Andrew Wolf has forwarded us an article that he wrote last year on testing cheats, one that raises concerns for those who promote merit pay as a method for improving school performance: "As the schools chancellor joined in the announcement of a federal grant to test whether merit pay can lift performance in charter schools, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education confirmed that an investigation of test results was under way in a high-profile school in which the principal benefited from such a merit pay program."
Now we're not opponents of using testing to determine educational achievement; and we have nothing but scorn for critics of testing who appear to really oppose the whole idea of both measurement and merit. That being said, it's hard to deny that linking testing to merit can lead to corruption: "The school is P.S. 33 in the Bronx. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein traveled to the school in 2005 to announce their "historic" gains on the fourth-grade reading tests. That year P.S. 33 experienced a one-year gain of nearly 50 points; 83% of the students there were, according to the mayor, then reading at or above grade level. This not only helped the mayor win re-election but it won a $15,000 bonus for the school's principal, Elba Lopez."
Which brings us to the point of our earlier post-better scrutiny of school performance is needed and the results of the investigation into the scandal that Wolf writes about is certainly less than encouraging. It seems that, "These roller coaster test scores, combined with the merit pay bonanza for Ms. Lopez has, according to a Department of Education spokeswoman, Julia Levy, resulted in the matter being referred to the Special Investigator for the New York City School District, Richard Condon."
Yet, according to Wolf's message to us, the investigation was turned back to the DOE when Condon refused to investigate and the so-called investigation is STILL "under investigation." Which leads us to remember Karl Mark's aphorism; "Who will educate the educator?"
There's still much too much mystery surrounding the entire mayoral control experiment; and without greater transparency it won't be possible to judge whether the Bloomberg model has been good for the kids (or at least what aspects have been good, and what's not working). This is exactly what legislative oversight should be about. Is something missing here?
Monday, June 30, 2008
Checking it Twice
According to the NY Sun, a Bronx middle school acclaimed for its high test scores, may have achieved them the old fashioned way-cheating: "A South Bronx elementary school that adopted the motto "The Best School in the Universe" on the strength of soaring tests scores is being investigated for allegations that teachers helped students cheat on state tests."
With the DOE patting itself heavily on the back, it's incumbent on the city to examine whether all of the euphoria is, well, manufactured. As one teacher points out in the Bronx: "Several staff members at M.S. 201 said they have long suspected cheating went on at P.S. 48. The school feeds its graduates into M.S. 201, and they said students from that school often come unprepared — despite having high test scores..."These kids didn't know how to write, they didn't know how to add," a math teacher at M.S. 201 who is leaving the school, Elizabeth Cano, said. "How could they be getting level 4?"
With testing becoming the bottom line-for funding as well as for evaluation-the incentive to cheat also becomes irresistible for some educators all over the country: "Across the country, as standardized tests have become more important to schools — determining everything from whether schools close to teachers' pay — cases of cheating have become increasingly apparent. In Texas, a newspaper analysis by the Dallas Morning News last year found that more than 50,000 student test scores showed evidence of cheating."
Which says to us that the NY Post may need to temper its attack on the UFT this morning. Oh not because we think that the union's being unfiarly attacked-it may, or may not be. Rather, in looking to beat up the union the Post is using test results that nay have an ephemeral sweet smell: "Fully 74 percent of city elementary- and middle-schoolers met state benchmarks in math this year - up 9 percent from just a year ago. The pass rate in English is up nearly 7 percent. Some questions remain as to the difficulty of this year's exam, but gains in the city outpaced those statewide nearly across the board. This is, at the very least, promising news for a city that's for too long suffered under the weight of atrociously unaccountable public schools."
So what we have in NYC is potentially an embarrassing situation-watered down tests producing inflated results or, even worse, inflated results derived from teacher-aided cheating. Either way, there's a need for an independent evaluation of the DOE's testing so that we're not simply getting a false positive on tests that determine just how well our kids are doing in school.
With the DOE patting itself heavily on the back, it's incumbent on the city to examine whether all of the euphoria is, well, manufactured. As one teacher points out in the Bronx: "Several staff members at M.S. 201 said they have long suspected cheating went on at P.S. 48. The school feeds its graduates into M.S. 201, and they said students from that school often come unprepared — despite having high test scores..."These kids didn't know how to write, they didn't know how to add," a math teacher at M.S. 201 who is leaving the school, Elizabeth Cano, said. "How could they be getting level 4?"
With testing becoming the bottom line-for funding as well as for evaluation-the incentive to cheat also becomes irresistible for some educators all over the country: "Across the country, as standardized tests have become more important to schools — determining everything from whether schools close to teachers' pay — cases of cheating have become increasingly apparent. In Texas, a newspaper analysis by the Dallas Morning News last year found that more than 50,000 student test scores showed evidence of cheating."
Which says to us that the NY Post may need to temper its attack on the UFT this morning. Oh not because we think that the union's being unfiarly attacked-it may, or may not be. Rather, in looking to beat up the union the Post is using test results that nay have an ephemeral sweet smell: "Fully 74 percent of city elementary- and middle-schoolers met state benchmarks in math this year - up 9 percent from just a year ago. The pass rate in English is up nearly 7 percent. Some questions remain as to the difficulty of this year's exam, but gains in the city outpaced those statewide nearly across the board. This is, at the very least, promising news for a city that's for too long suffered under the weight of atrociously unaccountable public schools."
So what we have in NYC is potentially an embarrassing situation-watered down tests producing inflated results or, even worse, inflated results derived from teacher-aided cheating. Either way, there's a need for an independent evaluation of the DOE's testing so that we're not simply getting a false positive on tests that determine just how well our kids are doing in school.
Supercillious Mike?
In Friday's NY Post, the paper's Adam Brodsky advanced the idea that we should send Mike Bloomberg to Albany in order to rid the capitol of Shelly Silver and usher in an age of reform: "WITH Joe Bruno out as Senate majority leader, it's time for Mayor Bloomberg to take on Albany's last-man-standing: Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Nothing would boost Hizzoner's legacy as much as a successful bid to oust the speaker, a chief cause of Albany's broken government (and a major headache for the city, too). Let's face it: If New York is to see any real reform - relief from job-killing taxes, special-interest catering, parochialism and outright corruption - Silver must go. And who better than Honest Mike to show him the door?"
Who indeed, but that great tax cutter and special interest scourge, Mike Bloomberg. Is Brodsky really serious? Aside from the fact that Mayor Mike hasn't yet exhibited the political skills necessary to actually threaten the speaker's reign, there's little in his resume that indicates he's any reformer in the Brodsky mold.
After all, isn't this the same guy who boosted NYC property taxes through the roof in 2002, after running on an anti-tax platform against Mark Green (and attacking him as a tax hiker)? And isn't this the same Bloomberg that let Deputy Dan Doctoroff run amok aggrandizing his buddy Steve Ross? There is no greater special interest in NYC than the real estate lobby, and as the mayor himself admits, they've done very well under his watch-and without the benefit of the nefarious lobbyists; indicating it seems that, under Bloomberg, you don't even need a lobbyist to advance the special interests.
So aside from the impracticality of a Bloomberg challenge to Shelly, it is hard to see how the Albany climate would improve from this exercise in dilettantism. Let the mayor return to the private sector where he can pursue paying off the poor to behave better; and do so with his own funds, not the public's.
Who indeed, but that great tax cutter and special interest scourge, Mike Bloomberg. Is Brodsky really serious? Aside from the fact that Mayor Mike hasn't yet exhibited the political skills necessary to actually threaten the speaker's reign, there's little in his resume that indicates he's any reformer in the Brodsky mold.
After all, isn't this the same guy who boosted NYC property taxes through the roof in 2002, after running on an anti-tax platform against Mark Green (and attacking him as a tax hiker)? And isn't this the same Bloomberg that let Deputy Dan Doctoroff run amok aggrandizing his buddy Steve Ross? There is no greater special interest in NYC than the real estate lobby, and as the mayor himself admits, they've done very well under his watch-and without the benefit of the nefarious lobbyists; indicating it seems that, under Bloomberg, you don't even need a lobbyist to advance the special interests.
So aside from the impracticality of a Bloomberg challenge to Shelly, it is hard to see how the Albany climate would improve from this exercise in dilettantism. Let the mayor return to the private sector where he can pursue paying off the poor to behave better; and do so with his own funds, not the public's.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Talented and Discarded
In this morning's NY Sun, Andrew Wolf takes a look at the recently released school achievement tests and finds that talented kids are getting short shrift: "Curiously, it is not the low performers, special education students, minorities, English language learners, or other "at risk" groups that is lagging behind. Rather, despite the soaring scores, it is the group of highest performers that is shrinking."
Why's that? Well, for one, there is a greater degree of concern for the lowest performers and a general philosophy of leveling pervades the educratic set-talented kids, it seems, can fend okay by themselves. But can they? Not according to a blogger that Wolf cites, as well as a respected report from the Fordham Institute: "It appears," according to Eduwonkette, "that schools are focusing on pushing lower performing students over the passing mark, and shortchanging high-achieving students in the process. In Bloomberg's New York, as it turns out, a rising tide does not lift all boats." This is a serious charge, one that cannot be ignored. Within the past few days the Thomas B. Fordham Institute issued its report, "High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB," which suggests:
Teachers are much more likely to indicate that struggling students, not advanced students, are their top priority.
Low-achieving students receive dramatically more attention from teachers.
Teachers believe that all students deserve an equal share of attention.
Most teachers, at this point in our nation's history, feel pressure to focus on their lowest-achieving students."
What this means is that are talented kids aren't getting nurtured, which is not a good sign for the country's future. Talented kids need to be treated as "special needs" children, not only for themselves, but for society as a whole.
On top of all of this, however, there's a serious suspicion that the tests themselves are being watered down; which puts a dent in all of the "high-fiving" that's been going on at Tweed: "Complicating all of this is concern that the state tests themselves are inflated, producing results that misstate the true numbers of children at risk. New York State has already come under criticism for its inflated results, and this year's scores only widens the gap."
In the final analysis, there is an urgent need to bring in an independent evaluation team to examine the work of the Kleinmen. The current results raise more questions than they answer and we need a more sober review so it can be determined whether the current mayoral control structure needs to be overhauled.
Why's that? Well, for one, there is a greater degree of concern for the lowest performers and a general philosophy of leveling pervades the educratic set-talented kids, it seems, can fend okay by themselves. But can they? Not according to a blogger that Wolf cites, as well as a respected report from the Fordham Institute: "It appears," according to Eduwonkette, "that schools are focusing on pushing lower performing students over the passing mark, and shortchanging high-achieving students in the process. In Bloomberg's New York, as it turns out, a rising tide does not lift all boats." This is a serious charge, one that cannot be ignored. Within the past few days the Thomas B. Fordham Institute issued its report, "High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB," which suggests:
Teachers are much more likely to indicate that struggling students, not advanced students, are their top priority.
Low-achieving students receive dramatically more attention from teachers.
Teachers believe that all students deserve an equal share of attention.
Most teachers, at this point in our nation's history, feel pressure to focus on their lowest-achieving students."
What this means is that are talented kids aren't getting nurtured, which is not a good sign for the country's future. Talented kids need to be treated as "special needs" children, not only for themselves, but for society as a whole.
On top of all of this, however, there's a serious suspicion that the tests themselves are being watered down; which puts a dent in all of the "high-fiving" that's been going on at Tweed: "Complicating all of this is concern that the state tests themselves are inflated, producing results that misstate the true numbers of children at risk. New York State has already come under criticism for its inflated results, and this year's scores only widens the gap."
In the final analysis, there is an urgent need to bring in an independent evaluation team to examine the work of the Kleinmen. The current results raise more questions than they answer and we need a more sober review so it can be determined whether the current mayoral control structure needs to be overhauled.
Point-Counterpoint
Yesterday's labor press conference on the steps of City Hall supporting the redevlopment of Willets Point had some positive first steps for a fairer ULURP process. As the NY Daily News' Juan Gonzales points out: "Some of New York's biggest union leaders lined up on the steps of City Hall Thursday to cheer Mayor Bloomberg's new megadevelopment plan - the $3 billion Willets Point project in Queens. One after another, they gave glowing praise to one more giveaway to real estate developers - one that had been opposed by a majority of the City Council. The labor leaders touted the "historic" concessions on future jobs at Willets Point they claim to have secured from City Hall in return for backing the project."
And there were some good concessions for workers, but the fate of the displaced businesses is less certain; something that needs to be addressed if this development is to go forward, since local council member Hiram Monseratte is still holding out for a better deal: "City Councilman Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens), who represents Willets Point, has made it clear from the start that he won't support any rezoning of the area that doesn't address things like good-paying permanent jobs, fair relocation of existing businesses and workers, and a significant amount of affordable housing. Monserrate has lined up 28 fellow members out of 51 to publicly oppose the plan. That explains why City Hall decided to announce an agreement with union leaders on jobs. Bloomberg's aides will ask the unions to be the mayor's foot soldiers to pressure the Council on behalf of the project."
Monserrate believes that keeping the council strong in its opposition is the only way to insure that the project will be as good as it can be; which means that the 225 businesses and their workers need to get a fair shake, And affordable housing ma be the key here: "In order to win those concessions, though, the union leaders ignored how the city is treating existing businesses and workers at Willets Point. They ignored the plans of the city to build mostly market-rate housing in a borough where the median income is less than $50,000 a year."
So we'll see if Hiram's able to do for the Point, a district that he represents, what he was unable to do for the Bronx Terminal Market, where the local electeds wouldn't stand with him in solidarity with the merchants. Already, however, his strong stand is insuring that whatever comes out of the Willets Point negotiations will be better for the fight that was made.
And there were some good concessions for workers, but the fate of the displaced businesses is less certain; something that needs to be addressed if this development is to go forward, since local council member Hiram Monseratte is still holding out for a better deal: "City Councilman Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens), who represents Willets Point, has made it clear from the start that he won't support any rezoning of the area that doesn't address things like good-paying permanent jobs, fair relocation of existing businesses and workers, and a significant amount of affordable housing. Monserrate has lined up 28 fellow members out of 51 to publicly oppose the plan. That explains why City Hall decided to announce an agreement with union leaders on jobs. Bloomberg's aides will ask the unions to be the mayor's foot soldiers to pressure the Council on behalf of the project."
Monserrate believes that keeping the council strong in its opposition is the only way to insure that the project will be as good as it can be; which means that the 225 businesses and their workers need to get a fair shake, And affordable housing ma be the key here: "In order to win those concessions, though, the union leaders ignored how the city is treating existing businesses and workers at Willets Point. They ignored the plans of the city to build mostly market-rate housing in a borough where the median income is less than $50,000 a year."
So we'll see if Hiram's able to do for the Point, a district that he represents, what he was unable to do for the Bronx Terminal Market, where the local electeds wouldn't stand with him in solidarity with the merchants. Already, however, his strong stand is insuring that whatever comes out of the Willets Point negotiations will be better for the fight that was made.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
If at First You Don't Succed...
Can you believe it, after only six and a half years on the job, the mayor finally has some good news out of Albany? Here's the NY Post story on the deal for the Gansevoort recycling center: " Mayor Bloomberg broke his Albany losing streak yesterday by winning state approval to build a trash-transfer station on the Hudson River near Gansevoort Street - the last hurdle to his sweeping overhaul of the city's garbage system."
We guess that Bloomgerg finally gets it: you have to really negotiate with Shelly Silver and you can't simply bogart him as you do some others we can think of. But what really has the mayor gained from this deal? According to his court historian, quit a lot it seems: "The victory allows Bloomberg to complete his massive revision of the city's Solid Waste Management Plan.
The plan represented Bloomberg's answer to the looming trash crisis he inherited after then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani closed the massive Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island. "This is a legacy project for the mayor," Deputy Mayor for Operations Edward Skyler told The Post. "We're fundamentally handling the way the city handles its garbage, to deal with it an environmentally friendly way and not pit communities against each other."
A legacy project? We'll let the real historians be the judge of that; but let's just say that as far as garbage removal is concerned-there's not much there there. The mayor still hasn't figured out any significant way to actually reduce the amount of garbage exported, and the administration's cluelessness on organic waste is right up there as one reason why this Gansevoort deal ain't no great shakes.
Some tinkering with how you transport the waste you're exporting is no substitute for a plan that would radically reduce the amounts sent out to area landfills. As we've said in the past, if this is, as the mayor has described it, a "groundbreaking" plan, than the man must be digging with a plastic spoon.
We guess that Bloomgerg finally gets it: you have to really negotiate with Shelly Silver and you can't simply bogart him as you do some others we can think of. But what really has the mayor gained from this deal? According to his court historian, quit a lot it seems: "The victory allows Bloomberg to complete his massive revision of the city's Solid Waste Management Plan.
The plan represented Bloomberg's answer to the looming trash crisis he inherited after then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani closed the massive Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island. "This is a legacy project for the mayor," Deputy Mayor for Operations Edward Skyler told The Post. "We're fundamentally handling the way the city handles its garbage, to deal with it an environmentally friendly way and not pit communities against each other."
A legacy project? We'll let the real historians be the judge of that; but let's just say that as far as garbage removal is concerned-there's not much there there. The mayor still hasn't figured out any significant way to actually reduce the amount of garbage exported, and the administration's cluelessness on organic waste is right up there as one reason why this Gansevoort deal ain't no great shakes.
Some tinkering with how you transport the waste you're exporting is no substitute for a plan that would radically reduce the amounts sent out to area landfills. As we've said in the past, if this is, as the mayor has described it, a "groundbreaking" plan, than the man must be digging with a plastic spoon.
Bagging the Baggers
Here's the quote of the day, courtesy of the NY Sun, and it comes from State Senator Marcellino. It appears that the state has passed a plastic bag recycling law that supersedes (and guts, according to the speaker) the city council's own version of the recycling initiative: "Mr. Marcellino, who represents parts of Nassau and Suffolk counties, said the state needs a single policy when it comes to plastic bag recycling and not a patchwork of local laws that require business owners to follow different rules. The council could have expressed its opinion about the bill before it was approved, he said, but never did. "Someone dropped the ball," he said. "Someone was asleep at the switch."
Whoever's lobbying for the council and the city needs to be ashamed of their ineptitude-if this issue was so important to the city. As the Sun points out: "The council was blindsided by the state legislation, which was introduced late last week in the Assembly and Senate. The sponsor of the Senate bill, Senator Carl Marcellino, disputed the idea that the legislation was slipped past the city's lawmakers, saying both bills had been on a list of active legislation for five months."
What's missing in all of this, of course, is the fact that these are exactly the kind of regulations-along with the bottle bill as a prime example-that increase the cost of doing business for supermarkets in the city and state. Plastic recycling, along with all of the container recycling that is done under the deposit regimen, should be moved out of the food stores and into free standing recycling centers.
Ironically, the one recycling measure that actually could benefit local food markets-the legalization of food waste disposers-was killed by council leadership. Here's an initiative that could reduce store disposal costs by more than half, and dramatically reduce the export of wet garbage to area landfills. On top of this, all of the organic waste that is processed through the waste transfer stations ends up as compost material and is re-used for fertilizer.
But that's the measure that the council torpedoes, and now comes clamoring into the picture with a public geshrie about disappearing food stores. Here's our message: Reduce the operating cost for supermarkets and restaurants by passing Intro 133; it's a pilot program for Pete's sake! And start do do other concrete measures to make it more profitable for supermarkets to do business in New York City.
Whoever's lobbying for the council and the city needs to be ashamed of their ineptitude-if this issue was so important to the city. As the Sun points out: "The council was blindsided by the state legislation, which was introduced late last week in the Assembly and Senate. The sponsor of the Senate bill, Senator Carl Marcellino, disputed the idea that the legislation was slipped past the city's lawmakers, saying both bills had been on a list of active legislation for five months."
What's missing in all of this, of course, is the fact that these are exactly the kind of regulations-along with the bottle bill as a prime example-that increase the cost of doing business for supermarkets in the city and state. Plastic recycling, along with all of the container recycling that is done under the deposit regimen, should be moved out of the food stores and into free standing recycling centers.
Ironically, the one recycling measure that actually could benefit local food markets-the legalization of food waste disposers-was killed by council leadership. Here's an initiative that could reduce store disposal costs by more than half, and dramatically reduce the export of wet garbage to area landfills. On top of this, all of the organic waste that is processed through the waste transfer stations ends up as compost material and is re-used for fertilizer.
But that's the measure that the council torpedoes, and now comes clamoring into the picture with a public geshrie about disappearing food stores. Here's our message: Reduce the operating cost for supermarkets and restaurants by passing Intro 133; it's a pilot program for Pete's sake! And start do do other concrete measures to make it more profitable for supermarkets to do business in New York City.
Milk Gouging Exposed
NY1 is reporting that NYS has raised the state-controlled price for milk: "The state-controlled price for a gallon of milk will go up to $4.37 starting in July. That is 44 cents higher than the current price and 72 cents more than it cost on May 1. City dairy officials say several factors are to blame, including rising fuel, lower corn supplies and the floods in the Midwest."
Now it wasn't long ago that the city council had a press conference that trumpeted an "investigation" that demonstrated that local markets were gouging customers on the cost of milk. The council report claimed: "Forty-three of the 50 stores surveyed (86%) charged a price that was higher than the threshold for at least one unit of milk. The 43 surveyed retailers that charged above the threshold for at least one unit of milk charged an average of $0.40 per unit above the threshold. Twelve (63.2%) of the 19 supermarkets surveyed charged above the threshold for at least one unit of milk. A total of 458 units of milk were surveyed,11 with 238 (51.9%) units priced above the threshold."
Now, however, it appears that the investigation did little more than prove that all food retailers were simply reflecting the higher distribution costs. As one milk dealer told NY1: "With the huge increases in gasoline, which is driving all these other factors, normally we're able to predict going forward based on supply and demand and -- what prices are going to be, but I wouldn't even venture a guess," said Henry Beyer, president of Beyer Farms and Tuscan Dairy."
Ase said at the time, the who;e claim was bogus something that the council recognized, even though the recognition was buried in the report: "And ironically, the council does understand this to some degree. Yet it buried this understanding under the sensational "findings" in its report. On page 12 we find: "Finally, it must be recognized that rising rents, high operating costs and slim margins have made it difficult for supermarkets to thrive in New York City."
All city officials must understand that high local operating costs-particularly taxes and regulations-are crippling supermarkets and other smaller food stores. That's where the focus of attention should be placed when the issue is the high cost of food and the disappearance of local markets.
Now it wasn't long ago that the city council had a press conference that trumpeted an "investigation" that demonstrated that local markets were gouging customers on the cost of milk. The council report claimed: "Forty-three of the 50 stores surveyed (86%) charged a price that was higher than the threshold for at least one unit of milk. The 43 surveyed retailers that charged above the threshold for at least one unit of milk charged an average of $0.40 per unit above the threshold. Twelve (63.2%) of the 19 supermarkets surveyed charged above the threshold for at least one unit of milk. A total of 458 units of milk were surveyed,11 with 238 (51.9%) units priced above the threshold."
Now, however, it appears that the investigation did little more than prove that all food retailers were simply reflecting the higher distribution costs. As one milk dealer told NY1: "With the huge increases in gasoline, which is driving all these other factors, normally we're able to predict going forward based on supply and demand and -- what prices are going to be, but I wouldn't even venture a guess," said Henry Beyer, president of Beyer Farms and Tuscan Dairy."
Ase said at the time, the who;e claim was bogus something that the council recognized, even though the recognition was buried in the report: "And ironically, the council does understand this to some degree. Yet it buried this understanding under the sensational "findings" in its report. On page 12 we find: "Finally, it must be recognized that rising rents, high operating costs and slim margins have made it difficult for supermarkets to thrive in New York City."
All city officials must understand that high local operating costs-particularly taxes and regulations-are crippling supermarkets and other smaller food stores. That's where the focus of attention should be placed when the issue is the high cost of food and the disappearance of local markets.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Related and Community Benefits
In this morning's NY Times, the paper focuses on the conflict over the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment on a community benefits negotiation between the KARA, a coalition of local groups, and Related, the developer of the site: "Residents of the northwest Bronx have long taken a proprietary interest in the Kingsbridge Armory, a huge city-owned Romanesque-style fortress that looms over the elevated subway tracks on Jerome Avenue...Now community organizers in the area, one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods, are seeking a private contract with the Related Companies, the developer chosen by the city in April to transform the Kingsbridge Armory into a shopping mall with 575,000 square feet of retail space, including a department store, a multiscreen movie theater and restaurants."
Clearly, this will be a big challenge since Related has not distinguished itself for being a real friend to community interests. As the Times points out: "Related has already negotiated one community benefits agreement in the Bronx, for its Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market, a big-box shopping center that is under construction. But that agreement — like a handful of others that have been made in New York — has drawn criticism from advocates and scholars for being weaker than those in other states. At Gateway Center, only three local groups were parties to the agreement and few obligations were actually imposed on Related, Mr. Gross said."
Which only underscores the difficulties ahead, problems that are exacerbated by the city's cool response to the CBA process; "When you do a C.B.A., the decision may be made in a vacuum, and that’s what we’re looking to avoid,” Seth W. Pinsky, president of the city’s Economic Development Corporation, said in an interview last week. “We’re not opposed to benefits for the community, and we’re not opposed to community involvement. But we just think it should be part of the larger process.” He said the city’s land-use process “gives ample opportunity for the community’s voice to be heard.” Proposals are reviewed by the local community board, whose members are appointed by the borough president and the City Council member representing the district. The board’s powers are only advisory."
Pinsky may be the only one left in the city who feels that the ULURP process adequately represents real community interest-particularly in the Bronx where a local board's demonstration of independence led to a wholesale sacking of its most vocal members. Related, CBAs, and the Bronx are not perfect together it would seem.
We do, however, have a concern about the Bronx's original supermarket, and give a shout out to the RWDSU for its effort to protect it: "Jeffrey Eichler, a coordinator for the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union/UFCW, said one of the alliance’s objectives was to avoid harming existing businesses, including the Associated Supermarket on Jerome Avenue, opposite the armory, which is unionized."
On the other hand, CB# 9's board chair discounts the KARA role, and feels that a food store should be part of the armory development: "Gregory Faulkner, the chairman of the Community Board 7, whose area includes the armory, said it was now up to his board to assume a leadership role. “There are more voices than KARA,” he said. Mr. Faulkner said many people in the community want the new mall to include a “top notch” food market, something that is not on the alliance’s agenda."
This could set up an interesting battle, and we should remind some folks that the debacle over the Gateway Mall, one that led to the sneaking in of a BJs Warehouse Club, will not be repeated here; and if Related plays it cute it may well find that the political landscape has shifted and the entire project rests on quicksand, CBA or no CBA.
Clearly, this will be a big challenge since Related has not distinguished itself for being a real friend to community interests. As the Times points out: "Related has already negotiated one community benefits agreement in the Bronx, for its Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market, a big-box shopping center that is under construction. But that agreement — like a handful of others that have been made in New York — has drawn criticism from advocates and scholars for being weaker than those in other states. At Gateway Center, only three local groups were parties to the agreement and few obligations were actually imposed on Related, Mr. Gross said."
Which only underscores the difficulties ahead, problems that are exacerbated by the city's cool response to the CBA process; "When you do a C.B.A., the decision may be made in a vacuum, and that’s what we’re looking to avoid,” Seth W. Pinsky, president of the city’s Economic Development Corporation, said in an interview last week. “We’re not opposed to benefits for the community, and we’re not opposed to community involvement. But we just think it should be part of the larger process.” He said the city’s land-use process “gives ample opportunity for the community’s voice to be heard.” Proposals are reviewed by the local community board, whose members are appointed by the borough president and the City Council member representing the district. The board’s powers are only advisory."
Pinsky may be the only one left in the city who feels that the ULURP process adequately represents real community interest-particularly in the Bronx where a local board's demonstration of independence led to a wholesale sacking of its most vocal members. Related, CBAs, and the Bronx are not perfect together it would seem.
We do, however, have a concern about the Bronx's original supermarket, and give a shout out to the RWDSU for its effort to protect it: "Jeffrey Eichler, a coordinator for the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union/UFCW, said one of the alliance’s objectives was to avoid harming existing businesses, including the Associated Supermarket on Jerome Avenue, opposite the armory, which is unionized."
On the other hand, CB# 9's board chair discounts the KARA role, and feels that a food store should be part of the armory development: "Gregory Faulkner, the chairman of the Community Board 7, whose area includes the armory, said it was now up to his board to assume a leadership role. “There are more voices than KARA,” he said. Mr. Faulkner said many people in the community want the new mall to include a “top notch” food market, something that is not on the alliance’s agenda."
This could set up an interesting battle, and we should remind some folks that the debacle over the Gateway Mall, one that led to the sneaking in of a BJs Warehouse Club, will not be repeated here; and if Related plays it cute it may well find that the political landscape has shifted and the entire project rests on quicksand, CBA or no CBA.
Domino Theory for Supermarket?
According to the Observer, the city's Landmarks Commission has given the green light for the redevelopment of the old Domino Sugar plant in Brooklyn: "Unlike the former, more controversial plan, this one preserves the iconic Domino Sugar sign, better hides the mechanicals, and adds fewer floors on top of the landmarked old factory. The New Domino is a mixed-use development, slated to have 2,200 residential units, 30 percent of which are supposed to be affordable, along with approximately 220,000 square feet of new retail, commercial and community cultural facility space."
What this means is that there will be a great opportunity to put a nice new modern supermarket in the Domino site-but this possibility isn't without obstacles, the largest of which may relate to cost. This new project will not only be expensive to build, but will also include a good percentage of affordable apartments that will need substantial subsidies. In this kind of situation, developers generally look to recoup from the commercial tenants.
As a result, if a supermarket tenant is found for the development, it may not be able to offer groceries to the local community at a price structure it can afford-that is if a market even bites on the lease costs for the site. Which means that the city's challenge will be to act as an intermediary to insure that a new affordable market can be part of the Domino deal.
Which it can do because the entire deal needs to have city council approval. As the NY Daily News points out: "The developer also plans to add up to four additional stories to the refinery, to the tune of more than $40 million. The City Council must still approve the plans, which include an 11-acre revamping of the Williamsburg waterfront, boasting 2,200 housing units, shops and parks. He said he hopes to start building by fall next year with the New Domino as his architectural centerpiece. "The ritzy apartment building will pay" for the rest, Lappin said."
Along with the retail component, unless the city intervenes. We believe that this will present a real challenge to the city's expressed desire to get more supermarkets into underserved neighborhoods, and should be a galvanizing force for labor, community and food advocates who have made the supermarket disappearance issue so compelling.
What this means is that there will be a great opportunity to put a nice new modern supermarket in the Domino site-but this possibility isn't without obstacles, the largest of which may relate to cost. This new project will not only be expensive to build, but will also include a good percentage of affordable apartments that will need substantial subsidies. In this kind of situation, developers generally look to recoup from the commercial tenants.
As a result, if a supermarket tenant is found for the development, it may not be able to offer groceries to the local community at a price structure it can afford-that is if a market even bites on the lease costs for the site. Which means that the city's challenge will be to act as an intermediary to insure that a new affordable market can be part of the Domino deal.
Which it can do because the entire deal needs to have city council approval. As the NY Daily News points out: "The developer also plans to add up to four additional stories to the refinery, to the tune of more than $40 million. The City Council must still approve the plans, which include an 11-acre revamping of the Williamsburg waterfront, boasting 2,200 housing units, shops and parks. He said he hopes to start building by fall next year with the New Domino as his architectural centerpiece. "The ritzy apartment building will pay" for the rest, Lappin said."
Along with the retail component, unless the city intervenes. We believe that this will present a real challenge to the city's expressed desire to get more supermarkets into underserved neighborhoods, and should be a galvanizing force for labor, community and food advocates who have made the supermarket disappearance issue so compelling.
Parking up the Wrong Tree
As the NY Times is reporting today, the city council hearing on the replacement parks for the ones lost to the new Yankee Stadium, brought forth some interesting information: "A parks department official, called before the City Council to explain why an effort to replace recreation space lost to construction of the new Yankee Stadium has been plagued by delays and cost overruns, said on Tuesday that the department’s inexperience with such complex projects was partly to blame."
The council rightly asked whether the delay demonstrated that the city had sold the legislature a bill of goods when it was trying to insure that the stadium redevelopment package would get the council's green light. As stadium critic Diane Foster told the paper: "On Tuesday, council members asked Liam Kavanagh, the parks department’s first deputy commissioner, a series of pointed questions, including whether the agency had been dishonest about its original cost estimates. “Is there a possibility the numbers were watered down or made less to make the package more appealing?” asked Councilwoman Helen Diane Foster, the committee chairwoman."
Parks denied skulduggery, but skeptics can't help but wonder: "When Councilman Alan Gerson asked why the agency had not done a more thorough analysis of replacement park sites to determine what they contained before starting construction, Mr. Kavanagh said that in many cases, the department had lacked access to do proper studies. Mr. Gerson said, “All the reasons you cited are reasons why we should do full-fledged estimates before funding is in place.’’
And it appears that one of the sites in question-down by the water front-has an expensive clean up before it can be used for a park. That's part of the site that the Related Company (remember the Velodrome for the Olympics?) swapped to the city in exchange for its lucrative development deal at the Terminal Market: "Another replacement park, on an abandoned site along the Harlem River waterfront, ran into trouble when crews found more oil barrels buried there than they had been told to expect, he said. That led to significant costs for removing the barrels and cleaning toxic substances. “This site is much different than something we typically deal with,” he said. The park along the waterfront will cost about $56 million to build, the department now says."
The entire fiasco cries out to be investigated: what did Related and Deputy Dan know, and when did they know it? The BTM deal was outrageous enough without a bait and switch land swap that needed a full environmental cleanup. Where's the US Attorney when hundreds of millions of dollars are ceded to a member in good standing of the city's permanent government without competitive bidding or proper oversight? Instead we get the indictment of the hapless Asquith Reid. Way to go!
The council rightly asked whether the delay demonstrated that the city had sold the legislature a bill of goods when it was trying to insure that the stadium redevelopment package would get the council's green light. As stadium critic Diane Foster told the paper: "On Tuesday, council members asked Liam Kavanagh, the parks department’s first deputy commissioner, a series of pointed questions, including whether the agency had been dishonest about its original cost estimates. “Is there a possibility the numbers were watered down or made less to make the package more appealing?” asked Councilwoman Helen Diane Foster, the committee chairwoman."
Parks denied skulduggery, but skeptics can't help but wonder: "When Councilman Alan Gerson asked why the agency had not done a more thorough analysis of replacement park sites to determine what they contained before starting construction, Mr. Kavanagh said that in many cases, the department had lacked access to do proper studies. Mr. Gerson said, “All the reasons you cited are reasons why we should do full-fledged estimates before funding is in place.’’
And it appears that one of the sites in question-down by the water front-has an expensive clean up before it can be used for a park. That's part of the site that the Related Company (remember the Velodrome for the Olympics?) swapped to the city in exchange for its lucrative development deal at the Terminal Market: "Another replacement park, on an abandoned site along the Harlem River waterfront, ran into trouble when crews found more oil barrels buried there than they had been told to expect, he said. That led to significant costs for removing the barrels and cleaning toxic substances. “This site is much different than something we typically deal with,” he said. The park along the waterfront will cost about $56 million to build, the department now says."
The entire fiasco cries out to be investigated: what did Related and Deputy Dan know, and when did they know it? The BTM deal was outrageous enough without a bait and switch land swap that needed a full environmental cleanup. Where's the US Attorney when hundreds of millions of dollars are ceded to a member in good standing of the city's permanent government without competitive bidding or proper oversight? Instead we get the indictment of the hapless Asquith Reid. Way to go!
Tax Impasse
In what amounts to an unusual situation, the City Council and the mayor are at an impasse over the budget negotiations because of the mayor's desire to raise property taxes. As the NY Sun reports: "A fight over property taxes is derailing budget talks between Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council, with council leaders walking away from negotiations and insisting they won't agree to a property tax hike they say the mayor is pushing."
Adding to the spectacle of city law makers balking on a tax increase is the fact that Speaker Quinn is siding with her colleagues against the mayor: "Council leaders who called off negotiations yesterday say they are frustrated by the mayor's refusal to give way on the positions he's staked out. Council members said Speaker Christine Quinn agreed to the decision, marking a change from her normally close working relationship with the mayor."
The council's looking to raise the hotel tax, but the mayor-correctly in our view-sees this as a business killer, What's missing, of course, is the concept of more responsible government-more efficient and less expensive; an idea that the mayor sees as foreign since his first days in office were accompanied by a whopping real estate tax increase; and little he's done since demonstrates he understands how much the city's high tax environment hurts residents and businesses alike.
Sp now, with the mayor's term winding into the homestretch, we get a political stalemate with both sides looking to raise some form of taxation. As the NY Daily News reports: "Planned negotiations between the Council's budget team and the mayor's side collapsed over key sticking points like school funding and the reimposition of a 7% property tax hike. "We're not going to participate in one-hand clapping," said City Councilman Lewis Fidler (D-Brooklyn)."
Which leaves some of us, including council minority leader Jimmy Oddo, as odd men out. As he told the Sun: "The council's minority leader, James Oddo of Staten Island, said he finds himself in a "no man's land" when it comes to budget negotiations at City Hall because he disagrees with some of the budget restorations other council members are seeking. "And I certainly would disagree with the notion of raising taxes to pay for them," he said."
Adding to the spectacle of city law makers balking on a tax increase is the fact that Speaker Quinn is siding with her colleagues against the mayor: "Council leaders who called off negotiations yesterday say they are frustrated by the mayor's refusal to give way on the positions he's staked out. Council members said Speaker Christine Quinn agreed to the decision, marking a change from her normally close working relationship with the mayor."
The council's looking to raise the hotel tax, but the mayor-correctly in our view-sees this as a business killer, What's missing, of course, is the concept of more responsible government-more efficient and less expensive; an idea that the mayor sees as foreign since his first days in office were accompanied by a whopping real estate tax increase; and little he's done since demonstrates he understands how much the city's high tax environment hurts residents and businesses alike.
Sp now, with the mayor's term winding into the homestretch, we get a political stalemate with both sides looking to raise some form of taxation. As the NY Daily News reports: "Planned negotiations between the Council's budget team and the mayor's side collapsed over key sticking points like school funding and the reimposition of a 7% property tax hike. "We're not going to participate in one-hand clapping," said City Councilman Lewis Fidler (D-Brooklyn)."
Which leaves some of us, including council minority leader Jimmy Oddo, as odd men out. As he told the Sun: "The council's minority leader, James Oddo of Staten Island, said he finds himself in a "no man's land" when it comes to budget negotiations at City Hall because he disagrees with some of the budget restorations other council members are seeking. "And I certainly would disagree with the notion of raising taxes to pay for them," he said."
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Adolfo's Declaration of Independence: Too Late
In this morning's NY Daily News, Bob Kappstatter comments on Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion's strange no show at a mayoral dog and pony in the borough last week: "Borough President Adolfo Carrión threw a snit fit last week, skipping a presser by Mayor Bloomberg outside the Bronx County Building. Insiders said Adolfo's tired of being treated like one of the pooches whenever May-yuh Mike rolls into the boro to put on a dog-and-pony show."
A little late for this isn't it? Kappy captures the tardiness here: "Especially, as some critics have noted, after all the rolling over and sitting the BP's done for City Hall on controversial projects like the Gateway Mall and new Yankee Stadium." Indeed he has, so why the posturing now after the development cat's long out of the bag?
It's not as if, as Kappy says, he's not going to take credit for the "economic development." And after all, what really did Adolfo do on all of this besides waive a pom pom? It does seem rather curious behavior at this late date, doesn't it?
A little late for this isn't it? Kappy captures the tardiness here: "Especially, as some critics have noted, after all the rolling over and sitting the BP's done for City Hall on controversial projects like the Gateway Mall and new Yankee Stadium." Indeed he has, so why the posturing now after the development cat's long out of the bag?
It's not as if, as Kappy says, he's not going to take credit for the "economic development." And after all, what really did Adolfo do on all of this besides waive a pom pom? It does seem rather curious behavior at this late date, doesn't it?
The Longest Losing Streak
Yesterday the Supreme Court passed on the eminent domain law suit brought by the opponents of Atlantic Yards, clearing the way for the Nets to come to Brooklyn. As the Observer pointed out: "The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up an appeal in the fight over Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards project, putting to an end the federal lawsuit filed by landowners and tenants in late 2006 that challenged the state’s use of eminent domain for the mega-project.
Slam dunked, that is! The NY post captures the esssence here: " The US Supreme Court yesterday delivered a major blow to opponents of the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, refusing to hear a legal challenge over the use of eminent domain to make way for the $4 billion plan."
This makes it twenty losing cases in a row, but the DDD folks remain undaunted: "The plaintiffs in the suit are now pledging to take the case to state court, a route they initially avoided as eminent domain laws in New York tend to be relatively favorable to the state." Shall we say, gluttons for punishment? Here's the NY Times' take this morning: "The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday was a victory for the developer Bruce C. Ratner and for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who supports the project. The centerpiece of the $4 billion plan, which includes 16 high-rise office and apartment buildings, is a basketball arena intended to house the New Jersey Nets. Brooklyn has not had a professional major league sports team since the Dodgers left for Los Angeles in 1957."
The DDD team's remarks on the on the swatting (courtesy of the Brownstoner and the Politicker): "Now that the eminent domain case is toast on a federal level, the plaintiffs are going to file suit in state court, according to a press release from Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (copy on jump). "We are, of course, disappointed that the Court declined our request to hear this important case. This is not, however, a ruling on the merits of our claims. Our claims remain sound. New York State law, and the state constitution, prohibit the government from taking private homes and businesses simply because a powerful developer demands it..."
It is always unfortunate when folks are forced to move, but this is one case where the eviction road was paved with gold, even though the 11 plaintiffs decided to stand firm and fight this rear guard action. It is, in this case, the greater good that is achieved, and the Custer-like opposition will be meeting the same fate as the General did at the Little Big Horn.
Slam dunked, that is! The NY post captures the esssence here: " The US Supreme Court yesterday delivered a major blow to opponents of the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, refusing to hear a legal challenge over the use of eminent domain to make way for the $4 billion plan."
This makes it twenty losing cases in a row, but the DDD folks remain undaunted: "The plaintiffs in the suit are now pledging to take the case to state court, a route they initially avoided as eminent domain laws in New York tend to be relatively favorable to the state." Shall we say, gluttons for punishment? Here's the NY Times' take this morning: "The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday was a victory for the developer Bruce C. Ratner and for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who supports the project. The centerpiece of the $4 billion plan, which includes 16 high-rise office and apartment buildings, is a basketball arena intended to house the New Jersey Nets. Brooklyn has not had a professional major league sports team since the Dodgers left for Los Angeles in 1957."
The DDD team's remarks on the on the swatting (courtesy of the Brownstoner and the Politicker): "Now that the eminent domain case is toast on a federal level, the plaintiffs are going to file suit in state court, according to a press release from Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (copy on jump). "We are, of course, disappointed that the Court declined our request to hear this important case. This is not, however, a ruling on the merits of our claims. Our claims remain sound. New York State law, and the state constitution, prohibit the government from taking private homes and businesses simply because a powerful developer demands it..."
Sounds just like some losing manager, doesn't it? Isn't it time for the DDD ownership to bring in Jerry Manuel to replace Daniel Goldstein? After all, this is quite the losing streak, and a fresh managerial start would do the team a whale of good, we believe. Or maybe Goldstein shold simply resign and let someone else have a shot at leadership.
We've always maintained that the AY project, on balance, has much good to offer Brooklyn and the rest of the city, but as the critics point out, we're paid to say that. So don't take our word for it, listen the the kids and the amateur athletic teams that turned out on Brooklyn Day to trumpet the Nets coming to the city-they know what kind of excitement and support the team will bring to the youngsters; and we still haven't touched on the housing which will follow the team's entrance.It is always unfortunate when folks are forced to move, but this is one case where the eviction road was paved with gold, even though the 11 plaintiffs decided to stand firm and fight this rear guard action. It is, in this case, the greater good that is achieved, and the Custer-like opposition will be meeting the same fate as the General did at the Little Big Horn.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Bloomberg's Gastly Suggestion
On Saturday the NY post reported on Mayor Mike's energy suggestions for the average motorist: "go suck on your exhaust pipe." As the Post points out, the mayor feels that a little fiscal disciple. in the form of higher gas taxes, would be good for us all: "With drivers around the country fuming about rising gas prices, Bloomberg dropped a bombshell into their tanks yesterday by calling for increased fuel taxes to cut consumption."
This isn't all that surprising, since we've long argued that the patrician sentiments of the mayor make it unlikely that he can fully understand the plight of the average citizen. Up until this year, however, he's been pretty good at masking his true feelings. Now we're getting the unvarnished Bloomberg and it's kind of a refreshing change from the six year masquerade.
In making the suggestion, Mayor Mike once again conflated-and confused-government tax policy with capitalist free market philosphy: "They should be raising the tax and encouraging people to reduce consumption. The anti-tax people don't like that. But using capitalism to encourage the right behavior is exactly the [right] direction of going. Tax policy is the way government uses capitalism."
Wow! We think that Mike's confusing "use" with "abuse." But doesn't underscore the extent to which ther mayor is out of touch with the plight of those that the Post sardonically calls "peons?" And the peons responded: "Motorists at a Harlem gas station filling their tanks - and emptying their wallets - were angered by Bloomberg's comments. "Bloomberg's a billionaire and has no idea what it's like out here," said Les Cox."
And on Sunday, the Post follows up with this: " Mayor Bloomberg may think it's a good idea for the little people to suffer a gas-tax hike to cut down on driving and help the environment - but that doesn't stop the billionaire from keeping his own private fleet of gas guzzlers." All of which has caused a strong reaction from gassed New Yorkers: "But news of his remarks that taxes should be raised so people would drive less fueled bad feelings among some city drivers.
"For someone with money, it's just a few extra dollars, so they'll keep driving their cars, which defeats the point," said Ilene Malkin, who spent $45 filling up her Honda Accord on the West Side yesterday. "That tax will only hurt the little guy."
All of which demonstrates, doesn't it, just how Bloomberg views the role of government-as a scold and a prod rather than an entity that does best when it gets out of the way of the folks. Certainly, reducing the role of municipal government, something that would involve lower taxes and less regulations, has simply never even crossed this guy's mind as a serious alternative to nanny meddling.
This isn't all that surprising, since we've long argued that the patrician sentiments of the mayor make it unlikely that he can fully understand the plight of the average citizen. Up until this year, however, he's been pretty good at masking his true feelings. Now we're getting the unvarnished Bloomberg and it's kind of a refreshing change from the six year masquerade.
In making the suggestion, Mayor Mike once again conflated-and confused-government tax policy with capitalist free market philosphy: "They should be raising the tax and encouraging people to reduce consumption. The anti-tax people don't like that. But using capitalism to encourage the right behavior is exactly the [right] direction of going. Tax policy is the way government uses capitalism."
Wow! We think that Mike's confusing "use" with "abuse." But doesn't underscore the extent to which ther mayor is out of touch with the plight of those that the Post sardonically calls "peons?" And the peons responded: "Motorists at a Harlem gas station filling their tanks - and emptying their wallets - were angered by Bloomberg's comments. "Bloomberg's a billionaire and has no idea what it's like out here," said Les Cox."
And on Sunday, the Post follows up with this: " Mayor Bloomberg may think it's a good idea for the little people to suffer a gas-tax hike to cut down on driving and help the environment - but that doesn't stop the billionaire from keeping his own private fleet of gas guzzlers." All of which has caused a strong reaction from gassed New Yorkers: "But news of his remarks that taxes should be raised so people would drive less fueled bad feelings among some city drivers.
"For someone with money, it's just a few extra dollars, so they'll keep driving their cars, which defeats the point," said Ilene Malkin, who spent $45 filling up her Honda Accord on the West Side yesterday. "That tax will only hurt the little guy."
All of which demonstrates, doesn't it, just how Bloomberg views the role of government-as a scold and a prod rather than an entity that does best when it gets out of the way of the folks. Certainly, reducing the role of municipal government, something that would involve lower taxes and less regulations, has simply never even crossed this guy's mind as a serious alternative to nanny meddling.
Food Prices and the Poor
In yesterday's NY Times, the paper focused on the way in which rising food prices is impacting food stamp recipients: "Making ends meet on food stamps has never been easy for Cassandra Johnson, but since food prices began their steep climb earlier this year, she has had to develop new survival strategies. She hunts for items that are on the shelf beyond their expiration dates because their prices are often reduced, a practice she once avoided."
The escalation in the cost of groceries is becoming both a health as well as an economic justice problem: "The sharp rise in food prices is being felt acutely by poor families on food stamps, the federal food assistance program. In the past year, the cost of food for what the government considers a minimum nutritional diet has risen 7.2 percent nationwide. It is on track to become the largest increase since 1989, according to April data, the most recent numbers, from the United States Department of Agriculture. The prices of certain staples have risen even more. The cost of eggs, for example, has increased nearly 20 percent, and the price of milk and other dairy products has risen 10 percent."
This food crisis is felt most acutely in NYC: "Families on food stamps have been hit hard across the nation, but perhaps not as hard as families in New York, where food costs are substantially higher than prices almost everywhere else, including other urban areas, according to the Food Research and Action Center, a research and advocacy group in Washington." Which brings us, of course, to the problem of lost supermarkets.
As food prices rise, and supermarkets disappear, it is more difficult for low income New Yorkers to shop economically-and the more expensive healthier items such as fruits and vegetables are often the first to go: "June Jacobs-Cuffee of Brooklyn shares $120 a month in food stamps with her 19-year-old epileptic son. She says that even after her once-a-month trip to the food pantry at St. John’s Bread & Life in Brooklyn, she has had to give up red meat and is also cutting back on buying fresh fruits and sticking instead with canned goods and fruit cocktail."
So, with poorer areas already underserved by large discounting markets, it becomes even more incumbent on city officials to act expeditiously to preserve existing supermarkets, and to build new ones. Our Key Food supermarket in Soundview is a test case-let's see how they all respond.
The escalation in the cost of groceries is becoming both a health as well as an economic justice problem: "The sharp rise in food prices is being felt acutely by poor families on food stamps, the federal food assistance program. In the past year, the cost of food for what the government considers a minimum nutritional diet has risen 7.2 percent nationwide. It is on track to become the largest increase since 1989, according to April data, the most recent numbers, from the United States Department of Agriculture. The prices of certain staples have risen even more. The cost of eggs, for example, has increased nearly 20 percent, and the price of milk and other dairy products has risen 10 percent."
This food crisis is felt most acutely in NYC: "Families on food stamps have been hit hard across the nation, but perhaps not as hard as families in New York, where food costs are substantially higher than prices almost everywhere else, including other urban areas, according to the Food Research and Action Center, a research and advocacy group in Washington." Which brings us, of course, to the problem of lost supermarkets.
As food prices rise, and supermarkets disappear, it is more difficult for low income New Yorkers to shop economically-and the more expensive healthier items such as fruits and vegetables are often the first to go: "June Jacobs-Cuffee of Brooklyn shares $120 a month in food stamps with her 19-year-old epileptic son. She says that even after her once-a-month trip to the food pantry at St. John’s Bread & Life in Brooklyn, she has had to give up red meat and is also cutting back on buying fresh fruits and sticking instead with canned goods and fruit cocktail."
So, with poorer areas already underserved by large discounting markets, it becomes even more incumbent on city officials to act expeditiously to preserve existing supermarkets, and to build new ones. Our Key Food supermarket in Soundview is a test case-let's see how they all respond.
Campaign Finagling
The decision by Senator Obama to do a 180 on his support for public financing has initiated a great deal of hand wringing over his flippery position on a key reform issue. For us, however, it simply highlights the silliness over restricting the process in the name of special interest protection. In fact, the entire national furor over lobbyists and their evil influence is comical in the extreme, precisely because not a single purveyor of this nonsense-certainly neither McCain or Obama-actually believe what they're saying. And we needn't look forward to any influence-free White House in 2009.
Which brings us to the city's cockamamie campaign restrictions, the subject of an interesting article in the City Journal: "A constitutionally dubious campaign-finance law, passed last June by the New York City Council and signed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has some residents up in arms. It may still be true that if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere, as Frank Sinatra put it. But how you make it will now determine which of your political rights the city will protect."
As we have commented before, the law in question protects certain rights while threatening those of other less protected classes of people-like lobbyists for instance. At the same time, however, there's nothing to restrict someone as well-heeled as the mayor from dumping boatloads of cash in the effort to bamboozle the electorate. That Mayor Mike signed the law in question only goes to show you how much of a sense of irony he lacks.
At the same time, we have countless examples of incumbent pols racking in tens of thousands of dollars in non-competitive races, and using the funds to reward relatives acting as staffers in these nonexistent elections. Which has led opponents of this silliness to file a lawsuit on the grounds First Amendment violations: "Attorney James Bopp, Jr. has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of more than a dozen plaintiffs challenging the law’s constitutionality on First Amendment grounds. The measure, he argues, forces citizens to choose between their right to petition the government and their free-speech right to support their preferred political ideals, interests, and candidates through campaign contributions. Bopp, it’s worth noting, has won four campaign-finance cases before the United States Supreme Court."
Of course, the exemption of our friends in labor is the primary target of the suit: "The law is also unfair, since it exempts unions from the reduced contribution limits. As a result, Michele Russo, a plaintiff in the case who is the secretary for a registered lobbyist, now has fewer political rights than George Gresham, president of the powerful health-care workers’ union Local 1199."
We'd like to see a central data base created that the public can easily access. Once this is established there should be no bar on who can contribute to any local campaign; and if Related and Vornado want to bundle money from their employees that should be allowed and duly noted so the voters can see where influence is being brought to bear. The current law needs to be changed.
Which brings us to the city's cockamamie campaign restrictions, the subject of an interesting article in the City Journal: "A constitutionally dubious campaign-finance law, passed last June by the New York City Council and signed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has some residents up in arms. It may still be true that if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere, as Frank Sinatra put it. But how you make it will now determine which of your political rights the city will protect."
As we have commented before, the law in question protects certain rights while threatening those of other less protected classes of people-like lobbyists for instance. At the same time, however, there's nothing to restrict someone as well-heeled as the mayor from dumping boatloads of cash in the effort to bamboozle the electorate. That Mayor Mike signed the law in question only goes to show you how much of a sense of irony he lacks.
At the same time, we have countless examples of incumbent pols racking in tens of thousands of dollars in non-competitive races, and using the funds to reward relatives acting as staffers in these nonexistent elections. Which has led opponents of this silliness to file a lawsuit on the grounds First Amendment violations: "Attorney James Bopp, Jr. has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of more than a dozen plaintiffs challenging the law’s constitutionality on First Amendment grounds. The measure, he argues, forces citizens to choose between their right to petition the government and their free-speech right to support their preferred political ideals, interests, and candidates through campaign contributions. Bopp, it’s worth noting, has won four campaign-finance cases before the United States Supreme Court."
Of course, the exemption of our friends in labor is the primary target of the suit: "The law is also unfair, since it exempts unions from the reduced contribution limits. As a result, Michele Russo, a plaintiff in the case who is the secretary for a registered lobbyist, now has fewer political rights than George Gresham, president of the powerful health-care workers’ union Local 1199."
We'd like to see a central data base created that the public can easily access. Once this is established there should be no bar on who can contribute to any local campaign; and if Related and Vornado want to bundle money from their employees that should be allowed and duly noted so the voters can see where influence is being brought to bear. The current law needs to be changed.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Rev. Al: "Just the Facts"
You really have to hand it to Al Sharpton, he's a true master of irony. Responding to the federal probe of his, shall we say, dubious finances, the not so coy Rev said the following, according to the NY Post: ""We will never be silenced or intimidated by political zealots in law enforcement or journalism who clearly operate on agendas rather than facts, and we welcome the IRS, New York Post, or any other entity to look into our relationships with corporations."
Can you really think of anyone, more so than Big Al, who'd know more about operating from an agenda rather than from facts? Ask Steve Pagones about all of this. This certainly brings hypocrisy to a new level; but the Sharpton modus is all too familiar: when confronted, he attacks and makes it a racial and political vendetta.
As the Post points out: "It's the investigators that need investigating, a defiant Rev. Al Sharpton said yesterday in the face of the widening federal probe into his finances. With the IRS and the US Attorney's Office breathing down his neck, Sharpton's civil-rights organization is appealing to Congress to launch its own investigation into the federal authorities. "This is harassment and manipulation," Sharpton told The Post in response to news that some of his most generous corporate donors, including beer giant Anheuser-Busch, were slapped with subpoenas concerning their gifts to the National Action Network."
As the old saying goes, however, every one's entitled to their own opinion, just not to their own set of facts. And we're eager to see what the feds come up with here. As the Post editorial says, the Reverend doth protest too much: "Sounds to us more like a case of the feds doing their job.
(Meanwhile, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who'd launched his own probe, has turned over his files to the US attorney.) There's plenty of grist for the mill, like:
* The $1.9 million in payroll taxes and penalties that NAN owed as of 2006.
* The $175,962 in state taxes that Sharpton's profit-making company owes.
* The $1.3 million in federal and local taxes that Sharpton owes personally.
* The rev's 2004 presidential campaign, in which federal matching funds - tax dollars - financed Sharpton's stays in swanky hotels."
Agenda or facts? We can't wait to see the results of this "vendetta."
Can you really think of anyone, more so than Big Al, who'd know more about operating from an agenda rather than from facts? Ask Steve Pagones about all of this. This certainly brings hypocrisy to a new level; but the Sharpton modus is all too familiar: when confronted, he attacks and makes it a racial and political vendetta.
As the Post points out: "It's the investigators that need investigating, a defiant Rev. Al Sharpton said yesterday in the face of the widening federal probe into his finances. With the IRS and the US Attorney's Office breathing down his neck, Sharpton's civil-rights organization is appealing to Congress to launch its own investigation into the federal authorities. "This is harassment and manipulation," Sharpton told The Post in response to news that some of his most generous corporate donors, including beer giant Anheuser-Busch, were slapped with subpoenas concerning their gifts to the National Action Network."
As the old saying goes, however, every one's entitled to their own opinion, just not to their own set of facts. And we're eager to see what the feds come up with here. As the Post editorial says, the Reverend doth protest too much: "Sounds to us more like a case of the feds doing their job.
(Meanwhile, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who'd launched his own probe, has turned over his files to the US attorney.) There's plenty of grist for the mill, like:
* The $1.9 million in payroll taxes and penalties that NAN owed as of 2006.
* The $175,962 in state taxes that Sharpton's profit-making company owes.
* The $1.3 million in federal and local taxes that Sharpton owes personally.
* The rev's 2004 presidential campaign, in which federal matching funds - tax dollars - financed Sharpton's stays in swanky hotels."
Agenda or facts? We can't wait to see the results of this "vendetta."
Klein's Wolf Tickets
Leave it to Andrew Wolf to really dramatize the dangerous ground that the Kleinemen are treading when they tinker with the talented and gifted programs. In this morning's NY Sun he writes: "Lessons should be learned from Chancellor Klein's endeavor to provide "equity" to the city's gifted and talented programs. After years of effort to undermine existing programs because they were not diverse enough, the "fair" system devised by the Education Department appears to have resulted in even less diverse results. We shouldn't be surprised. Improved results will come not from more manipulation or empty rhetoric, but from more and better instruction."
As Wolf points out, "narrowing the gap" racially has been turned into lowering the bar for everyone: "There has been a lot of talk lately about how the reform of the public schools is somehow a civil rights initiative. This is nothing new; policy wonks have been engaging in similar conversations for years. But this is wrong-headed thinking. So consumed are we with "narrowing the gap" that the only real strategy put forward by the educational establishment is lowering the bar for everyone. The most mediocre gains are interpreted as great victories. And in some cases attempts to be inclusive and fair end up backfiring in a dramatic way. This apparently is what happened to the gifted program this year."
What we need is better education for each and every child; something that the current group of reformers have badly mishandled. As Wolf points out: "New Yorkers have caught on to the crisis at Tweed. Lost in all the minutiae of the New York Times poll released earlier this week on Mayor Bloomberg's performance is this tidbit: in October, 2005, 19% of voters thought that his performance on education was the best thing Mr. Bloomberg achieved since taking office. Now that number is down to just 5%."
So now Klein gets into the gutter with the Rev Al. Ready for the misdirection? "The chancellor co-chairs a new activist group with Rev. Sharpton identifying education as a "civil rights issue" to be "remedied" by structural reform including mayoral control, free market solutions, and limiting the power of teachers' unions." Oh boy!
As we commented earlier, all of this tinkering is a noxious brew, no substitute for excellence for all. Let's give Herman Badillo the last word on this fiasco: "Mr. Klein can hardly claim to have created a model here in New York worthy of replication nationwide, given our poor results and soaring expenditures. "Why is Joel Klein traveling the country when after six years in office he failed to deliver the goods here in New York?" Herman Badillo asks. Mr. Badillo, who is widely credited with turning around Gotham's public colleges during his tenure as Chair of the Board of Trustees of the City University, suggests a different approach: raising academic standards and level of instruction for all — One City, One Standard."
As Wolf points out, "narrowing the gap" racially has been turned into lowering the bar for everyone: "There has been a lot of talk lately about how the reform of the public schools is somehow a civil rights initiative. This is nothing new; policy wonks have been engaging in similar conversations for years. But this is wrong-headed thinking. So consumed are we with "narrowing the gap" that the only real strategy put forward by the educational establishment is lowering the bar for everyone. The most mediocre gains are interpreted as great victories. And in some cases attempts to be inclusive and fair end up backfiring in a dramatic way. This apparently is what happened to the gifted program this year."
What we need is better education for each and every child; something that the current group of reformers have badly mishandled. As Wolf points out: "New Yorkers have caught on to the crisis at Tweed. Lost in all the minutiae of the New York Times poll released earlier this week on Mayor Bloomberg's performance is this tidbit: in October, 2005, 19% of voters thought that his performance on education was the best thing Mr. Bloomberg achieved since taking office. Now that number is down to just 5%."
So now Klein gets into the gutter with the Rev Al. Ready for the misdirection? "The chancellor co-chairs a new activist group with Rev. Sharpton identifying education as a "civil rights issue" to be "remedied" by structural reform including mayoral control, free market solutions, and limiting the power of teachers' unions." Oh boy!
As we commented earlier, all of this tinkering is a noxious brew, no substitute for excellence for all. Let's give Herman Badillo the last word on this fiasco: "Mr. Klein can hardly claim to have created a model here in New York worthy of replication nationwide, given our poor results and soaring expenditures. "Why is Joel Klein traveling the country when after six years in office he failed to deliver the goods here in New York?" Herman Badillo asks. Mr. Badillo, who is widely credited with turning around Gotham's public colleges during his tenure as Chair of the Board of Trustees of the City University, suggests a different approach: raising academic standards and level of instruction for all — One City, One Standard."
Talented Grifters
The NY Times had a long article yesterday about the problems that the Bloombergistas are having in generating diversity in the city's Talented and Gifted programs: "When New York City set a uniform threshold for admission to public school gifted programs last fall, it was a crucial step in a prolonged effort to equalize access to programs that critics complained were dominated by white middle-class children whose parents knew how to navigate the system. The move was controversial, with experts warning that standardized tests given to young children were heavily influenced by their upbringing and preschool education, and therefore biased toward the affluent."
And guess what happened? The more affluent, and we're guessing less racially diverse neighborhoods, scored an even higher percentage of the sought after places: "Now, an analysis by The New York Times shows that under the new policy, children from the city’s poorest districts were offered a smaller percentage than last year of the entry-grade gifted slots in elementary schools. Children in the city’s wealthiest districts captured a greater share of the slots." So what the problem, and how do we solve it?
The reality is that the educational gap between white students and their black and Latino counterparts continues to stymie the educational experts; which leaves the situation open to all kinds of foolish remedies that simply can't transcend the family backgrounds of the children who do better at all levels of school achievement.
This doesn't stop the racial gerrymanderers, and all those who ridicule standardized testing, from getting into the act: "The Miami-Dade public schools have spent more than $6 million over two years to identify more gifted and advanced students from what officials described as “traditionally under-represented groups.” Some districts are rethinking gifted programs under pressure; last year, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California threatened to sue the Tustin school district, saying that Latino and black students were “grossly underrepresented” in the programs."
So if these students are "under-represented," should we simply assign them more slots on the basis of some rigid formula? Would this be fair to those students who were left out, but who had scored much higher on the tests? And what other criteria should be used if the tests are jettisoned?
Usually, as was once suggested when the Dinkins administration was trying to get more minorities into the FDNY, there's an effort to develop "fairer" tests. So, as to be expected, we get this: "At Yale, researchers are devising a test that they hope could identify a more diverse gifted population." And how many times do we find that the tinkerers have actually sent their own kids to private schools?
This can really end up being a noxious brew, with standards being discarded in the pursuit of some pre-designed formula: "While the plan has fallen victim to budget cuts, widespread kindergarten testing is so controversial that last week, a group of professors and luminaries — including Deborah Stipek, the dean of Stanford’s School of Education, and former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo — deplored the practice in a letter to the chancellor and mayor. “Testing young children for gifted classes most likely will increase inequities,” read the letter, “and undermine educational opportunities for all children.”
This country's children-all of them-badly need the highest standards to live up to. Once we start the dilution process, the quality of the educational process enters a slippery slope, one that will lead to school systems where democratic leveling will replace excellence. Talented and gifted children of all kinds and colors are badly needed; they are the inventors, entrepreneurs and visionaries that a country needs. A school system that doesn't identify and properly nurture these kids is nothing but a mediocre failure.
And guess what happened? The more affluent, and we're guessing less racially diverse neighborhoods, scored an even higher percentage of the sought after places: "Now, an analysis by The New York Times shows that under the new policy, children from the city’s poorest districts were offered a smaller percentage than last year of the entry-grade gifted slots in elementary schools. Children in the city’s wealthiest districts captured a greater share of the slots." So what the problem, and how do we solve it?
The reality is that the educational gap between white students and their black and Latino counterparts continues to stymie the educational experts; which leaves the situation open to all kinds of foolish remedies that simply can't transcend the family backgrounds of the children who do better at all levels of school achievement.
This doesn't stop the racial gerrymanderers, and all those who ridicule standardized testing, from getting into the act: "The Miami-Dade public schools have spent more than $6 million over two years to identify more gifted and advanced students from what officials described as “traditionally under-represented groups.” Some districts are rethinking gifted programs under pressure; last year, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California threatened to sue the Tustin school district, saying that Latino and black students were “grossly underrepresented” in the programs."
So if these students are "under-represented," should we simply assign them more slots on the basis of some rigid formula? Would this be fair to those students who were left out, but who had scored much higher on the tests? And what other criteria should be used if the tests are jettisoned?
Usually, as was once suggested when the Dinkins administration was trying to get more minorities into the FDNY, there's an effort to develop "fairer" tests. So, as to be expected, we get this: "At Yale, researchers are devising a test that they hope could identify a more diverse gifted population." And how many times do we find that the tinkerers have actually sent their own kids to private schools?
This can really end up being a noxious brew, with standards being discarded in the pursuit of some pre-designed formula: "While the plan has fallen victim to budget cuts, widespread kindergarten testing is so controversial that last week, a group of professors and luminaries — including Deborah Stipek, the dean of Stanford’s School of Education, and former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo — deplored the practice in a letter to the chancellor and mayor. “Testing young children for gifted classes most likely will increase inequities,” read the letter, “and undermine educational opportunities for all children.”
This country's children-all of them-badly need the highest standards to live up to. Once we start the dilution process, the quality of the educational process enters a slippery slope, one that will lead to school systems where democratic leveling will replace excellence. Talented and gifted children of all kinds and colors are badly needed; they are the inventors, entrepreneurs and visionaries that a country needs. A school system that doesn't identify and properly nurture these kids is nothing but a mediocre failure.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Hungry for Action
As Albor Ruiz is reporting, the city is experiencing a real hunger crisis: "Soon, if things keep going in the same direction, only the really rich will be able to live in New York City. For the rest of us, it may be wise to start considering other options. "C'mon, this guy is an alarmist," you may be thinking. But when it is no longer only the poorest among us who cannot afford food but also middle-income families, the time has come to, well, be alarmed."
Everything's going up, and all New Yorkers are feeling it. As one immigrant worker tells us: "The landlord raises the rent, the gas company raises the cost of gas, the supermarkets raise the price of food, the MTA raises the subway fare. ..." Durán said." All of which makes the disappearance of the local supermarket that much more compelling. The bodega and drug store are expensive alternatives that most folks with low incomes or fixed budgets can't afford.
The reality is that the local supermarket also can't afford the city either. Our friends at the Food Bank are charting this crisis: "And low-income workers are no longer the only ones struggling, as made clear by NYC Hunger Experience 2008, the fifth in a series of Food Bank of New York-commissioned reports tracking the difficulty city residents have affording needed food. The report was released last week at City Hall. "While the hardest hit are our city's poorest and most vulnerable, record numbers of middle-income families are joining the ranks of New Yorkers who are having difficulty affording needed food," said Lucy Cabrera, president and CEO of the Food Bank."
Middle class New Yorkers are feeling the squeeze: "Those middle-class New Yorkers making $50,000 to $74,000 - many of them highly educated - are supposed to be, if not well off, at least not in major financial straits either. Yet they were among the hardest hit. In that group, 27% said it was difficult to afford food - a dramatic jump from 14% in 2003. Those middle-class New Yorkers making $50,000 to $74,000 - many of them highly educated - are supposed to be, if not well off, at least not in major financial straits either. Yet they were among the hardest hit. In that group, 27% said it was difficult to afford food - a dramatic jump from 14% in 2003."
One solution is greater access to the Food Stamp program, something that Speaker Quinn, to her credit, is spearheading. Our good friend Triada Stampas of the Food Bank makes the point here: ""The city needs to do greater outreach at the local level for more people to enroll in the Food Stamps program," Stampas said. "Right now, there are about 500,000 New Yorkers eligible but not enrolled."
As the Daily News reports today tens of thousands of Bronxites are eligible for food stamps but aren't getting them: "Thousands of Bronxites may be eligible for food stamps without even knowing it, says a new citywide study..."This is something that impacts a tremendous number of New Yorkers and Bronxites," City Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera said at a news conference Tuesday at Part of the Solution, a soup kitchen and food pantry in Bedford Park. The study found that more than 635,000 New Yorkers may qualify for food stamps, with nearly 120,000 living in neighborhoods such as Williamsbridge, Morrisania and Highbridge."
So let's get cracking. More food stamps and more supermarkets for New Yorkers. City Planning's on the case, now we need the economic development people to get energized, and stop fixating on things like green roofs. Access to healthy and affordable food should be the city's highest priority.
Everything's going up, and all New Yorkers are feeling it. As one immigrant worker tells us: "The landlord raises the rent, the gas company raises the cost of gas, the supermarkets raise the price of food, the MTA raises the subway fare. ..." Durán said." All of which makes the disappearance of the local supermarket that much more compelling. The bodega and drug store are expensive alternatives that most folks with low incomes or fixed budgets can't afford.
The reality is that the local supermarket also can't afford the city either. Our friends at the Food Bank are charting this crisis: "And low-income workers are no longer the only ones struggling, as made clear by NYC Hunger Experience 2008, the fifth in a series of Food Bank of New York-commissioned reports tracking the difficulty city residents have affording needed food. The report was released last week at City Hall. "While the hardest hit are our city's poorest and most vulnerable, record numbers of middle-income families are joining the ranks of New Yorkers who are having difficulty affording needed food," said Lucy Cabrera, president and CEO of the Food Bank."
Middle class New Yorkers are feeling the squeeze: "Those middle-class New Yorkers making $50,000 to $74,000 - many of them highly educated - are supposed to be, if not well off, at least not in major financial straits either. Yet they were among the hardest hit. In that group, 27% said it was difficult to afford food - a dramatic jump from 14% in 2003. Those middle-class New Yorkers making $50,000 to $74,000 - many of them highly educated - are supposed to be, if not well off, at least not in major financial straits either. Yet they were among the hardest hit. In that group, 27% said it was difficult to afford food - a dramatic jump from 14% in 2003."
One solution is greater access to the Food Stamp program, something that Speaker Quinn, to her credit, is spearheading. Our good friend Triada Stampas of the Food Bank makes the point here: ""The city needs to do greater outreach at the local level for more people to enroll in the Food Stamps program," Stampas said. "Right now, there are about 500,000 New Yorkers eligible but not enrolled."
As the Daily News reports today tens of thousands of Bronxites are eligible for food stamps but aren't getting them: "Thousands of Bronxites may be eligible for food stamps without even knowing it, says a new citywide study..."This is something that impacts a tremendous number of New Yorkers and Bronxites," City Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera said at a news conference Tuesday at Part of the Solution, a soup kitchen and food pantry in Bedford Park. The study found that more than 635,000 New Yorkers may qualify for food stamps, with nearly 120,000 living in neighborhoods such as Williamsbridge, Morrisania and Highbridge."
So let's get cracking. More food stamps and more supermarkets for New Yorkers. City Planning's on the case, now we need the economic development people to get energized, and stop fixating on things like green roofs. Access to healthy and affordable food should be the city's highest priority.
Dull Reverand Al
The NY Post is reporting today that Al Sharpton may be undergoing a federal probe of the finances of his National Action Network: " The probe into the Rev. Al Sharpton's finances intensified this week, with the IRS sending out a flurry of subpoenas to his most generous corporate donors, The Post has learned." While we don't believe that anything will come of this, we do feel that it's about time-Al's shimy shakedown dance is a disgrace to the whole concept of civil rights, and the genuflection that Democrats give to him is a disgrace as well.
What bothered us particularly in the latest round of subpoenas was the one that went to Anheuser Busch: "Anheuser-Busch, the brewer of Budweiser and Michelob, confirmed yesterday that it received a federal subpoena in connection to its charitable giving to Sharpton's National Action Network. "We have received a subpoena and are cooperating with the IRS," the company said in a statement."
The Budweiser people have long ignored the push for a minority franchise owner in New York, and beat back an effort by Hispanic distributors a number of years ago to get a piece of the action. So clearly, whatever money Sharpton's "network" gets from Bud is money that helps insulate the company from real empowerment; and if it's happening with beer then we can be sure it's happening elsewhere as well.
In the end, just as it was with shopkeepers and mobsters in the old days, it's cheaper to pay the extortion than to resist the strong arm tactics and become tar baby for the racial arsonist. We wish the Feds well, and hope that, "This Bud's for them."
What bothered us particularly in the latest round of subpoenas was the one that went to Anheuser Busch: "Anheuser-Busch, the brewer of Budweiser and Michelob, confirmed yesterday that it received a federal subpoena in connection to its charitable giving to Sharpton's National Action Network. "We have received a subpoena and are cooperating with the IRS," the company said in a statement."
The Budweiser people have long ignored the push for a minority franchise owner in New York, and beat back an effort by Hispanic distributors a number of years ago to get a piece of the action. So clearly, whatever money Sharpton's "network" gets from Bud is money that helps insulate the company from real empowerment; and if it's happening with beer then we can be sure it's happening elsewhere as well.
In the end, just as it was with shopkeepers and mobsters in the old days, it's cheaper to pay the extortion than to resist the strong arm tactics and become tar baby for the racial arsonist. We wish the Feds well, and hope that, "This Bud's for them."
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Meeting of the Neverminds
Did Vornado Realty Trust blink yesterday? The company did come in to meet with Council Speaker Quinn, Councilwoman Palma and staff to discuss the company's plans to evict a Key Food supermarket from Bruckner Plaza, and from the reports we're hearing the company was furiously back peddling on its eviction plans-at least verbally.
Vornado, after whining about all of the media furor we've generated on this issue, told the Speaker that it is willing to everything possible to accommodate Key Food; Vornado honcho Sandeep Mathrani, the executive VP of real estate told the meeting that the media attention wasn't necessary but was reminded that Vornado head Steve Roth had personally told Palma to essentially piss off when she asked him to intercede on behalf of the supermarket and the community.
Which is why we call them The Distrusters; and we'll remind one and all that these negotiations will be watched very closely-and with extreme suspicion. Vornado's goodwill ain't a given in all of this, and the company has made a lot of folks unhappy in many areas of the city. No one is going to give the real estate powerhouse any benefit of the doubt, and pressure will be continued to insure that the intentions here are honored and Key Food is given a new lease on life in Soundview.
Vornado, after whining about all of the media furor we've generated on this issue, told the Speaker that it is willing to everything possible to accommodate Key Food; Vornado honcho Sandeep Mathrani, the executive VP of real estate told the meeting that the media attention wasn't necessary but was reminded that Vornado head Steve Roth had personally told Palma to essentially piss off when she asked him to intercede on behalf of the supermarket and the community.
Which is why we call them The Distrusters; and we'll remind one and all that these negotiations will be watched very closely-and with extreme suspicion. Vornado's goodwill ain't a given in all of this, and the company has made a lot of folks unhappy in many areas of the city. No one is going to give the real estate powerhouse any benefit of the doubt, and pressure will be continued to insure that the intentions here are honored and Key Food is given a new lease on life in Soundview.
Food Fight at the Armory
Now we've been in the forefront of the fight to make sure that NYC neighborhoods have access to good supermarkets, so it may be a bit incongruous to those not really acquainted with the facts, that we're not happy with the possibility of a large supermarket in the Kingsbridge Armory. The possibility is being raised in this week's Norwood News by CB#7 chair Greg Faulkner and the board's land use chair, Ozzie Brown: "Brown and other members talked about the need for fresh produce and that a priority for it would be to get a top-notch grocery store into the Armory like a Whole Foods. In response, Masyr said, “I don’t find that at all problematic.”
Now what's wrong with this is the fact that the borough's first major supermarket, MortonWilliams Associated, lies directly across from the armory project. This is the market that stayed in Kingsbridge even when all of the area's major retailers were fleeing in the 1970s-the store that was remodeled to the tune of over two million dollars so that the neighborhood would have a state of the art food store.
In testimony before the City Council a few years ago when the armory development was first discussed, Morton Sloan, the store's owner, laid out the history: "Our Bronx store became our flagship store and, over the years, we have established ten other, mostly Manhattan based supermarkets. In spite of this geographic diffusion we hire almost all of our employees from the Bronx neighborhood where we first started. We know the people and, over the years, have hired their children and even their grandchildren. Many neighborhood kids got their first job at Associated and we still see them come back into the neighborhood after they have become successful in other areas of life. Last year we employed over 650 Bronx residents. Our Bronx store is also our corporate headquarters and the spiritual center of our business."
These are all good union jobs, with pensions and benefits we're talking about, and the Sloans also bought an renovated another supermarket down the road at Fordham and Jerome. These are not the kind of local businesses that you look to hurt when you redevelop an area; and this is not a neighborhood that can easily accommodate another market so close to two that are already servicing the community.
In addition, the siting of a larger regional store will have a serious impact on the neighborhood traffic. The comments of the community board's district manager here are unwittingly ominous: "CB7 District Manager Fernando Tirado said he wanted the Armory to be a big draw from outside the Bronx. Masyr said Related needed it to be a big draw for the project to be fiscally viable, calling the project “extraordinarily expensive.”
So much for concerns about asthma and congestion we guess; and wasn't it Related that led the charge for the mayor's congestion tax? As the Daily News points out: "Related is also contracting out for an environmental impact study that will then be distributed to community members who can weigh in about their environmental concerns for the project." Just like the one that was done to minimize the traffic at the Gateway Mall on "asthma alley." We desperately need an honest broker here.
So now we enter the CBA dance, with Related as the orchestra leader. Here's the NY Daily News' take: "A Bronx community board involved with the development of the long-dormant Kingsbridge Armory is making sure it gets an early start in talks with the selected developer. Community Board 7 held the first of a series of planned meetings last week with developer Related Companies that will address residents' demands for the $310 million redevelopment of the vast armory on W. Kingsbridge Road and Jerome Ave. The developer's plans reportedly include at least one big-box-style retailer, a cinema, a fitness center, a bank branch and a large community space."
Oh boy! We wonder where this puts KARA, the community coalition that has been formed to advocate for the neighborhood? As the News points out: "Related was criticized for its community benefits agreement for the development of the Gateway Mall, because terms such as minimum wage requirements were impossible to enforce." Among a host of other things.
The one thing we do know is that we will fight any attempt to put a competing (likely non-union) food use at the armory. As Morty Sloan put it in his testimony: "To superimpose hundreds of thousands of square feet of big box retail on this neighborhood, or any neighborhood, will simply destroy the quality-of-life of the local communities. The same pattern of abandonment that we have seen all over the country will repeat itself in this area of the Bronx. The big box cannibals will not only destroy my store, they will suck the economic life out of Fordham Road and the smaller commercial strips nearby, in as pattern that will be repeated throughout the city...
The “oases” we create will in turn create retail deserts everywhere else. What this means is that thousands of businesses that have struggled just like mine did through the economic hard times, will be put on the endangered species list. Business owners, and their well-compensated workforce, with long established roots in the community will be replaced by largely non-union national chains with absolutely no concern for a local neighborhood. For these mega retailers New York City will be just another profit center -- for us, however, it’s our home."
Now what's wrong with this is the fact that the borough's first major supermarket, MortonWilliams Associated, lies directly across from the armory project. This is the market that stayed in Kingsbridge even when all of the area's major retailers were fleeing in the 1970s-the store that was remodeled to the tune of over two million dollars so that the neighborhood would have a state of the art food store.
In testimony before the City Council a few years ago when the armory development was first discussed, Morton Sloan, the store's owner, laid out the history: "Our Bronx store became our flagship store and, over the years, we have established ten other, mostly Manhattan based supermarkets. In spite of this geographic diffusion we hire almost all of our employees from the Bronx neighborhood where we first started. We know the people and, over the years, have hired their children and even their grandchildren. Many neighborhood kids got their first job at Associated and we still see them come back into the neighborhood after they have become successful in other areas of life. Last year we employed over 650 Bronx residents. Our Bronx store is also our corporate headquarters and the spiritual center of our business."
These are all good union jobs, with pensions and benefits we're talking about, and the Sloans also bought an renovated another supermarket down the road at Fordham and Jerome. These are not the kind of local businesses that you look to hurt when you redevelop an area; and this is not a neighborhood that can easily accommodate another market so close to two that are already servicing the community.
In addition, the siting of a larger regional store will have a serious impact on the neighborhood traffic. The comments of the community board's district manager here are unwittingly ominous: "CB7 District Manager Fernando Tirado said he wanted the Armory to be a big draw from outside the Bronx. Masyr said Related needed it to be a big draw for the project to be fiscally viable, calling the project “extraordinarily expensive.”
So much for concerns about asthma and congestion we guess; and wasn't it Related that led the charge for the mayor's congestion tax? As the Daily News points out: "Related is also contracting out for an environmental impact study that will then be distributed to community members who can weigh in about their environmental concerns for the project." Just like the one that was done to minimize the traffic at the Gateway Mall on "asthma alley." We desperately need an honest broker here.
So now we enter the CBA dance, with Related as the orchestra leader. Here's the NY Daily News' take: "A Bronx community board involved with the development of the long-dormant Kingsbridge Armory is making sure it gets an early start in talks with the selected developer. Community Board 7 held the first of a series of planned meetings last week with developer Related Companies that will address residents' demands for the $310 million redevelopment of the vast armory on W. Kingsbridge Road and Jerome Ave. The developer's plans reportedly include at least one big-box-style retailer, a cinema, a fitness center, a bank branch and a large community space."
Oh boy! We wonder where this puts KARA, the community coalition that has been formed to advocate for the neighborhood? As the News points out: "Related was criticized for its community benefits agreement for the development of the Gateway Mall, because terms such as minimum wage requirements were impossible to enforce." Among a host of other things.
The one thing we do know is that we will fight any attempt to put a competing (likely non-union) food use at the armory. As Morty Sloan put it in his testimony: "To superimpose hundreds of thousands of square feet of big box retail on this neighborhood, or any neighborhood, will simply destroy the quality-of-life of the local communities. The same pattern of abandonment that we have seen all over the country will repeat itself in this area of the Bronx. The big box cannibals will not only destroy my store, they will suck the economic life out of Fordham Road and the smaller commercial strips nearby, in as pattern that will be repeated throughout the city...
The “oases” we create will in turn create retail deserts everywhere else. What this means is that thousands of businesses that have struggled just like mine did through the economic hard times, will be put on the endangered species list. Business owners, and their well-compensated workforce, with long established roots in the community will be replaced by largely non-union national chains with absolutely no concern for a local neighborhood. For these mega retailers New York City will be just another profit center -- for us, however, it’s our home."
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Making a Bad Situation...
It appears that the Fred Dicker story about the observations that our new governor has about Mayor Mike has some legs indeed, as Paterson denied the remarks he made and Dicker ridiculed the denial in this morning's Post with the following headline: "TELL THE TRUTH, GOV ABSOLUTELY NO DENYING YOU CALLED MIKE LIAR"
Now we know that the governor has only just arrived, and his arrival was a bit, shall we say, unorthodox, but the harshness of his remarks were unprecedented in our thirty plus years of following this business. Which means that Bloomberg really got under his skin. And now Paterson, by his vigorous denial, has succeeded in making himself the story because Dicker's not backing down: "His denials were made all the more ridiculous by the fact that only a few people know the source for the story - and Paterson is one of them. That's right, the governor knows where - as we say in the media business - the story came from. He knows the source is someone who, if their identity were revealed, would be seen as unassailably authoritative on Paterson's political views."
From our vantage the entire dust up is refreshing because it takes the view we've long had about the mayor's true nature and elevates it right into Macy's window. We're just surprised that it took the governor this short a time to be so bent out of shape by Blomberg's manner. But maybe it is a shot across the bow for 2010. As the NY Sun reports this morning: "Others wondered if the remarks were a warning shot from a governor concerned about a potential rival in the 2010 race. Mr. Bloomberg has said he isn't running, but polls show that the popular billionaire mayor would beat Mr. Paterson if the election were held now. Perhaps, as some guessed, Mr. Paterson is offering a taste of attacks to come should Mr. Bloomberg change his mind."
Perhaps, although it's a wee bit early to get into that kind of pissing contest. Consider this observation: "The people of New York City may be okay with the mayor taking off and flying to his private home in Bermuda every weekend, but if he did that at the state level, I think the people would send him a different message," the Post article quoted Mr. Paterson as saying."
No, if true, Paterson's comments underscore a real animus-a view that, according to a NY Times poll this morning, isn't shared by an electorate that continues to give the mayor high marks while at the same time supporting the city's term limits law: "Despite their favorable views of the mayor, two-thirds of residents called the city’s term limit law a good idea, although it will force Mr. Bloomberg from office in December 2009. Mr. Bloomberg, who has recently acknowledged that he is uncertain about what to do when his term is over, has been in discussions with his aides about how to remain in public life, and he recently commissioned his own poll asking residents whether they would be open to loosening the limits."
In our view, then, is Bloomberg tries to tinker with the limits he'll find that his support (inexplicable to us) will become evanescent; and the Times' observation here is to the point: "The Times poll showed that even though residents like Mr. Bloomberg’s leadership, many are hard pressed to point to any particular accomplishments of his administration, a troubling signal as people inside and outside City Hall begin to assess the mayor’s legacy."
In the poll, New Yorkers were hard pressed to name one thing that Bloomberg has accomplished: "The Times poll showed that even though residents like Mr. Bloomberg’s leadership, many are hard pressed to point to any particular accomplishments of his administration, a troubling signal as people inside and outside City Hall begin to assess the mayor’s legacy...Whereas his predecessor, Rudolph W. Giuliani, for example, was widely credited with reducing crime, when residents were asked to name the best thing Mr. Bloomberg had done as mayor, there was no single achievement or area identified by a broad swath of respondents."
But as far as the OTB fiasco's concerned, it appears that the mayor once again got rolled by Albany pols, a familiar scenario. As the NY Daily News tells us this morning: "Bloomberg's handling of the OTB showdown got mixed reviews yesterday, with some praising him and others contending he got steamrolled by Albany leaders. Political consultant Hank Sheinkopf gave the upper hand to Albany's ruling troika, saying, "They couldn't beat him in a corporate boardroom, because that's what he knows. They beat him at politics, because that's what he got elected not to know."
Maybe Hank is right, but it goes to show that there are times where political acumen comes in handy, especially when you're trying to do things on your own and are not coasting on the achievements of your predecessor. It's been close to seven years now, and Bloomberg's trained incapacity for politics hasn't changed, and the Times poll's a harbinger of the legacy evaluation to come.
Now we know that the governor has only just arrived, and his arrival was a bit, shall we say, unorthodox, but the harshness of his remarks were unprecedented in our thirty plus years of following this business. Which means that Bloomberg really got under his skin. And now Paterson, by his vigorous denial, has succeeded in making himself the story because Dicker's not backing down: "His denials were made all the more ridiculous by the fact that only a few people know the source for the story - and Paterson is one of them. That's right, the governor knows where - as we say in the media business - the story came from. He knows the source is someone who, if their identity were revealed, would be seen as unassailably authoritative on Paterson's political views."
From our vantage the entire dust up is refreshing because it takes the view we've long had about the mayor's true nature and elevates it right into Macy's window. We're just surprised that it took the governor this short a time to be so bent out of shape by Blomberg's manner. But maybe it is a shot across the bow for 2010. As the NY Sun reports this morning: "Others wondered if the remarks were a warning shot from a governor concerned about a potential rival in the 2010 race. Mr. Bloomberg has said he isn't running, but polls show that the popular billionaire mayor would beat Mr. Paterson if the election were held now. Perhaps, as some guessed, Mr. Paterson is offering a taste of attacks to come should Mr. Bloomberg change his mind."
Perhaps, although it's a wee bit early to get into that kind of pissing contest. Consider this observation: "The people of New York City may be okay with the mayor taking off and flying to his private home in Bermuda every weekend, but if he did that at the state level, I think the people would send him a different message," the Post article quoted Mr. Paterson as saying."
No, if true, Paterson's comments underscore a real animus-a view that, according to a NY Times poll this morning, isn't shared by an electorate that continues to give the mayor high marks while at the same time supporting the city's term limits law: "Despite their favorable views of the mayor, two-thirds of residents called the city’s term limit law a good idea, although it will force Mr. Bloomberg from office in December 2009. Mr. Bloomberg, who has recently acknowledged that he is uncertain about what to do when his term is over, has been in discussions with his aides about how to remain in public life, and he recently commissioned his own poll asking residents whether they would be open to loosening the limits."
In our view, then, is Bloomberg tries to tinker with the limits he'll find that his support (inexplicable to us) will become evanescent; and the Times' observation here is to the point: "The Times poll showed that even though residents like Mr. Bloomberg’s leadership, many are hard pressed to point to any particular accomplishments of his administration, a troubling signal as people inside and outside City Hall begin to assess the mayor’s legacy."
In the poll, New Yorkers were hard pressed to name one thing that Bloomberg has accomplished: "The Times poll showed that even though residents like Mr. Bloomberg’s leadership, many are hard pressed to point to any particular accomplishments of his administration, a troubling signal as people inside and outside City Hall begin to assess the mayor’s legacy...Whereas his predecessor, Rudolph W. Giuliani, for example, was widely credited with reducing crime, when residents were asked to name the best thing Mr. Bloomberg had done as mayor, there was no single achievement or area identified by a broad swath of respondents."
But as far as the OTB fiasco's concerned, it appears that the mayor once again got rolled by Albany pols, a familiar scenario. As the NY Daily News tells us this morning: "Bloomberg's handling of the OTB showdown got mixed reviews yesterday, with some praising him and others contending he got steamrolled by Albany leaders. Political consultant Hank Sheinkopf gave the upper hand to Albany's ruling troika, saying, "They couldn't beat him in a corporate boardroom, because that's what he knows. They beat him at politics, because that's what he got elected not to know."
Maybe Hank is right, but it goes to show that there are times where political acumen comes in handy, especially when you're trying to do things on your own and are not coasting on the achievements of your predecessor. It's been close to seven years now, and Bloomberg's trained incapacity for politics hasn't changed, and the Times poll's a harbinger of the legacy evaluation to come.
Monday, June 16, 2008
NY Times' Memory Hole on Yankee Stadium
On Saturday the NY Times editorialized on "green thievery," the loss of neighborhood parkland as a result of the Yankee Stadium redevelopment: "Many promises were made two years ago when the New York Yankees grabbed prime parkland in the South Bronx to build a new stadium. One of them, made by the city, was that residents would have better parks, soccer fields, tracks and ball courts to replace what was taken away. That has not yet happened — and it must."
Anyone who has used Mullaly Park and returns today to see what remains, will be devastated by what they see-but there were many who saw this coming, even though the Times had blinders on when the decisions were being made. Here is what it said two years ago: "The Yankees worked hard to win over Bronx officials with a community benefits agreement. Some of it is the stuff of bread and circuses: 15,000 free tickets for distribution every season (hopefully not just to the well-connected). And some of it is real, including $1 million for job training and hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual community grants...
The Yankees also promise to spend $8 million on improving local parks, which should partly compensate for the green space the stadium will take away. On the whole, the agreement is a good start toward restitution for the many years in which the team, the richest sports franchise in the land, largely ignored residents of the disadvantaged South Bronx."
And we have a bridge that these folks can buy. Our friend Geoffrey Croft at Save Our Parks was right from the beginning on this scam, and pointed out the Bloomberg baloney in an editorial earlier this year: "Even before it seized a large swath of historic South Bronx parkland for a new Yankee Stadium, the Bloomberg administration had promised the community it would not only replace what it was taking away, but would provide even more parkland in return. Yet a close examination reveals that only 21.3 acres are actually being replaced - a net loss of nearly 4 acres."
The deal on the stadium, just like the sweetheart one at the adjacent Bronx Terminal Market (which the Times also failed to criticize) stunk from the very beginning. The question here is why didn't the people who should know better speak up? Croft gets the last word on this: "Of course, for the tens of thousands of poor people who depended on Macombs Dam and Mullaly parks, none of this comes as a surprise. Before the City Council vote, I accompanied neighborhood residents to many meetings with elected officials, where we laid out these issues very clearly.
One by one, the Council members repeated the same thing: "They're telling us you're getting more parkland than they're taking away." Everyone said it would be better. For the elected officials who supported this deal, better meant destroying 400 trees, splitting a neighborhood by building a 54,000-seat stadium, replacing lost parkland with inferior features spread miles apart, and - to add injury to insult - installing artificial turf on top of a parking garage.
All of this in a community that suffers from an asthma hospitalization rate 2.5 times greater than the city average."
All of this is part of the Bloomberg legacy. That the mayor would, after the BTM and Yankee Stadium fleecing of the South Bronx, emerge with a grand congestion scheme to, at least partially, address the asthma rates in the Bronx, has to rate extremely high on the historic hypocrisy scales in the city's political history. Bloomberg should pony up a hundred million and build the new Bloomberg Park next to the stadium. It's the least he can do to make up for the "green thievery" he sponsored.
Anyone who has used Mullaly Park and returns today to see what remains, will be devastated by what they see-but there were many who saw this coming, even though the Times had blinders on when the decisions were being made. Here is what it said two years ago: "The Yankees worked hard to win over Bronx officials with a community benefits agreement. Some of it is the stuff of bread and circuses: 15,000 free tickets for distribution every season (hopefully not just to the well-connected). And some of it is real, including $1 million for job training and hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual community grants...
The Yankees also promise to spend $8 million on improving local parks, which should partly compensate for the green space the stadium will take away. On the whole, the agreement is a good start toward restitution for the many years in which the team, the richest sports franchise in the land, largely ignored residents of the disadvantaged South Bronx."
And we have a bridge that these folks can buy. Our friend Geoffrey Croft at Save Our Parks was right from the beginning on this scam, and pointed out the Bloomberg baloney in an editorial earlier this year: "Even before it seized a large swath of historic South Bronx parkland for a new Yankee Stadium, the Bloomberg administration had promised the community it would not only replace what it was taking away, but would provide even more parkland in return. Yet a close examination reveals that only 21.3 acres are actually being replaced - a net loss of nearly 4 acres."
The deal on the stadium, just like the sweetheart one at the adjacent Bronx Terminal Market (which the Times also failed to criticize) stunk from the very beginning. The question here is why didn't the people who should know better speak up? Croft gets the last word on this: "Of course, for the tens of thousands of poor people who depended on Macombs Dam and Mullaly parks, none of this comes as a surprise. Before the City Council vote, I accompanied neighborhood residents to many meetings with elected officials, where we laid out these issues very clearly.
One by one, the Council members repeated the same thing: "They're telling us you're getting more parkland than they're taking away." Everyone said it would be better. For the elected officials who supported this deal, better meant destroying 400 trees, splitting a neighborhood by building a 54,000-seat stadium, replacing lost parkland with inferior features spread miles apart, and - to add injury to insult - installing artificial turf on top of a parking garage.
All of this in a community that suffers from an asthma hospitalization rate 2.5 times greater than the city average."
All of this is part of the Bloomberg legacy. That the mayor would, after the BTM and Yankee Stadium fleecing of the South Bronx, emerge with a grand congestion scheme to, at least partially, address the asthma rates in the Bronx, has to rate extremely high on the historic hypocrisy scales in the city's political history. Bloomberg should pony up a hundred million and build the new Bloomberg Park next to the stadium. It's the least he can do to make up for the "green thievery" he sponsored.
The Real Slim Shady
What's going on here? The NY post is reporting this morning that Governor Paterson believes that Mayor Mike is simply losing it, and his trues personality colors are starting to show. The stark observation came as negotiations over the fate of OTB were concluded last week: "Mayor Bloomberg is a nasty, untrustworthy, tantrum-prone liar who "has little use" for average New Yorkers - like the 1,500 workers who would have lost their jobs had OTB closed, a furious Gov. Paterson has said privately."
Which, if true, means that Bloomberg has been amazingly deft at disguising himself;, pr perhaps it's Paterson who's a little off here: ""He appears to be self-destructing," the governor said..."He has the same kind of anger that reminds you of Spitzer," Paterson said. "I think he's starting to be concerned that he can't get anything done." The governor charged that Bloomberg has repeatedly misrepresented the facts to the point that "you can't trust him."
Usually the truth lies somewhere in between, but we're going to guess that the gov's observations might be closer to the mark, particularly when he characterizes Bloomberg's frustrations: "The source quoted Paterson as saying of Bloomberg, "There's some kind of destabilization over there." "His presidential thing didn't work out, term limits is looming to force him out, he's waiting and waiting to be asked to be vice president, congestion pricing didn't happen, he lost teacher tenure, the Jets stadium, and OTB isn't going the way he wants it."
This could continue to get interesting as the Bloomberg tenure winds down. Because, as it does, he'll be less able to get things done, and more frustration will inevitably challenge his public projection of calm. Will the Mike Bloomberg of private sector legend then emerge in full bloom?
Which, if true, means that Bloomberg has been amazingly deft at disguising himself;, pr perhaps it's Paterson who's a little off here: ""He appears to be self-destructing," the governor said..."He has the same kind of anger that reminds you of Spitzer," Paterson said. "I think he's starting to be concerned that he can't get anything done." The governor charged that Bloomberg has repeatedly misrepresented the facts to the point that "you can't trust him."
Usually the truth lies somewhere in between, but we're going to guess that the gov's observations might be closer to the mark, particularly when he characterizes Bloomberg's frustrations: "The source quoted Paterson as saying of Bloomberg, "There's some kind of destabilization over there." "His presidential thing didn't work out, term limits is looming to force him out, he's waiting and waiting to be asked to be vice president, congestion pricing didn't happen, he lost teacher tenure, the Jets stadium, and OTB isn't going the way he wants it."
This could continue to get interesting as the Bloomberg tenure winds down. Because, as it does, he'll be less able to get things done, and more frustration will inevitably challenge his public projection of calm. Will the Mike Bloomberg of private sector legend then emerge in full bloom?
Lobbyists and the "Special Interests"
We've been commenting for a while about the false dichotomy between special interests and the so-called public good. Generally, the special interests are demonized while the idea of a public good is reified. The reality, as Michael Barone underscored yesterday in a prescient piece for Real Politics, is starkly different: "Behind this stigmatization of lobbyists is the notion that the failure to produce legislation in the public interest stems from the existence of lobbyists. Which is obviously nonsense."
This basic understanding of how government works is being caricatured by both Barack Obama and John McCain in their efforts to appear to be above these nefarious special interests. The one person who really got it was Hillary Clinton, and she had the forthrightness to make the case right in front of the Daily Kossacks convention. As Barone points out: "While Obama and John Edwards were lambasting lobbyists, Clinton said: "You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses. They represent, you know, social workers. They represent ... yes, they represent corporations. They employ a lot of people."
Of course, this won't stop all of the misrepresentation by pols who want to appear that they represent the greater good, the concept that somehow transcends the tawdry interplay of interests. And Barone properly lauds Clinton's stand: "That's why I was pleased to see Clinton defend lobbying not only for those whom her Democratic audience considers good interests (nurses, social workers) but those they don't (corporations). Implicitly, she's rejecting the distinction made by the head of the Humane Society of the United States, who recently contrasted "special interest lobbyists" (presumably those working for profit-making interests) with "socially responsible lobbyists" (those working for nonprofits). But even lobbyists for nonprofits have a monetary motive: to keep their (often six-figure) salaries flowing in."
And we would add to this the fact that just because a group arrogates to itself the mantle of some public good-whether it be the environment, consumers, or the interests of low income folks-doesn't mean that its agenda is good for the larger polity-or even for the cause that they claim to advocate for; which goes equally as well for those groups with "public interest" in their name.
The whole idea of a "socially responsible" lobbyist is absurd, and this comes from someone who has often represented the interests of the less well-connected in major real estate battles over the past twenty five years. We're all representing legitimate interests, and the idea is to, hopefully, create a balance so that one interest doesn't dominate: competition is good, and without it, there will often be abuses that hurt the less organized segment of the population.
As Barone points out, the legislative agendas being advanced by both candidates this fall will have profound ramifications on us all; and it behooves all of the groups potentially impacted to offer an organized response. As Barone says: "More important, both candidates are proposing healthcare, carbon emission and tax changes -- legislation that will, and should, face heavy lobbying. Which is fine: Such laws will have enormous ramifications, and everyone who wants to should chime in. Even -- if I can use that dreaded word again -- lobbyists."
This basic understanding of how government works is being caricatured by both Barack Obama and John McCain in their efforts to appear to be above these nefarious special interests. The one person who really got it was Hillary Clinton, and she had the forthrightness to make the case right in front of the Daily Kossacks convention. As Barone points out: "While Obama and John Edwards were lambasting lobbyists, Clinton said: "You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses. They represent, you know, social workers. They represent ... yes, they represent corporations. They employ a lot of people."
Of course, this won't stop all of the misrepresentation by pols who want to appear that they represent the greater good, the concept that somehow transcends the tawdry interplay of interests. And Barone properly lauds Clinton's stand: "That's why I was pleased to see Clinton defend lobbying not only for those whom her Democratic audience considers good interests (nurses, social workers) but those they don't (corporations). Implicitly, she's rejecting the distinction made by the head of the Humane Society of the United States, who recently contrasted "special interest lobbyists" (presumably those working for profit-making interests) with "socially responsible lobbyists" (those working for nonprofits). But even lobbyists for nonprofits have a monetary motive: to keep their (often six-figure) salaries flowing in."
And we would add to this the fact that just because a group arrogates to itself the mantle of some public good-whether it be the environment, consumers, or the interests of low income folks-doesn't mean that its agenda is good for the larger polity-or even for the cause that they claim to advocate for; which goes equally as well for those groups with "public interest" in their name.
The whole idea of a "socially responsible" lobbyist is absurd, and this comes from someone who has often represented the interests of the less well-connected in major real estate battles over the past twenty five years. We're all representing legitimate interests, and the idea is to, hopefully, create a balance so that one interest doesn't dominate: competition is good, and without it, there will often be abuses that hurt the less organized segment of the population.
As Barone points out, the legislative agendas being advanced by both candidates this fall will have profound ramifications on us all; and it behooves all of the groups potentially impacted to offer an organized response. As Barone says: "More important, both candidates are proposing healthcare, carbon emission and tax changes -- legislation that will, and should, face heavy lobbying. Which is fine: Such laws will have enormous ramifications, and everyone who wants to should chime in. Even -- if I can use that dreaded word again -- lobbyists."
Chickens Coming Home to Tax Roost
Mike Bloomberg, aside from his great wealth, is one pretty lucky fellow when it comes to politics. In 2001 he comes out of nowhere on the heels of 9/11, and the endorsement of a then iconic mayor, to narrowly win the mayoral election. With the economic crisis that followed the terrorist attack, Mayor Mike was able to raise taxes without any real examination of methods that would have allowed for alternative strategies in the area of government reinvention-a term that was simply alien to Mike and the Koch retreads that he brought with him into government.
After the economic downturn, the city experienced a major uptick in revenues as Wall Street came roaring back. Through all of this Blomberg was able to articulate (and practice) a political philosophy that envisions government as a "consumer friendly" dispenser of services to the needy. In fact, his public health philosophy is emblematic of his entire approach to government (the opposite of the Reaganesque lampooning of the phrase, "We're from the government and we're here to help you.")
So it's no surprise that, faced with looming deficits, Bloomberg reverts back to what he knows best-revenue enhancements through the milking of the city's tax payers. As the NY Times reported on Saturday: "With the economy in the doldrums, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Friday that the city might scrap a popular tax cut for homeowners in 2009 — a step he previously said he would try to avoid."
It will not be easy, however, since so many of the City Council members are facing new political challenges in the upcoming election cycle. As Councilman Eric Gioia told the Times: “Middle-class families are under siege,” said Councilman Eric N. Gioia of Queens. “Raising their taxes now, at a time when they can least afford it, would be a mistake.”
And he's right, of course. As gas and food prices rise through the roof it's not the best of times to start taking more money out from the homeowners that the mayor and the council socked it to in 2002; especially when there's still a budget surplus: "Such a tax increase could prove especially unpopular given that the city is expected to end 2008 with a $4.6 billion budget surplus, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. But the mayor’s office said that those funds were already tied up in future budgets."
The use of words like "responsible" and "prudent" generally typify the "we have to raise revenue" crowd (like the Times editorialists and the tax gougers at the DMI). They all should take a look at all of the supermarket entrepreneurs who are leaving the city to invest their money in more tax-friendly environs.
There's a cost to all of this taxing and over regulating. The NY Post gets this in its editorial on Saturday: "What Mayor Mike taketh, Mayor Mike giveth back - and then later, it seems, taketh away again. That's the storyline of that huge 18 percent property-tax hike he slapped on New Yorkers, citing post-9/11 budget woes, in his very first year as mayor...Some perspective: City taxes were already way too high when Bloomberg took office in '02. Indeed, he campaigned for office arguing that, despite the post-9/11 downturn, New York can't tax its way out of a recession - that jacking up levies would only further harm the economy. Yet, there he was - less than a year later - imposing a stiff tax hike."
So his $80 2001 million campaign charade was just that; it camouflaged his true philosophy as he pained Mark Green as a flaming liberal. So the Post actually gets it wrong when it urges the mayor to reach back for the "old Mike."-"But Hizzoner was right the first time: Hiking taxes will hurt the economy. Not to mention, it's unfair. Outrageously so, in fact. Mayor Mike should channel the old Mike - and reject any notion of yet another tax hike. End of story."
The old Mike was a fiction, like so much else we've had to swallow over the past six and a half years from the man who really had no answers since, as far as government was concerned, he simply didn't even know what the questions were.
After the economic downturn, the city experienced a major uptick in revenues as Wall Street came roaring back. Through all of this Blomberg was able to articulate (and practice) a political philosophy that envisions government as a "consumer friendly" dispenser of services to the needy. In fact, his public health philosophy is emblematic of his entire approach to government (the opposite of the Reaganesque lampooning of the phrase, "We're from the government and we're here to help you.")
So it's no surprise that, faced with looming deficits, Bloomberg reverts back to what he knows best-revenue enhancements through the milking of the city's tax payers. As the NY Times reported on Saturday: "With the economy in the doldrums, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Friday that the city might scrap a popular tax cut for homeowners in 2009 — a step he previously said he would try to avoid."
It will not be easy, however, since so many of the City Council members are facing new political challenges in the upcoming election cycle. As Councilman Eric Gioia told the Times: “Middle-class families are under siege,” said Councilman Eric N. Gioia of Queens. “Raising their taxes now, at a time when they can least afford it, would be a mistake.”
And he's right, of course. As gas and food prices rise through the roof it's not the best of times to start taking more money out from the homeowners that the mayor and the council socked it to in 2002; especially when there's still a budget surplus: "Such a tax increase could prove especially unpopular given that the city is expected to end 2008 with a $4.6 billion budget surplus, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. But the mayor’s office said that those funds were already tied up in future budgets."
The use of words like "responsible" and "prudent" generally typify the "we have to raise revenue" crowd (like the Times editorialists and the tax gougers at the DMI). They all should take a look at all of the supermarket entrepreneurs who are leaving the city to invest their money in more tax-friendly environs.
There's a cost to all of this taxing and over regulating. The NY Post gets this in its editorial on Saturday: "What Mayor Mike taketh, Mayor Mike giveth back - and then later, it seems, taketh away again. That's the storyline of that huge 18 percent property-tax hike he slapped on New Yorkers, citing post-9/11 budget woes, in his very first year as mayor...Some perspective: City taxes were already way too high when Bloomberg took office in '02. Indeed, he campaigned for office arguing that, despite the post-9/11 downturn, New York can't tax its way out of a recession - that jacking up levies would only further harm the economy. Yet, there he was - less than a year later - imposing a stiff tax hike."
So his $80 2001 million campaign charade was just that; it camouflaged his true philosophy as he pained Mark Green as a flaming liberal. So the Post actually gets it wrong when it urges the mayor to reach back for the "old Mike."-"But Hizzoner was right the first time: Hiking taxes will hurt the economy. Not to mention, it's unfair. Outrageously so, in fact. Mayor Mike should channel the old Mike - and reject any notion of yet another tax hike. End of story."
The old Mike was a fiction, like so much else we've had to swallow over the past six and a half years from the man who really had no answers since, as far as government was concerned, he simply didn't even know what the questions were.
Tax and Spent
As Liz reported on Friday, the mayor (on his radio show) cast doubt about the ability of city government to pony up this year's tax cut: "And this is starting to get to the point where I’m not sure that we can maintain the 7% cut," Bloomberg said. "I’ve said in our current budget, which has a $2 (billion) or $3 billion deficit for 2010, we assume that property tax cut is coming back..."We may very well have to put it back right now for this year, because without that, we can’t balance this year’s budget, or we can balance this budget but we’d make next year so onerous that nobody wants to have that kind of precipitous tax raise. So a smaller one now, maybe."
Which is, as we have been saying, all a result of Mayor Mike's failure to tackle issues of government waste, inefficiency, and the need to innovate by reinventing the way in which the public sector operates. He has to be the most pro-government billionaire since Rocky ruled the state house in the 1960s.
Liz also relates the following funny: "Bloomberg said his first instinct is to cut expenses, but he has already done that. Unless the City Council agrees to go along with a tax increase (unlikely), the only other option is to cut programs, the mayor said." Mike Bloomberg is philosophically challenged, and his idea of cutting is so much on the margins that the entire exercise is inevitably de minimis?
So, because of his nonfeasance we're looking at a possible tax increase. As NY1 reported: "A small property tax increase this year, he says, may be needed to avoid what he believes would be serious cuts to city services next year. The mayor says a state arbitrator's decision to give officers higher raises than other city employees blew a billion-dollar hole into the city's budget."
Having failed to do what was needed in the first place, Bloomberg is forced to resort to the tired blame Albany rap: "He blamed Albany for failing to "help us," adding: "They’re starting this warfare between some schools and another, with giving us money but only for some schools. That’s not fair. We want every school to get funded exactly the same. That’s what we’re doing with our money, but they’re not doing it with theirs. And then I don’t know how you deal with them when they go home.” Just pathetic!
Which is, as we have been saying, all a result of Mayor Mike's failure to tackle issues of government waste, inefficiency, and the need to innovate by reinventing the way in which the public sector operates. He has to be the most pro-government billionaire since Rocky ruled the state house in the 1960s.
Liz also relates the following funny: "Bloomberg said his first instinct is to cut expenses, but he has already done that. Unless the City Council agrees to go along with a tax increase (unlikely), the only other option is to cut programs, the mayor said." Mike Bloomberg is philosophically challenged, and his idea of cutting is so much on the margins that the entire exercise is inevitably de minimis?
So, because of his nonfeasance we're looking at a possible tax increase. As NY1 reported: "A small property tax increase this year, he says, may be needed to avoid what he believes would be serious cuts to city services next year. The mayor says a state arbitrator's decision to give officers higher raises than other city employees blew a billion-dollar hole into the city's budget."
Having failed to do what was needed in the first place, Bloomberg is forced to resort to the tired blame Albany rap: "He blamed Albany for failing to "help us," adding: "They’re starting this warfare between some schools and another, with giving us money but only for some schools. That’s not fair. We want every school to get funded exactly the same. That’s what we’re doing with our money, but they’re not doing it with theirs. And then I don’t know how you deal with them when they go home.” Just pathetic!
Friday, June 13, 2008
Drug Dealing and Supermarkets
Yesterday Attorney General Andrew Coumo announced the results of his office's investigation into the state's drug chains, stores that are apparently flouting the laws on selling expired goods. As the NY Post reports this morning: "Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is going after CVS and Rite Aid - saying the drugstore chains sold expired milk, eggs, over-the-counter drugs and baby formula. Over the last four months, his investigators were able to buy more than 600 expired items at 142 CVS and 112 Rite Aid pharmacies in 41 counties in New York, Cuomo said yesterday."
This is more than just a simple problem for the city's neighborhood retailers, particularly bodegas and supermarkets that are being forced to compete against the drug chains for food sales and other goods that these markets have relied upon for their slim profit margins. What the Cuomo investigation reveals, however, is the extent to which the drug stores have been competing without the same regulatory oversight that food stores must endure.
Which says to us that the AG's investigation should just be the beginning of a serious evaluation of the proliferation of these drug dealers throughout the neighborhoods of NYC. As the Post tells us: "In the Big Apple, they found expired items at 28 - or 24 percent - of the city's 116 CVS stores and at 22 (13 percent) of the 175 Rite Aid stores." That's 391 drug stores, many of whom are occupying precious neighborhood selling space that used to be reserved for the local supermarket-and that's not including Walgreens, another proliferating druggie that's pushing out local retailers.
A lot of this came out in our discussions yesterday at a supermarket meeting with Brooklyn BP Marty Markowitz. As Marty said in response to the drug chain proliferation: "Are New Yorkers getting sicker? Why do we need a drug store on every block? Why indeed?
There is a pressing need for a full zoning review of chain drug stores; and a remedy whereby the number and locations of these stores is restricted may well be in order. In any event it's high time that the city and state begin to inspect these stores with the same vigor heretofore reserved for the supermarkets. If they're going to act as if they were food stores than they should be held to the same regulatory standards.
And the first place too start would be with the bottle law. It's bad enough that the CVSs of the world rip you off with high beer and soda prices, but show me one that actually redeems a can or bottle. Do the druggies reserve any of their precious selling space for redemption? It's time that the state and city cracked down and created a level competitive playing field-and if the chain drug stores don't comply they shouldn't be allowed to sell beverages.
Which brings us to the larger issue of supermarket disappearance. Our Markowitz meeting underscored one thing: the city and state need to stop using the stores as a tax and regulatory pinata. You can't, as one wholesaler at the meeting lamented, decry the loss of supermarkets, while at the same time devising any number of new regulatory schemes (plastic bag recycling and veggie peddling anyone?) that make it more costly for the markets to operate.
One idea thrown out yesterday that we particularly liked was the reclassification of supermarkets as "community facilities." This would create a zoning category that would allow developers and landlords to discount space for supermarkets and thereby reduce rental costs (the big expense that all of the retailers and their supplier mentioned as the main reason for the loss of the markets).
We'll have more on this at a later time, but we need to emphasize that every one's gotta realize that regulations that purportedly protect the consumer also threaten the health of the stores-in effect leading to a "throw the baby out with the bathwater phenomenon." The cost of doing business needs to be lowered if supermarkets are to thrive in NYC.
This is more than just a simple problem for the city's neighborhood retailers, particularly bodegas and supermarkets that are being forced to compete against the drug chains for food sales and other goods that these markets have relied upon for their slim profit margins. What the Cuomo investigation reveals, however, is the extent to which the drug stores have been competing without the same regulatory oversight that food stores must endure.
Which says to us that the AG's investigation should just be the beginning of a serious evaluation of the proliferation of these drug dealers throughout the neighborhoods of NYC. As the Post tells us: "In the Big Apple, they found expired items at 28 - or 24 percent - of the city's 116 CVS stores and at 22 (13 percent) of the 175 Rite Aid stores." That's 391 drug stores, many of whom are occupying precious neighborhood selling space that used to be reserved for the local supermarket-and that's not including Walgreens, another proliferating druggie that's pushing out local retailers.
A lot of this came out in our discussions yesterday at a supermarket meeting with Brooklyn BP Marty Markowitz. As Marty said in response to the drug chain proliferation: "Are New Yorkers getting sicker? Why do we need a drug store on every block? Why indeed?
There is a pressing need for a full zoning review of chain drug stores; and a remedy whereby the number and locations of these stores is restricted may well be in order. In any event it's high time that the city and state begin to inspect these stores with the same vigor heretofore reserved for the supermarkets. If they're going to act as if they were food stores than they should be held to the same regulatory standards.
And the first place too start would be with the bottle law. It's bad enough that the CVSs of the world rip you off with high beer and soda prices, but show me one that actually redeems a can or bottle. Do the druggies reserve any of their precious selling space for redemption? It's time that the state and city cracked down and created a level competitive playing field-and if the chain drug stores don't comply they shouldn't be allowed to sell beverages.
Which brings us to the larger issue of supermarket disappearance. Our Markowitz meeting underscored one thing: the city and state need to stop using the stores as a tax and regulatory pinata. You can't, as one wholesaler at the meeting lamented, decry the loss of supermarkets, while at the same time devising any number of new regulatory schemes (plastic bag recycling and veggie peddling anyone?) that make it more costly for the markets to operate.
One idea thrown out yesterday that we particularly liked was the reclassification of supermarkets as "community facilities." This would create a zoning category that would allow developers and landlords to discount space for supermarkets and thereby reduce rental costs (the big expense that all of the retailers and their supplier mentioned as the main reason for the loss of the markets).
We'll have more on this at a later time, but we need to emphasize that every one's gotta realize that regulations that purportedly protect the consumer also threaten the health of the stores-in effect leading to a "throw the baby out with the bathwater phenomenon." The cost of doing business needs to be lowered if supermarkets are to thrive in NYC.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Pointing Towards the Exit
It should come as no shock that the city commissioned study of Willets Point has found that the area is blighted. You do often get what you pay for. As the Daily News points out this morning: "Riddled with crime and defiled by pollution, Willets Point is a "burden on the health of the city's residents and economy," says a new report that could remake the future of the so-called Iron Triangle in Queens. The study of the gritty industrial zone - a draft copy of which was obtained by the Daily News - signals the city is preparing to use eminent domain to transform Willets Point into a glitzy mega development, experts said."
That the area has been run down is obvious to anyone who has ever set foot in the triangle property. That doesn't take away, however, from the fact that it is also a hub for a great deal of business activity-moreover firms that are mostly run by immigrant entrepreneurs.
And it dosn't take away from the fact that the blight is a result of the city's own neglect of the area for decades: "But Mark Gerrard, an attorney suing the city on behalf of several Willets Point businesses, argued the city is attempting to profit from a problem it caused by "its refusal over decades to provide the community with the basic services."
We have seen how city paid for studies get the results that the city itself has been looking for. We remember how the city-sponsored study on commercial waste determined that the waste transfer stations that were concentrated in certain low income neighborhoods did not contribute to the degrading of those local environments. And we vividly recall the study that purported to show that the eviction of the BTM merchants would be no economic loss to the city.
The current city study is just another put-up job; one that is designed to pave the way for the eviction of hundreds of businesses and thousands of minority workers. All for the greater good-of the real estate firm that is anointed to redevelop the area.
That the area has been run down is obvious to anyone who has ever set foot in the triangle property. That doesn't take away, however, from the fact that it is also a hub for a great deal of business activity-moreover firms that are mostly run by immigrant entrepreneurs.
And it dosn't take away from the fact that the blight is a result of the city's own neglect of the area for decades: "But Mark Gerrard, an attorney suing the city on behalf of several Willets Point businesses, argued the city is attempting to profit from a problem it caused by "its refusal over decades to provide the community with the basic services."
We have seen how city paid for studies get the results that the city itself has been looking for. We remember how the city-sponsored study on commercial waste determined that the waste transfer stations that were concentrated in certain low income neighborhoods did not contribute to the degrading of those local environments. And we vividly recall the study that purported to show that the eviction of the BTM merchants would be no economic loss to the city.
The current city study is just another put-up job; one that is designed to pave the way for the eviction of hundreds of businesses and thousands of minority workers. All for the greater good-of the real estate firm that is anointed to redevelop the area.
Planning for Food Security
There's an incisive article on food access by Tom Angotti, posted today on the Gotham Gazette web site. The piece examines the dangerous trend in supermarket disappearance and also the extent to which city planners can make a difference in providing access to healthy foods in city neighborhoods: "On retail strips all over the city, skyrocketing rents are forcing food retailers out. Instead of groceries, boutiques, banks and drug chains have set up shop. This alarming decline in supermarkets has reduced options for healthy nutritional choices, a recent New York Times article warned. In place of grocery stores, consumers often have to rely on fast food outlets that offer few healthy choices, or other retail outlets like chain-operated drug stores that sell a limited stock of packaged foods."
Angotti takes a look at the recently released City Planning report on supermarkets and is underwhelmed: "The study cites the public benefits that supermarkets bring to neighborhoods as well as barriers confronting food retailers... In light of the magnitude of the problem, the recommendations in the study appear a bit anemic, failing to take an in-depth look at the many ways land use planning can make a difference."
In particular, he points out that unilaterally removing the 10,000 sq. ft. limitation on supermarkets in industrial zones is unlikely to reverse the trend of supermarket loss: "For example, the report calls for removing the limit of 10,000 square feet for food retailers in light manufacturing districts. City Planning, though, proposed this in the 1990s only to see it defeated in the face of widespread concern that the measure would lead to a rush of big box stores and threaten the viability of industrial areas. After the department's recent spate of rezonings throughout the city, there is less industrially zoned land near residential neighborhoods than there was then, but still no guarantee that rezoning them would bring anything but big boxes and condominiums."
Since we were intimately involved in that particular zoning battle we would tend to agree with Angotti. That doesn't mean, however, that selective rezonings of targeted industrial sites won't be helpful in certain areas. We part company with Professor Angotti when he gets all romantic on us with his rhapsody on herb gardening and food co-ops. The key challenge is to provide space for new markets and to insure that the older stores can afford to remain.
As Angotti points out, and we agree: "Increasing the amount of land available for retail space and supermarkets is only a part of the solution. More - and larger -- retail space in no way guarantees that food will be more accessible to those who need it the most, especially if retail rents are so high that only gourmet stores will survive. While supermarkets may offer more choices, they too can become high-end boutiques. Unless the strategy of opening up more land is accompanied by one that increases the demand for and access to low-cost healthy food, all the stores in the universe won't solve the problem."
The need is to insure that the local supermarket can afford to stay as real estate values rise: "Any policy must also insure long-term access. Unless it can be sustained through periods of real estate peaks and troughs, we will not have community food security - an internationally recognized concept used to plan for food that, if incorporated into New York City's food and land use policies, would help overcome the epidemics of diabetes and obesity."
Supermarket operators must be given the opportunity to purchase their sites; leasing is only a short-term solution that has become problematic all over the city has old leases expire and landlords look to gain maximum value from their properties. Angotti, however, sees commercial rent regulation as the only possible solution: "There is one regulatory measure the city (and state) could use to stop the rising rate of decline in food retailing space in neighborhoods - commercial rent control. It is the perpetual bane of the city's powerful real estate industry, but is probably the only thing that will work to stem the loss of neighborhood retailers."
We're not convinced that rent control's the answer, but we do feel that the neighborhood retailers of all stripes are rapidly becoming extinct as the invasion of the chains squeezes the life and uniqueness out of all the city's local shopping areas. The next mayor will certainly have a difficult job ahead to meet the local supermarket deficit challenge. That is, if Mayor Mike doesn't find some solid short term solutions in the year and a half he has left..
Angotti takes a look at the recently released City Planning report on supermarkets and is underwhelmed: "The study cites the public benefits that supermarkets bring to neighborhoods as well as barriers confronting food retailers... In light of the magnitude of the problem, the recommendations in the study appear a bit anemic, failing to take an in-depth look at the many ways land use planning can make a difference."
In particular, he points out that unilaterally removing the 10,000 sq. ft. limitation on supermarkets in industrial zones is unlikely to reverse the trend of supermarket loss: "For example, the report calls for removing the limit of 10,000 square feet for food retailers in light manufacturing districts. City Planning, though, proposed this in the 1990s only to see it defeated in the face of widespread concern that the measure would lead to a rush of big box stores and threaten the viability of industrial areas. After the department's recent spate of rezonings throughout the city, there is less industrially zoned land near residential neighborhoods than there was then, but still no guarantee that rezoning them would bring anything but big boxes and condominiums."
Since we were intimately involved in that particular zoning battle we would tend to agree with Angotti. That doesn't mean, however, that selective rezonings of targeted industrial sites won't be helpful in certain areas. We part company with Professor Angotti when he gets all romantic on us with his rhapsody on herb gardening and food co-ops. The key challenge is to provide space for new markets and to insure that the older stores can afford to remain.
As Angotti points out, and we agree: "Increasing the amount of land available for retail space and supermarkets is only a part of the solution. More - and larger -- retail space in no way guarantees that food will be more accessible to those who need it the most, especially if retail rents are so high that only gourmet stores will survive. While supermarkets may offer more choices, they too can become high-end boutiques. Unless the strategy of opening up more land is accompanied by one that increases the demand for and access to low-cost healthy food, all the stores in the universe won't solve the problem."
The need is to insure that the local supermarket can afford to stay as real estate values rise: "Any policy must also insure long-term access. Unless it can be sustained through periods of real estate peaks and troughs, we will not have community food security - an internationally recognized concept used to plan for food that, if incorporated into New York City's food and land use policies, would help overcome the epidemics of diabetes and obesity."
Supermarket operators must be given the opportunity to purchase their sites; leasing is only a short-term solution that has become problematic all over the city has old leases expire and landlords look to gain maximum value from their properties. Angotti, however, sees commercial rent regulation as the only possible solution: "There is one regulatory measure the city (and state) could use to stop the rising rate of decline in food retailing space in neighborhoods - commercial rent control. It is the perpetual bane of the city's powerful real estate industry, but is probably the only thing that will work to stem the loss of neighborhood retailers."
We're not convinced that rent control's the answer, but we do feel that the neighborhood retailers of all stripes are rapidly becoming extinct as the invasion of the chains squeezes the life and uniqueness out of all the city's local shopping areas. The next mayor will certainly have a difficult job ahead to meet the local supermarket deficit challenge. That is, if Mayor Mike doesn't find some solid short term solutions in the year and a half he has left..
Sprayregen's Still Standing
In yesterday's NY Times, there's an article on the decision of West Harlem landowner Ann Whitman to make a deal with Columbia University: "A business owner who had pledged not to sell her property to make way for Columbia University’s expansion has reached a deal with the university, Columbia officials said on Tuesday.The agreement with the owner, Anne Z. Whitman, leaves only two property owners who have not settled with Columbia, which is embarking on a $7 billion expansion, the largest in its history."
Which, of course, leaves are client Nick Sprayregen standing almost by his lonesome: "Of the two remaining holdout owners, one is a family that operates a service station, and the other is Nicholas Sprayregen, the area’s largest landowner aside from Columbia. Mr. Sprayregen owns 300,000 square feet of space in five buildings, most of them used by his Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage business. On Tuesday, Mr. Sprayregen said that Ms. Whitman’s decision to reach a deal with Columbia would have no bearing on his position. “It makes it more disappointing, but it also makes my resolve to do the right thing even stronger,” he said."
And just what that "right thing" is, remains uncertain. It could mean a long drawn out eminent domain fight, one that would cost Columbia much time and money; or it could mean a land swap that would enable Sprayregen to stay, and with the added benefit of hundreds of units of affordable housing. Stay tuned for this one, it's gonna get even more interesting for sure.
Which, of course, leaves are client Nick Sprayregen standing almost by his lonesome: "Of the two remaining holdout owners, one is a family that operates a service station, and the other is Nicholas Sprayregen, the area’s largest landowner aside from Columbia. Mr. Sprayregen owns 300,000 square feet of space in five buildings, most of them used by his Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage business. On Tuesday, Mr. Sprayregen said that Ms. Whitman’s decision to reach a deal with Columbia would have no bearing on his position. “It makes it more disappointing, but it also makes my resolve to do the right thing even stronger,” he said."
And just what that "right thing" is, remains uncertain. It could mean a long drawn out eminent domain fight, one that would cost Columbia much time and money; or it could mean a land swap that would enable Sprayregen to stay, and with the added benefit of hundreds of units of affordable housing. Stay tuned for this one, it's gonna get even more interesting for sure.
Producing for Food Retailers
The NY Times follows up on yesterday's NY Post story about the possibility that the Hunts Point Produce Cooperative could relocate out of the city: "The market, a wholesale co-op, has been so successful that it has nearly outgrown its current home. So its directors have asked the city, which owns the property, to help them pay for an expansion that would cost more than $450 million. But according to the co-op, the city has balked at its request, and now the co-op is threatening to take its market out of the city — possibly as soon as its lease expires in 2011."
As we told the Times, this wouldn't be a good move for the city's food retailers: “We would be hopeful that this is no more than a bargaining position by the produce market,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small business owners in New York. “At the same time, I think the city has to take it seriously.” He added: “The current site is ideal. It’s convenient for a whole wide range of retailers and restaurateurs, and the city has to move quickly to ensure that the current location of the produce market is maintained.”
The current location also provides the most convenient and inexpensive access to fresh produce for neighborhood food retailers. Access to fruits and vegetables has been a key component of the mayor's public health policy agenda. But access for the folks in the neighborhoods is dependent to a great degree on the ability of local food retailers to have a convenient and inexpensive source of produce-something that Hunts Point provides. Any relocation that drives up the cost of goods would have an unfortunate impact on low income consumers who have been designated as most in need of greater access to the healthier fare.
This is brought home by an article on rising food costs in this morning's NY Sun: "The number of New York residents who report having difficulty affording essential food has increased 55% during the last five years, to 3.1 million, and now includes record numbers of middle-income families, according to a report released yesterday by the Food Bank for New York City. The report blames the increase on rising food costs." Rising food costs have been linked with the disappearance of many local supermarkets as a major reason why low income and working class neighborhoods are not consuming fresh fruits and vegetables as much as they should.
And the produce market also provides a great source of employment for entry level workers, something that is vital to the economic base of the Bronx. It's important that all involved get together to insure that the market stays at the current location for the foreseeable future. As the NY Daily News reports: "The market supplies 3.3 billion pounds of meat, fruits and vegetables a year that are worth more than $2 billion to more than 10 million consumers, vying with France's giant Rungis produce market just south of Paris for sheer size and volume of sales." Let's get busy EDC!
As we told the Times, this wouldn't be a good move for the city's food retailers: “We would be hopeful that this is no more than a bargaining position by the produce market,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small business owners in New York. “At the same time, I think the city has to take it seriously.” He added: “The current site is ideal. It’s convenient for a whole wide range of retailers and restaurateurs, and the city has to move quickly to ensure that the current location of the produce market is maintained.”
The current location also provides the most convenient and inexpensive access to fresh produce for neighborhood food retailers. Access to fruits and vegetables has been a key component of the mayor's public health policy agenda. But access for the folks in the neighborhoods is dependent to a great degree on the ability of local food retailers to have a convenient and inexpensive source of produce-something that Hunts Point provides. Any relocation that drives up the cost of goods would have an unfortunate impact on low income consumers who have been designated as most in need of greater access to the healthier fare.
This is brought home by an article on rising food costs in this morning's NY Sun: "The number of New York residents who report having difficulty affording essential food has increased 55% during the last five years, to 3.1 million, and now includes record numbers of middle-income families, according to a report released yesterday by the Food Bank for New York City. The report blames the increase on rising food costs." Rising food costs have been linked with the disappearance of many local supermarkets as a major reason why low income and working class neighborhoods are not consuming fresh fruits and vegetables as much as they should.
And the produce market also provides a great source of employment for entry level workers, something that is vital to the economic base of the Bronx. It's important that all involved get together to insure that the market stays at the current location for the foreseeable future. As the NY Daily News reports: "The market supplies 3.3 billion pounds of meat, fruits and vegetables a year that are worth more than $2 billion to more than 10 million consumers, vying with France's giant Rungis produce market just south of Paris for sheer size and volume of sales." Let's get busy EDC!
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Hunts Pointless?
According to the NY Post this morning, the Hunts Point Produce Cooperative is looking to leave the Bronx: "The Hunts Point produce market may soon bid farewell to the city.
The privately run wholesale fruit and vegetable cooperative is looking for a new home after the city refused to fork over $150 million to help build a new facility in the southeast Bronx, The Post has learned."
This would indeed be bad news for the entire Bronx, but it would be particularly bad for the city's small businesses: "If the produce market leaves the city, it would be more costly for small grocers and bodegas to travel to a location further away to purchase crates of fruits and vegetables - possibly driving up costs for the consumers across the five boroughs." It would also make the smaller stores less competitive with larger stores that are less dependent on local supply.
Hunts Point provides the kinds of employment that is vital to the city's less skilled workers. The retention of the Cooperative is crucial to the city's food businesses, but EDC seems to be caught unawares when asked about the potential relocation: "Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the Economic Development Corp., said the co-op "has not made us aware of any plans to relocate out of the city." Patterson added, "We value the market for its significant impact on the city of New York. We are in preliminary discussions with the cooperative to develop a viable for plan to develop a new facility to meet its growing needs."
Let's hope so. The loss of the market would be a devastating blow to the entire food distribution system in New York City.
The privately run wholesale fruit and vegetable cooperative is looking for a new home after the city refused to fork over $150 million to help build a new facility in the southeast Bronx, The Post has learned."
This would indeed be bad news for the entire Bronx, but it would be particularly bad for the city's small businesses: "If the produce market leaves the city, it would be more costly for small grocers and bodegas to travel to a location further away to purchase crates of fruits and vegetables - possibly driving up costs for the consumers across the five boroughs." It would also make the smaller stores less competitive with larger stores that are less dependent on local supply.
Hunts Point provides the kinds of employment that is vital to the city's less skilled workers. The retention of the Cooperative is crucial to the city's food businesses, but EDC seems to be caught unawares when asked about the potential relocation: "Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the Economic Development Corp., said the co-op "has not made us aware of any plans to relocate out of the city." Patterson added, "We value the market for its significant impact on the city of New York. We are in preliminary discussions with the cooperative to develop a viable for plan to develop a new facility to meet its growing needs."
Let's hope so. The loss of the market would be a devastating blow to the entire food distribution system in New York City.
Small Business Sham
In this week's Village Voice, the paper's Wayne Barrett devastates the Bloomberg record on women and minority-owned businesses, with a full evaluation of the shameful record of Commissioner Rob Walsh. The context of the article is the record percentages of voters Bloomberg achieved among Blacks and Hispanics, and the meager results of programs touted by Bloomberg during his 2005 campaign: "These signature programs—touted in the campaign's radio and television ads—have since disappeared from both the public's consciousness and the mayor's agenda. Bloomberg issued a "Campaign Accountability Report" last year, claiming success in 96 of the 100 promises he'd made in 2005. That list of campaign pledges did not include the MWBE or construction- apprenticeship initiatives."
This shouldn't really surprise anyone, since Walsh's agency has never done a damn thing for small and minority business and, on the contrary, has been the active catalyst for their demise-witness the SBS role in the eviction of the merchants from the Bronx Terminal Market, and his midwifing of IKEA to the detriment of the retailers in Sunset Park. And as far as Bloomberg is concerned, Black and Hispanic businesses are expendable, just ask all of those firms at Willets Point that the mayor's looking to give the heave-ho to.
Of course, as we have commented, all of this has not really been scrutinized by a supine press. As Barrett points out quoting Freddy Ferrar: "Ferrer, who dropped out of politics and now works for a private public-relations firm, tells the Voice that these programs "are only successful in the eyes of the initiator." The former Bronx borough president insists that "if it were anyone else, there would be much more accountability on these promises," and he also decries the media "quiescence" that has selectively protected the Bloomberg administration. "I have never seen it so still," he says, contrasting the media's lack of penetrating questions about Bloomberg's second-term record with the coverage of his three immediate predecessors: Giuliani, David Dinkins, and Ed Koch."
Our problem with this transcends the contracting charade and Walsh's evident obsession with his soft ball team. The tone and tenor of the Bloomberg administration was set in 2002 when the Fernandez brothers were by-passed by Dan Doctoroff on the Bradhurst project in Harlem for his friend Steve Ross, Since then, the Related Company and Vornado Realty have been living large, with no attempt to reach out to qualified minority firms.
But why should Bloomberg when existing minority businesses are being trampled by the mayor's development policies? Here' the money quote: "Robert Walsh, who has run SBS since Bloomberg took office, conceded during a three-hour Voice interview that he hasn't had a single meeting with the mayor to discuss the MWBE program since the new law went into effect in late 2005. He also acknowledged that, from the beginning of the administration, his conversations with Bloomberg about aiding small businesses "had not been focused on gender or race." Asked if they'd ever had a conversation in which Bloomberg gave him "a sense of how important an MWBE program was to him," Walsh replied: "I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. I can't remember a conversation like that."
Hats off to Barrett. As we have said, the real hard looks at Bloomberg have started to come, and this Voice piece, coming as it does from one of the mayor's staunchest defenders, is truly devastating, Councilman James Sanders' commentary on Walsh's failures to achieve anything positive for minority contractors should serve as an epitaph for Bloomberg's appear to be good administration: "He contends that the failure of SBS "to enforce the rule of law and economic justice as far as MWBEs are concerned is at best a dereliction of duty, and at worst a failure of character."
This shouldn't really surprise anyone, since Walsh's agency has never done a damn thing for small and minority business and, on the contrary, has been the active catalyst for their demise-witness the SBS role in the eviction of the merchants from the Bronx Terminal Market, and his midwifing of IKEA to the detriment of the retailers in Sunset Park. And as far as Bloomberg is concerned, Black and Hispanic businesses are expendable, just ask all of those firms at Willets Point that the mayor's looking to give the heave-ho to.
Of course, as we have commented, all of this has not really been scrutinized by a supine press. As Barrett points out quoting Freddy Ferrar: "Ferrer, who dropped out of politics and now works for a private public-relations firm, tells the Voice that these programs "are only successful in the eyes of the initiator." The former Bronx borough president insists that "if it were anyone else, there would be much more accountability on these promises," and he also decries the media "quiescence" that has selectively protected the Bloomberg administration. "I have never seen it so still," he says, contrasting the media's lack of penetrating questions about Bloomberg's second-term record with the coverage of his three immediate predecessors: Giuliani, David Dinkins, and Ed Koch."
Our problem with this transcends the contracting charade and Walsh's evident obsession with his soft ball team. The tone and tenor of the Bloomberg administration was set in 2002 when the Fernandez brothers were by-passed by Dan Doctoroff on the Bradhurst project in Harlem for his friend Steve Ross, Since then, the Related Company and Vornado Realty have been living large, with no attempt to reach out to qualified minority firms.
But why should Bloomberg when existing minority businesses are being trampled by the mayor's development policies? Here' the money quote: "Robert Walsh, who has run SBS since Bloomberg took office, conceded during a three-hour Voice interview that he hasn't had a single meeting with the mayor to discuss the MWBE program since the new law went into effect in late 2005. He also acknowledged that, from the beginning of the administration, his conversations with Bloomberg about aiding small businesses "had not been focused on gender or race." Asked if they'd ever had a conversation in which Bloomberg gave him "a sense of how important an MWBE program was to him," Walsh replied: "I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. I can't remember a conversation like that."
Hats off to Barrett. As we have said, the real hard looks at Bloomberg have started to come, and this Voice piece, coming as it does from one of the mayor's staunchest defenders, is truly devastating, Councilman James Sanders' commentary on Walsh's failures to achieve anything positive for minority contractors should serve as an epitaph for Bloomberg's appear to be good administration: "He contends that the failure of SBS "to enforce the rule of law and economic justice as far as MWBEs are concerned is at best a dereliction of duty, and at worst a failure of character."
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Waterlogged
We've already pointed out just how inefficient the city's Department of Environmental Protection really is: the DEP's water bill estimates to business, for instance, would never pass any independent scrutiny-and when such scrutiny is available, significant reductions are soon proffered by the agency. We should know, our former client, The Water Group. continues to obtain sharp reductions from the hapless DEP.
So it's certainly no surprise to us that the DEP failed to collect $4.5 million from one delinquent customer. As the NY Post tells us this morning: "While city homeowners are about to get hit with a 14.5 percent increase in water bills next month, one deadbeat customer has managed to get away with stiffing the city out of $4.5 million in unpaid water bills. The delinquent consumer? The city itself. "
What a shock this is! And congrats to Comptroller Thompson for uncovering this scam: "Development Corp. failed to collect 22 years' worth of water and sewer bills from the approximately 70 tenants of the Brooklyn Army Terminal in Sunset Park, Comptroller William Thompson charged in an audit released yesterday. "What really troubles me is that while New Yorkers are paying astronomical rates for water these days . . . EDC wasn't paying anything at all," Thompson said. "While the city ignores the water and sewer fees owed to it by its own subsidiaries and their tenants, it is charging, or some would say gouging, taxpayers more than ever for the exact same services."
Lew Fidler, a frequent critic of the DEP's waterboarding of New Yorkers, told the Post: ""We were trying to tell the Water Board that before they come and soak the taxpayers, they ought to make sure that they collect everything that we've given them the power to collect, and this would be just a glaring example in that regard." And he's right. Thompson's comments to the NY Daily News are really on point: "Hard-pressed New Yorkers have to pay their bills," he said. "The city has to pay its bills. It's merely simple as that."
And the NY Times also weighs in on this fiasco: "After The New York Times reported in December 2006 that the city had failed to collect millions of dollars in overdue water bills, in large part because of poor bookkeeping, the city hired a consultant to find ways to get tough with deadbeat property owners. City water officials have made some progress in reforming the collection process. Mr. Thompson said that he was concerned that many other city agencies were also delinquent in their water bills, and that he had called on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to conduct a citywide review."
Another example of the inattention of the Bloombergistas to the basic inefficiencies of government agencies, inefficiencies that inevitably cost the tax payers million. And when a proposal is raised to save businesses tens of million of dollars in disposal costs through the use of food waste disposers, the DEP shrieks that it will cost the city billions to retrofit. The same agency that can't properly estimate water bills, and doesn't know who's paid and who hasn't?
It's time for a change. We need a chief executive who that understands that an over-bloated and inefficient government, one that also over taxes and over regulates citizens and businesses, needs to be made more responsive and more efficient. The current mayor, as Jackie Mason would point out, would simply say; "That's not my field."
So it's certainly no surprise to us that the DEP failed to collect $4.5 million from one delinquent customer. As the NY Post tells us this morning: "While city homeowners are about to get hit with a 14.5 percent increase in water bills next month, one deadbeat customer has managed to get away with stiffing the city out of $4.5 million in unpaid water bills. The delinquent consumer? The city itself. "
What a shock this is! And congrats to Comptroller Thompson for uncovering this scam: "Development Corp. failed to collect 22 years' worth of water and sewer bills from the approximately 70 tenants of the Brooklyn Army Terminal in Sunset Park, Comptroller William Thompson charged in an audit released yesterday. "What really troubles me is that while New Yorkers are paying astronomical rates for water these days . . . EDC wasn't paying anything at all," Thompson said. "While the city ignores the water and sewer fees owed to it by its own subsidiaries and their tenants, it is charging, or some would say gouging, taxpayers more than ever for the exact same services."
Lew Fidler, a frequent critic of the DEP's waterboarding of New Yorkers, told the Post: ""We were trying to tell the Water Board that before they come and soak the taxpayers, they ought to make sure that they collect everything that we've given them the power to collect, and this would be just a glaring example in that regard." And he's right. Thompson's comments to the NY Daily News are really on point: "Hard-pressed New Yorkers have to pay their bills," he said. "The city has to pay its bills. It's merely simple as that."
And the NY Times also weighs in on this fiasco: "After The New York Times reported in December 2006 that the city had failed to collect millions of dollars in overdue water bills, in large part because of poor bookkeeping, the city hired a consultant to find ways to get tough with deadbeat property owners. City water officials have made some progress in reforming the collection process. Mr. Thompson said that he was concerned that many other city agencies were also delinquent in their water bills, and that he had called on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to conduct a citywide review."
Another example of the inattention of the Bloombergistas to the basic inefficiencies of government agencies, inefficiencies that inevitably cost the tax payers million. And when a proposal is raised to save businesses tens of million of dollars in disposal costs through the use of food waste disposers, the DEP shrieks that it will cost the city billions to retrofit. The same agency that can't properly estimate water bills, and doesn't know who's paid and who hasn't?
It's time for a change. We need a chief executive who that understands that an over-bloated and inefficient government, one that also over taxes and over regulates citizens and businesses, needs to be made more responsive and more efficient. The current mayor, as Jackie Mason would point out, would simply say; "That's not my field."
Monday, June 09, 2008
Times Right on Term Limits
We aren't always in agreement with the editorial wisdom of the NY Times, in fact the areas of agreement are few and far between. The paper's editorial today on a third term for the mayor is, however, on point for us: "We opposed term limits when New York City voters first approved them in 1993. (They were reaffirmed in 1996.) Term limits are undeniably seductive. They seem to promise relief from mediocre, self-perpetuating incumbents and from gridlocked legislatures in places like Albany. They also diminish democracy, arbitrarily deny choice, reduce accountability and squander experience."
At the same time, the Times agrees that changing the law for one man wouldn't be appropriate: "As good a mayor as Mr. Bloomberg has been, we are wary of changing the rules just to suit the ambition of a particular politician — in this country or any other. Mr. Bloomberg, should he want to continue his public service, would make an excellent prospect for other important offices."
We'll take issue with the Times' "good mayor" premise, but its point is clear: if we're going to change the term limits law it must be done on strong good government premises, not because of the need to perpetuate any one person in any one office. Or, as we have put it, the mayor should, "go in good health."
At the same time, the Times agrees that changing the law for one man wouldn't be appropriate: "As good a mayor as Mr. Bloomberg has been, we are wary of changing the rules just to suit the ambition of a particular politician — in this country or any other. Mr. Bloomberg, should he want to continue his public service, would make an excellent prospect for other important offices."
We'll take issue with the Times' "good mayor" premise, but its point is clear: if we're going to change the term limits law it must be done on strong good government premises, not because of the need to perpetuate any one person in any one office. Or, as we have put it, the mayor should, "go in good health."
Out at Third
The Mike Bloomberg third term boomlet apparently doesn't extend past a certain townhouse on 79th Street. As Michael Goodwin writes yesterday: "To seek that third term, Bloomberg would first have to find a way around the two-term limit voters approved twice. And he'll have a lot of explaining to do about flip-flopping on a law he has supported since he entered public life."
What we're hoping for is that Mayor Mike continues this little play act long enough so that others, besides Goodwin, really start to evaluate this mayor's tenure. There's nothing like a little dose of hypocrisy to get the press juices flowing. As Goodwin points out: "The sad thing is that Bloomberg, in his frequent support of term limits, made the most compelling arguments about why they are good for the public. To wit, nobody is indispensable, incumbents have too much of an advantage and new eyes bring new ideas."
The more folks look, the less indispensable Bloomberg will appear. Here's Mike in his own words: "The little you lose in experience you more than make up in terms of fresh ideas. I don't know of any company that would allow their people to stay doing the same thing for long periods of time."
The whole Bloomberg act is getting tiring in the extreme. Not only do we need fresh ideas, we need actual ideas-the mayor brought nothing new to the task seven years ago, and what we really need is someone who will tackle the necessary job of streamlining government, making it both less unwieldy and more effecient (DOB anyone?). And lowering the city's tax burden would be a corrolary of this effort; an idea that Bloomberg the taxer always saw as foreign.
What we're hoping for is that Mayor Mike continues this little play act long enough so that others, besides Goodwin, really start to evaluate this mayor's tenure. There's nothing like a little dose of hypocrisy to get the press juices flowing. As Goodwin points out: "The sad thing is that Bloomberg, in his frequent support of term limits, made the most compelling arguments about why they are good for the public. To wit, nobody is indispensable, incumbents have too much of an advantage and new eyes bring new ideas."
The more folks look, the less indispensable Bloomberg will appear. Here's Mike in his own words: "The little you lose in experience you more than make up in terms of fresh ideas. I don't know of any company that would allow their people to stay doing the same thing for long periods of time."
The whole Bloomberg act is getting tiring in the extreme. Not only do we need fresh ideas, we need actual ideas-the mayor brought nothing new to the task seven years ago, and what we really need is someone who will tackle the necessary job of streamlining government, making it both less unwieldy and more effecient (DOB anyone?). And lowering the city's tax burden would be a corrolary of this effort; an idea that Bloomberg the taxer always saw as foreign.
School Daze and Mayoral Excess
With the speculation increasing that Mayor Mike has not yet had his fill of public adulation, it is useful to take a look at Friday's educational column by the Sun's Andrew Wolf. It's usefulness is given added impetus by the fact that the authorization for mayoral control of the NYC schools ends on June 30th: "The issue of mayoral control of the schools is due to end at midnight on June 30, 2009. If the state legislature and governor fail to act, the current Department of Education will disappear and revert into the old Board of Education at 12:01 a.m...This is unlikely to happen, but what is likely is that there will be changes in the law that will rein in some of the mayor's powers over the schools. In getting to an improved governing structure for the schools, there is likely to be much debate. Both an honest debate and some real reform would be a good thing."
What's been missing for the past seven years, with the exception of the incisive work of Wolf and Sol Stern, is a thorough examination of just what this mayor has done with the control that was given to him, a control that he did very little to actually achieve since the process had been set in motion by his predecessor who did all the hard lifting and advocacy. So, like so much else in his improbable rise to the chief executive position in this city, Bloomberg found himself on third base believing he'd hit a triple.
And Wolf begins to lay out the terms of a more critical evaluation of the mayor's educational achievements. He does so by taking a look at the role of one Ron Beller: "Take the case of Ron Beller. If you have heard of Mr. Beller, it is likely to be in the context of his career as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs. Mr. Beller left that post with a hefty payout, making him a multi-millionaire in his thirties. This apparently was all the expertise needed to convince the mayor and Chancellor Klein that Mr. Beller was the man to lead the reorganization of the public schools in the period after the mayor was granted control."
Of course, this is exactly what Thorsten Veblen meant when he coined the phrase "trained incapacity." Neither Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein or Beller for that matter, came to the task with any educational background or knowledge; therefore the entire problem was viewed as a management issue-and the folks at Tweed brought in an army of MBAs to tackle the educational reorganization.
As Wolf points out, Beller was instrumental in spearheading the reorganization, and very few folks were even aware that he was around; secrecy and a lack of accountability has been the chief hallmark of the Tweed reign. Now, going forward, reform is badly needed: "The public interest here is creating a system designed to minimize damage to our school system and our children even if the worst possible person somehow sneaks into the mayor's chair. That kind of protection comes from complete transparency and a system of checks and balances that allows for the mayor to do his job while protecting the public from abuse."
Wolf underscores our point here: "When the legislature gave control of the schools to the mayor, it assigned broad and unchecked powers. This was done envisioning Mr. Bloomberg at the helm, a reflection of trust in his ability and integrity. Despite this, abuses have occurred. Secretly empowering an arguably unqualified businessman to take such a key role in this public enterprise would seem to constitute such an abuse."
Indeed it was an abuse, and when you add 25 new hires to the DOE public relations payroll you kinda get the feeling that the Tweedies would rather appear good, than actually be good. So much has been outsourced and done under the public radar that it is difficult to actually evaluate all that the kleinemen have done: "Some functions of the Department of Education have been assigned to private entities. Few disapprove of hiring outside companies that can do certain assignments more efficiently, but when government creates these entities to skirt the protections to the public built into government — things such as freedom of information, open competitive bidding, and requirements for public hearings — warning bells should ring."
So let the sunshine in here, and the legislature should set a process in motion that will insure public accountability; and a full and thorough review of all the accomplishments that the mayor and the chancellor claim they have achieved. And we agree with the NY Sun that the mayor should eschew any "finagling" of a third term; let's let his successor come in so that the age of the bamboozle can mercifully come to an end.
What's been missing for the past seven years, with the exception of the incisive work of Wolf and Sol Stern, is a thorough examination of just what this mayor has done with the control that was given to him, a control that he did very little to actually achieve since the process had been set in motion by his predecessor who did all the hard lifting and advocacy. So, like so much else in his improbable rise to the chief executive position in this city, Bloomberg found himself on third base believing he'd hit a triple.
And Wolf begins to lay out the terms of a more critical evaluation of the mayor's educational achievements. He does so by taking a look at the role of one Ron Beller: "Take the case of Ron Beller. If you have heard of Mr. Beller, it is likely to be in the context of his career as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs. Mr. Beller left that post with a hefty payout, making him a multi-millionaire in his thirties. This apparently was all the expertise needed to convince the mayor and Chancellor Klein that Mr. Beller was the man to lead the reorganization of the public schools in the period after the mayor was granted control."
Of course, this is exactly what Thorsten Veblen meant when he coined the phrase "trained incapacity." Neither Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein or Beller for that matter, came to the task with any educational background or knowledge; therefore the entire problem was viewed as a management issue-and the folks at Tweed brought in an army of MBAs to tackle the educational reorganization.
As Wolf points out, Beller was instrumental in spearheading the reorganization, and very few folks were even aware that he was around; secrecy and a lack of accountability has been the chief hallmark of the Tweed reign. Now, going forward, reform is badly needed: "The public interest here is creating a system designed to minimize damage to our school system and our children even if the worst possible person somehow sneaks into the mayor's chair. That kind of protection comes from complete transparency and a system of checks and balances that allows for the mayor to do his job while protecting the public from abuse."
Wolf underscores our point here: "When the legislature gave control of the schools to the mayor, it assigned broad and unchecked powers. This was done envisioning Mr. Bloomberg at the helm, a reflection of trust in his ability and integrity. Despite this, abuses have occurred. Secretly empowering an arguably unqualified businessman to take such a key role in this public enterprise would seem to constitute such an abuse."
Indeed it was an abuse, and when you add 25 new hires to the DOE public relations payroll you kinda get the feeling that the Tweedies would rather appear good, than actually be good. So much has been outsourced and done under the public radar that it is difficult to actually evaluate all that the kleinemen have done: "Some functions of the Department of Education have been assigned to private entities. Few disapprove of hiring outside companies that can do certain assignments more efficiently, but when government creates these entities to skirt the protections to the public built into government — things such as freedom of information, open competitive bidding, and requirements for public hearings — warning bells should ring."
So let the sunshine in here, and the legislature should set a process in motion that will insure public accountability; and a full and thorough review of all the accomplishments that the mayor and the chancellor claim they have achieved. And we agree with the NY Sun that the mayor should eschew any "finagling" of a third term; let's let his successor come in so that the age of the bamboozle can mercifully come to an end.
O'Keeffe's Kerfuffle
Michael O'Keeffe of the NY Daily News doesn't like Bruce Ratner, and yesterday in the paper he let that get in the way of his good judgment: "Bruce Ratner's Brooklyn Day was billed as a celebration, but Thursday's pep rally to whip up support for the Nets owner's controversial Atlantic Yards project seemed more like a goal-line stand than a party."
Oh, really? This sounds to us more like wishful thinking on his part than accurate analysis of where the project stands-and his thoughts on the large contingent of young hoopsters who were in attendance is a dead giveaway: "The quality of the crowd at Columbus Park was easier to gauge than the quantity; nobody, it seemed, had come to Brooklyn Day because they believed Atlantic Yards was crucial to New York's future. The youth basketball groups came because Ratner has sponsored their tournaments."
Of course, since he was unable to gainsay the numbers, all that was left was his own subjectivity; and the enthusiasm of the ballers was never in question, something that is directly related to the fact that FCRC sponsors their teams and games. The reality here is that our client Forest City and the Nets see the youngsters as their future stakeholders once the team comes to Brooklyn, as it will in two years in spite of O'Keeffe's willing disbelief.
There's nothing sinister in enlightened self-interest, whether it is expressed by FCRC, the Brownsville Rec Center, the Flatbush Youth Association, the Brooklyn Falcons, the Brooklyn Saints, or the CYO contingent-well represented by hundreds of happy young folks who appreciate the company's support and look forward to a continuing partnership once AY is opened and the team is finally playing in 2010.
And the same goes for the union folks and the community people represented by Build; it's a mistake to think that grass roots support can only be represented by enthusiasm devoid of self-interest. The project and the team are good for a wide range of constituents, something that will continue to be expressed right up until the first ball goes through a hoop in the new arena, and the first family gets its new apartment. Why should these folks be motivated only by the Idea of the Brooklyn Nets?
Instead we get the following from Mikey: "At least Hillary can still draw a crowd that's passionate and committed; even in defeat she shows more heart than Vince Carter ever has. Forest City Ratner spokesman Loren Riegelhaupt estimated Brooklyn Day drew up to 3,500 supporters, but that number seemed extremely optimistic, especially as the day wore on and the construction workers who are Ratner's most loyal constituency wandered back to their job sites." Talk about erroneous analysis and false comparisons.
O'Keeffe is in for a rude awakening, buoyed as he is by the delays that have been cause by the litigious-something that, according to the NY Sun, continues as the Institute for Justice, tilting at windmills once more, joins in the legal batlle In two years, when we're all drinking champagne, all he, the cluster of lawyers, and the DDDers will be left with will be sour grapes; the kind O'Keeffe ends his column with: "But if Bruce Ratner thinks Brooklyn Day was a celebration, one can only wonder how he defines affordable housing and good jobs." We'll see about this.
Oh, really? This sounds to us more like wishful thinking on his part than accurate analysis of where the project stands-and his thoughts on the large contingent of young hoopsters who were in attendance is a dead giveaway: "The quality of the crowd at Columbus Park was easier to gauge than the quantity; nobody, it seemed, had come to Brooklyn Day because they believed Atlantic Yards was crucial to New York's future. The youth basketball groups came because Ratner has sponsored their tournaments."
Of course, since he was unable to gainsay the numbers, all that was left was his own subjectivity; and the enthusiasm of the ballers was never in question, something that is directly related to the fact that FCRC sponsors their teams and games. The reality here is that our client Forest City and the Nets see the youngsters as their future stakeholders once the team comes to Brooklyn, as it will in two years in spite of O'Keeffe's willing disbelief.
There's nothing sinister in enlightened self-interest, whether it is expressed by FCRC, the Brownsville Rec Center, the Flatbush Youth Association, the Brooklyn Falcons, the Brooklyn Saints, or the CYO contingent-well represented by hundreds of happy young folks who appreciate the company's support and look forward to a continuing partnership once AY is opened and the team is finally playing in 2010.
And the same goes for the union folks and the community people represented by Build; it's a mistake to think that grass roots support can only be represented by enthusiasm devoid of self-interest. The project and the team are good for a wide range of constituents, something that will continue to be expressed right up until the first ball goes through a hoop in the new arena, and the first family gets its new apartment. Why should these folks be motivated only by the Idea of the Brooklyn Nets?
Instead we get the following from Mikey: "At least Hillary can still draw a crowd that's passionate and committed; even in defeat she shows more heart than Vince Carter ever has. Forest City Ratner spokesman Loren Riegelhaupt estimated Brooklyn Day drew up to 3,500 supporters, but that number seemed extremely optimistic, especially as the day wore on and the construction workers who are Ratner's most loyal constituency wandered back to their job sites." Talk about erroneous analysis and false comparisons.
O'Keeffe is in for a rude awakening, buoyed as he is by the delays that have been cause by the litigious-something that, according to the NY Sun, continues as the Institute for Justice, tilting at windmills once more, joins in the legal batlle In two years, when we're all drinking champagne, all he, the cluster of lawyers, and the DDDers will be left with will be sour grapes; the kind O'Keeffe ends his column with: "But if Bruce Ratner thinks Brooklyn Day was a celebration, one can only wonder how he defines affordable housing and good jobs." We'll see about this.
Friday, June 06, 2008
More Spilt Milk
In today's NY Daily News Daily Politics Blog, Liz Benjamin discusses the contretemps between Catsimatidis and Quinn over the City Council's milk report: "Supermarket mogul and likely GOP mayoral candidate John Catsimatidis did not appreciate the report released yesterday by his potential 2009 opponent, Council Speaker Christine Quinn, that alleged 86 percent of food stores in the city are gouging customers on the price of milk...."Ms. Quinn should take Economics 101. It's inexcusable that an official of the city of New York would just try to panic people."
Not to be out done, Catsimatidis campaign guru Rob Ryan also weighed in with a shot at the speaker: ""Perhaps Chris Quinn should spend more time being forthright about the slush funds in the City Council," Ryan said. "The real gougers are the professional politicians who have been gouging the taxpayers of New York for too long."
This, of course, initiated a response from Quinn spokesman, and former NBC producer Jamie McShane: "Mr. Catsimatidis understandably wants to change the subject," said Quinn spokesman Jamie McShane. "What NewYork families want to see change is the widespread overcharging for a gallon of milk."
Which begs the question whether the "report" actually demonstrates any gouging at all, something that we have pointed out previously. So McShane should be careful because he's walking on thin ice and, to mix metaphors, is operating from the proverbial glass house.
Not to be out done, Catsimatidis campaign guru Rob Ryan also weighed in with a shot at the speaker: ""Perhaps Chris Quinn should spend more time being forthright about the slush funds in the City Council," Ryan said. "The real gougers are the professional politicians who have been gouging the taxpayers of New York for too long."
This, of course, initiated a response from Quinn spokesman, and former NBC producer Jamie McShane: "Mr. Catsimatidis understandably wants to change the subject," said Quinn spokesman Jamie McShane. "What NewYork families want to see change is the widespread overcharging for a gallon of milk."
Which begs the question whether the "report" actually demonstrates any gouging at all, something that we have pointed out previously. So McShane should be careful because he's walking on thin ice and, to mix metaphors, is operating from the proverbial glass house.
State Explains "Gouging"
In a good piece in the SI Advance the paper helps to clarify the milk "gouging" issue: ""The price of milk is like a roller coaster, it goes up and down all the time," said Jessica Chittendon, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Agriculture. "The price-gouging law works best when the price goes down, because it prevents retailers from keeping those prices high." Not all prices above the threshold should be considered gouging, Ms. Chittendon added. In considering whether a retail price is "unconscionably excessive," the department considers mitigating factors, including changes in rent, wholesale pricing and the cost of marketing and handling."
"Mitigating factors!" Now that is a term of art in this city: "The Department of Agriculture uses a standard retail margin of 57 cents per gallon to gauge whether prices are excessive. But they only scrutinize the prices supermarkets set for gallons of milk, mostly because they don't have the resources to do anything else. That explains why some of the highest milk prices in both the City Hall study and the Advance survey were found in places that are never inspected -- local groceries, delis and bodegas -- and for smaller units of milk, like half-gallons and quarts."
In other words, the smaller convenience outlets where costs are even higher just to stay in business, and where the retailer is there, well, for the convenience of the local neighborhood. And think about the regulatory costs of inspecting 13,000 NYC bodegas: ""We do not have the means to enforce this in every store, in every instance," Ms. Chittendon said. "A little neighborhood bodega may charge 50 cents over the threshold, but they may just sell 20 gallons per week. But what is the taxpayer cost of addressing that one little bodega?"
And our guess is that if state Ag did the inspections they'd find that costs and margins made the gouging issue moot-not to mention the fact that there's a bodega-or two-on every corner, and competition is fierce, with milk often used as a loss leader.
"Mitigating factors!" Now that is a term of art in this city: "The Department of Agriculture uses a standard retail margin of 57 cents per gallon to gauge whether prices are excessive. But they only scrutinize the prices supermarkets set for gallons of milk, mostly because they don't have the resources to do anything else. That explains why some of the highest milk prices in both the City Hall study and the Advance survey were found in places that are never inspected -- local groceries, delis and bodegas -- and for smaller units of milk, like half-gallons and quarts."
In other words, the smaller convenience outlets where costs are even higher just to stay in business, and where the retailer is there, well, for the convenience of the local neighborhood. And think about the regulatory costs of inspecting 13,000 NYC bodegas: ""We do not have the means to enforce this in every store, in every instance," Ms. Chittendon said. "A little neighborhood bodega may charge 50 cents over the threshold, but they may just sell 20 gallons per week. But what is the taxpayer cost of addressing that one little bodega?"
And our guess is that if state Ag did the inspections they'd find that costs and margins made the gouging issue moot-not to mention the fact that there's a bodega-or two-on every corner, and competition is fierce, with milk often used as a loss leader.
More Cowing of Food Retailers
As we've already pointed out, the city council report on milk pricing released yesterday misstates the reality of the retail food environment, and gives the false impression that retailers are gouging. This is clearly indicated in some of the other press reports that emerged this morning.
The NY Post story's a case in point, with an unfair and misleading headline leading the way:
GOT BILK? GROCERS DO
MOST SELLERS BREAK MILK-PRICE LAW
The story itself is not much better: "New Yorkers are being milked for their hard-earned grocery dollars. A whopping 86 percent of supermarkets, delis and bodegas throughout the five boroughs are charging above the state-mandated price ceiling for milk, according to a City Council survey released yesterday."
And it goes on, without any real clarification of how the law itself works, to confront hapless consumers: "Shoppers cutting every corner to make ends meet - many of whom did not know there were legal price limits - were appalled to learn they were getting gouged.
"I have two children. We buy a lot of milk. If it's overpriced, it's unfair for mothers and their children," said Gloria Williams, 36, who was shopping in Murray Hill."
But is it really? As the Post points out in the small print of the story: "The complex state law does allow stores to make a case for above-the-limit prices before they are considered in violation. Most of the major supermarket chains have done so, but many smaller shops do not."
Not doing so, however, doesn't mean that the store's gouging-since arguing the case means that a store will be able to show how its costs mandate a higher retail price, and not arguing the case only means that a small retailer is not aware of the need to do so (not that the costs don't justify the higher price). All of which is left unexplained in the Post story.
In a similar AMNY piece we are at least given the other side: "The prices are adjusted monthly by the state department of agriculture, and are shaped by different factors such as global demand. The price is set to ensure that stores can make a profit, but stores that deem the prices too low can apply for exemptions." This is not a hard and fast price ceiling by any means.
And what do some of the retailers say? "Industry insiders bristled at the notion that stores were scamming their customers."Milk is a commodity no one tries to make money on," said Nelson A. Eusebio, the executive director of the National Supermarket Association. "It's the kind of item that drives people to the store, and you always want to be cheaper than the next guy."
John Catsimatidis, the owner of Gristedes Supermarkets, called out the council for its ignorance of supermarket economics, and for the failure to address the disappearance of the local food store: "John Catsimatidis, the chief executive of Gristedes (and a client of ours), said the council didn't understand the economics of running a grocery store in New York City."The supermarket business is a dying breed in the New York area," he said. "Fifty percent of the supermarkets in New York City have gone out of business in the last 6 or 7 years because they didn't charge enough."
So what is really happening? Costs in the city are escalating-and the government's role is not insubstantial. In 2002, the city raised the commercial real estate tax, raising store rents by 20%. In 2003, the city raised carting costs, lifting a rate cap and imposing added fees that have run into the tens of millions of dollars. At the same time, the city council refused to pass Intro 133, a bill that would have allowed food stores to use commercial food waste disposers-and thereby cut disposal rates by 80%.
This year, the city continues to advocate for expansion of the state's bottle law, one that has added considerable cost to space-cramped NYC food retailers; and has added to this burden, a plastics recycling law that retailers will have to pay for. And of course, there's also the cockamamie vegetable peddler bill that will inevitably place fruit and veggie carts right in front of neighborhood supermarkets; taking thousands of dollars away from the tax paying store owners.
When we add to all of this the millions of dollars of fines for a myriad of silly violations, and the rising cost of real estate itself, is it any wonder that food prices are rising and stores are closing?
So let's put our attention where it truly belongs-and place the responsibility at the foot of government and not at the feat of hard working food retailers. In doing just that, the city council report does both store owners as well as consumers a great disservice.
The NY Post story's a case in point, with an unfair and misleading headline leading the way:
GOT BILK? GROCERS DO
MOST SELLERS BREAK MILK-PRICE LAW
The story itself is not much better: "New Yorkers are being milked for their hard-earned grocery dollars. A whopping 86 percent of supermarkets, delis and bodegas throughout the five boroughs are charging above the state-mandated price ceiling for milk, according to a City Council survey released yesterday."
And it goes on, without any real clarification of how the law itself works, to confront hapless consumers: "Shoppers cutting every corner to make ends meet - many of whom did not know there were legal price limits - were appalled to learn they were getting gouged.
"I have two children. We buy a lot of milk. If it's overpriced, it's unfair for mothers and their children," said Gloria Williams, 36, who was shopping in Murray Hill."
But is it really? As the Post points out in the small print of the story: "The complex state law does allow stores to make a case for above-the-limit prices before they are considered in violation. Most of the major supermarket chains have done so, but many smaller shops do not."
Not doing so, however, doesn't mean that the store's gouging-since arguing the case means that a store will be able to show how its costs mandate a higher retail price, and not arguing the case only means that a small retailer is not aware of the need to do so (not that the costs don't justify the higher price). All of which is left unexplained in the Post story.
In a similar AMNY piece we are at least given the other side: "The prices are adjusted monthly by the state department of agriculture, and are shaped by different factors such as global demand. The price is set to ensure that stores can make a profit, but stores that deem the prices too low can apply for exemptions." This is not a hard and fast price ceiling by any means.
And what do some of the retailers say? "Industry insiders bristled at the notion that stores were scamming their customers."Milk is a commodity no one tries to make money on," said Nelson A. Eusebio, the executive director of the National Supermarket Association. "It's the kind of item that drives people to the store, and you always want to be cheaper than the next guy."
John Catsimatidis, the owner of Gristedes Supermarkets, called out the council for its ignorance of supermarket economics, and for the failure to address the disappearance of the local food store: "John Catsimatidis, the chief executive of Gristedes (and a client of ours), said the council didn't understand the economics of running a grocery store in New York City."The supermarket business is a dying breed in the New York area," he said. "Fifty percent of the supermarkets in New York City have gone out of business in the last 6 or 7 years because they didn't charge enough."
So what is really happening? Costs in the city are escalating-and the government's role is not insubstantial. In 2002, the city raised the commercial real estate tax, raising store rents by 20%. In 2003, the city raised carting costs, lifting a rate cap and imposing added fees that have run into the tens of millions of dollars. At the same time, the city council refused to pass Intro 133, a bill that would have allowed food stores to use commercial food waste disposers-and thereby cut disposal rates by 80%.
This year, the city continues to advocate for expansion of the state's bottle law, one that has added considerable cost to space-cramped NYC food retailers; and has added to this burden, a plastics recycling law that retailers will have to pay for. And of course, there's also the cockamamie vegetable peddler bill that will inevitably place fruit and veggie carts right in front of neighborhood supermarkets; taking thousands of dollars away from the tax paying store owners.
When we add to all of this the millions of dollars of fines for a myriad of silly violations, and the rising cost of real estate itself, is it any wonder that food prices are rising and stores are closing?
So let's put our attention where it truly belongs-and place the responsibility at the foot of government and not at the feat of hard working food retailers. In doing just that, the city council report does both store owners as well as consumers a great disservice.
Milking Consumers?
The NYC Council released a report yesterday alleging that New York retailers are over charging customers on milk, As the report states: "
Forty-three of the 50 stores surveyed (86%) charged a price that was higher than the
threshold for at least one unit of milk.
The 43 surveyed retailers that charged above the threshold for at least one unit of
milk charged an average of $0.40 per unit above the threshold.
Twelve (63.2%) of the 19 supermarkets surveyed charged above the threshold for at
least one unit of milk.
A total of 458 units of milk were surveyed,11 with 238 (51.9%) units priced above the
threshold.
Unfortunately, the council analysis is not only misleading, it is also camouflaging the real issue: the cost of doing business in the city that is pushing grocery prices skyward-on top of a world wide trend in this area, In fact, as a result of these operating costs, the city is losing neighborhood supermarkets-as a Crain's New York Business story underscored a couple of weeks ago.
Here's what Crain's pointed out: "In the past five years, about 100 grocery store owners have either left the city entirely or focused their expansion efforts outside the Big Apple. In response to recent reports detailing the situation, a special commission is now struggling to come up with recommendations that might help turn the tide. The experiences of many of the grocers leaving town show, however, that it won't be easy. "The cost of operating supermarkets in New York City was impossible," says Eligio Peña, who closed the last of his six Associated supermarkets here in 2000 after 30 years in business. Today he co-owns 26 Compare Foods markets in the Carolinas."
So instead of writing a report chastising local retailer, the council should be analysing how to reduce the cost of doing business; because, if the retailers were such good gougers they wouldn't be closing their doors, would they? As we told the NY Sun in its story this morning: "But a spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, took issue with her statement, saying the council's focus should be on reducing taxes and regulations, not adjusting price ceilings."If the retailers are doing such a good job gouging, they'd be going out of business?," he said. "The cost of doing business. that should be the final objective."
And ironically, the council does understand this to some degree. Yet it buried this understanding under the sensational "findings" in its report. On page 12 we find: "Finally, it must be recognized that rising rents, high operating costs and slim margins have made it difficult for supermarkets to thrive in New York City."
These high costs, the report finds, may mean that it should be necessary to reconfigure the formula that determines whether retailers are in fact gouging at all: "In discussions with a number of retailers and industry experts it was mentioned that the New York State Legislature should consider amending the MPGL in order to allow AGMKT to update its methodology for setting the threshold price in order better reflect all of the costs to retailers and decrease volatility in the market."
Well there you go. The high NYC operating costs may very well be creating what the doctors call a false positive. Once these new costs are factored in we are sure it will be found that retailers, struggling to survive in this harsh city business climate are not gouging at all. The first place the council should examine in all of this is the commercial real estate tax that the city raised by 20% in 2002, a raise that was an equivalent rent increase for all city store owners.
When the city's hemorrhaging supermarkets the last thing we need is a report that claims to demonstrate that these retailers are trying to bilk their customers. On reflection, what we see in the mirror, is the council's own countenance (along with the mayor's). Instead of pointing fingers, it should be looking to help NYC consumers by lowering retail operating costs.
Forty-three of the 50 stores surveyed (86%) charged a price that was higher than the
threshold for at least one unit of milk.
The 43 surveyed retailers that charged above the threshold for at least one unit of
milk charged an average of $0.40 per unit above the threshold.
Twelve (63.2%) of the 19 supermarkets surveyed charged above the threshold for at
least one unit of milk.
A total of 458 units of milk were surveyed,11 with 238 (51.9%) units priced above the
threshold.
Unfortunately, the council analysis is not only misleading, it is also camouflaging the real issue: the cost of doing business in the city that is pushing grocery prices skyward-on top of a world wide trend in this area, In fact, as a result of these operating costs, the city is losing neighborhood supermarkets-as a Crain's New York Business story underscored a couple of weeks ago.
Here's what Crain's pointed out: "In the past five years, about 100 grocery store owners have either left the city entirely or focused their expansion efforts outside the Big Apple. In response to recent reports detailing the situation, a special commission is now struggling to come up with recommendations that might help turn the tide. The experiences of many of the grocers leaving town show, however, that it won't be easy. "The cost of operating supermarkets in New York City was impossible," says Eligio Peña, who closed the last of his six Associated supermarkets here in 2000 after 30 years in business. Today he co-owns 26 Compare Foods markets in the Carolinas."
So instead of writing a report chastising local retailer, the council should be analysing how to reduce the cost of doing business; because, if the retailers were such good gougers they wouldn't be closing their doors, would they? As we told the NY Sun in its story this morning: "But a spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, took issue with her statement, saying the council's focus should be on reducing taxes and regulations, not adjusting price ceilings."If the retailers are doing such a good job gouging, they'd be going out of business?," he said. "The cost of doing business. that should be the final objective."
And ironically, the council does understand this to some degree. Yet it buried this understanding under the sensational "findings" in its report. On page 12 we find: "Finally, it must be recognized that rising rents, high operating costs and slim margins have made it difficult for supermarkets to thrive in New York City."
These high costs, the report finds, may mean that it should be necessary to reconfigure the formula that determines whether retailers are in fact gouging at all: "In discussions with a number of retailers and industry experts it was mentioned that the New York State Legislature should consider amending the MPGL in order to allow AGMKT to update its methodology for setting the threshold price in order better reflect all of the costs to retailers and decrease volatility in the market."
Well there you go. The high NYC operating costs may very well be creating what the doctors call a false positive. Once these new costs are factored in we are sure it will be found that retailers, struggling to survive in this harsh city business climate are not gouging at all. The first place the council should examine in all of this is the commercial real estate tax that the city raised by 20% in 2002, a raise that was an equivalent rent increase for all city store owners.
When the city's hemorrhaging supermarkets the last thing we need is a report that claims to demonstrate that these retailers are trying to bilk their customers. On reflection, what we see in the mirror, is the council's own countenance (along with the mayor's). Instead of pointing fingers, it should be looking to help NYC consumers by lowering retail operating costs.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Terms of Surrender
It's getting more uncertain whether Mike Bloomberg will go quietly when his term of office ends next year, Clearly infatuated with the public role, he's scouting around to see how he can continue to remain in the public eye-God's gift and all. As the NY Times reports this morning: "As his political team considers strategies that would allow him to remain in public life, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg acknowledged with rare candor on Wednesday that he was unsure about what to do next, and whether it would be as satisfying as being mayor. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg addressed his future on Wednesday at City Hall. He said he had no plans to run for governor. Associates of Mr. Bloomberg say that while he has not decided to run for governor or seek a way to serve a third term, he has not closed the door on either possibility."
Good grief, simply pack it in, will yah? It's not as if the city has been governed with the skill and grace of Solomon, even though the mayor's narcissism might lead him to believe so" “I plan to, I think, stay on in public service in some ways or other — I don’t know how,” the mayor said on Wednesday after a news conference at City Hall. “You know, I don’t see anything for me. ...” A wistful billionaire is a scary site to behold for all of those small businesses that have been ignored by the Bloomberg big planners,
The mayor's polling didn't give encouragement to the idea of overturning term limits, but gave some impetus to an Albany run: "The poll that Mr. Bloomberg commissioned found that although city voters largely approve of the job Mr. Bloomberg is doing as mayor, they are strongly opposed to doing away with term limits. The survey did find support for the idea of Mr. Bloomberg’s running for governor.
That didn't stop the NY Post from a euphoric rhetorical flourish in favor of overturning a term limits law that the paper has always supported: "Now it's reported that Mayor Mike is polling the possibility of doing away with term limits - which would at least theoretically open the way for him to seek a third term. To which we say: Go for it, Mike."
Now we agree with tthe Post's philosophical opposition to the idea of term limits, but unlike the paper, we don't think that repeal of the law for Bloomberg makes any sense whatsoever: "Profoundly undemocratic, term limits embody the elitist notion that New Yorkers are unqualified to choose their leaders all by themselves. They've been in effect since 1997, without improving the quality of city governance in any discernible way. And now they stand to deny New Yorkers the services of a gifted leader at a most inopportune time."
Our view is that while we are opposed to term limits philosophically, we'll make an exception in the case of Mayor Mike. As for the "gifted" moniker, well, he's not the gift that keeps on giving as far as we see his reign.
So, go in good health, we say. After all, the mayor's projected legacy was scuttled by all of those myopic Albany legislators, so why not grab your cudgel and head north. As the Times tells us: "But with his presidential prospects dead, a cabinet position remote and the moment when he will be forced from office looming, he has been revisiting that view, associates say. And as he has watched the State Legislature scuttle some of his dearest proposals, he has been casting about for a way to maintain his influence over public policy issues and projects important to his legacy."
How solipsistic of all of this! It's not as if Bloomberg's accomplishments are writ large over the city's landscape-even if they appear so to lackeys like Stu Loesser who are eager to maintain their government perks. So, as Gloria Gaynor sung many years ago: "Go on now, go walk out the door. Just turn around now 'cause you're not welcome anymore. Weren't you the one who tried to break me with goodbye. Did you think I'd crumble, did you think I'd lay down and die
Oh, no, not I-I will survive." And so will the city. Mike Bloomberg's no saviour.
Good grief, simply pack it in, will yah? It's not as if the city has been governed with the skill and grace of Solomon, even though the mayor's narcissism might lead him to believe so" “I plan to, I think, stay on in public service in some ways or other — I don’t know how,” the mayor said on Wednesday after a news conference at City Hall. “You know, I don’t see anything for me. ...” A wistful billionaire is a scary site to behold for all of those small businesses that have been ignored by the Bloomberg big planners,
The mayor's polling didn't give encouragement to the idea of overturning term limits, but gave some impetus to an Albany run: "The poll that Mr. Bloomberg commissioned found that although city voters largely approve of the job Mr. Bloomberg is doing as mayor, they are strongly opposed to doing away with term limits. The survey did find support for the idea of Mr. Bloomberg’s running for governor.
That didn't stop the NY Post from a euphoric rhetorical flourish in favor of overturning a term limits law that the paper has always supported: "Now it's reported that Mayor Mike is polling the possibility of doing away with term limits - which would at least theoretically open the way for him to seek a third term. To which we say: Go for it, Mike."
Now we agree with tthe Post's philosophical opposition to the idea of term limits, but unlike the paper, we don't think that repeal of the law for Bloomberg makes any sense whatsoever: "Profoundly undemocratic, term limits embody the elitist notion that New Yorkers are unqualified to choose their leaders all by themselves. They've been in effect since 1997, without improving the quality of city governance in any discernible way. And now they stand to deny New Yorkers the services of a gifted leader at a most inopportune time."
Our view is that while we are opposed to term limits philosophically, we'll make an exception in the case of Mayor Mike. As for the "gifted" moniker, well, he's not the gift that keeps on giving as far as we see his reign.
So, go in good health, we say. After all, the mayor's projected legacy was scuttled by all of those myopic Albany legislators, so why not grab your cudgel and head north. As the Times tells us: "But with his presidential prospects dead, a cabinet position remote and the moment when he will be forced from office looming, he has been revisiting that view, associates say. And as he has watched the State Legislature scuttle some of his dearest proposals, he has been casting about for a way to maintain his influence over public policy issues and projects important to his legacy."
How solipsistic of all of this! It's not as if Bloomberg's accomplishments are writ large over the city's landscape-even if they appear so to lackeys like Stu Loesser who are eager to maintain their government perks. So, as Gloria Gaynor sung many years ago: "Go on now, go walk out the door. Just turn around now 'cause you're not welcome anymore. Weren't you the one who tried to break me with goodbye. Did you think I'd crumble, did you think I'd lay down and die
Oh, no, not I-I will survive." And so will the city. Mike Bloomberg's no saviour.
Black Market Terror
As the NY Post is reporting today, the cigarette tax enforcement problem has serious international repercussions: "Nearly two dozen Arab cigarette smugglers have been smoked out for buying and then reselling contraband butts to New York bodegas and other shops.
Lured by fake ads in Arabic-language newspapers, the smugglers bought $6 million in contraband smokes from New York tax and federal undercover agents.
And a top elected official now warns that the untaxed cigarettes could be funding terror overseas."
The huge disparity now caused by further increases in the New York State and City taxes is a potential bonanza for smugglers-and some of the profits from this smuggling will end up in the hands of terrorists:All the profits of the smugglers - whose sales to hundreds of area stores exceeds the business of most legitimate wholesalers - "was shipped overseas to the Middle East," said Deputy Commissioner William Comiskey of the state Taxation and Finance Office.
"We know that the money wasn't kept here," said Comiskey, whose agents conducted the elaborate sting, noting that "it's a possibility" that the smugglers' multimillion-dollar operations, which also include sales of guns and counterfeit tax stamps, could be at least partly funding terrorism."
And while kudos here go to the sting operation, it must be pointed out that millions more in untaxed smokes can easily be channeled through purchases from Indian retailers-a loophole that could be closed if Governor Patterson simply enforced the law that's on the books.
The current sting was set up in Virginia: "The sting led to the arrests of 21 out of 27 men named in money-laundering, trafficking and conspiracy indictments unsealed this week. Most of them are originally from Yemen and Jordan. The case, which is being prosecuted by federal authorities in Virginia, was set in motion in early 2007 by New York state Tax and Finance agents, who set up a warehouse in King George County, Va., and stocked it with cases of untaxed cigarettes." But the reality is that the smokes can be bought as cheaply right here in NYS-which is a scandal of potentially disastrous consequences.
Lured by fake ads in Arabic-language newspapers, the smugglers bought $6 million in contraband smokes from New York tax and federal undercover agents.
And a top elected official now warns that the untaxed cigarettes could be funding terror overseas."
The huge disparity now caused by further increases in the New York State and City taxes is a potential bonanza for smugglers-and some of the profits from this smuggling will end up in the hands of terrorists:All the profits of the smugglers - whose sales to hundreds of area stores exceeds the business of most legitimate wholesalers - "was shipped overseas to the Middle East," said Deputy Commissioner William Comiskey of the state Taxation and Finance Office.
"We know that the money wasn't kept here," said Comiskey, whose agents conducted the elaborate sting, noting that "it's a possibility" that the smugglers' multimillion-dollar operations, which also include sales of guns and counterfeit tax stamps, could be at least partly funding terrorism."
And while kudos here go to the sting operation, it must be pointed out that millions more in untaxed smokes can easily be channeled through purchases from Indian retailers-a loophole that could be closed if Governor Patterson simply enforced the law that's on the books.
The current sting was set up in Virginia: "The sting led to the arrests of 21 out of 27 men named in money-laundering, trafficking and conspiracy indictments unsealed this week. Most of them are originally from Yemen and Jordan. The case, which is being prosecuted by federal authorities in Virginia, was set in motion in early 2007 by New York state Tax and Finance agents, who set up a warehouse in King George County, Va., and stocked it with cases of untaxed cigarettes." But the reality is that the smokes can be bought as cheaply right here in NYS-which is a scandal of potentially disastrous consequences.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The Third Time's Charmless
The NY post is reporting today that Mayor Bloomberg has been polling about a third term: " Mayor Bloomberg, who has repeatedly denied interest in running for governor or extending term limits, has conducted a poll that includes questions about changing term limits - a move that would allow him to run for re-election - as well as his chances of winning a race for the statehouse, sources said last night.
Just another example of how the aphrodisiac of power pulls even the richest of folks; and how the mayor may not believe that the normal rules should also apply to him. Not everyone, however, is upset at the prospect: "A source outside the administration said many leaders in the business community don't want to lose Bloomberg at a time of economic uncertainty." What a surprise!
Let's hope that saner heads prevail, and that the mayor sets his sights to Albany. We'd pay to see this irascible chap lock heads with Shelly Silver and, hopefully, Joe Bruno for four years; after all, he's done so well battling the legislature up till now. The frustration meter would blow after just a few months.
Bloomberg is not one to suffer fools, a category that he places most of the world into regularly-but particularly the press, as Gabe Pressman points out: "The other day, after the second crane collapse in three months killed two construction workers, Bloomberg got angry when it was suggested that the Department of Buildings had failed to ensure public safety. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the D.O.B.,” Bloomberg said. “D.O.B. didn’t crash; it was the crane that collapsed. Keep in mind that construction is a dangerous business and you will always have fatalities.” Tell that to the loved ones of the men who died last week and the seven who died in March after another crane collapse...
Giuliani used to denounce reporters for asking stupid questions. This Mayor gets defensive and petulant when he doesn’t like a question. Neither posture is appropriate for the chief executive of a tough city that rightfully takes pride in its tradition of kindness and compassion."
Yes Bloomberg's wearing a bit, isn't he? Which underscores just how much fun it would be to see how an exile in the state capitol would add to his growing public distemper. And at least in Albany there are some effective checks and balances.
Just another example of how the aphrodisiac of power pulls even the richest of folks; and how the mayor may not believe that the normal rules should also apply to him. Not everyone, however, is upset at the prospect: "A source outside the administration said many leaders in the business community don't want to lose Bloomberg at a time of economic uncertainty." What a surprise!
Let's hope that saner heads prevail, and that the mayor sets his sights to Albany. We'd pay to see this irascible chap lock heads with Shelly Silver and, hopefully, Joe Bruno for four years; after all, he's done so well battling the legislature up till now. The frustration meter would blow after just a few months.
Bloomberg is not one to suffer fools, a category that he places most of the world into regularly-but particularly the press, as Gabe Pressman points out: "The other day, after the second crane collapse in three months killed two construction workers, Bloomberg got angry when it was suggested that the Department of Buildings had failed to ensure public safety. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the D.O.B.,” Bloomberg said. “D.O.B. didn’t crash; it was the crane that collapsed. Keep in mind that construction is a dangerous business and you will always have fatalities.” Tell that to the loved ones of the men who died last week and the seven who died in March after another crane collapse...
Giuliani used to denounce reporters for asking stupid questions. This Mayor gets defensive and petulant when he doesn’t like a question. Neither posture is appropriate for the chief executive of a tough city that rightfully takes pride in its tradition of kindness and compassion."
Yes Bloomberg's wearing a bit, isn't he? Which underscores just how much fun it would be to see how an exile in the state capitol would add to his growing public distemper. And at least in Albany there are some effective checks and balances.
Law and Disorder
The new cigarette tax went into effect yesterday, and the impact on local stores will be significant. AS the NY Times reports: "Shahid Akhter, who opened the Amazing Store and Smoke Shop on Columbus Avenue on the Upper West Side a month ago, said that past increases caused business to drop slightly, but that crossing the $8 threshold — especially as the cost of everything from oil to eggs continued to rise — was likely to have a bigger effect."
The store owner went on to tell the Times: "“I am very unhappy about this, boss,” he said. “People come in and say they are going to import them or get them in the Bronx from people selling them out of the back of their cars.” He said he made roughly half his profit from cigarettes. Looking at the magazines on his rack, he joked that maybe he would have to sell more pornography to make up the difference."
In a joint press conference yesterday our two health commissioners talked about the cost of treating smokers, a misleading observation if you examine the actuarial tables and see the extent to which shorter life spans and increased tax payments make smoking a gruesome bargain for the government.
And as we told Eyewitness News, the tax increase will be a smuggler's goldmine; with the state losing over 1billion dollars a year in lost tax revenue. Not to mention the fact that city retailers are losing $250 million every year to smugglers and the Internet. If anyone wants to see a textbook case of how taxes drive business away they should take a peak at all of the cigarette sales on Indian reservations and New York City street corners,
This was admitted by State Health Commissioner Daines: "Dr. Richard F. Daines, the state health commissioner, acknowledged at the news conference that many people might seek to evade the taxes by buying their cigarettes online or bringing them in from other states, but he said he still expected the price increase to reduce smoking significantly." Yet nowhere do we see any call for increased enforcement of the Indian tax evasion.
It's getting so bad that only the state and the criminals can make any money on the sale of tobacco products. "With the $1.25 increase in state taxes that took effect Tuesday, New York City now has the most heavily taxed cigarettes in the nation. The price of each pack includes $4.25 in taxes, $2.75 of which goes to the state, $1.50 to City Hall." When will the state get the brass to crack down?
The store owner went on to tell the Times: "“I am very unhappy about this, boss,” he said. “People come in and say they are going to import them or get them in the Bronx from people selling them out of the back of their cars.” He said he made roughly half his profit from cigarettes. Looking at the magazines on his rack, he joked that maybe he would have to sell more pornography to make up the difference."
In a joint press conference yesterday our two health commissioners talked about the cost of treating smokers, a misleading observation if you examine the actuarial tables and see the extent to which shorter life spans and increased tax payments make smoking a gruesome bargain for the government.
And as we told Eyewitness News, the tax increase will be a smuggler's goldmine; with the state losing over 1billion dollars a year in lost tax revenue. Not to mention the fact that city retailers are losing $250 million every year to smugglers and the Internet. If anyone wants to see a textbook case of how taxes drive business away they should take a peak at all of the cigarette sales on Indian reservations and New York City street corners,
This was admitted by State Health Commissioner Daines: "Dr. Richard F. Daines, the state health commissioner, acknowledged at the news conference that many people might seek to evade the taxes by buying their cigarettes online or bringing them in from other states, but he said he still expected the price increase to reduce smoking significantly." Yet nowhere do we see any call for increased enforcement of the Indian tax evasion.
It's getting so bad that only the state and the criminals can make any money on the sale of tobacco products. "With the $1.25 increase in state taxes that took effect Tuesday, New York City now has the most heavily taxed cigarettes in the nation. The price of each pack includes $4.25 in taxes, $2.75 of which goes to the state, $1.50 to City Hall." When will the state get the brass to crack down?
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Bronx Talk about Supermarkets
We appeared (by phone) last night on Bronx Talk along with Councilman Jimmy Vacca, to talk about the supermarket crisis. The program has posted an interesting article, more like a compendium, that details much of what we have been discussing regarding the disappearing supermarkets: "A continuing decline in the number of neighborhood supermarkets has made it harder for millions of New Yorkers to find fresh and affordable food within walking distance of their homes, according to a recent city study. The dearth of nearby supermarkets is most severe in minority and poor neighborhoods already beset by obesity, diabetes and heart disease."
In the discussion last night, we hit upon this theme, and Vacca detailed his fight to prevent the closing of the Met Supermarket that has been in the Pelham Gardens neighborhood for decades. Jimmy called for a government assistance program for supermarkets in order to make them more affordable for neighborhoods where rising rents are forcing too many of them out.
As the Bronx talk article points out: "The supermarket closings — not confined to poor neighborhoods — result from rising rents and slim profit margins, among other causes. They have forced residents to take buses or cabs to the closest supermarkets in some areas. Those with cars can drive, but the price of gasoline is making some think twice about that option. In many places, residents said the lack of competition has led to rising prices in the remaining stores." Clearly, as we pointed out last night, it is past time for a strong government response.
This response needs to come from the mayor himself, since his administration has called the access to fresh produce a public health necessity; and the supermarket has been designated by the Bloombergistas as the linchpin of the supply chain for the needed fruits and veggies. Here the BT article cites the DCP report: "“Many people in low-income neighborhoods are spending their food budget at discount stores or pharmacies where there is no fresh produce,” said Amanda Burden, the city’s planning director. “In our study, a significant percentage of them reported that in the day before our survey, they had not eaten fresh fruit or vegetables. Not one. That really is a health crisis in the city.”
Finally, the BT article highlights the fight over the closing of the Key Food supermarket in the Bronx, and underscores the efforts of Local 1500 of the UFCW to stem the efflux of local supermarkets: "Local 1500 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represents the store’s workers, have made this Key Food in the Bronx the poster child for a citywide campaign to preserve local supermarkets. “We’re at a point where landlords do not feel any concern that they are taking supermarkets out of communities,” said Pat Purcell, the union’s director of special projects. “They just want to maximize their profit. I get that, up to a point. But food is different. It affects your health.”
In the next few weeks, Key Food and the Distrusters at Vornado are going to be in the eye of the storm. Vornado will soon become the Tornado that galvanized all of NYC to make supermarket survival a number one priority.
In the discussion last night, we hit upon this theme, and Vacca detailed his fight to prevent the closing of the Met Supermarket that has been in the Pelham Gardens neighborhood for decades. Jimmy called for a government assistance program for supermarkets in order to make them more affordable for neighborhoods where rising rents are forcing too many of them out.
As the Bronx talk article points out: "The supermarket closings — not confined to poor neighborhoods — result from rising rents and slim profit margins, among other causes. They have forced residents to take buses or cabs to the closest supermarkets in some areas. Those with cars can drive, but the price of gasoline is making some think twice about that option. In many places, residents said the lack of competition has led to rising prices in the remaining stores." Clearly, as we pointed out last night, it is past time for a strong government response.
This response needs to come from the mayor himself, since his administration has called the access to fresh produce a public health necessity; and the supermarket has been designated by the Bloombergistas as the linchpin of the supply chain for the needed fruits and veggies. Here the BT article cites the DCP report: "“Many people in low-income neighborhoods are spending their food budget at discount stores or pharmacies where there is no fresh produce,” said Amanda Burden, the city’s planning director. “In our study, a significant percentage of them reported that in the day before our survey, they had not eaten fresh fruit or vegetables. Not one. That really is a health crisis in the city.”
Finally, the BT article highlights the fight over the closing of the Key Food supermarket in the Bronx, and underscores the efforts of Local 1500 of the UFCW to stem the efflux of local supermarkets: "Local 1500 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represents the store’s workers, have made this Key Food in the Bronx the poster child for a citywide campaign to preserve local supermarkets. “We’re at a point where landlords do not feel any concern that they are taking supermarkets out of communities,” said Pat Purcell, the union’s director of special projects. “They just want to maximize their profit. I get that, up to a point. But food is different. It affects your health.”
In the next few weeks, Key Food and the Distrusters at Vornado are going to be in the eye of the storm. Vornado will soon become the Tornado that galvanized all of NYC to make supermarket survival a number one priority.
Pointing to Oblivion
According to the Observer's real estate blog, the city is looking for a relocation "expert" to help find new homes for the businesses it wants to remove from the Willets Point redevelopment site. In reality, the city's looking for a repo man: "The consultant “is being engaged to help develop a relocation assistance strategy, and, working closely with and on behalf of NYCEDC, to manage all day-to-day aspects of the assistance program,” according to a description on EDC’s Web site."
The last time we saw this kind of charade in action, it was the merchants at the Bronx Terminal Market getting the shaft. The relocation expert there was little more than a smokescreen for actual help that never arrived. The key for those merchants, as it is for those at the Point, is for a place to be found where all or a good portion of the businesses can be located together.
Without this synergy, the chances that these small firms will survive for long is rather slim. The merchants at the Point need the city, and not some bogus specialist, to find a suitable alternative site. If it doesn't, there only real alternative is to stand and fight the entire project. It makes more sense to go down fighting than to accept a slow and painful death from a city-designated helper.
The last time we saw this kind of charade in action, it was the merchants at the Bronx Terminal Market getting the shaft. The relocation expert there was little more than a smokescreen for actual help that never arrived. The key for those merchants, as it is for those at the Point, is for a place to be found where all or a good portion of the businesses can be located together.
Without this synergy, the chances that these small firms will survive for long is rather slim. The merchants at the Point need the city, and not some bogus specialist, to find a suitable alternative site. If it doesn't, there only real alternative is to stand and fight the entire project. It makes more sense to go down fighting than to accept a slow and painful death from a city-designated helper.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Cranes Not the Only Things Collapsing
Diane Cardwell's on a roll. In yesterday's NY Times the dogged reporter, covering the political impact of the deaths involved in a second crane collapse, goes after the most precious commodity in the Bloomberg Administration-his reputed competency: "The deaths threaten the long-held view of Mr. Bloomberg, a self-made billionaire, as a talented manager, political observers said. And his high-profile ousting of Ms. Lancaster has made him even more directly accountable.
“It certainly hurts his reputation as a great manager and this idea that you need a nonpartisan businessman to manage the city because he really knows how to manage agencies, and it takes the politics out of decisions,” said George Arzt, a political consultant who was press secretary to Mayor Edward I. Koch."
It's only a matter of time before the reassessment gains real force. The next stop will be the schools, and Andrew Wolf has already given us a good start in focusing in on Bloomberg's failings here: "While campaigning to be given control of the schools back in 2002, Mr. Bloomberg suggested that business-like management combined with a "back-to-basics" curriculum would tame the perceived chaos in our schools. This is the kind of talk that drew many of us, myself included, to support mayoral control. But once assuming control, Mr. Bloomberg's initial precepts were abandoned, and the mayor joined in supporting the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, apparently convinced that with just a few billion more, all would be right."
When the dust settles in this crucial area-the one that Mayor Mike said he should be judged on-he will be judged; and the results won't be pretty. Thanks to reporters like Cardwell and Wolf, the chickens are starting to come home to roost.
“It certainly hurts his reputation as a great manager and this idea that you need a nonpartisan businessman to manage the city because he really knows how to manage agencies, and it takes the politics out of decisions,” said George Arzt, a political consultant who was press secretary to Mayor Edward I. Koch."
It's only a matter of time before the reassessment gains real force. The next stop will be the schools, and Andrew Wolf has already given us a good start in focusing in on Bloomberg's failings here: "While campaigning to be given control of the schools back in 2002, Mr. Bloomberg suggested that business-like management combined with a "back-to-basics" curriculum would tame the perceived chaos in our schools. This is the kind of talk that drew many of us, myself included, to support mayoral control. But once assuming control, Mr. Bloomberg's initial precepts were abandoned, and the mayor joined in supporting the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, apparently convinced that with just a few billion more, all would be right."
When the dust settles in this crucial area-the one that Mayor Mike said he should be judged on-he will be judged; and the results won't be pretty. Thanks to reporters like Cardwell and Wolf, the chickens are starting to come home to roost.
DOH Promotes the Black Market
AS the NY Times' City Room Blog reported last week, the Department of Health is waging a "relentless campaign" to get New Yorkers to stop smoking. The gist of the Department's message is that smokers could be saving themselves a bundle when the price of a pack of smokes rises to $8.5 when the new state tax goes into effect: "On Tuesday, the state tax on cigarettes will rise by $1.25 a pack, driving up the cost of a typical pack in New York City to around $8.50. The city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which has waged a relentless campaign against smoking since 2002, is promoting that fact, telling smokers that they could save $3,000 a year if they quit a three-pack-a-week habit. They could use that money, the city says, to buy season Major League Baseball tickets ($2,025), a quarter-carat diamond engagement ring ($2,799) or a 10-day Caribbean cruise ($1,750)."
Only if it were true; but thanks to the cowards running both the state and city governments it doesn't come close to the truth, and borders on the kind of false advertising that gets retailers prosecuted. The reason? The failure to close the Indian tax exemption loophole will mean that these scoundrels will have an extra $1.25 vig to play with when they flood the streets with non-taxed cigarettes-something the Times neglects to mention.
In fact, the City Room did mention this late last year in another post it did on tax avoidance: "New York City loses more than $40 million in revenue each year from the people who avoid paying cigarette taxes, according to a report [pdf] released today by the city’s Independent Budget Office." And the blog goes on to point out that: "But the higher taxes also increase New Yorkers’ incentives to buy cigarettes from lower-tax areas, including Indian reservations, and from Web sites that claim to sell “tax-free” cigarettes — even though, with few exceptions, “no cigarettes available to New Yorkers are legally free from taxation by the city and state,” the report says."
As we have pointed out before, the black market not only devastates local bodegas and convenience stores, but hits New York tax payers hard: "The budget estimate estimated that $43 million in city cigarette taxes went uncollected last year." This tax avoidance, a phenomenon that a NY Post editorial hit out at a couple of weeks ago, also aids and abets criminal enterprises, including terrorists.
So while we are glad that people are begining to realize that smoking is one of the dumbest things they can do, but we'd be even happier if our state and city officials would just enforce the law. This way, legitimate retailers would sell the product so that they, and not just the state and the smugglers, could make a profit.
Only if it were true; but thanks to the cowards running both the state and city governments it doesn't come close to the truth, and borders on the kind of false advertising that gets retailers prosecuted. The reason? The failure to close the Indian tax exemption loophole will mean that these scoundrels will have an extra $1.25 vig to play with when they flood the streets with non-taxed cigarettes-something the Times neglects to mention.
In fact, the City Room did mention this late last year in another post it did on tax avoidance: "New York City loses more than $40 million in revenue each year from the people who avoid paying cigarette taxes, according to a report [pdf] released today by the city’s Independent Budget Office." And the blog goes on to point out that: "But the higher taxes also increase New Yorkers’ incentives to buy cigarettes from lower-tax areas, including Indian reservations, and from Web sites that claim to sell “tax-free” cigarettes — even though, with few exceptions, “no cigarettes available to New Yorkers are legally free from taxation by the city and state,” the report says."
As we have pointed out before, the black market not only devastates local bodegas and convenience stores, but hits New York tax payers hard: "The budget estimate estimated that $43 million in city cigarette taxes went uncollected last year." This tax avoidance, a phenomenon that a NY Post editorial hit out at a couple of weeks ago, also aids and abets criminal enterprises, including terrorists.
So while we are glad that people are begining to realize that smoking is one of the dumbest things they can do, but we'd be even happier if our state and city officials would just enforce the law. This way, legitimate retailers would sell the product so that they, and not just the state and the smugglers, could make a profit.
Albor Day for Supermarkets
In yesterday's NY Daily News, columnist Albor Ruiz highlighted the growing danger to the city when supermarkets disappear: "As if the skyrocketing price of groceries was not bad enough, now New Yorkers face a bigger problem: The city's supermarkets are rapidly becoming an endangered species. Essential as they are for the financial and physical health of city dwellers, if something is not done soon to reverse that trend, supermarkets face extinction."
And just as we pointed out with the threatened closings of the Key Food in Soundview and the Met Food in Pelham Gardens, it is the elderly and the poor who are hardest hit: "Such loss impacts not only the economy but also the public health of the city's neighborhoods. Add to this the inconvenience and expense it creates for residents - especially elderly and low-income families - who have no choice but to shop at bodegas and delis that, while performing a service, are more expensive and offer much less access to fresh produce and affordable groceries."
Ruiz knows what he's talking about. His own Woodside neighborhood has been hit when two years ago the local Met Food closed and was replaced by a CVS. This hasn't been well received in the community: "We needed another drugstore like a hole in the head," said Ramona García, a long-time Woodside resident who, at 67, needs a cane to walk around. "I had no idea what I was going to do when 'el supermercado' closed after many years in the neighborhood. Now my son, who lives in the Bronx, has to help me do the shopping."
The supermarket crisis is being addressed by a city wide coalition, led by the Alliance and the UFCW; and the mayor has appointed a commission, but we need to see some concrete action-especially in the Soundview situation. Ruiz highlights the coalition's call to action: "In a written statement the coalition stated its goal as "to continue to push the city to act quickly before more and more supermarkets bite the dust. In this push we will be calling on the administration to begin to examine lowering the cost of doing business - high taxes and overregulation being key variables in the disappearance of so many of our neighborhood food stores."
He also highlights the strong words from Marty Markowitz, Brooklyn BP and potential mayoral candidate. Markowitz wants to see immediate action: "And what's closing? Our supermarkets. Not everybody gets Fresh Direct, not everybody goes to exclusive gourmet grocery stores," he said. "They go to the Key Foods and the Associateds. We have got to get the government to approach this with ideas that make it profitable for supermarkets to open new stores."
Time is running out, and we'll give Albor Ruiz the last word: "The city better hurry. Right now the people of Soundview in the South Bronx are involved in a fight to save a Key Food, the last big supermarket in their neighborhood, which is in danger of being evicted by its landlord, Vornado Realty Trust. It is a story that is being repeated in many New York neighborhoods. It is also a problem that Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council can do much to resolve."
And just as we pointed out with the threatened closings of the Key Food in Soundview and the Met Food in Pelham Gardens, it is the elderly and the poor who are hardest hit: "Such loss impacts not only the economy but also the public health of the city's neighborhoods. Add to this the inconvenience and expense it creates for residents - especially elderly and low-income families - who have no choice but to shop at bodegas and delis that, while performing a service, are more expensive and offer much less access to fresh produce and affordable groceries."
Ruiz knows what he's talking about. His own Woodside neighborhood has been hit when two years ago the local Met Food closed and was replaced by a CVS. This hasn't been well received in the community: "We needed another drugstore like a hole in the head," said Ramona García, a long-time Woodside resident who, at 67, needs a cane to walk around. "I had no idea what I was going to do when 'el supermercado' closed after many years in the neighborhood. Now my son, who lives in the Bronx, has to help me do the shopping."
The supermarket crisis is being addressed by a city wide coalition, led by the Alliance and the UFCW; and the mayor has appointed a commission, but we need to see some concrete action-especially in the Soundview situation. Ruiz highlights the coalition's call to action: "In a written statement the coalition stated its goal as "to continue to push the city to act quickly before more and more supermarkets bite the dust. In this push we will be calling on the administration to begin to examine lowering the cost of doing business - high taxes and overregulation being key variables in the disappearance of so many of our neighborhood food stores."
He also highlights the strong words from Marty Markowitz, Brooklyn BP and potential mayoral candidate. Markowitz wants to see immediate action: "And what's closing? Our supermarkets. Not everybody gets Fresh Direct, not everybody goes to exclusive gourmet grocery stores," he said. "They go to the Key Foods and the Associateds. We have got to get the government to approach this with ideas that make it profitable for supermarkets to open new stores."
Time is running out, and we'll give Albor Ruiz the last word: "The city better hurry. Right now the people of Soundview in the South Bronx are involved in a fight to save a Key Food, the last big supermarket in their neighborhood, which is in danger of being evicted by its landlord, Vornado Realty Trust. It is a story that is being repeated in many New York neighborhoods. It is also a problem that Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council can do much to resolve."
More Hispanic Focus on Supermarkets
There's a front page article in Mi Zona Hispana that focuses in on supermarkets. The thrust of the piece is that poorer people are the most impacted, their pocket books as well as their health, when supermarkets disappear: "Un triste fenómeno se está reportando: en las zonas menos privilegiadas de la ciudad handisminuido los grandes almacenes, debido a alzas en los costos. Además de desempleo, la caída alerta sobre problemas de salud al afectar el consumo de alimentos frescos."
As Mi Zona points out, over three million New Yorkers lack access to the fresh produce that supermarkets are uniquely able to supply them with: "Medio millar de almacenes que abastecían a vecindarios de familias de bajos recursos han cerrado recientemente en la ciudad.
Hoy, tres millones de neoyorquinos viven en áreas con limitado acceso a alimentos nutritivos."
And as we have pointed out, this supermarket shortage, particularly in East Harlem where six markets have closed, effects the elderly the most: "Con dificultad, la mexicana DoloresGarcía, residente de EastHarlem,maneja su carritode compras del supermercado. Cargar leche, carnes, frutas y verduras ya no es algo que esta señora de 62 años pueda hacer sin la ayuda del carrito.Y menos desde que cerraron el supermercado cerca de su casa a principios de este año. La señora García tiene que caminar diez cuadras para encontrar un lugar decente donde comprar sus alimentos frescos."
Clearly, the city needs to act to lower the operating costs of supermarkets, and where necessary incentivize their ability to locate in the city's low income neighborhoods. If it doesn't, the Delores Garcias of the city are going to continue to suffer.
As Mi Zona points out, over three million New Yorkers lack access to the fresh produce that supermarkets are uniquely able to supply them with: "Medio millar de almacenes que abastecían a vecindarios de familias de bajos recursos han cerrado recientemente en la ciudad.
Hoy, tres millones de neoyorquinos viven en áreas con limitado acceso a alimentos nutritivos."
And as we have pointed out, this supermarket shortage, particularly in East Harlem where six markets have closed, effects the elderly the most: "Con dificultad, la mexicana DoloresGarcía, residente de EastHarlem,maneja su carritode compras del supermercado. Cargar leche, carnes, frutas y verduras ya no es algo que esta señora de 62 años pueda hacer sin la ayuda del carrito.Y menos desde que cerraron el supermercado cerca de su casa a principios de este año. La señora García tiene que caminar diez cuadras para encontrar un lugar decente donde comprar sus alimentos frescos."
Clearly, the city needs to act to lower the operating costs of supermarkets, and where necessary incentivize their ability to locate in the city's low income neighborhoods. If it doesn't, the Delores Garcias of the city are going to continue to suffer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
