elected officials will be in the front lines on the effort to encourage the university to avoid ED and partner in significant housing for the impacted West Harlem community. There's something in the swap deal for all the parties to this dispute.

Billions of Conflicts

As we have been saying all along, the successful portrayal by the Bloombergistas and their enablers that the mayor's wealth obviates any political conflicts of interest, simply doesn't stand up to even a mild scrutiny-something that's rarely been done, which is why Kirsten Danis' column in the NY Daily News yesterday was so refreshing.

Danis focused on the moonlighting that some Bloomberg staffers are doing over at his charitable foundation: "Mayor Bloomberg's closest aide, Deputy Mayor Patti Harris, has been working for his charitable foundation without first getting clearance from city ethics watchdogs. Harris, who earns $227,219 a year on the city payroll, took on an advisory role for the Bloomberg Family Foundation, which the mayor set up last year to give away his billions."

It's clear to us that the mayor's wealth, and his willingness to either give it away or withhold it, can play a significant role in the city's policy deliberations. We've speculated that some of the "good government" support for congestion pricing may have been influenced this way-certainly, as Errol Louis observed yesterday, there was an uncritical rush to support a poorly thought-out policy: "Everyone, especially the civic groups, should have slowed down the debate long enough to educate the public about the actual problem, its consequences and the best ways to deal with it."

What we need now is more of what Danis has offered: a well researched effort to look at the various intersections between Bloomberg the mayor, the mogul, and the philanthropist. The absence of the paper of record in all of this-with Charlie Bagli as a meritorious exception-underscores the power of the mayor at muting the recognition that his own self interest is not coterminous with that of the public's.

Sprayregen's No Custer

In this morning's NY Times, the paper focuses on the last remaining property owners who are holding out against the university's expansion. Nick Sprayregen, Anne Whitman and company are portrayed as the Last of the Mohicans, with a little bit of General Custer as well.

What the paper's missing, is that these holdouts pose a real threat, and if good faith bargaining isn't going to take place, Columbia's plans are gonna be put into a delaying pattern that will frustrate all of the folks who're looking to get to work on the expansion. As Whitman says; “No way Columbia is going to steal this property right out from underneath me,” Ms. Whitman said in August 2006. “Remember that man who stood in front of the tank at Tiananmen Square? That’s me.”

Sprayregen feels the same: "He has vowed that he will spend as much money as it takes to keep the university from getting his property via eminent domain. On one of his buildings hangs a giant banner, reading “Stop Eminent Domain Abuse!” that is visible to riders on the No. 1 subway line through Harlem. “This isn’t about money, I’m fighting them over principle — I strongly believe the use of eminent domain here is wrong,” said Mr. Sprayregen, who said he has finished 20 marathons but has stopped running in order to devote more time to battling the university. “I have the strong desire — and the financial ability — to take this all the way to the Supreme Court,” he said."


It really behooves everyone involved to get real negotiations going-and our conversations with all of the key local officials indicates that this will happen soon; with even ESDC apparently interested in avoiding a widely publicized and messy legal battle. As Sprayregen told the Times: "In recent weeks, Mr. Sprayregen said, he has talked with the university about trading his buildings inside the expansion zone for university property outside the zone. Columbia would not comment on Thursday about those discussions."

While it's unfortunate that property rights aren't of much concern to the City Council leadership, the impediment that these intrepid folks pose to the city's vision of progress is the incentive that will generate the kind of dialogue that can only lead to a win for all involved. In the end, we believe the city and Columbia will deal, and the folks of West Harlem just might get a measure of equity as a result.

That being said, the Columbia ED fight will be seen as a tempest in a tea pot when compared to the battle over Willets Point; where over 200 businesses and thousands of immigrant workers are at risk. As the NY Daily News points out this morning: "The battle over Columbia University's expansion plan has ended in the City Council. But the bigger war over eminent domain may be just getting started."

Which is going to put Christine Quinn directly in the spotlight, as she continues her metamorphosis from community activist to, well we're not really sure. As she told the News: "Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) offered that eminent domain "should be used carefully and cautiously, and it should only by used when there is an overriding greater good in the interest of the city." What we do know, is that there's a certain townhouse on 79th Street that will never face the ED bulldozer.

Handwriting on the Willets Point Wall

The just concluded Columbia land use application doesn't bode well for the hundreds of businesses and thousands of workers over at Willets Point. The mayor and council speaker have given the clearest indication possible that private property is no longer sacrosanct in this city-assuming that it ever was.

As today's NY Daily News points out, the city's redevelopment effort at the Point has been long on promises but short on legitimate proposals for those who work and own businesses at what is known as the Iron Triangle: "They promised to take care of everybody, that they would relocate everybody," said Gerald Antonacci, whose family has owned Crown Container, a waste transfer station, since 1976. "It's all smoke and mirrors," he said. "They're going through the motions."

So now, as were about to see the certification of a land use application to rezone the area, we can see that as far as the council leadership is concerned, the problems of the small businesses at the Point are of little or no concern, You see, if the council is willing to rezone the 50 acres without the benefit of a development plan or the existence of a designated developer, it will have effectively ceded its entire land use authority to the mayor's office. It might as well just put up a "Going Out of Business" sign.

We're pretty familiar with the entire scenario; it's a repeat of the debacle at the Bronx Terminal Market, where relocation promises turned out to be empty, and the small distributors were summarily dismissed with small severance checks. This time, however, the businesses in question own the property and can't be so easily thrust aside.

The people of the city need to wake up. The Speaker's statements on eminent domain are chilling and should be a clarion call to all property owners. First Columbia, now Willets Point. When and where will it stop?

Columbia Ex Post Facto

In today's NY Post the paper's story on the Columbia expansion vote brings out a number of interesting points. For the first time there is a direct dollar amount put on the affordable housing initiative: "Councilman Robert Jackson (D-Manhattan), who helped push through what would be one of the largest expansion projects in recent Manhattan history, put the total value of the benefits package at $150 million. He said most of the money would go toward affordable housing."

Well and good, and the inimitable Dave Seifman also points out that the vitriol in the debate addressed the issue of eminent domain, but goes on to say that the issue may become moot: "One official said that only three commercial property owners haven't settled yet with Columbia, and two were closing in on a deal."

Perhaps, he's right but we're a long way from a resolution to this issue; and as an editorial in the NY Sun points out, the abuse of ED is pronounced in NY State. Therefore, it will take a great deal of effort from many of the local elected officials to see the Sprayregen swap through to a successful conclusion. The greater this effort is, however, the more expeditious an equitable expansion will be able to go forward.

The Council's Domain

In the culmination of the Council's vote on behalf of the Columbia expansion, Speaker Quinn addressed the eminent domain issue. As she told the NY Sun: "Let me be clear — I think eminent domain should be used infrequently. It should be used carefully and cautiously and it should only be used when there is an overriding greater good in the interest of the city and I think certainly the possible creation of 6,000 jobs, economic development, job creation — those are relevant reasons and appropriate reasons to use eminent domain."

She is clear here to us. What her statement means is that there are virtually no circumstances involving any large economic development project where she wouldn't approve the use of eminent domain-all such projects involve job creation and economic development, Our issue, and it has been all along, is the need to incorporate a process that addresses property rights and recognizes that they are fundamental to liberty.

That does not mean that, at the end of the day, that ED isn't used; it just means that the potential use of ED is elevated into the center of the land use discussion-something that the Council chose not to do, even while they made very sure to include all of the community benefits as a critical feature of legislative approval. If the use of ED is not germane to ULURP, as we're told repeatedly, than neither is the amount of money that Columbia ponies up for affordable housing.

Which brings us to the community benefits. Does anyone know the process by which CU will be held accountable? Here's the money quote from Metro: "The CBA was still being finalized, and the terms were not disclosed to Council members before the vote. LDC president and C.B. 9 member Patricia Jones said a memorandum of understanding — “the precursor” to an agreement — has been signed in which Columbia would contribute $150 million for affordable housing, job creation, arts programming and historic preservation. The deal will also include a high school and K–8 school. City Councilman Robert Jackson said his community needed jobs, better schools, affordable housing and health care. “These needs will hopefully be met,” he said. “Can I guarantee that? Absolutely not, just like I can’t guarantee I’ll be alive tomorrow,” said Jackson, who had a rep on the LDC. “I believe this is the best plan we can do under the circumstances.”

Can you believe that, with weeks left on the ULURP clock, the Council leadership rushed this to a vote before anyone knows what the deal is, or how it will be enforced? As Council member Barron told the NY Times: “I don’t think we should rush to give Columbia University a Christmas present,” Councilman Charles Barron said before he voted against the plan. “We’re here to support the people’s right to participate in this process.”

Which means that city and state elected officials have a great deal of responsibility here-and as we've emphasized before, the area of affordable housing is the central conundrum because no one knows the size of Columbia's check or where any housing will be built to mitigate the potential displacement of 5,000 local residents.

All in all, however, this was not a good day for the council's vaunted reinvention as an accountable and transparent legislature. It remains for others to take the responsibility of balancing the equities here, and in insuring that the expansion moves forward both expeditiously and fairly.

Columbia Deal

We'll be posting on this more as the parameters of the deal that the City Council has struck become clearer. What has amused us, however, is the extent to which every council member that we spoke to this morning had simply no idea about what was in this deal. Not only that, given the unseemly haste with which the council moved this deal-the fastest we've ever seen a huge project like this go forward, it appears that the West Harlem LDC was left breathless.

As the Spectator reports this morning, "Although community advisory groups will form to direct the LDC as part of the agreement, local resident and LDC member Maritta Dunn said a more detailed agreement could have been reached were it not for the possibility of a Wednesday Council vote. “We’re not all pleased,” Dunn said. “We consider it a starting point to move forward. …We really feel that a lot more could have been done and handled differently.” Indeed, and the fate of the property owners could have been brought into the negotiations if council leadership had even a soupcon of concern for the rights of property ownership.

We're awaiting the details of the deal, and the amount of money that the university will be pledging for affordable housing. As the Observer has reported the LDC, "...is trying to finalize beforehand a set of pledges for the school to make on issues such as affordable housing, education and job training."

This is crucial because it will impact the negotiations between property owner Sprayregen our client in the battle, and the university. As we said at the hearing last week, it does no one any good if Columbia's housing pledge cannot be implemented because there's no identified space to build. We remind everyone that the EIS has stated that the expansion will put between 3,000 and 5,000 residents at risk of displacement. We're wondering how the city council deal will address this issue, or if it will even bother.

Update

As Liz is reporting, City Hall has announced a deal on the Columbia expansion that is the epitome of vacuity. Reporters we have talked to are shaking their heads trying to figure out what has actually been negotiated-although Crain's is reporting that, "Despite community opposition, the university has completed the land-use approval process with most of its plan intact, making only a few concessions. If that's the case, and we're by no means certain that it is, than what to make of the Speaker's comments in the release?-"After working with Columbia University, Community Board 9, community advocates and local elected officials, we've come up with a plan that will both preserve and improve areas of West Harlem," said Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn."

What community activists is she referring to? The drug addicts who were bused in to the hearings because there was no real grass roots support for the plan? And what about the displacement issue? Nothing in the vacuous release gives us even a hint. But, as Crain's goes on to report, the political process now shifts to the state where the issue of eminent domain will come front and center: "Next, the university must submit a general project plan to the Empire State Development Corp., which has the final say over whether properties can be taken by eminent domain, against an owner's will. However, that may not be necessary. The three business owners who were refusing to sell to Columbia resumed talks with the university last Friday."

Perhaps their right; but the ED issue should have been front and center in the council's truncated negotiation, since property rights are as much a community benefit as anything else. It now appears as if no one's property is safe as long as the City Council is in session.

More A La Cart

The City Room posted a story on the carting legislation, and the myth making continues- "...and fresh food is less accessible in low-income neighborhoods." Jennifer Lee's story does, however bring out a very interesting point, one that policy makers need to heed: healthier food costs more, something that the NY Times reported on a few weeks ago.

The Times story told us: "Healthy eating really does cost more. That’s what University of Washington researchers found when they compared the prices of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle area. Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a result of inflation." So we're not only facing a demand problem, but an income one as well.

The folks in low income areas need to find ways to stretch their food dollars, and they can't do this in a healthy way: "The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods." With no food subsidies here, how will the peddler proliferation have its intended healthy impact?

The professor who did the University of Washington deserves the last word, and it's really food for thought: "If you have $3 to feed yourself, your choices gravitate toward foods which give you the most calories per dollar,’’ said Dr. Drewnowski. “Not only are the empty calories cheaper, but the healthy foods are becoming more and more expensive. Vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods.”

The Supply Cart Before the Demand Horse

The Mayor and the Speaker announced yesterday the introduction of legislation that would license an additional 1500 fruit and vegetable vendors in so-called underserved areas. As the mayor's press release states: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Speaker Christine C. Quinn today proposed legislation that would increase the number of food carts that sell fresh fruits and vegetables only. The carts will be located in neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs where access to fresh fruit and vegetables is limited."

This is, as we said when interviewed today on Bloomberg radio, a bad idea built on a false premise. Despite what the mayor said today, "Access to healthy foods varies widely throughout New York City, and in many lower-income neighborhoods, supermarkets are few and far between. There is demand for fruits and vegetables in these neighborhoods, and this regulatory change will enable the market to meet that demand," said Mayor Bloomberg," all neighborhoods of the city do have supermarkets that sell these fresh food items.

The focus on the bodega, however, creates the false impression of a fresh food desert. Bodegas are convenience stores, and while they should be encouraged to sell more fruit and vegetables, this effort, which we have supported wholeheartedly, contributes to the false hypothesis-it's little more than a urban myth.

In addition, the proliferation of these vendors has the potential to not only compete on an unlevel playing field with tax paying stores, it also can become a health hazard in and of itself. As we have seen with vendor enforcement in Manhattan, the entire concept is an oxymoron. Who exactly is going to enforce the health and safety rules when the thermometer climbs in the summer and produce carts are sitting unairconditioned in the streets of the South Bronx and Harlem?

And who's going to examine the status and working conditions of those folks manning the carts? We have seen how many of these carts are being operated by employees, with few benefits if any, and abysmal working conditions. It all has the potential for chaos.

And for what? The other false premise here is that there's a pent-up demand for these healthier offerings, a demand that's being obstructed by stupid store owners, businesspeople who have no concern for the health of their customers. As the mayor told NY1: "The Green Cart legislation has the potential to deliver a product into the market that people want, while also improving the health of an estimated 100,000 New Yorkers,” said Bloomberg. “Over the long term this could save about a hundred lives a year.”

Really? Where's the evidence of this? In neighborhoods where the demographics are changing we can witness the gentrification of the bodegas, and the stocking of healthier products. Stores adapt to the new customer demand; and supply the new products that the newly arrived are clamoring for.

In the absence of the demand this is all a very intrusive experiment, one that will take away from the city's meritorious efforts to get bodegas to be "healthier." As we told the NY Sun: "A lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, a critic of the plan, said the proposal doesn't take into account a lack of demand for fresh produce in parts of the city. The produce carts would be in competition with stores he represents. "It's putting the supply cart before the demand horse," Mr. Lipsky said. "If you don't generate the demand, putting more sources of access out there will not address the problem."

Update

The NY Daily News and the NY Post also covered the "green cart" legislation, with both papers citing our skeptical observations. Here's the News citation: "Efforts to get bodegas to carry low-fat milk have been successful, but the corner stores aren't as good at stocking fruits and vegetables, officials said. Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who represents bodegas, said that's because customers aren't buying the heart-healthy food. "The real problem is the lack of demand," he said. "If the demand was high, the stores would be well-stocked."

Bridges Don't Toll for the Times

In yesterday's NY Times, the paper editorialized against any tolling of the East River bridges as part of the mayor's congestion pricing plan. As the paper said, and as we've commented before, the idea could only further galvanize opponents: "For much of the last century, the idea of charging tolls on four bridges over the East River has been political hemlock."

The Times does admit that the plan has some merit, given the complexity of the mayor's taxing scheme, but it points out that Brooklyn and Queens commuters are only a small part of the problem: "A study from the Independent Budget Office last week showed that commuters who drive into Manhattan’s main business district come mainly from outside of the city. Fewer than 19 percent of drivers were from Queens, and only about 11 percent started their drives in Brooklyn. That means the vast majority who crowd the business district are not regular users of East River bridges."

It goes on to point out that the vast majority of those coming in to the city are not New Yorkers, and that New Jersey residents are effectively not charged, given the fact that their tolls off set the congestion tax. It also indicates that cabs are also an issue-as we have also pointed out in the past. The Times' solution? "Taxi drivers would be exempted, and so, in effect, would be drivers from New Jersey, who would be able to deduct the fee for crossing the Hudson River, which is being raised to $8. As it tweaks the mayor’s plan, the panel might reconsider these exceptions."

As usual, the Times leans in the direction of even greater tax levies on folks living and working in the city. It even goes on to adopt some of the opponents suggestions about government placards and on-street parking. Talk about piling on!

The reality here, as we've said, is that all of this tinkering is little more than the congestion tax's death rattle. or as the philosopher once said: "He seeks synthesis, yet all he achieves is composite error." Yet, in spite of this the NY Sun observes this morning, and we've not seen this anywhere else, that Shelly Silver has thrown the mayor a life raft of support on his congestion tax. The plot definitely thickens here.

Healthier Foods in the Neighborhood

In yesterday's NY Daily News, the paper's Albor Ruiz highlights today's HealthCorp press conference on the DOH's "Healthy Bodega" initiative. As he points out, "Small, friendly and convenient, bodegas are veritable community institutions. Yet when it comes to shopping for healthy food, your friendly neighborhood bodega is not the first place that comes to mind.
That could be about to change."

The change may be occurring because the obesity epidemic has become do severe in low income neighborhoods that something drastic needs to be done-and the HealthCorps, in conjunction with the Department of Health is intervening. HC's approach is to be the catalyst for community change, and that's why it is enlisting community groups from all over the city to make people more aware, and to make store owners more responsive to the need to change eating patterns now.

As Dr. Mehmet Oz, HealthCorps' founder told the News: "I am not that old - I just turned 46 - but when I was training as a surgeon, I don't remember anyone younger than 50 with these kind of problems," said Oz, a celebrity author frequently featured on "The Oprah Winfrey Show." "But in recent years I have seen more and more 25-year-olds with clogged arteries. And I began to think how I can make a difference." His answer was HealthCorps, an innovative program designed to educate children about healthy living. Funded in part through a grant from the City Council, HealthCorps has coordinators in 28 high schools across every borough."

City Council chair Joel Rivera captures the essence of the bodega campaign: "One of the best defenses against obesity, diabetes, cancer and heart disease is to snack on fresh fruits and vegetables," Rivera said. "Yet many New Yorkers still do not have many healthy food choices readily available in their community." So the word needs to go out, and communities like Make the Road by Walking need to involve their communities so that change can occur.

Ruiz has it right, and the DOH finally has understood that it's the hearts and minds that need to be changed: "With obesity, hypertension and diabetes growing at alarming rates in the city, it is more important than ever for every community to have access to the healthy food choices Rivera talks about." Change can happen, even if it's one bodega at a time.

Traffic Tax LOBOtomy

In this morning's NY Sun, the perspicacious Andrew Wolf deconstructs the congestion plan and finds, what else, a scheme to tax New Yorkers. But, as he points out, the plan manages at the same time to do its taxing of the locals while sparing the out-of-towners: "The plan, as currently conceived, will deduct the cost of tolls from the congestion levy. This is called "The-New-York-Politicians-Reward-New-Jersey-and-Punish-New-Yorkers" plan. Eventually a savvy driver from upper Manhattan or points further north will cross the George Washington Bridge into Fort Lee, fill his gas tank with lower-taxed, bargain-priced Jersey gasoline, and return to New York having saved $10 or so."

To make a bad situation worse, something that is real easy when the Billionaire's club gets together, the tax hits the city middle income drivers hardest: "If Jersey drivers are winners, who are the losers? According to the city's Independent Budget Office, it will be middle class residents of the city's outer boroughs, those earning in the neighborhood of $40,000 a year. I submit that they are as entitled to shop in Manhattan as much as the smirking New Jerseyan."

Which is why all of the tweaking in the world will amount to little more than, in Richard Brodsky's words, "putting lipstick on a pig." Or, to mix the metaphor: "if it walks like a tax, and talks like a tax..." Well, you get the picture here. Fee fie fo fum, this is a tax that's headed to the dustbin of history.

Swap Stories

In the first meeting with Columbia, West Harlem property owner (and our client) Nick Sprayregen outlined the proposed swap he's been working on that would allow him to retain ownership of his properties in exchange for a move into space owned by the university across Broadway. Without revealing any details, the initial encounter was "productive," and in all likelihood further discussions will be held next week.

Clearly, the swap plan has gotten every one's attention. As the Spectator reports: "Sprayregen has yet to negotiate with Columbia directly, but has come up with a land swap plan that he raised during the hearing. The swap would offer desired buildings to Columbia so the University would not have to use eminent domain to acquire them. Jackson offered his assistance to Sprayregen and Siegel to promote the idea of a property swap, but criticized them for not bringing the plan to him directly."

The main point here is that Jackson, someone who has until this point indicated no real public sympathy for Sprayregen or grass roots community concerns, clearly understands the way in which the swap idea has any number of community benefits-while at the same time giving the university and the council legitimate public interest cover.

In his statements at the hearing Jackson, as well as Council member Dickens, made it clear that Columbia needed to do more-particularly in the crucial area of affordable housing: "City Councilman Robert Jackson, D-Washington Heights, and City Councilwoman Inez Dickens, D-Harlem, raised questions about what Columbia has done to meet the needs of the community, particularly regarding affordable housing. Kasdin explained that the University is committed to providing housing for residents in Manhattanville, especially for those in the CB9 district."

Enter Sprayregen and labor with a plan that addresses the housing issue, but in addition, removes potential legal roadblocks to a full speed ahead for the university and all of its construction jobs. The timing is indeed right.

For Whom the Bridge Tolls

As we expected, the congestnoscenti, seeing all else falling apart, are looking to toll the bridges. As the NY Times reports this morning: "The chairman of the state commission studying ways to reduce traffic in Manhattan is increasingly pushing a measure certain to prompt opposition in the rest of the city: charging tolls on the four East River Bridges..."I’ve made it pretty clear that I think the bridge tolls proposals might be part of a solution that this commission’s going to look at before it’s over,” said Marc V. Shaw, the commission chairman, after a meeting of the panel on Monday."

Shaw, a long time advocate of bridge tolls and a revenue enhancer from way back, is apparently looking to throw a hail mary here and see if he can get his pet idea into the mix. Of course, this is exactly the proposal that Konheim and Ketcham have been promoting as a much less unwieldy and more cost-effective alternative to the mayor's plan.

But, as we have said before, the call for tolls is the last gasp of an expiring policy proposal. As the Times tells us: "A public official who helped develop the mayor’s congestion plan questioned the wisdom of trading it for something equally controversial. “I feel like its Groundhog Day,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak for the administration and asked not to be named. “We’re back to where we were during the Koch years. Is that sort of the death knell for congestion pricing?”

So, as entropy is about to envelop the entire congestion tax scheme, we are back to the "good old days" of Koch and Dinkins, with bureaucrats promoting tax raising schemes to mitigate financial chaos. This is one back to the future scenario we can live without. But we'll leave you with a quote from Shaw that underscores the mentality behind the permanent government scheming that is the foundation for the congestion tax concept: “Last time I checked, nobody likes to have revenues raised,” he said. “People like to have spending done, and that’s the tension of government.” Time to release the tension.

Swap Meet

Yesterday's Columbia hearing down at the City Council didn't reveal much that was new, but a couple of things did stand out. As the NY Post reports this morning, the university blinked when it comes to going after the historic Cotton Club; after implying that it would look to take the club out as part of its expansion. As the paper says, "Swing can always be the thing at Harlem's famed Cotton Club - Columbia University said yesterday it won't seek to raze the club as part of its northward expansion."

What this means to us is that Columbia probably has more ability to be flexible if the exigent circumstances are present. Clearly, it appears that Columbia wasn't willing to get into a spitting contest with an African-American institution. So, if pressed, accommodations can be reached with the all-or-nothing mentalities on the Heights.

Which brings us to the discussion at the hearing over the proposed Sprayregen swap. As the Observer wrote last night: "Nick Sprayregen and Columbia University, who have been staring each other down over the ownership of four properties in West Harlem, are going to talk again tomorrow, Mr. Sprayregen said...“I want to keep my properties where they are,” Mr. Sprayregen told The Observer today outside of a City Council public hearing on the expansion. “Failing that, I would entertain a swap of a few properties across the street so that I can remain in the community. But besides that, unless they want to first take eminent domain off the table or are forced to, I do not want to negotiate my removal.”

All of which did generate an interesting interjection by Council member Jackson at the hearing after we had outlined the swap concept. Jackson stated that he would look forward to using his good offices to in effect act as an honest broker between Sprayregen and Columbia-which suggests to us that the idea has a lot of political resonance, since Jackson has been an apparent supporter of the university, and his staff has not been overly friendly to Nick.

As the Insider reports this morning there are talks scheduled today between Sprayregen and Columbia, and labor's eager to see a deal between the parties: "Nick Sprayregen, the largest property owner in the way of Columbia University’s 17-acre expansion, is again talking with
the school about a trade. He proposes swapping three buildings, including the current home of his Tuck-It-Away Storage, for two parcels of land that the school owns just outside the eastern edge of the site. The Central Labor Council, eager for more construction jobs, is trying to bring
the parties together."

The idea makes a great deal of sense since it would alleviate the potential lengthy eminent domain battle, one that the elected officials would like to avoid, a fight that would slow up the construction job generation that labor's interested in. And it would remove a costly delay that the university can't relish. Of course, at the same time, it would provide the housing that everyone seems to want, even while actual sites to build have yet to be identified by the housing cheer leaders.

And we do believe that if the idea gets political traction, as well as university support, all of the remaining property owners will come on board the swap train. As we told the Insider: "Speaking on behalf of Sprayregen, lobbyist Richard Lipsky says any deal could include the other two holdouts: Anne Whitman, owner of moving company Hudson North American; and the Singh family, who own a gas station on West 129th Street."


The full details of the plan are still being tweaked,as we told Council member Dickens when she queried us at the hearing. Dickens was concerned with the affordability equation, and we told her that the degree of affordability in the potentially 1,000 units, depended on the degree of public sector support as well as the level of cooperation from a university that has already pledged tens of millions for housing-something that Congressman Rangel called appropriately, "a good start." Clearly, however, the endgame has started.

"Figures Don't Lie,but..."

As Liz reported yesterday, Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, in a letter to Congestion Commission Chair Marc Shaw, blasted the hot-wiring of data collection for the determination of the best methods to reduce congestion in the city. As Brodsky wrote: "I simply don’t understand how we can function as a Commission when the basic descriptive, position-neutral data is being manipulated and distorted by the City. I came to the Commission with a position opposing congestion pricing that goes back over a decade. But I said then, and I say now, that we need the Commission to be fair and credible, and we need to deal with both congestion and mass transit funding. I don’t mind losing an argument. I do mind a process that makes a fair debate impossible."


This concern of Brodsky's goes back to the basic issue that we have raised from the very beginning: all of the assumptions that have gone into the mayor's 6% solution are based on calculations that have not been independently vetted. The opacity and disingenuousness of this entire process hasn't changed-it's only gotten worse as support for the tax erodes.

It now turns out that the "Independent" Budget Office is acting more like a cat's paw for the city-and the need for a forensic accounting team has become more acute. All the while, however, the public is passing judgement, and more and more it is knowingly smelling a rat.

Traffic Class

The just released IBO report on the congestion tax plan has caused considerable discussion-particularly on the issue of the class impact of the tax. As the NY Daily News reports this morning, in a headline that captures the essence of all this: Congestion plan would hit middle-class commuters hardest, report says-"Middle-class motorists who don't live in Manhattan will get hit the hardest by Mayor Bloomberg's congestion-pricing plan, a report out Tuesday revealed."

As the NY Post says this morning, however,: "The IBO also reported that the median salary of city residents who drive into the proposed congestion zone is $41,209, compared with $32,379 for the city's mass-transit commuters. "These findings largely counter concerns that congestion pricing would disproportionately affect workers less able to afford additional commuting costs," the report said." They do?

Sounds like a straw man to us. No one has said that the commuters who would be impacted by the tax are less affluent than the mass transit riders-only that they were middle calls folks, which the IBO report clearly indicates that they are. Yet the truth gets stood on its head when the NYC Bicycle Club gets into the act: "That's precisely what Transportation Alternatives, the advocacy group eagerly pushing congestion pricing, was waiting to hear from a nonpartisan authority. "It really turns the argument we've been hearing again and again [about hurting the middle class] on its head," declared the group's spokesman, Wiley Norvell."

Say what? Someone making forty thousand a year isn't middle class in this city? Well, we've seen young Mr. Norvell and we can surmise why he might feel this way, but it contradicts what we all know about what it costs to live here. As our Walter McCaffrey told the Post: "It [the study] doesn't necessarily come to the conclusion they'll be able to pay another $5,000 a year tax," McCaffrey said of the better-off drivers." Indeed!

As Assemblyman Brodsky tells the News: "This report is further proof that the mayor has come up with a regressive bad idea that will keep the Chevolets out of Manhattan but not the BMWs," said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), an outspoken critic of congestion pricing." And Assemblyman Lancman tells Newsday: "The IBO's new report illustrates the unfairness in Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal, where drivers from New Jersey, who represent a quarter of all current commuters, will not pay any additional fee at all, but New York City's already underpaid teachers, firefighters and cops will pay a disproportionately high share of the new fees," said Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens)."

From our vantage point, the data generated by the IBO report loudly contradicts some of its apparently ideologically-driven conclusions. A tax is a last resort in an already over-taxed city; and those who propose these taxes so cavalierly are either flying way below-like our buddy Norvell-or way above-like the NYC Partnership-the tax burden radar.

ED Seeks Council Viagra

In today's NY Sun, the paper reports on the first City Council hearing on the Columbia University expansion plan. In the Sun's take the issue of eminent domain may roil the entire expansion plan: "A fight over the use of eminent domain is shaping up at City Hall, as the City Council approaches a vote on Columbia University's plan to expand its campus by 17 acres in Harlem."

Perhaps, but unfortunately our take is that the taking of people's property will not be the salient issue at play-except for a handful of council members-as the expansion plan gets evaluated during the city council review process. Tony Avella, among all 51 members of the body, is the only council member who is certain to oppose the project on the eminent domain grounds.

The area's local representative, Council member Jackson had this to say to the Sun: "Columbia has said they are willing to negotiate with the remaining land owners," Mr. Jackson said, suggesting that the issue may be resolved without legal action. "I'm hoping that a consensus can be reached." The key here will be the extent to which the university exhibits good faith.

As we stand at this hour there are some discussions going on behind the scenes on a number of key fronts-and they all involve the proposed swap of properties that has been advanced by our client Nick Sprayregen. The swap proposal is important because it addresses some of the key deficiencies of the expansion plan.

With all due respects to the salience of the ED issue, the expansion proposal's most prominent failure lies with its inability to confront-and to mitigate-the issue of direct and indirect displacement; an issue that lies at the heart of the EIS, and is therefore directly correlated to the land use process. What is Columbia doing about the potential displacement of 5,000 local residents?

This is the issue that should concern Messrs Jackson and Dickens, the lawmakers whose constituents will be the ones in the path of the CU bulldozer. And it is precisely, the swap plan that addresses this in at least a partially effective manner. If through the swap, we can build almost 1,000 units of affordable and workforce housing than there will be at least partial mitigation of the gentrifying tsunami that's known as Columbia expansion.

In the next few days, the shape of the negotiations will become clearer, and we will see if the elected officials and the university are able to advance this concept for the good of all of the stakeholders. We're cautiously optimistic.

Angotti on Doctoroff

Tom Angotti has done a superb analysis of the Doctoroff legacy for the Gotham Gazette. It should be read alongside our post about the departure of Deputy Dan. Angotti's money quote addresses the blurring of the line between public and private when the public sector becomes part of the billionaire's club: "The more serious question for city policy – and this is clearly a legacy question – is whether Doctoroff has successfully blurred the lines between public and private sector to the point that public officials at the highest levels no longer have to be held responsible for representing anything that might be vaguely denoted as the “public interest.” Doctoroff’s close personal ties to the CEOs of the city’s largest developers, who have benefited from rezonings, tax relief and subsidies from the city, may not strictly violate any laws, but when the discussions that matter and lead to policy decisions are made in the board rooms and not the community boards, the temptation to act in the interest of private developers is great."

Fare Congestion Confluence

The MTA and its political overseers are the gift that you keep on returning (or giving, if you're looking at this from the opposing position on congestion). With the congestion tax making death rattle noises, it appears that the mayor and governor really want to just put it out of its misery-since both of these scions have just signed off on a fare increase. As the NY Daily News reports: "Mayor Bloomberg backed MTA fare and toll hikes Monday from the other side of the planet - disappointing those at home who hoped he'd save the fare."

And the fare increase appears to be eroding the little legislative support that the congestion tax had, with Straphangers Russianoff and State Senators Sabini and Skelos railing against the increase, and underscoring how it makes it extremely unlikely that the legislature will support any congestion tax. As Sabini tells the News: "I certainly think there is a limit to what we can ask of New Yorkers in order to get to work," said state Sen. John Sabini, ranking Democrat on the Senate Transportation Committee. "I don't think it helps, let me put it that way," the Queens pol said."

The MTA's reputation is in tatters, making the chances of handing the agency a blank congestion tax check extremely dubious.

A Plethora of Ideas

The NY Times is also weighing in on all of the congestion alternatives: "You wouldn’t be able to hail a cab in Manhattan below 86th Street, where cabs would be allowed to pick up passengers only at taxi stands scattered throughout the area. You wouldn’t be able to drive in Manhattan on the 5th, the 15th or the 25th of every month if your license plate ends in a 5. And parking on the street would cost you as much as parking in a garage. These are some of the proposals under consideration by the state commission evaluating how best to combat traffic in Manhattan. The ideas may seem fanciful, futuristic or simply far-fetched."

All of which underscores what we have been saying ad nauseum: try any number of creative things before you tax the public more. And with all of the vitriol being leveled at the MTA isn't it ridiculous to give the agency another revenue stream? We're back to Melinda Katz's call for a more global approach to the problem.
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."

More and more it looks as if the whole tax idea is about to die the death of a thousand cuts. Which means to us that it's time for a transportation alternative.

Congestion Tax Reduction

As we have been saying, but perhaps our prescience has been drowned out by the din being made by the gotcha ad hominen chorus, the scheme to tax motorists is trending toward obsolescence. As the NY Sun reports this morning, the congestion commission is seriously considering alternatives to the original plan to tax motorists entering the CBD.

And wouldn't ya know it, the floated alternatives sound an awful lot like those that the anti-tax folks we represent have put forward: "With a showdown over Mayor Bloomberg's traffic tax looming, a commission studying his congestion-pricing plan yesterday considered alternatives that could reduce traffic jams on Manhattan's busiest streets without charging motorists."

Just as we've pointed out, the tax may not only be an anathema to the outer borough middle class, it may also be unnecessary to achieve the mayor's 6% congestion solution. What's being suggested? "Increasing the cost of on-street metered parking to $4 an hour from $1, raising taxes on garage parking, setting up taxi stands, and reducing the number of government-issued placards were some options laid on the table yesterday."

Yikes, what about the charge of hypocrisy that's been leveled against us? It seems that we have been arguing against interest if press reports are any indication. What this means is that there are times when we all have to make sacrifices in the public interest, and we're ready to join Straphangers at Russianoff's next press conference to save the fare (a change of perspective, no?).

All kidding aside, what this all may very well mean is that congestion taxing is about to be added to the pantheon of majestic Doctoroff failures, at least if the sour grapes remarks of Kathy Wylde to the Sun are any indication: "The proposal drew some criticism from supporters of Mr. Bloomberg's congestion-pricing proposal, which would charge drivers $8 to enter and drive in most of Manhattan during peak hours. "My assumption would be that if you raise the price of taxis, you'd get a lot more people getting in cars," the president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, Kathryn Wylde, said."

All of which seems to indicate that our bicycle riding friends are set to return to their usual Tour de Farce of advocating the return of the horse-drawn buggies of a by-gone age. Their days of useful idiocy are about to be over, and once they are, their current putative allies will shake them off like a second snake's skin.

Conflicts for a New Political Reality

Over the weekend there was a fascinating story in the NY Times about the blurring of lines between Mike Bloomberg the mayor, and Bloomberg the billionaire. The piece touches on some of the things that we've been saying about the alleged way in which Bloomberg-and many in the media-sees himself as above politics.

The belief does have some validity if we examine this issue from a traditional perspective, one that looks at political conflicts in the manner of the tawdry wheeling and dealing of Tammany Hall. Mayor Mike doesn't operate on the down low like some low rent George Washington Plunkitt. The Times story, however, reveals how the mayor's business interests-this time with Verizon-could have influenced the city's negotiation with the telecom giant:

The conflict's potential emerged when Deputy Mayor Dan Docotoroff left his post to take over at Bloomberg LLP. As Councilman Avella told the Times: “He’s got all this confidential information in his head from the Verizon negotiations that he is taking over to Bloomberg L.P., a company that is part of the greater telecommunications field,” said City Councilman Tony Avella, who has been pushing for more openness on the Verizon negotiations."

The story was particularly prescient about the useless role of the city's Conflicts of Interest Board. According to the paper the movement of Deputy Dan off to Bloomberg LLP, and all of the mayor's dealings with his company, was vetted by the COIB: "Mr. Bloomberg’s aides say that since taking office in 2002, the mayor has fully complied with an advisory opinion issued by the board that aimed to keep the mayor’s role as majority owner of his company from conflicting with his public role as mayor."

Of course, the COIB has no ability to accurately evaluate anything that Bloomberg wants to do since the board, as the Times points out, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the mayor who appoints all of its members: "And the board has limited power to police the agreement anyway. It does not provide continuing oversight of its agreements or conduct regular audits. It can begin investigations, but does so only when, based on a tip or other information, it believes that an agreement has been violated."

All of this is reminiscent of the COIB's "action" around the alleged conflict between Deputy Dan and Related's Steve Ross. The capsule here? The board made a fairy tail ruling that the two friends didn't have any conflict since their dealings preceded Dan's entry into government. This in spite of the fact that Ross headed NYC 2012, the Bloomberg administration's-and Doctoroff's-first major policy initiative. Doctoroff then went on to hand Related numerous key development plums, including the absolute giveaway at the Bronx Terminal Market.

The reality is that the Bloomberg reach is so extensive, and opaque to the normal ken of the average reporter, that it's almost impossible to uncover the extent to which his wealth, political power, and personal self-interest intersect-to the detriment of what others might deem to be the public good. This can be seen to some extent, as we have commented before, in the areas of education and congestion pricing.

The educational mythos, propagated by an enlarged PR staff down at DOE, is aided and abetted by the mayor's philanthropic muscle and the system's outsourcing carrots. Groups and individuals are reluctant to speak out. and when they do-as in the case of Diane Ravitch-the mayor unleashes the hounds.

In this morning's NY Sun we catch a glimpse of this with a story on the apparent demise of the educational watch dog group known as the Educational Priorities Panel. Here's the money quote: "Because the city is contracting out a historic number of services to community groups, many groups are either loath to criticize city policy or incapable of raising any funds with which they might criticize, they said. Observers said difficulties faced by the Educational Priorities Panel, a 30-year-old coalition of advocates for the city schools whose dissolution goes into effect this month, reflect both trends."

It's impossible to really know the extent to which Bloomberg's private giving influences all of this; just as it is difficult to determine whether the mayor's charitable giving is funneling money into the advocates of congestion taxing. Even where a charity is not getting money directly from Bloomberg there's always the expectation that it might, a presentiment that may very well guide the pattern of dispensing largess.

So the mayor, about to launch a possible presidential bid, may very well be using all of his wealth and influence to control the flow of information and the formulation of certain policies that will put this potential run in the best light. It is certainly hard to divine where the public interest may lie, but we're fairly certain that it is not always coterminous with Mike Bloomberg's self-aggrandizement.

Congestion Tax Spinning into the Rinse Cycle

In a prescient piece in Newsday, the paper's Dan Janison does a neat premortem on the congestion tax proposal. As he points out, in their desperation to salvage at least something from this political debacle, proponents of the tax are now latching on to the idea of tolling the East River bridges: "New York City's plan to charge motorists in Manhattan faces so many roadblocks on so many fronts that critics seem increasingly assured of its demise. But before this drama ends, you may see an old idea revived in a new form: first-ever tolls on vehicles crossing the East River bridges."

Kinda like grasping at straws, isn't it? If the idea of a congestion tax is taking a beating in the polls, why not propose bridge tolls? Or maybe, constrict the area of applicability. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky-a prime target of the advocates-takes the measure of this measure: "Lipstick on a pig," snipes Assemb. Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), a member of the state commission created to study Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal. "Twenty-six less blocks of a bad idea is still a bad idea."

Brodsky goes on to eulogize the whole scheme: "The mayor's plan is collapsing -- on the merits and on the politics," Brodsky said. "On the merits, because they don't have the ability to do mass-transit improvements up front, they haven't solved the neighborhood impact problems, they haven't solved the fundamental fairness problems of charging access to public streets. On the politics, even some people who support the concept of congestion pricing are not supporting or unable to support the mayor's plan."

And collapsing it is, no matter how many ads the bicycle helmets take out, or what manner of ad hominen attacks they conjure up, it all amounts to last ditch desperation from elite progressives and their moneyed enablers who have contempt for the average middle class motorist who doesn't but into their bucolic vision. Here's our Walter McCaffrey's take: "The fact that they're now trying to jury-rig the proposal suggests that they recognize that it is not going anywhere," says Walter McCaffrey, a private consultant who represents the group "Keep New York City Congestion Tax Free."

So, if this analysis is correct, we will be looking at another significant Doctoroff fiasco. Janison gets the last word on this: "As Doctoroff departs, he leaves a legacy of complicated projects that ran aground -- the 2012 Olympics bid, the airport-Ground Zero land swap and the West Side Stadium.If opponents on Long Island and in the five boroughs and the northern suburbs have their way, congestion pricing will soon join that list."

Buttleggers For Sure

Indian tribes on Long Island are threatening to sue John Catsimatidis because some of the retailer's law suit complaints were thrown out by a Federal judge. The one thing that has set the Indians on the war path is the allegation that they're operating black market-abetting businesses. As one Indian leader told Newsday: "Right now we're actually looking at suing him [Catsimatidis] for damages done to our reputation, calling us black marketeers and all of this kind of stuff," Gumbs said. "You can't just hurl these accusations. He made us look like absolute criminals. And this guy wants to be mayor of the biggest city in the world?"

Let them. Catsimatidis' allegations are right on the money, and the best defense against libel is the truth. Let these so-called honest businesses open up all of their books and records in order to determine how many cartons are flying down the LIE into New York City. Listen to their lament: "Gumbs, Unkechaug Chief Harry Wallace and the other defendants have argued that the smoke shops are legitimate enterprises that provide jobs and significant revenue to provide community assistance for heating and other utility bills and college tuition costs."They want us to stop because it benefits the community," Wallace said. "They want us to be a dependent, subservient community."

Nonsense, and as we pointed out to the paper: "The merits of the lawsuit notwithstanding, Mr. Catsimatidis was trying to bring equity to an inequitable situation where Indian retailers were taking advantage of the tax laws to the detriment of other retailers," said Richard Lipsky, who represents the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, a Manhattan-based advocacy group." Maybe the tribes should go into subprime lending instead.

All we're asking is that the tribes operate under the same conditions that all other retailers operate under. As Catsimatidis and ace attorney Bill Wachtell point out: "...Gristedes' attorney, William Wachtel, said Catsimatidis would have preferred if the city, state and federal governments "did their jobs in protecting the interest of honest business people faced with black market cigarettes being sold in front of their stores." Catsimatidis is, however, dedicated to pursuing the remaining claims, Wachtel said."

All of this could have easily been avoided if state officials hadn't been so derelict in their protection of the rights of legitimate retailers, as well as the tax payers of New York. Catsimatidis' lawsuit is doing a good job at filling an unfortunate public policy void.

Dander-Up and Out

Deputy Dan the Related man is leaving City Hall, Bloomberg LLP apparently has outbid the Related Companies for the Music Man's services. As the NY Times reports this morning, the departure has generated mixed feelings: "But just as Mr. Moses’ legacy is still intensely debated, interviews with more than a dozen experts and analysts suggest that Mr. Doctoroff’s effect on the city has been decidedly mixed. Some credited him with setting in motion comprehensive plans to guide growth in the city’s neighborhoods for decades to come, while others said he had often failed to see his plans through."

Then there's the way in which Deputy Dan operated-always with disdain for the small and minority businesses that do so much to sustain this city, but who fly far below the Doctoroff radar. On first entering government in 2003, DD immediately pushed the Fernandez Brothers out of the Bradhurst development project; and what was to become a trend, leveraged city funds to bring in his friend Steve Ross' Related Companies.

It became such a pronounced mode of operation that we gave it its own bane-"patricianage;" the process by which Related and to a lesser extent Vronado were given "special nation status" by the ever-accommodating deputy toady. The process reached its apotheosis with the debacle at the Bronx Terminal Market. Here Dan pushed out the mostly minority distributors, ran roughshod over city procurement policies, and no-bidded Related into a sweetheart deal that future analysts will label for what it is: a more sophisticated version of what the famed sage of Tammany Hall called, "honest graft."

The mayor's encomiums to his liege were touching, but, as Azi cites, disingenuous: "A notably unhappy Michael Bloomberg just announced that Dan Doctoroff is leaving City Hall, saying, "Dan brought muscle to economic development. Bloomberg also said that "unlike Robert Moses, Dan did it by working with the communities, not bulldozing them." Nothing like a parting jest to liven up a sad leave-taking.

The reality is that Dan's idea of community partnership is epitomized by the charade up in West Harlem over the Columbia expansion. Here Dan himself injected Jesse Masyr into the creation of a local development corporation charged with the negotiation of a community benefits agreement with Columbia. That's kind of like a valedictory to the Doctoroff approach to community input-the Machiavellian appearing to be good, rather than actually being good.

There's an old Wallace Stevens poem about Vladimir Lenin that has a line that goes something like this: "Lenin sat on a bench by a lake full of swans, the swans flew away; he was not a man for swans." Dan was not a man for collaboration with local communities, nor was he any kind of suitor for the little retailers and wholesalers who would never be seen chatting in the clubs that the Deputy frequented. He may have spearheaded some good-and not so good-large-scale developments but let's not reincarnate him as Jane Jacobs.

As the Times points out in regard to Doctoroff's failed Olympic and West Side Stadium projects: "But that approach {his impatience with politicians and bureaucracy} could also be his undoing, as was the case with the West Side stadium at the heart of the failed 2012 Olympic bid. Mr. Doctoroff gathered support from corporate executives, but underestimated the need to woo politicians and community groups." As Marc Shaw says: “The mayor didn’t hire Dan to do politics, nor would Dan have been good at politics.”

So Dan departs and as the pundits say, his legacy remains to be determined by more dispassionate future observers. From our lowly perch, however, nothing so becomes Dan as his leaving.

Advocates for Sale?

In this morning's Crain's Insider the newsletter reports on an advertising campaign being launched by Transportation Alternatives, under the headline, "SELLING DRIVING FEES:"
Congestion pricing will get a boost next week when Transportation Alternatives launches a series of advertisements in local newspapers showing mass-transit improvements that the proposal would bring. The marketing stems from polls that show a majority of New Yorkers favor driving fees if the proceeds are used to fund transit. The anticar
advocacy group is working behind the scenes as well, talking with labor unions to
align their interests."

We're wondering where this astroturf outfit is getting all of the cash from. A bunch of bicycle riding odd balls are suddenly flush with ad dollars and no one questions the money source? When have any of these groups had the cash to cavort in the media? Follow the money!

CBA Zirconium

The faux community involvement in the crafting of a community benefits agreement was put under critical scrutiny this week at a panel discussion at the Municipal Arts Society. As the Observer's Eliot Brown reports (welcome aboard Eliot), the panelists, particularly Abyssinian Reverend Calvin Butts, weren't impressed: "At a panel discussion last night on development in the city, multiple community organizers and the Reverend Calvin Butts, pastor of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church, criticized the process of forming community benefits agreements (CBAs) in order to bolster public and governmental support for large development projects."

Butts was pointedly upset by the fact that the university refused to include his Abyssinian Development Corporation, the most successful and legitimately indigenous grass roots development group in the Columbia expansion area. Instead, Columbia placed all of its capital in the politically generated West Harlem Development Corporation, a group that is under the control of the mayor's office, and tangentially, the area political establishment (and bears a striking resemblance to the crew assembled by BP Carrion on the Gateway Mall).

Here's Butts' trenchant observation: "Reverend Butts joined in the criticism, saying he had met with Columbia about forming a CBA, only to have the university close the door on him in order to talk exclusively with the Local Development Corporation. “We sent a plan that we thought covered all of the areas that you would want to cover, and immediately after that meeting—this is one of the real issues that I have—the representatives of Columbia cut off all communication. Not a word,” Mr. Butts said. “When the political establishment got involved, it polluted it.”

Another panelist, the well-respected former planning commissioner Ron Schiffman, observed that there should be a city land use policy promulgated that stipulates certain key community desirables, a view seconded by Butts: "The solution, at least according to Messrs. Shiffman and Butts: have the city or state create policies around issues such as the inclusion of affordable housing and similar matters, taking them off the negotiating table for each individual development. "

This is precisely the "reform of ULURP" position that seems to be percolating within the councils of labor, at least according to a Juan Gonzales column last week. Until this happens, and it is something that we have stressed over and over, we're going to continue to witness the hijacking of legitimate community interest by pols pandering to developer wishes.

Which brings us to the Columbia process. It's hard to see how anything really beneficial to the community can emerge from such a rigged process. And the MAS panelists, "directed their harshest words about CBAs toward the process currently going on in West Harlem, where a board of elected officials and community members are hashing out a CBA with Columbia University. With Columbia exclusively talking with the board, known as the West Harlem Local Development Corporation, the debate has been essentially closed to the rest of the community, the panelists argued."

It seems to us that the emerging results will resemble the old saying that, "a camel is a horse designed by committee." Maybe that will fly in the West Harlem desert.

Congestion Confusion

Crain's has been taking the lead on reporting how the whole congestion tax issue is generating acrimony and confusion. On Wednesday in the Insider the newsletter reported: "Although Mayor Mike Bloomberg objected Monday to moving the northern boundary of his proposed congestion-pricing zone to 60th Street from 86th Street, insiders say the administration is discussing changes.“We’re having pretty constructive dialogue,” says Marc Shaw, the former first deputy mayor who chairs the commission reshaping the mayor’s plan."

As well he should if he wants to get anything out of this process. In yesterday's NY Daily News the mayor tries to conflate the fare hike with his congestion tax, realizing that the hike is the one issue where his tax gets a fair hearing. As Bloomberg said in the News: "For the second time in two days, Mayor Bloomberg Tuesday criticized the MTA and said his congestion pricing proposal could reduce the need for a fare hike."

One of the mayor's allies on the Congestion Commission echoed this refrain: "Congestion pricing might have a better shot in Albany if fare hikes are halted, said Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign, a fare-hike foe." So, no matter what the fiscal reality in all of this, proponents of the congestion tax are trying to desperately latch on to the fare issue as their literal ticket to ride. In actuality, however, this is all fiscal sleight-of-hand, and the MTA can't be trusted with any more of the public's hard-earned money,

Wal-Mart Myths and Realities

In yesterday's NY Sun, the paper had an Op-ed piece that defended the Walmonster against the charge that it imports too many of its products from China: "We do not need another outlet for cheap Chinese crap," one guy said at last month's public gripe session, summing the zeitgeist: That too many of Wal-Mart's bargains are imported." The author then proceeds to stick a pin in this argument by pointing out that importing cheaper goods is part of the successful adaptation America has made in a post-industrial economy.

We don't think that this is such a bad argument, we just don't think that the whole "Chinese goods" animus is the ultimate reason why so many folks are not fans of the giant retailer. As we have said before, there are a plethora of reasons why people oppose the Walmonster-and for the Alliance it's all about neighborhoods and the importance of independent stores. The company's union practices, however, certainly adds to the antipathy.

But the impact of the Walmonster on the neighborhood is the reason why the store was rejected in Staten Island and, hopefully why it will be rejected in Monsey, NY. And that ain't myth, but the reality of the judgement of the folks in small towns and neighborhoods all over the country.

Misjudged

In a lawsuit brought by John Catsimatidis against Long Island Indian tribes, the supermarket owner argued that the Indian sales were fraudulent because they were alleged to be "tax free," when in reality no sales from Indians to non-Indians are exempt from New York State taxes. Now, according to the NY Times this morning, a Federal judge has upheld this claim while dismissing others.

Judge Amon's dismissal of the other allegations are indeed questionable: "In a decision rendered on Friday and announced yesterday, Judge Carol Bagley Amon of Federal District Court in Brooklyn dismissed the claim that the non-tax sales “created, fostered and nourished a thriving black market in illegally discounted cigarette sales” and also dismissed charges of corrupt business dealings and unfair competition."

That anyone, let alone a Federal judge, could say with a straight face that the Indian sales don't foster black market activities beggers the imagination-and Judge Amon should speak to the thousands of city bodegas that are being undersold by street dealers whose cigarettes come directly from the Indian source on the Island.

Of course, the impetus behind all of this is the fact that the US Supreme court has ruled that, as far as cigarettes are concerned, Indian sovereignty is irrelevant. The Times' take on this is, however, misleading: "The state sets minimum price levels for retailers and imposes a sales tax of $1.50 a pack. But historically, the state has not collected cigarette taxes from tribes within its borders because they are considered sovereign nations, so Indian-owned smoke shops have long sold cigarettes at far lower prices than non-Indian competitors."

On the contrary, the state has not enforced the law out of sheer pusillanimity-the fear of tribal violence. Then Attorney General Spitzer told us privately, that when he was governor this would all change. It does appear, though, that the more things change, the more they stay the same. As it was reported earlier this year: "As Gov. Eliot Spitzer gave up Wednesday on collecting sales tax on gas and cigarettes from Indian-owned stores, Bob Arnott was preparing to shut down his family-owned business this Saturday."

Mr. Arnott's perspective, as he is forced to shutter his business is telling: "I didn’t believe the governor when he said he was going to collect taxes,” Arnott said. “It’s how we gain traffic from people coming in and buying gas and cigarettes — when you lose cigarettes to customers, you lose everything.” In NYC, however, it is the buttlegging from the reservation that has taken over $200 million a year from legitimate retailers-something that the state and city authorities appear all too comfortable in allowing to continue. Judge, Amon, however, must be smoking something other than tobacco.

Limited Sense

We don't usually agree with the Citizens Union about anything, but there's finally an issue that we can come together on: term limits. AS the City Room blog reported yesterday, Council Speaker Quinn has announced that she won't support any council effort to overturn the city's term limits law. As Quinn told the Daily Politics: "After careful consideration and discussions with my colleagues in the Council, I have decided not to pursue a change in New York City’s term limit law. I will neither support legislation nor will I seek or support a new referendum eliminating or altering term limits."

We understand all of the political considerations here, but the observations of Dick Dadey of the Citizens Union do resonate with us: "We fear that with less than two years until the next city election too many current council members are spending more time running for their next office instead of serving their constituents and giving the time needed to address important city issues. This is but one of several possible drawbacks to an eight year term."

City governance is not in perfect balance, and the power of the mayor reigns supreme in most areas. The Council can and should provide the kind of check on mayoral abuse that most legislatures do in a democratic system. The limits on council terms, however, further constrict the legislature's ability to constrain the chief executive-something that we've painfully watched over the past two years. There's little concern left for the legislative prerogatives of the council.

So we agree with Dadey's CU when he says that council terms might be best extended to 12 years, and the Speaker's political decision yesterday shouldn't foreclose debate on the subject: "Many New Yorkers have opinions on whether term limits should be kept or amended in some way. What is needed is a thoughtful and full public discussion on the issue before ruling in or out any change to term limits. While legislation would have been bad, we regret that the speaker’s decision may possibly prevent a fuller discussion of this important issue."

And we certainly disagree with the editorial perspective in today's NY Post, a view that wants to see the term limits lifted-but only for the mayor: "It's nice that Quinn listened to the voters, and abjured yet another pointless trip to the polls. Moreover, the speaker knows her members, and if she feels that two 4-year terms for them is enough - well, who's to argue? (For most of them, two 4-month terms is pushing the public-service envelope.) Still, a strong case could be made for lifting the limits for New York's top municipal post - mayor. The council's importance in municipal governance wanes year by year, while power accretes to the mayoralty. "

Which is precisely why an institutional check is badly needed. With all of the fawning over Mayor Mike, what folks lose sight of is his regal pretensions and basic lack of real democratic impulses. An unlimited term for someone with unlimited funds-or any chief executive of New York-is not a real good idea.

Columbia's Cotton Clubbing

In yesterday's NY Post, the paper focused on another business that is in the path of the Columbia University expansion-and doesn't want to be evicted by eminent domain. This time it's the Cotton Club on 125th Street, whose owner Johm Beatty told the Post: "The Cotton Club is not for sale,...I'm not going to negotiate a deal with Columbia because I don't want to leave...I have children and grandchildren who want to continue this history."

So now we add another complication to the CU mix, an African-American business that doesn't want to be moved by the gentrifying, diversity hypocrites of Morningside Heights. As Beatty emphasized: "They don't want black people to have any reason to be on their campus...This country tells you to pull yourself up by the bootstraps," said Beatty, who worked as a brick layer in South Carolina at the age of 10. He said his club, which offers blues and jazz on Fridays and Sunday gospel brunches to mostly European tourists hungry for some soul, is "a landmark institution."

Calling Al Sharpton. The university's real estate impulse is the underlying rationale for the Columbia Corporation, a rationale that is camouflaged by all of the cloaking liberal rhetoric that floats like a noxious miasma all over the college's campus.

City Council Plasticity

We've been pointing out that the recently introduced bill on plastic bag recycling, Intro 640, is not only unfair to retailers, but is also unlikely to achieve the environmental goals that the bill's sponsors envision. Well. there are some folks at the council who do see this clearly, at they've introduced a resolution calling on the state to enact incentives for retailers to shift from plastics to other bag forms.

As the NY Sun writes this morning: "The city's effort to deal with plastic bags is growing more complicated, as council members Gale Brewer and Simcha Felder plan to introduce a resolution encouraging state government to provide tax incentives to retailers who stop handing out plastic bags." This is exactly the right approach, one that encourages change by creating incentives rather than expensive obligations. As we told the Sun in a truncated quote: "A lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, praised the incentives plan, saying it would divide the burden of eliminating plastic bags more evenly between bag manufacturers and businesses than the recycling plan."

If legitimate incentives are enacted on the state level, and the plastic bag industry perceived that there was a real threat, it would immediately become much more proactive on the recycling front-and not just by supporting a bill that places 99% of the burden on stores and about 1% on the folks who actually make millions manufacturing the bags.

Council woman Brewer captures the equity issues: "Ms. Brewer said yesterday that grocers see the recycling plan as a burden and that their thin profit margins make the transition to reusable bags from plastic difficult without additional incentives. "This bill would help tremendously with their economic issues," she said." Brewer has been a leader in trying to preserve the niche of independent retailers in NYC.

What's really predictable in all of this is the reaction of the Plastic Bag Alliance. Nothing underscores the nature of Intro 640's unfairness to retailers and its benefits to the baggers than this reaction: "Donna Dempsey, a spokeswoman for the plastic bag lobby, the Progressive Bag Alliance, said the plan would push consumers toward paper bags."If they were to take into consideration the environmental and unintended consequences of paper bags, they would reconsider their support for this bill," Ms. Dempsey said."

Translated: "plastic good, paper bad." Of course, if consumers started to get accustomed to reusing paper or cloth bags-or even plastic-the environment, if not the plastic people, would be better off. And in the process, retailers wouldn't be forced to bear yet another expensive burden.

Columbia's Benefit Agreement?

The resignations of three of the board members from the West Harlem LDC, the group set up to ostensibly negotiate a community benefits agreement with Columbia University, has raised the question of how much the LDC actually represents community interests. As we have commented before, the fact that Jesse James Masyr is the board's attorney and advisor creates the impression that there may well be a fox in this particular chicken coop, and that the legitimate interests of the local community may be sacrificed.

Now we have received, courtesy of the resigned Mr. Sprayregen, a copy of a statement from the LDC commenting on the resignations. It is a marvel of newspeak. Here's a sample: "Entrusted with doing the people’s work and making certain that the terms of a CBA address the community’s needs and desires as they relate to the proposed Columbia University expansion, the WHLDC has held open forums, convened public sessions of its weekly general meetings and included many community members in its working groups to ensure that the public is kept informed and community feedback is obtained. As is consistent with public outcry, the WHLDC remains opposed to the use of eminent domain for private conveyance."

The statement, however, contrasts sharply with the perception-underscored by the resignees but echoed by many in the West Harlem community-that the real negotiations have little to do with "open forums," and more to do with the agendas of sitting politicians. It does seem. however, that Jesse M. has learned something from his Bronx experience with CBAs-at least create the impression of openness.

And the WHLDC has done just that, with an impressive display of numerous, interminable, and going nowhere gatherings. Unlike the Yankee Stadium and Bronx Terminal Market debacles, that saw the Bronx BP essentially create his own benefits package in the name of the community, the current CBA process has all of the appearance of openness; which brings to mind Machiavelli's dictum: "It's always better to appear good, than to be good."

Of course the proof here will be in the pudding that the LDC concocts. Given the posture of the two local council members, however, we can believe that the results will be more than de minimis. The Spectator captures this skepticism in its editorial this morning: " But although the University has effectively won the bureaucratic battle for expansion, the administration should remember that they have yet to convince many students and neighborhood residents that their proposal is a sound and ethical one for the community."

The current faux populist process is unlikely to overcome the suspicion in the community. As the Spectator points out and gets the last word: "While this decision cements the broad outline of expansion, many issues remain unresolved. Members of the community are still anxious over many potential problems, like the potential use of eminent domain, gentrification, and the loss of affordable housing. If the administration wants tensions to subside, it must find a way to connect with these residents and make clear that Columbia intends to expand responsibly. The resignations last week of high-profile figures in the West Harlem Local Development Corporation heighten the perception that Columbia is circumventing community leaders in favor of cutting deals with powerful politicians."

Immigrant Circumlocutions

We have commented before about the tendentious tendency of some folks-self-described as "pro-immigrant"-to ascribe an anti-immigrant bias to those of us who are upset by the rising tide of illegal immigration. An editorial in yesterday's NY Post highlights some of this dishonesty.

The Post was commenting on a study put out by the Fiscal Policy Institute that highlighted the real contributions that are made by immigrants to NYC's economy: "FPI's study concluded that immigrants contributed $229 billion to the New York state economy in 2006; that's about 22.4 percent of the state's GDP." FPI, however, saw its study as a powerful rebuttal to that old standby-"anti-immigrant" sentiment.

As the Post points out, however, the controversial is not raging over immigration per se: "While the report is a quaint reminder of the part immigrants play in the New York story - as they always have - it does nothing to speak to the issue of the moment: that is, illegal immigration."

Which is exactly what emerges from another study that was highlighted in yesterday's NY Times. This report, done by the Center for Immigration Studies found that, at least in New York: "Foreign-born New Yorkers are better educated, more likely to have health insurance and less likely to have entered the country illegally compared with immigrants in the rest of the country, according to a new analysis."

Which may be why, as the Times speculates, the immigration issue has generated less controversy here (but, as the Post points out: "To the extent that immigration is controversial these days, though, the issue is generally how much illegal immigration should be tolerated - and what, if any, social and societal benefits should accrue to those here illegally.") And it may be that, since we New Yorkers recognize the contributions of legal immigrants, we are less likely to be motivated by immigration animus.

All of which underscores the extent to which it is the cheer leading claque for illegal immigration that has tried to hijack the debate through a dishonest use of language. The more the DMI Drummers do this, the more they will marginalize themselves and the electeds who think its good to march under their flag.