A Stamp of Disapproval

One of the issues that we haven't mentioned concerning our opposition to the proposed Costco on the West Side: food stamps. The store doesn't accept them, effectively redlining the folks that might be most in need of the putative bargains being offered. Here's what our friend Joel Berg, head of NYC Coalition Against Hunger wrote to us: "One other key point about Costco: their stores refuse to accept food stamp benefits. Given that one in eight New Yorkers use such benefits to survive, Costco seems to be excluding a whole lot of people from their stores."

In fact, when we helped to defeat the store in 1999, the food stamp issue helped to galvanize local community opposition. The NY Times captured this at the time: "But John Fisher, president of the Clinton Special District Coalition and one of the leaders in the anti-Costco campaign, said Mr. Brotman was missing the point. ''He didn't understand New York,'' Mr. Fisher said. ''It's not that people don't want lower prices.'' He said opponents were concerned about the traffic the stores would generate, the impact they would have on smaller stores, the $40 membership fee, the policy against accepting food stamps and Costco's nonunion labor force."

Council member Eric Gioia, one of the leaders of the fight to raise the food stamp allotment for the poor, has even petitioned Costco to change its policies. Here's the item from Berg's Hunger Blog: "City Councilman Eric Gioia recently wrote a letter to the president of Costco, the large discount warehouse retailer, asking the company to start accepting food stamps. After taking the Food Stamp Challenge and living on the average weekly allotment of $28, Gioia is even more sensitive to the fact that poor New Yorkers are unable to eat nutritious, balanced meals on such a meager budget. By getting discount retailers, such as Costco, to accept food stamps, poor New Yorkers will have access to healthy food at more affordable prices."

Costco said that it was considering it, but that was almost one year ago. We also need to remember that BJs, with a no food stamp policy, changed it for its Gateway Mall store in the Bronx in order to cobble the support needed to get the store approved.

One last point here. When the food stamp issue was first raised the last time, we highlighted the comments contained in one of Costco financial filings. The company pointed out to its shareholders that the food stamp policy helped it to reduce "slippage,' implying that by keeping the poor out it advanced the company's bottom line. Nice.

Pulling a Fast One

The NY Sun reports today on the efforts of the Los Angelos City Council to ban new fast food restaurants in a low income neighborhood plagued with obesity. The paper also finds some support in NYC for the initiative: "Support for a fast food ban in New York is growing among city lawmakers after the Los Angeles City Council passed an unprecedented bill Tuesday that would make the addition of new fast food restaurants in certain areas of the city illegal for at least one year."

And, as the LA Times reports, the obesity situation in South Central is acute: "Thirty percent of adults in South L.A. are obese, compared with 20.9% in the county overall, according to a county Department of Public Health study released in April. For children, the obesity rate was 29% in South L.A., compared with 23.3% in the county. And the figures are higher than a decade ago. In 1997, the adult rate was 25.3% in South L.A. and 14.3% in the county. South L.A. also has the highest diabetes levels in the county, at 11.7%, compared with 8.1% in the county."

But will it have any impact? To us, it makes little sense since the saturation already exists, and a one year moratorium sounds just like posturing. The other missing ingredient in the debate is the fact that these outlets, whatever their health impacts might be, are minority owned economic engines for these neighborhoods.

And its not as if the fast fooders aren't adapting to the new health trends: "Fast-food restaurants haven’t missed the cue: From their menus, diners can choose salads over burgers, yogurts over shakes and grilled over fried these days. And many food manufacturers have reconfigured their recipes to eliminate trans fats, the most unhealthful unsaturated fats made of partially hydrogenated oils." So the ball is in the customers' court: start making healthier choices and the restaurants will either get the message or die,

The logic, however, escapes some here in the city. As the Sun points out: "People are literally being poisoned by their diets — LA's idea deserves serious consideration as we look for holistic solutions to a serious problem. A moratorium may help stem the problem," Council Member Eric Gioia, who represents Queens, said in a statement yesterday." Others disagree: "Some city residents, however, immediately voiced opposition to such a ban. "Banning fast food would be stupid," a 38-year-old warehouse worker in downtown Brooklyn, Dennis Bouknight, said. "They should just let people eat what they want to eat."

With calorie posting experiment already in place it's hard to see the city council embarking on this particular venture. However, there's never a shortage of folks eager to engage in the "absurd attempt to make the world over,"

Costco Courts Controversy

The prospect of a Costco warehouse store on the West Side has set the folks buzzing on two popular blogs-and the misinformation is flowing freely-particularly about the traffic implications. On Curbed some folks opine that driving over to Costco on Eleventh Avenue won't be so bad: "I have money. I live in Manhattan and don't live in a tiny rat-hole like yourself.
I don't care about the lack of public transportation because I have a freaking car. I would Love this Costco. I like buying shit in bulk and getting it out of the way, because I can't stand buying toiletries on a regular basis. The parking lot is great!! It would be great to park easily park, get my shit and leave!!"

Others disagree: "If you must shop by car, the Sam's Club in Secaucus, the Costco in Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens or Jersey City, or any others are no more difficult for you to get to, and frankly are probably closer for many of you than 11th Avenue & 53rd Street. And, if you must know, I have three cars, a 4,000 sq ft apartment, and a 6,000 sq ft weekend house. If you like tooling around Manhattan in your car, you are an ass. But, we should not be re-zoning property to encourage someone to build some shopping center that encourages other asses like you to drive around Manhattan to shop for toothpaste."

Another commenter observes that the store with a 2300 car parking facility will not be built utilized by the local neighborhood: "not all New Yorkers live in tiny places, some have storage space and more importantly value their time so buying in bulk." Sorry, but there is a bit of mutual exclusivity here. Those who have money, value their time, will not shlep over to 11th Avenue (by bus? taxi? No subway to be found) to buy a 6 month supply of toothpaste.
And, for those that like to go to a big box store to "stock up on contact solution, toothbrushes, batteries, and pens," there are two K-Marts already in Manhattan. How many times have you headed over to the big K to do the same thing? They also sell oversized package goods at cheap prices. Finally, I understand that Costcos across the country are packed with middle class families buying in bulk to pack the second refrigerator in their basement with a 144-pack of pre-made hamburgers. But, as you all like to lament here, there is no middle class in Manhattan.
I don't care one way or the other whether Costco opens. But it is stupid and false to suggest you are catering to Manhattanites while proposing 2300 parking spaces and a location miles from public transportation. For most Manhattanites, it would be easier to go to the one in Queens."

Over at the Gothamist more popular wisdom is purveyed: "Don't see how this would work in Manhattan?? Are people going to bring their own bags (Costco doesn't use bags) and those little old lady shopping carts with them? I don't see that happening." While another wise West Sider worries about the local economy: "I doubt that the UWS will allow a gigantic warehouse in its neighborhood. I'm all for competition, especially when it comes to food stores, but you have to consider the ramifications from having a Costco. Costco sells non bulk food items such as milk, eggs, juice, fruit, maybe alcohol, etc. If large groups of people start buying their food (and perhaps,alcohol) from Costco, then the local bodegas and wine shops will really suffer. (of course, some people will still shop locally for convenience). Anyway, if your corner stores suffer, then they can't renew their leases. If they can't renew their leases, then the usual suspects will take over their stores. All together now - Duane Reade, Rite Aid, and MORE BANKS. Is that what you want? Hasn't the UWS suffered enough the past 3 years?..."

So the battle is on and it's likely that the traffic analysis will prove to be pivotal. In all of our twenty five plus years of doing these fights, it's never been just about the store-whether the folks liked it or not. In fact, just as it was with Wal-Mart on Staten Island, it often plays out that the more attractive the store, the least desirable it is for the host community. Folks should take a trip down to 60th Street and the river to see just what we mean about the site's accessibility-it would be a traffic nightmare without a doubt.

Costco Traffic Update

When the Alliance helped to defeat the proposed BJs Warehouse club on Brush Avenue in the Bronx we forwarded the following traffic analysis (information that demonstrated just how developer-driven "analyses" low ball actual traffic generated) that became the linchpin of the successful opposition:

Estimating the Annual Travel Associated with BJ’s

The BJ’s traffic analysis reports average weekday volumes of 6,223 and average
Saturday volumes of 7,608 vehicles per day (parked vehicles only, no trucks, no-drop
offs). However, these volumes are based on counts taken at the Long Island BJ’s in July,
2003 when, according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation
Manual shopper volume is approx. 86% of annual average volume. Moreover, the Long
Island BJ’s is smaller than the one proposed for the Bronx. Adjusting the reported
volumes for these two oversights increases volumes by 39%.


In addition, the ITE Trip Generation Manual (page 1336) provides insight about
the weekly and seasonal operating characteristics of shopping centers (including discount
centers) that effect the totality of BJ’s annual trip generation. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate
these characteristics. Figure 1 shows the weekly variation of traffic with Friday traffic
20% greater than the weekly average and Saturday 50% greater. On an annual basis,
Figure 2 shows that May and June are about 6% greater than annual averages while
December is about 40% greater. In comparison, the Land Use Institute reports December
volumes more than double average monthly volumes. December Saturday traffic
volumes should be used to establish parking requirements. None of these factors were
considered for the BJ’s traffic analysis.

1 Litman, T., “Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis, Techniques, Estimates and Implications,”


In the final estimate we wrote: "The result is that BJ’s will produce approximately 3.3 million vehicle trips a year. At an average of 3 miles per trip, half on expressways, BJ’s shoppers can be expected to drive nearly 10 million miles a year, much of it concentrated within a couple miles of the intersection of Brush Avenue and Bruckner Boulevard." Now the traffic and shopping patterns will not be the same for Eleventh Avenue, but you can begin to see the magnitude of the problem here. At least the Bronx site was approximate to an expressway.

At the current proposed location there's simply no good access to the site than won't cause massive traffic dislocation and environmental damage. So what we see here, in the mayor's endorsement of the store, is just how Bloomberg represents all of those so-called nasty special interests that he and his followers are constantly inveighing against.

Update

NY1 focuses on the Costco story this morning: "The discount warehouse chain Costco is considering opening a new store along the West Side Highway between West 59th and West 61st streets. It is meeting opposition from some elected officials and critics who don't want Costco competing with local businesses..."

The High Costco of Bloomberg's Environmentalism

Yesterday we had speculated about what Mayor Mike, that recently minted environmental activist, would do about a proposal to bring the auto-dependent box store Costco to an awkward location on midtown. Speculate no more. As the NY Sun reports this morning Bloomberg, when confronted with the choice of deciding between his new green status and a big business, predictably knee-jerked in favor of the business: "The proposal to build a Costco store in an apartment building on Manhattan's Upper West Side is gaining an important supporter: Mayor Bloomberg. At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Bloomberg said bringing the big-box warehouse chain to the city would help New Yorkers weather a difficult economic downturn. "Costco has a reputation of selling in bulk at very low prices, and given the economy today and the public's desire to buy things in bulk and buy them cheaper, it seems to me we should welcome any store that wants to come here," he said."

Bloomberg's support of the Costco proposal underscores the genuine phoniness of his environmental advocacy. He proclaims the store's virtues without even a cursory examination of the putative location; and without even allowing for the caveat of awaiting an environmental review. But then again this is the same enviro who proposed putting a football stadium a few blocks south of the current box store proposal.

Costco will generate tens of thousands of additional car and truck trips down already heavily trafficked Eleventh Avenue. As we told the Sun: "A spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, said the Costco store would run counter to another administration priority: reducing traffic. "It is incongruous for the mayor, who supported congestion pricing, to support one of the most auto-dependent retailers in the country," Mr. Lipsky said."

The mayor, unmindful of his own supermarket commission and the way that the box stores erode neighborhood stores, simply can't help himself; appearing to comment here by rote: "If Costco or any other store or company wants to come here, we'd love to be a catalyst and help them find land, create the kind of jobs we need in this city, and give our citizens the opportunity to have a broader range of goods to buy at better prices," Mr. Bloomberg said. "That's what competition is all about."

Pat Purcell offers this rebuttal: "The director of special projects for the grocery workers' union, UFCW 1500, Patrick Purcell, said he was disappointed by the mayor's support for Costco. He noted that a report by the city Planning Commission earlier this year called for creating more supermarkets, a goal he said would be thwarted by competition from Costco. "All this warehouse club is going to do is close markets," Mr. Purcell said in an interview. "It goes counter to everything the administration is doing to bring supermarkets into the city."

None of this thwarts the Sun's strong support for box stores. As the paper editorialized yesterday: "It strikes us as awfully reactionary for a dynamic town. Is this really what politics have come to in Manhattan, the capital of capitalism in America? If our politicians are so opposed to traffic, let them move to the Badlands, where a mail truck passes by once a day. New York is a city, for heaven's sake, full of things that people want to get to and see, which entails cars and trucks and, yes, traffic."

To be fair the Sun, unlike Bloomberg, never supported the congestion tax, so the paper can't be labeled as hypocritical as the mayor now appears. Nevertheless, this location is probably one of the worse we've seen for a store of this size that relies heavily on consumer car traffic. Here's the Sun's view: "We wouldn't suggest that traffic be ignored. It should be planned for and ameliorated to the extent possible. But to allow it to dictate whether new stores can open in the city is an overreaction on the order of prohibiting affection in the city because it might result in children and our schools and subways are already too overcrowded."

According to this view, traffic concerns should never be a deal breaker. Perhaps the Sun should consult with the folks out at Tottenville who deep-sixed Wal-Mart, a store they actually liked, because of deep concern about the traffic in that community? And what about the Sun's view on consumer choice: "But why not let New Yorkers make their own choices of where to shop rather than allowing the politicians to artificially constrain the options?"

If followed literally, it would mean that the paper believes that the entire environmental review process should be scrapped; but why not put that to a vote? In the case of West Side Costco, Council member Brewer isn't ahead of the neighborhood curve, but reflecting deeply held sentiments. Box stores like Costco generate traffic from over a three and four mile radius of a location; making the immediate neighborhood suffer for the supposed economic benefits of others.

As for the economic downturn argument, we side with Pat Purcell. Box stores create an economic oasis in one location, while at the same time creating deserts in surrounding neighborhood shopping strips. That's why proposals for BJs stores in two sites in Brooklyn also make little sense at a time when supermarkets are disappearing in the neighborhoods of the city.

What the mayor's support does, however, is to put the lie to all of his PlaNYC blah, blah. You don't create an environmentally sustainable city by encouraging box stores that erode neighborhood shopping-much of which involves walking to the store. His cheer leading for Costco reminds us of the fable of the lion and the scorpion. When the lion agrees to take the scorpion across the river, and ends up being fatally bitten, he asks the scorpion why he would doom the both of them. The reply? "Because that's what scorpions do."

Purcell Swings Away for Silver

In this morning's Crain's Insider, UFCW Local 1500's Pat Purcell comes to the defense of Shelly Silver. Here's the item:

The Perils of Insurgency
Insurgent candidate Paul Newell’s claim that Shelly Silver overstated his efforts to keep a local Pathmark open a drew a harsh response from the union representing store workers. “The workers at Pathmark have never met Newell and have no idea who he is,” says Pat Purcell of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500. “Silver was the linchpin in keeping that store open and our members employed. His opponent’s cheap, political shot is disgraceful.” Newell says that he has been working with other community groups.

Budget Bell Tolls

Governor Paterson will give a very grim budget message to New Yorkers today. As the NY Times reports: “There will be no confusion about the gravity of the situation,” said Mr. Paterson, who has been sounding the fiscal alarm repeatedly in recent months, as state budget officials began forecasting large budget gaps and a prolonged and deep recession in the state. Risa B. Heller, a Paterson spokeswoman, said that the governor would do more than merely warn of worse times ahead. “The governor will put forth proposals to both get the state’s fiscal house in order and ease the burden on New Yorkers,” Ms. Heller said."

It's about time. Since our elected officials-particularly the mayor-have been partying on the Wall Street generated profits that were bound to come crashing down eventually. Instead of greater efficiencies and government innovations we've been given Lindsay style spending. Nicole Gelinas captures this in this morning's NY Post:
"While Paterson, Bloomberg and the state and city comptrollers already have talked lots about upcoming budget deficits, New Yorkers are used to those warnings once or twice a decade, and big numbers are meaningless after a while.
What's different this time is that the financial industry - the engine of state and city finances - looks to be facing an era of sharply lower profits.
Wall Street's business model is broken; getting it to work again may take half a decade or more. That could leave New York (city and state) facing a prolonged challenge to rival the city's near-bankruptcy in the '70s."

And she goes on to lay the blame where it rightly belongs: "New York, so dependent on the financial industry's continued growth, should shudder. Making this worse: Bloomberg and Govs. George Pataki and Eliot Spitzer used the cash that Wall Street was showering on the city and state not to ease the city's long-term problems - but to allow them to grow worse. The city's tax-funded budget had risen to match the Lindsay-era peak (adjusted for inflation and population) about the time Bloomberg took office six-plus years ago. Now it's 22 percent above the Lindsay mark. Spending rose just 9 percent or so during the Giuliani era, but has jumped three times as much since - the highest rate since Lindsay left office."

So the fiscal chickens are coming home to roost. We're eagerly awaiting the mayor's response to all of this; and just as eagerly awaiting the historical accounting of his spin city mayoralty. Our gut feeling is that the retrospective will not be as kind as the current media sycophancy.

Costco's West End

The NY Sun picks up the Costco story this morning, and the criticism continues to mount concerning the store's location and its potential impact on traffic and small business: "A plan for a Costco store in a Manhattan West Side residential project is drawing opposition from local elected officials, labor unions, and community groups, who may block the outlet from opening at a time when New York consumers could use the access to the lower prices available at the discount chain."

This is, of course, deja vu all over again; plans to put the big box store on the West Side were thwarted in 2000 when various community/business and labor coalitions successfully fought the store's efforts. AS the NY Times reported at the time: "It isn't easy to plop a giant store that sells 36-roll packages of toilet paper into a congested city neighborhood. So Costco, the national wholesale club, thought it had a winner last summer when it came up with a model tailored for the Manhattan market. The company called it Costco Fresh and said it would specialize in food products...But as often happens in neighborhoods slated to get a so-called big-box store, community leaders in Manhattan gave Costco Fresh the kind of welcome they might normally reserve for the West Nile virus."

One of the community leaders who helped lead the fight was Hells Kitchen advocate John Fisher, Fisher countered the arguments of Costco's CEO Jeff Broutman: "But John Fisher, president of the Clinton Special District Coalition and one of the leaders in the anti-Costco campaign, said Mr. Brotman was missing the point. ''He didn't understand New York,'' Mr. Fisher said. ''It's not that people don't want lower prices.'' He said opponents were concerned about the traffic the stores would generate, the impact they would have on smaller stores, the $40 membership fee, the policy against accepting food stamps and Costco's nonunion labor force."

The Alliance was also there, and will be once again in today's fight. We worked with Fisher at the time: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist... fought Costco Fresh on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and a group of independent supermarkets known as the Neighborhood Retail Alliance..." At a time when the city is looking to preserve supermarkets-particularly in Manhattan-the siting of a 150,000 sq. ft. store selling goceries in the middle of Manhattan will de-stabilize an already unstable retail environment.

We will not be alone in our opposition since area elected officials such as council member Gale Brewer and Assembly member Linda Rosenthal have vowed to fight the store. As the Sun points out: "The district's City Council member, Gale Brewer, is voicing objections to the proposed store, and the chair of the council's zoning committee, Tony Avella, says he would likely oppose the plan as well. The development requires the area to be rezoned, meaning that the council, which typically defers to the affected district's representative, would have to approve the inclusion of the store."

And considering that the mayor has just finished trying to promote congestion pricing it's hard to see his support for an auto-dependent box store on 11th Avenue. Brewer agrees: "Ms. Brewer said Costco raises particular concerns because it relies on bulk purchases for the majority of its business, so using a car is the most convenient way to carry goods from the store. "I can't even imagine it," Ms. Brewer said in an interview yesterday. "I assume you need a car to go to Costco, and I thought we were promoting public transportation and bicycles and greening. Already, if you drive in that area now around rush hour you can't cross 72nd Street for 20 minutes."

John Fisher underscored some of these points eight years ago for the Gotham Gazette: "Real Estate Weekly recently reported (Dec. 1, 1999) that superstores often have profit expectations of $1,000 per square foot (per year). At 70,000 square feet, Costco might expect gross revenue of $70 million/year or $1.3 million/week. How many cars or neighborhood walk-in shoppers would be needed to meet that number? Of course, numbers can be crunched any number of ways, but here's something to chew on: If all patrons are walk-ins with an average purchase of $20, about 65,000 people per week would tromp over to Hell's Kitchen Costco. Has anyone bothered to tell Costco that there aren't that many people in all of Clinton/Hell's Kitchen? Who benefits and who suffers the burden?" And that was for a "scaled-down" Costco.

The one being proposed today is twice that original one in 1999; and unions that have touted Costco for its more friendly labor policies can't see the logic of the store's current proposed location: "The director of special projects for UFCW Local 1500, the grocery workers' union, Pat Purcell, said Costco is "clearly the lesser of evils" among warehouse chains, noting that anti-Wal-Mart groups sometimes held it up as a model big box company. Nonetheless, he warned that the store's location would displace small businesses and cause congestion in the area. "It's less about which retailer and more about the retail model and the location being inappropriate," Mr. Purcell said in an interview yesterday. "I can't see people going for it."

This will be one interesting fight, and on the heels of the congestion tax battle, the real wonder will be where the mayor will situate himself. He supported the mega mall off the Major Deegan on "Asthma Alley," but that was before his greening. This will be the first auto-dependent box store test after the mayor has staked out his congestion position. Stay tuned.

Budget Gloom

This morning's NY Post focuses in on the gloomy budget forecasts for both the state and the city: "Gov. Paterson, convinced the state faces its worst fiscal crisis since the mid-1970s, will deliver the grim news in an unprecedented special address to New Yorkers as soon as tomorrow night, The Post has learned." This isn't good news for New York's tax payers.

Which makes our previous posts on the state's failure to collect Indian cigarette taxes all the more compelling. It has now become not only fiscally irresponsible to allow Indian cigarette retailers to skate on paying their taxes, it is at the same time political malfeasance of the highest order. To make any move to balance the budget through tax increases and the raising of regulatory fees is simply both unconscionable and untenable-leaving the governor open to damaging charges.

Now we know that Paterson's talking tough on reducing government spending; that's all to the good: "The governor has said he's tired of the state going from deficit to deficit, spending like it has a credit card that never has to be paid, and that he's prepared to take action," the source said." But we also know that this tough talk is often a prelude to tax increases; and if so, the Indian loophole must be closed.

Posting and Toasting Cigarette Black Market

Kudos to the NY Post for its editorial this morning on the failure of the state to enforce its own law on Indian retailer sale of cigarettes: "Addressing the National Conference of State Legislatures in New Orleans last week, Mayor Bloomberg cut right to the chase. New York, he noted, is suffering a serious case of the shorts, due largely to a weakening national economy and a serious Wall Street downturn - while a big pot of money that could provide some relief is being left on the table. That would be the uncollected taxes on cigarettes sold on Indian reservations.
Thanks to the fundamental cowardice of Govs. George Pataki and Eliot Spitzer (Gov. Paterson is showing yellow, too, but he's new on the job), New York declined to enforce a state law mandating the collection of taxes on all tobacco products sold to non-tribe members."

It is beyond high time that the state-and now Governor Paterson-go after these uncollected taxes:"As Rep. Peter King (R-LI) pointed out in these pages a few weeks ago: "A 2006 state Department of Health report estimated that New York loses $436 million to $576 million a year in taxes from the sale of untaxed cigarettes alone - a figure that could rise to $800 million-plus this year." Whether such money would properly go to plug the MTA's deficit or for other purposes, this is a huge pool of cash. And, budgetary imperatives aside, there's an even stronger reason for collecting the tobacco taxes: It's the law."

In the coming weeks we are looking forward to raising this issue-and creating the kind of coalition that will finally convince state government to get over its cowardice and simply enforce the law. Tax payers are fed up. The Post gets the last word: "Failure to collect breeds legitimate resentment from New Yorkers who are required to pay their taxes - and understandable anger at a government which quails before one class of scofflaw while relentlessly dunning them."

Third Times's Charmless

The Permanent Government types can't seem to give up-Mayor Mike has been so good to them that they are feverishly exploring the ways to keep him in office for another term. As the NY Post reported yesterday: "Big Apple business honchos want four more years of Mayor Bloomberg - and are preparing to do whatever it takes to help him stay in City Hall for a third term. Sources close to the mayor say his deep-pocketed pals are "aggressively pushing" him to run again - his term ends in December 2009 - and are strategizing on how to change term-limits law to make it happen. "We believe it's very feasible," said one source. "If he decides to run again, there are people who want him, and those people are planning to do everything they can. It is a very, very strong movement."

And well they should. Mike has been real good to the real estate developers, and not so good to the small businesses that have suffered under the development scythe. The movement underscores all that we have commented on concerning the myth that the mayor is "above" the special interests because he self-funds his campaigns.

Those who propound this view, predominately the mayor himself, along with his sycophants and toadies, view special interests in the most narrow sense-generally those labor and small business groups that cultivate political ties in order to advance their goals. What this view misses is the extent to which the ruling elites in this city-those highlighted by Newfield and Dubrul in their Abuse of Power treatise-have cultivated and propagated a worldview around the notion of development. This world view is embedded in a "mobilization of bias" that infuses the thinking of editorial boards, consultants and those elected officials who act to implement policies that reflect this bias.

So Mayor Mike isn't above those interests that are central to power in NYC, he embodies them; and that thought of his departure fills these power elitists with dread: they've never had it so good, and the attempt of Peter Vallone to aid this effort is simple misdirection. Vallone, according to the Post, is concerned with preserving institutional memory: "Meanwhile, former Council Speaker Peter Vallone Sr., now a lobbyist and lawyer, told The Post he is currently putting together a team of about 15 good-government people to lobby the public to support longer term limits..."If the public really knew what this does, that it pits elected officials against each other, that it eliminates institutional memory . . . they would never vote for this," Vallone said. "They thought it was a bunch of politicians out for themselves. It's not."

Well, Vallone is narrowly correct when it comes to the City Council, and we believe that 12 years is necessary in order to generate a real system of checks and balances. We don't need to extend the mayoralty, however, and Ed Koch's comments are ironicall to the point: "I believe in the concept of term limits," said former Mayor Ed Koch, who served three terms. "But I don't think eight years is enough. Twelve is enough."

Any neutral observer of Koch's tenure would agree that his last term did little to bolster his legacy. Pete Hamill captures this: "There was something touching about him too. When the lights went out and the rallies were over, there was a sense of loneliness in Koch -– something that made him more human. Then you think about what happened in the third term when so many people he trusted betrayed him, and his sense of isolation grew. He should not have had to go through that." Hamill is, of course, referring to the corruption scandals in the late 1980s.

So eight is enough when it comes to the mayoralty-and given Bloomberg's regal pretensions and arrogance we need to be zealous in the protection of the term limits law. The fact that the real special interests are advancing this only means that the idea is worse than it first appears.

Costco's West Side Story

According to Eliot Brown at the Observer, Extell Development may be looking to put a 150,000 sq, ft Costco into its Riverside Boulevard complex: "Extell Development is in talks with discount bulk retailer Costco to occupy a large underground store as part of a new 3.3 million-square-foot development of mostly residential buildings on the Upper West Side."

This prospect is already generating considerable consternation on the West Side: "The community will be greatly affected by a placement of a Costco," said Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, who represents the area. "I'm afraid it's going to bring a lot of increased vehicular traffic." And while Ms. Rosenthal said she had yet to take a firm position on the prospect of a big-box retailer, another area elected official was more direct: "I certainly do not support the Costco or anything like it," said Councilwoman Gale Brewer in a phone message."

It appears to us that Extell has a fairly large hill to climb; 11th Avenue in the area around 59th-61st Streets is a traffic nightmare, and adding thousands of new vehicular trips to the neighborhood doesn't seem like a move that will generate any enthusiasm. Political support, however, will be necessary: "The company's plans for the final parcels between 59th and 61st streets would need approval of the City Council and City Planning Commission, as the firm is seeking to change the initial restrictions to allow for more density and different uses (the original development planned for a commercial tower for NBC at the site)."

It's hard to imagine that the City Council, with the opposition of the local council member and the likely opposition of the UFCW, approving this plan: here's Brown's take: "As a national big-box retailer with no stores in Manhattan, the prospect of a Costco at the development--which would take up about 150,000 square feet--seems prone to controversy, and indeed it was discussed at length at a meeting between Extell (and a string of consultants and lobbyists) and members of the local community board Wednesday night. Extell also wanted 2,300 parking spaces in the complex."

Indeed. We should remember that it was about 8 years ago that a similar move to put Costco on the West Side (in two locations; one in Clinton, and the other in Chelsea) was defeated by the Alliance, the UFCW's Local 1500, and the strong grass roots opposition from an array of community groups. One of the leaders in that fight was the local council member, Christine Quinn.

Rangel'$ Community Auction

In yesterday's NY Times the paper highlighted the way in which Congressman Charlie "Stabilized" Rangel has a number of good friends among the city's largest real estate developers: "In many ways, Vornado Realty Trust, the Kimco Realty Corporation and Apollo Real Estate Advisers represent the real estate vanguard of the new Harlem...Executives and people tied to the companies, along with other real estate concerns, have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Representative Charles B. Rangel’s fund-raising operation since the 2004 election cycle."

And what are these companies up to in the community? Well, just like Columbia over in West Harlem,they're actions are (or will be) displacing long time Harlemites from their neighborhood: "Vornado is building an office tower on 125th Street that some residents fear will accelerate gentrification. Kimco moved to push out longtime local store owners to demolish a building and put a new retail complex in its place. And Apollo is leading a contentious effort to turn the historically rent-stabilized Delano Village apartment complex — which has been renamed Savoy Park — into a more profitable property."

So what we have here is another example of a used-to-be-a politician who came onto the scene as a defender of the community but who as evolved into a poseur who's grown fat defending interests that are antithetical to the folks that they represent. We saw the happening over ten years ago when Rangel was shilling for the building of a Pathmark supermarket-even getting an $800,000 grant from HHS for the project (not to mention the suspicious actions of the now-defunct HUDC). For another view on Rangel, see Seth Lipsky's Op-Ed this morning at the NY Sun.

As the time aptly points out: "Mr. Rangel responded in part by stressing his long history in the neighborhood and his affection for it. But even as he extols the old Harlem, he is generating significant campaign contributions from those at the forefront of the new." How surprising. It's about time that Rangel gets the scrutiny he deserves, and the community gets more effective representation for its interests.

In the middle of all this is Vornado Realty and Trust. Vornado and Rangel are looking perfect together: "The aides said Mr. Rangel supported, in concept, one of the more controversial projects in the neighborhood, the office tower proposed by Vornado on 125th street, where Major League Baseball plans to move its new cable network. An executive for Vornado gave a total of $9,600 to Mr. Rangel’s fund-raising operation in March and April 2007. The Vornado project was to be the first prime office tower to be built in Harlem in more than three decades. Some residents complained about the scope of the project and argued that commercial gentrification could force many small businesses out."

Another major Rangel donor is Kimco Realty: "Kimco, along with another company, bought a sprawling building at 125th Street and Frederick Douglass Boulevard last summer, with plans to bulldoze it and erect a new complex. But the plan prompted protests from business owners and residents, who called on the City Council to pass legislation to create a historic Harlem district to preserve businesses run by Harlem residents. The owners and residents, led by the Save Harlem Association, also filed a lawsuit against the developers; it was settled this year for an undisclosed sum."

Kimco is also exploring plans in Brooklyn that would displace a number of local supermarkets. All in all this Times piece is a cause for concern. The eighty year old congressman is at a stage that he just might be feeling a sense of droit du seigneur when it comes to the Harlem community. It's the reason why term limits is such a good idea, and Rangel now becomes its poster child.

Indians: Take a Hike!

In Saturday's NY Post, the paper continues to blast away at the MTA and its lack of managerial competence: "Here we go again: Seems like only yesterday (actually, it was March) that the MTA socked riders with a steep fare hike. Yet now it's expected to ask to do so again next July - six months sooner than planned. Ouch! This time, Executive Director Elliot Sander & Co. want jumps of about 8 percent - depending on what the state and city are willing to kick in (assume: zero). Should riders have to pony up so soon - and so much? Not until the agency gets its house in order - starting with plans for keeping its equipment fit and completing its many upgrades and expansion projects. Not until it can spell out how it's going to get the money it says it needs - some $30 billion over five years - to do that."

Which brings us to Mayor Bloomberg's suggestion that the MTA could plug its budget shortfall by tapping into the uncollected Indian cigarette taxes. As the Gothamist points out: "Hizzoner said yesterday that the cost of subway and bus rides won’t have to go up much at all if the state collects taxes on cigarettes sold on Indian reservations. "That just alone would replace one of those fare increases," Bloomberg told reporters, insisting that the tobacco revenue could plug a $700 million hole in the MTA’s budget."

Indeed it could; and if lawmakers get their act together than its possible that there could be a continual tax stream for transit needs. What should be done here is for the State Department of Taxation and Finance to conduct an accurate accounting of the black market sales that are currently taking away from the revenues of legitimate store owners. Once completed, the state will have a good idea of the amount of loses that the non-taxed sales amount to.

What's clear is that the state may not realize just how much it is missing because of its nonfeasance in this matter. As the NY Sun has reported: "A 2007 report by the Independent Budget Office, a nonpartisan city agency that analyzes the city's finances, found that 27% of city smokers and 34% of upstate smokers sometimes bought "under-taxed" cigarettes in 2006. These smokers avoided the tax by buying cigarettes from other states, ordering cigarettes over the Internet, and purchasing cigarettes at Indian reservations. The city lost an estimated $40 million in tax revenue as a result of cigarette tax evasion in 2006, according to the report." We believe that the dollar amount's a great deal larger than that.

This gap between taxed and non-taxed cigarettes-a number that we estimate is probably north of $500 million a year-should then be used as the benchmark for a dedicated fund earmarked for transit. A fund that should be part of a comprehensive overhaul of the transit agency's operation. NO more money until, as the Post says: "Not until an adult like Richard Ravitch and his panel figure out how to get beyond the never-ending MTA funding woes and craft a plan to ensure long-term fiscal soundness for the system."

Mayor Still on the Warpath

Mayor Mike gave a speech yesterday to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and as the NY Daily News describes it, Bloomberg still wants to tap the uncollected Indian cigarette tax revenues in order to defray the rising cost of mass transit: "After November, New York State is going to discover a very large deficit. The MTA is already discovering a very large deficit. And the public is starting to say, 'Hey, how come you aren't putting in the security systems that you promised? How come you aren't giving us the new buses we need? How come you aren't expanding all of the services that will help me get to work?'" The mayor also said the state should start collecting tax revenues from the Indian reservations that sell cigarettes to offset the MTA's proposal of two new fare hikes"

And he's absolutely right. In fact, the legislature should begin to examine using these uncollected funds for a dedicated revenue source for transit needs. As part of this legislative initiative, there needs to be a full evaluation of how to effectively revamp the MTA so that the additional funds aren't squandered into the agency's fiscal black hole.

Miseducated Testers

Andrew Wolf reiterates his strong criticism of the mayor;s educational reforms today, with a look at similar failed efforts in England-the focus here is on the failed nature of the tests themselves: "If we were somehow travel ahead in time, say a decade from now, and land in New York City, one thing is for certain: we will be still be talking of the crisis in education, complaining about graduation rates, wringing our hands over the loss of our competitive position in the world marketplace. The Bloomberg reforms? They will fade away as surely as the morning dew."

Wolf highlights just how the testing regime in England, initiated by Sir Michael Barber, is similar to our own; and how both approaches lead to failure: "The trouble is that the test administration and grading is as faulty there as it is here in America. The issue in Britain right now is that the all-important standardized tests given to pupils aged 11 and 14 were botched, leaving the educrats, in this case an agency called the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills, or Ofsted, without timely data."

Sound familiar? The problem lies with the fact that the tests are designed to grade the achievements of the adults-pols, principals and teachers-and when this is put in place the results are predictably bogus: "Or, to put it a different way, it turns out the tests there, like those here, are now designed to evaluate adults, rather than children. And British education officials, just like those in New York, are being accused of having deliberately dumbed down the tests to boost the prospects of those adults.:

So what happens when the testers are evaluated by independent evaluators? "As the Daily Mail in Britain noted on Monday, "chicanery is inevitable because it's not just teachers but ministers who are being tested on their promise to improve education, so ... such tests will always show that standards are rising, even when the opposite is the case. The outcome has been that, while children have been subjected to an ever-expanding battery of tests, their qualifications have become progressively devalued. As measurable achievement has been ostensibly going up, the amount pupils actually know has been going steadily down."

A case here of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, with the NYC DOE being the Dum. The Kleinnemen, aided and abetted-and most importantly, insulated-by the mayor's Teflon dollars, will eventually be judged. As Hegel once observed: "the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk."

Pointing Toward Defeat

Could the Willets Point redevelopment project be added to the growing list of major Bloomberg defeats? According to the Queens Gazette it certainly looks possible: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg last week rhapsodized in an op-ed piece about his "All Star City", with "the eyes of every baseball fan turned toward New York City in anticipation of the 2008 All Star game" at Yankee Stadium. But this special moment was occurring at about the same time that the mayor seemed to be heading for another major defeat comparable to previous stumbles, such as his plans for a new football stadium over the Chelsea rail yards and for congestion pricing. The mayor's latest Waterloo seems certain to be his grandiose vision of replacing the ugly bit of real estate called the Willets Point junkyards with spanking new high-rise apartment buildings, a convention center and an assortment of new businesses."

If it happens, he'll only have one man to blame: Hiram Monseratte. Once considered merely a gadfly, Monserrate has parlayed an outsider status into a role of major power broker: "The smoldering discontent that greeted the proposal several years ago has in recent months erupted into a major conflagration as the plan's many opponents have come together with a single voice demanding that the mayor make major changes in the plan or face certain defeat by the City Council. In recent weeks, Councilmember Hiram Monserrate (D- Corona), who has led the opposition to the plan, has increased the intensity of his protests. Two of his main supporters, Councilmembers John Liu (D- Flushing) and Tony Avella (D- Bayside), have been joined by several colleagues whose total number guarantees the majority needed to defeat the proposal if it comes before them. Monserrate, who represents Willets Point in the council, has repeatedly called upon the mayor to address concerns of displaced businesses, lost jobs and inadequate public housing raised by himself and various groups."

Who would have thought over two and a half years ago, when Hiram first began what looked like a quixotic venture, that a multi-billion dollar redevelopment plan would fall victim to his lance? It just demonstrates that where real political leadership exists, communities and businesses can be protected from rapacious development schemes. It's too bad that the cohort of such leaders is a small one indeed.

Bloated Budget Bilge

In a NY Post editorial today, the paper underscores the extent to which our elected officials don't quite get the budget calculus: "The Financial Control Board this week pegged the city's gap at $20 billion through 2012. Statewide, reality is already biting: Comptroller Tom DiNapoli says that first-quarter business-tax revenues were nearly half a billion dollars short. Bloomberg and Paterson seem to understand the predicament - but then they go make matters worse."

How so? By adding payroll, as Paterson has done, and by creating new language regulations (and let's not forget the "Healthy Bucks" giveaway) as Mayor Mike has done. And then the mayor chides the MTA on bloat! "Bloomberg, predictably, blasted the MTA's proposed fare hike: "Anybody that tells me they've got a $10 billion budget, and they can't find ways to cut 5 percent, that's just poor management." Maybe MTA bosses are taking their cue from . . . him.
Bottom line? The Budget-Blues Brothers are paying no real heed to their bottom line."

As we've been saying for a long time, the mayor has an extremely expansive notion of what government can and should do; and now the chickens are coming home to roost. With no real action on government reform directed at reducing its size and scope during Bloomberg's six and 1/2 years in office, there will be a bill to pay pretty soon-and tax payers and businesses better be prepared for the storm..

Regulation Strangulation

It now appears as if the City of Los Angeles is looking to ban the use of plastic bags in supermarkets: "The City Council voted Tuesday to ban plastic shopping bags from stores, beginning July 1, 2010. Shoppers can either bring their own bags or pay 25 cents for a paper or biodegradable bag. The council's unanimous vote also puts pressure on the state, which is considering an Assembly bill that would impose bag recycling requirements on stores. City officials said their ban would not be implemented if the state passes the bill and requires at least a 25-cent charge per bag."

So the LA City Council's action is designed to push the state to place a deposit on 25 cent plastic bags, a measure designed like the bottle bill to insure that the bags are returned for recycling. The cost that the measure would add to the operation of the store is not considered important as long as the environment is saved from the bane of plastic.

But as dangerous as the idea is for the economy of stores, it makes more sense than the recently passed NYC measure that went into effect this week. The NYC bill creates a voluntary collection system that, while it imposes obligations on retailer, has no incentives for the consumer to return any plastic bags.

Our Guess? That the law is just the first step towards the California model; with supermarkets increasing their role as garbage dumps for the greeniacs. When will our enviros understand that stores cannot bear the costs of all of their schemes without some serious repercussions? Regulatory costs are directly correlated with the loss of local supermarkets.

At some point we'll need to consider the health of the local economic environment, and whether there is healthy food available along with good jobs, Small business is not a plaything for those with no concept of how the free enterprise system works. There is cause and effect, and there's no benefit without a cost-it's time for our electeds to examine the cost side of the ledger.

Observations on Tuck-It-Away

In this week's Observer, Eliot Brown focuses in on the ongoing battle being waged by Nick Sprayregen (our client) against Columbia University and the state: "For more than three years, Nicholas Sprayregen has kept his word to Columbia University. The largest private landowner in the footprint of the university’s planned 17-acre West Harlem expansion, he has vowed time and again to fight the university’s attempts to oust him, so long as the school threatens the use of eminent domain. Now, as the bulk of the area’s politicians have endorsed the expansion, community opposition has gone from a boil to a simmer and all but one other private-property owner has agreed to sell to the university, the fight’s final chapter is poised to be strictly a legal one between two parties: the university and Mr. Sprayregen."

As the Observer points out, this is not an easy battle since the NY State's eminent domain laws are big obstacles for those looking to keep their property: "New York's laws on eminent domain are viewed as rather favorable to the state when compared with other laws nationwide, making the climb for Mr. Sprayregen a distinctly uphill one. Landowners in other eminent domain cases often hope that a prolonged legal battle will derail a project through a changing political landscape or economic climate. But Columbia’s plan seems prone to more stability than a typical private developer’s. The university has a multibillion dollar endowment; already owns the bulk of the land in the footprint; and has always said the expansion is a long-term proposition,..."

And while Sprayregen appears pessimistic (“I’m pessimistic that we will be successful,” he said, surrounded by piles of documents related to the expansion. “I have a feeling that if we’re going to get anything, the only way it’s going to happen is that we’re first going to have to lose in the New York courts and then appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and hopefully have them take on the case, and then win. “That’s obviously a long shot.”), from what we know of him he is definitely looking forward to the attempt to change the law in this country.

One observation of our own on the swap plan. The Observer's take is as follows: "Mr. Sprayregen met community opposition last year in an attempt to rezone his properties himself, and he has all but given up hope on a land-swap proposal he made to Columbia, saying university officials in a recent meeting seemed unwilling to part with the property he was eyeing." Well, not quite.

The land swap is still viable and Sprayregen, while remaining a pessimist regarding the university's good intentions, is still exploring the economic feasibility of a swap; and what makes it still a possibility is the complete absence of any housing in the CU expansion plan-a central tenet of the Sprayregen concept. If the deal is fully developed and unveiled, we promise that it will have tremendous political support-and the support of labor as well.

If that happens, the elitist posturing of the university will become untenable, and the political position of project opponent Bill Perkins will be strengthened. In the context of an expansion that will displace thousands-and in the middle of a city wide election cycle-the university and its rent subsidized supporters will be significantly challenged; and the courts will take cognizance of CU's intransigence.

Serrano for Mom & Pop

In a post this morning at Room Eight, State Senator Serrano comes out in defense of small neighborhood retailers. Here's the money quote: "First, we are losing the businesses that matter most. As part of the Supermarket Task Force that I started earlier this year, I mapped out the closures of several East Harlem supermarkets in recent years. This represents a loss of jobs, and reduced access to nutritious and affordable food.

At the core of the crisis is rent, which is doubling and even tripling in some areas of Upper Manhattan. In the Bronx, artists are getting creative and using their own walk-up apartments as gallery space. For the most part, though, there’s no substitute for a storefront.

Meanwhile, big box stores are sprouting everywhere you look, including East River Plaza in East Harlem and the Gateway Center at (the former) Bronx Terminal Market. But for all the time and money this City has expended on a corporate future, it has barely lifted a finger to protect mom and pop."

We need to mobilize all of our resources in order to preserve what has made New York City unique: its vibrant and diverse neighborhoods. If nothing is done soon, NYC will begin to resemble little more than a suburban shopping mall.

Times Opines Away on MTA

The NY Times editorialists are like a little dog with a bone when it comes to congestion pricing. In this morning's editorial on the MTA fare hike, here's what the paper had to say: "Legislators, particularly those in Albany, bear an even greater responsibility to help after they rejected a congestion-pricing plan that would have brought the M.T.A. $500 million in additional funds annually. They spurned it anyway, leaving the M.T.A. to rattle a cup and riders to reach ever deeper into their pockets."

Yet, while all in the know are saying that the agency is poorly managed, what sense does it make to throw money at this problem before overhauling the management structure? And the congestion tax is certainly not the way to go. Before we hit beleaguered tax payers with an additional burden two things are necessary.

In the first place, a full examination of the MTA's books is needed. Here's what the governor told the Times yesterday: "Mr. Paterson said he asked the authority to re-examine its financial situation and report back to him. “What I am asking the M.T.A. is to go back and take another look at their books.” But can the agency be solely responsible for this task? Is this a physician heal thyself moment? Isn't it time to put the agency into receivership?

Secondly, as we have already pointed out in a previous post, there's a wonderful new source of tax revenue that the Times needs to become the champion of-Indian cigarette tax revenues (Will this be the only taxing source that the paper doesn't support?). As NYACS points out, in fiscal year 2000-2001, before the current round of city and state cigarette tax increases, the state was losing around $250 million a year in lost tax revenues.

AS a NYACS press release pointed out earlier this year-citing its 20 year battle for fair enforcement: "The legal action is supported by the New York Association of Convenience Stores, which has waged a 20-year-long battle to get New York State to exercise its right under the U.S.
Supreme Court’s landmark 1994 Attea ruling to collect taxes on Indian sales to non-Indians.
NYACS estimates that Governor Spitzer’s inaction is costing licensed non-Indian retail
businesses over $1 billion annually in lost sales and costing taxpayers at least $500 million annually in lost revenue to the state (about $1.2 million per day)."

Indian retailer tax enforcement is an idea whose time has come. Let's close the loophole, protect local businesses and the health of New Yorkers, and help reduce the tax burdens that the citizens of our state are forced to bear. That's a decongestant that will help all of us-motorists and mass transit riders alike-breathe a little easier.

Bloomberg Urges Indian Giving For Fare

With the MTA proposing a fare increase for the second straight year, the agency is finding that city and state law makers are in no mood to comply. As the NY Times reports this morning, "A proposal by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to increase transit fares and tolls in 2009 drew sharp criticism from an array of powerful officials on Tuesday, as the mayor, City Council speaker and Assembly speaker said they would oppose it, and the governor pledged “to do everything I can to prevent it.”

The mayor was particularly sharp in his remarks, implying that the MTA is not being managed efficiently: “Anybody that tells me they’ve got a $10 billion budget and can’t find ways to cut 5 percent, that’s just poor management,” Mr. Bloomberg said at a City Hall news conference." Speaker Quinn was no less harsh: “Before the M.T.A. comes asking for more from the city, the state or the public, they need to do a little more housekeeping, which means cutting their overhead, cutting their management budget and cutting their administrative budget.”

At his City Hall press conference, however, the mayor for the first time suggested a new source of additional revenue. As was reported yesterday in The Politicker; “There is certainly not going to be more money coming from the city," Bloomberg said. "We don’t have it. If the state mandated that we had to put more money in, we’d have to raise city taxes." Bloomberg said revenue has to be found elsewhere and suggested the state collect taxes from cigarettes sold on Indian reservations."

This suggestion has a great deal of merit. Here's the NY Sun's take: "Mr. Bloomberg said the city has no additional money to provide the MTA. He also said that if the agency can't sufficiently cut back its expenses without government funding, it would be showing "poor management." He encouraged the state-run agency try to find new sources of income, and specifically pointed to a tax on cigarette sales at state Indian reservations, a strategy he predicted would bring in between $200 million and $300 million a year."

Or more even. According to a New York Association of Convenience Stores report earlier this year: "The fiscal toll of the New York State tax department’s continued refusal to curb rampant cigarette tax evasion has climbed to more than $1.6 million per day in lost tax revenue, according to a new economic analysis. If the Spitzer administration enforced the collection of taxes on Native American tribal sales of cigarettes to non-Indian customers – as it is supposed to under current state law – new revenues to the state would range from $575 million to $625 million per year, the report said."

This is money that the beleaguered state and city treasuries are badly in need of, and the legislature has already passed the enabling legislation that consecutive governors, including Governor Paterson, have been loath to enforce. It's a dereliction that is costing small business owners all over the state, as customers flock to the "no tax" reservation sources.

In fiscal hard times this failure is especially egregious-and according to a story in this morning's NY Post, it's only going to get worse for New York's tax payers: "An increasingly pessimistic state financial monitor warned yesterday that falling tax revenues and increasing expenses are going to produce monumental, higher-than-forecast city budget gaps starting next year. In a sobering report, the Financial Control Board said the bloodbath on Wall Street and the sharp downturn in the overall economy is going to produce an estimated $4.3 billion shortfall in fiscal 2010 and a $7.5 billion hole in fiscal 2011."

In this climate, the failure to collect Indian retailer tax revenues amounts to malfeasance on the government's part, and Mayor Mike should be applauded for making the case. Now it's up to store owners, tax payers and elected officials-along with health advocates who're seeing their anti-smoking campaigns stymied by an aggressive black market-to come together to insist that this tax loophole be shut so that mass transit riders aren't stuck with an unnecessary fare hike.

Bucking Good Sense

In this morning's NY Post, Jeff Stier has an excellent critique of the DOH "Healthy Bucks" program: "City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden apparently didn't notice the scandalous revelations about City Council "member items" earlier this year - at least, it hasn't stopped him from jumping feet first into his own no-accountability giveaway. His department is giving away 30,000 taxpayer-funded $2 coupons this month as part of its Health Bucks program - and says it may hand out "significantly more" later this summer. Getting people to eat more fruits and vegetables is a worthwhile goal. But the plan invites corruption - and could worsen the problem it's supposed to fix."

And Stier puts his finger squarely on the problem-the failure of the giveaway to include local food stores: "The coupons will supposedly help inner-city residents get purportedly hard-to-find vegetables for free. Like food stamps, they can pay for produce only at certain green markets - farmers markets out on the sidewalk, schoolyards or parks - in the South Bronx, Harlem and some Brooklyn neighborhoods. (Poor residents of other areas are out of luck.) Yet green markets are only open in harvest months. And the program does nothing to persuade consumers to make wiser purchases the rest of the year. Indeed, the program diverts consumers from supermarkets and bodegas - which Frieden's team seems to think don't supply quality and affordable produce now. But the program does nothing to get these year-round venues to change."

That's, of course, if you accept the analysis that the local stores don't currently supply the produce. If they do-and many certainly are stocking plenty of fruits and vegetables-than the bucks program is siphoning business away from stores, especially supermarkets, that are being driven out of the city by high rents and over-regulation. In this context, the coupon giveaway is nothing but another city reg that hurts local business.

Stier also underscores the important difference between this program and WIC: "Other food vouchers - like those in the federal Women, Infants and Children program - come with sensible rules requiring users to buy the least expensive product. Health Bucks, by contrast, are meant to go for green markets' overpriced organic produce. Nor do Health Bucks get people to change their overall eating behavior and food choices. Recipients can buy exotic purple potatoes on the taxpayer tab - and make tasty, fattening mashed potatoes - but that's no boon to health. But it's all just peachy as far as the Health Department is concerned: As a department spokesperson told me, "Potatoes are vegetables, too."

What makes WIC work well is the fact that the program is monitored by the state and is run through stores that must adhere to the regs if they want to stay in the important revenue producing program. Healthier eating is important in order to address the city's obesity problem; healthy local stores must be part of the solution, and so far the city is lagging way behind in insuring that they are-more interested in trendy giveaways than in developing a coherent program for supermarket retention.

Commercial Rent Control: Remedy for Neighborhood Stores?

There's no question that independent stores are disappearing in the neighborhoods of NYC. What to do about the trend is another matter. The current issue of City Limits focuses on the issue: "From tailored zoning regulations to special tax arrangements to bringing back an idea from the 1980s of "commercial rent control," land use analysts are examining the options. State Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, who represents the area, is one who's interested in the potential of commercial rent control. “Just as residential rents can drive people out of the community if they’re not protected by rent stabilization, the same can happen with commercial tenants,” says Gottfried. “A neighborhood can have whole blocks or avenues of stores wiped out in a very short period of time as these come due, because landlords can refuse to renew a lease or insist on any rent they can get without limitation. Without some kind of rent law in place, a landlord needs no excuse for throwing residential or commercial tenants out on the street.”

Our old friend Sung Soo Kim weighs in on the matter: "Sung Soo Kim, founder and president of the Small Business Congress of New York City, a federation of 70 trade organizations, agrees that when it comes to disappearing businesses – whether Coliseum Books or CBGB's – “Rent is the major issue.” Kim says the city averaged 6,000 commercial evictions per year under Mayor David Dinkins; this number jumped to 7,500 per year while Rudy Giuliani was in office, and has soared to more than 10,000 per year under Bloomberg. In 2006, Kim cites data that there were more than 14,000 commercial evictions in the city. While these figures are for commercial evictions, a broader category than small businesses, he’s convinced that the vast majority of the casualties are small businesses."

Not everyone sees rent control as a solution, but it is clear that local businesses are leaving our commercial strips; and along with them the vitality and color of the city. Council member Gale Brewer feels that something needs to be done: "We definitely need to address this issue,” Brewer says today. “It destroys neighborhoods; it destroys families.” She is focused on the wave of drugstores and banks that have been replacing small, local retail outlets in her district. While some argue that there is little difference between chains (sometimes referred to as formula businesses, given the generic models on which they’re constructed) and local retailers, a growing body of research contradicts such arguments."

Local business recirculate money to a much greater extent than do the national chains, something that Stacy Mitchell has written extensively about. As City Limits points out: "When Borders chain bookstore threatened to open a new store in the heart of downtown Austin, Texas, a local consulting firm called Civic Economics produced a study (commissioned by the Austin Independent Business Alliance and another organization called Livable City) that found that for every $100 in sales, Austin’s local businesses were pumping $30 back into the city. In contrast, only $9 of every $100 spent at a proposed Borders would be spent in Austin. A similar study of a Northside Chicago neighborhood by the same firm found that “for every one hundred dollars in sales, the locals generate sixty-eight dollars worth of local economic activity and the chains just forty-three dollars.”

Clearly, however, something needs to be done-and zoning remedies have been suggested: "The question is to how to target protections to save small businesses. Research by the Pratt Center suggests that given the current role of chain stores in forcing out small businesses, zoning regulations focused on particular neighborhoods may be one promising way of meeting this challenge. A measure as conceptually simple as store size caps can inoculate a neighborhood from chain stores, reducing the pressure on rents. The Pratt Center points to three cities that have adopted such caps in particular neighborhoods, and another 27 that have adopted citywide size caps."

Disagreeing, Julia Vitullo-Martin points out that there is plenty of underutilized NYCHA space (good for supermarkets as well), that could be used for local shops: "Julia Vitullo-Martin, director of the Center for Rethinking Development at the Manhattan Institute, rejects all of these approaches. The best fix for rising rents would be to increase the supply of land by "eliminating artificial restrictions," including zoning, and encouraging property owners with street frontage to rent it. Vitullo-Martin points, for example, to the opportunity provided by the Fulton Houses across the avenue, a New York City Housing Authority complex. "Of its 343 developments, NYCHA offers commercial leases in only 28," she wrote in an e-mail. "What an amazing and destructive restriction on the supply of land – not only could NYCHA reap revenues from good retail, its tenants would benefit from having the services they need – grocery store, pharmacy, bank, dry cleaner, etc."

Local stores are good for the city's economy, and are the essence of a neighborhood: "The shop owners "know exactly how we like our coffee,” says Acevedo. “What newspaper we read. If one of our kids is diabetic, they know what to sell them.” All this is at risk. “It’s just a family feeling that we have with these small businesses, and we don’t want to lose that either.” We need to do something about this alarming trend.

Lack of Public Accountability

The NY Times reports this morning on the declining financial position of the MTA: "The Metropolitan Transportation Authority will propose a substantial increase in transit fares and bridge and tunnel tolls next year to help close a widening budget gap of nearly $900 million, according to an official at the authority." What this means to us is that the so-called public authority, slated under the Bloomberg congestion tax program to receive more revenue, needs to be fully reviewed with an eye towards completely overhauling its governing structure.

Apparently something approaching this is in the works: "The budget plan, which the authority is required to produce in July, puts new focus on a state commission created by Gov. David A. Paterson to recommend long-term solutions for the authority’s chronic financial difficulties. The panel, which is headed by Richard Ravitch, a former authority chairman, is to make a report by November. The authority must pass a new budget for next year in December."

Hopefully, we'll get some real reforms. A public authority insulated from public accountability is an anachronism in a democratic system. And New Yorkers need to have a transit system that is properly funded in a fair an equitable manner so that it is both economical and enticing to use. The current opacity needs to end-along with this unwieldy patronage mill.

"He Who Pays the Piper, Calls the Tune"

The sleight-of-hand consulting game that's going on with ESDC and Columbia U. gets more interesting all the time. As the Observer's Eliot Brown pointed out last week : "It seems the second blight study commissioned for Columbia University's planned West Harlem expansion did not come at extra cost to the state, as the Empire State Development Corporation's spokesman confirmed today that Columbia picked up the report's $217,000 tab."

How shocking! Nah, not really. This is getting so incestuous that we're going to need a good blood test for the latest blighted offspring. Can we get any more clear evidence that this is all a sophisticated, but not very subtle, game of collusion?

As Senator Bill Perkins said this is a "cooked process," with the results being half-baked. Will the courts be fooled by the bait and switch. As Brown highlighted: "The state's major development agency, ESDC, yesterday declared the 17-acre expansion footprint as blighted, a necessary step before using eminent domain. Prior to yesterday, it was unclear whether a blight study the state commissioned would have run into legal obstacles, as a state appellate court earlier in the week was critical of the state's use of contractor AKRF to complete the study." (emphasis added)

So this new gambit is designed to cover up the old collusion? With the same data base? Here's how Slick Schick views the switcheroo: "But yesterday, ESDC's president, Avi Schick, announced the agency had done a second blight study—an "audit," according to the press release—with a separate consultant, seemingly mooting the concerns regarding AKRF (though we haven't yet seen the second study)."

This is getting to be like the Augean Stables, with the clean-up becoming a Herculean task. Here's hoping that Perkins starts to focus on this charade; with an accompaniment perhaps from the intrepid Richard Brodsky.

This Land Ain't Your Land-Anymore!

In Sunday's NY Post, the paper reviews "Government Pirates" by Don Corace, an attack on the government's use of eminent domain to erode property rights: "June 23, 2005 was a very dark day in our nation's history," Don Corace writes at the beginning of his new jeremiad defending property rights against rapacious government buttinskis. That was the day the Supreme Court handed down its shocking 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, affirming local governments' rights to seize your home and flip it to another private owner if the new guy promises to bring in more tax revenue."

The book takes a hard look at the way in which courts and local governments have acted-unfairly in his view-to take people's property in the name of development. Corace examines the efforts to reform eminent domain laws around the country as well as the often incomprehensible and contradictory judicial rulings on the subject: "The public rightly shuddered with revulsion at the specter of their bedrock rights being subject to the whims of "redevelopment"-addicted local pols. Alarmed statehouses prepared scores of eminent domain-limiting bills, while city halls from coast to coast dug in their heels. The tension between those three - and the scattershot, logic-defying umpiring offered by the judiciary - forms the basic narrative conflict in Corace's "Government Pirates."

What is, of course, disturbing in all of this is the way in which local governments use the ED weapon, along with other land use sleights-of-hand to railroad local folks-usual those without resources: "For Corace, eminent domain is just the gateway into a world where local governments respect no man's castle. "Kelo has sparked a healthy dialogue, but eminent domain abuse is only the 'tip of the iceberg,' " he writes. "Through local zoning and the regulation of wetlands and endangered species, governments take property without compensating owners and also extort land and money in return for approvals."

This phenomenon is in need of some pretty fundamental reform; and as is the whole ULURP process in NYC which is too often the handmaiden of these tactics-a fact exposed by the ESDC/Columbia University collusion we wrote about last week. More transparency, and greater protections for small businesses, property owners and tenants, is badly needed.

The ED weapon is wielded as a bludgeon: "But Corace ably points out what many New Yorkers and other urbanites - particularly the poor - have long known: Eminent domain is like the Ring of Power in redevelopment schemes. Local officials insist they're reluctant to use such terrible power, but sometimes you just gotta break an egg or three to make an omelet."

What the Corace book apparently points out, is just how often locals get shafted by their own elected officials, something that Bronxites and the folks in West Harlem are familiar with: "Corace's on firmer ground detailing the collective incoherence of various court rulings, and the limitless reservoir of bad faith and money that local governments will tap into when they have a better idea for your property than you do."

It's time for NY State to address the inequities in its anachronistic eminent domain laws. As bad as the court rulings have been, and we're coming from a place that sees ED as a sometimes necessary tool-the real solution lies with the legislature; and pressuring those electeds who too often feed at the development trough.

Imposters

Calorie posting went in effect for real last week, with little hope that the information will do more than make Commissioner Frieden and his health elves feel good about themselves. In our view, the folks who will really use this info are those who are already conscious of what they're eating.

As the NY Post reported Saturday: "Knowing a Big Mac has 540 calories, some of Mickey D's customers say, does not make the two all-beef patties any less tasty. McDonald's had been one of the few holdouts in complying with a city requirement - enforceable as of today - that all chains post calorie counts on their menus. "I saw the calories, and I was, like, 'Oh, my God, I should walk out,' " said Jannika Hantso, 34, of Brooklyn, at the McDonald's on Sixth Avenue and 14th Street. Instead, she ordered her usual Big Mac, medium fries (380 calories) and medium Diet Coke (0).

We're wondering what will happen once the novelty is off. In all likelihood, the folks will soon ignore the fact that the calorie information is even there. And as one more health-conscious patron pointed out: "Rather than the Crispy Chicken Classic (530), Sasha Deneze went for the Grilled Chicken Classic (420). "Just because you eat at McDonald's," she said, "doesn't mean you have to stuff yourself."

Indeed you don't, but that means you have both the understanding and the will to implement it. The exchange caught by the NY Times at a local Burger King is instructive: “Scary, as I stand here holding, like, 3,200 calories,” said Nick Perna, a marketing specialist who had just bought a Whopper with cheese, French fries and a soft drink. A colleague, Derek Cummings, took a closer look at the sign and said the total was only 1,720 calories. According to the sign, that was the maximum for a Whopper meal. The minimum was 1,260. The range covered extras a customer could order, like extra fries and extra cheese. “I went sans cheese,” Mr. Cummings said, holding his own Whopper, “so I saved something.”

Pretty soon, as the novelty wears off, and when the urge strikes, Cummings will be back to cheese. Here's what one prescient New Yorker observed, and it underscores our feelings on all of this as well: "Some customers said the calorie counts might change people’s menu choices. But Tina Nguyen, an astrologer who was on a break from a class she was taking for a real estate license when she stopped at the Starbucks at 1372 Broadway, did not like the idea that the city had required the figures to be posted. “This is starting to feel Big Brotherish,” she said. “If they want to change our eating behavior, the city could offer courses instead of picking on these restaurants.”

"Cooked Process"

An article in today's NY Daily News contains an apt quote from State Senator Bill Perkins. Referring to the fact that the state used Columbia's own consultant, AKRF, to determine that the land that the university wants the state to condemn is blighted, Perkins said the following: "This was a cooked process," he said."

And, of course, it is just that. But we shouldn't be so shocked by this, since it is something that animates all of the ULURP applications that the city entertains. The developer chooses an environmental consultant who then "finds" just what the developer would wish found. A nice cozy, and not very transparent arrangement that creates a sham review process, since few lawmakers have either the skill or the time to fully evaluate the findings that are put before them.

We're reminded of a time long ago-and not much has changed since-when the developer of a Pathmark supermarket on the Lower East Side submitted a required traffic and parking analysis; an analysis that was subsequently vetted by the city planners and given the green light. When we did our own review, however, we found that the study was a complete replication of one that had been done for a Pathmark store in Gowanus. No one had even bothered to look!

The larger point here is that the entire ULURP process has to be changed, and the consultants need to be hired by an independent review agency; after all, how could a minimizing traffic study for the Gateway Mall be accepted on asthma alley in the Bronx? The fact that AKRF describes itself as one of the, "top firms in its field," is, in this context, more of an indictment than an approbation.

So it's not really the fact that AKRF has a blatant conflict that is disturbing in the ESDC case. Rather, it is the fact that the entire process is thoroughly imbued with conflicts and had AKRF not been Columbia's hired lap dog, it still would have come up with the same well-paid for advice on blight-it's what they're in the business of doing, and damn the public interest. Independent environmental analysis is almost impossible to come by since firms that want to be successful understand just where their bread will be buttered.

Extra Benefits

One other point from yesterday's NY Daily News: "Columbia University will pump an additional $21 million into neighborhood services as it pushes to get its controversial $7 billion expansion plan approved, the Daily News has learned. The school will also offer 40 undergraduate scholarships a year to students near its west Harlem campus, as well as two free classes a year for 50 area seniors, said Avi Schick, downstate president of the Empire State Development Corporation. "We went back and we said, how do we really integrate Columbia and the community?" Schick said. "When we vote to approve the plan, these are included."

That's not even a close shave from Shick. These extras are simply window dressing, and as we've said before the Columbia plan, unlike those of Harvard and Yale, walls itself off from the community; something that a few schollies will not change one iota. What would, "integrate Columbia and the community," is a housing plan that would address residential displacement. After all, when CU is finished expanding, the "community" won't even be there for the supposed integration.

Out of Blight, Out of Mind

There's more this morning on the ESDC three card monte consulting game that ended with the determination that the area that Columbia wants to expand into is blighted. As the NY Sun reports: "Even as lawyers for private landowners are vowing to fight the state's anticipated use of eminent domain to seize property needed for Columbia University's proposed $6.28 billion expansion, the plan won approval from the Empire State Development Corp.'s board of directors yesterday."

And as the Sun further points out, the agency has brought in a second firm to "audit" the findings of the ESDC house organ, AKRF. The results, along the line of, "one lies, and the other swears to it," were predictable: "Those opposed to the project have also raised concerns about the ESDC's hiring of an environmental planning and engineering firm, AKRF, to conduct the blight study, because the firm has done work for Columbia. At yesterday's meeting, the board disclosed that it had employed a second environmental planning firm, Earth Tech Inc., to conduct another report, which mirrored AKRF's in its findings."

The NY Times weighs in on the consulting sham: "Opponents of the expansion, however, have said for months that the study’s findings were a foregone conclusion because the consulting firm that performed the blight analysis on behalf of the state — Allee King Rosen & Fleming Inc. — had previously conducted Columbia University’s environmental impact study for the expansion.
On Thursday, the state agency said that the consulting firm’s analysis had been audited by a second firm, Earth Tech Inc."

Ah, but who will audit the auditors here? What is remarkable to us, is how Bronx-like the whole affair is. With the exception of Senator Perkins, area electeds were in lock-step with the CU plan-and have a remarkable case of lockjaw when it comes to the displacement of thousands of residents: "But on Thursday, many city and state lawmakers were aligned against Mr. Sprayregen. Along with the press release announcing the development agency’s approval of the expansion plan were statements of approval from Gov. David A. Paterson, Representative Charles B. Rangel, Deputy Mayor Robert C. Lieber and state Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright."

Perhaps, when we read reports of some of these very same officials living in rent stabilized apartments, and the case of Mr. Rangel, multiple such units, it isn't so surprising to find a less than zealous defense of the housing needs of their constituents. When it comes to development, there's a toady on every block in Harlem.

We'll be interested to see just how helpful these very same cute cheerleaders will be should a viable housing plan be proffered in the near future. Columbia would best be served, along with the residents of West Harlem, is a viable affordable housing development were devised out of the chaos. CU may, in fact, be more receptive than its lackeys: "Columbia said on Thursday that it was willing to restart negotiations with the holdout businesses before eminent domain proceedings began."

Where's the leadership in Harlem? Apparently, with the exception of Bill Perkins, you just need to follow the money.

Thanks to Liz for the link!

Eminently Destructive

The board of the Empire State Development Corporation voted yesterday, after spirited testimony that was decidedly negative, to support going forward, using eminent domain, on behalf of Columbia University's expansion plan. As the New York Observer wrote: "The state's main development agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, kicked of the public process for eminent domain for Columbia University's 17-acre West Harlem expansion today, starting a final chapter in the approvals for the contentious $7 billion initiative."

There were, however, two new wrinkles added: "In announcing the process, ESDC President Avi Schick unveiled two unexpected nuggets of news surrounding the plan: yet another concession package from Columbia and a second blight study." Another consultant and blight study, you say? Why the need?

Well, as the NY Sun reported yesterday, the appellate court ruling raised a real conflict of interest problem for ESDC and Columbia; furthering the prospects that Nick Srayregen and his attorney Norman Siegel might prevail in de-railing the study and postponing any ED action: "Further complicating matters and possibly adding a legal foothold for Mr. Siegel was a ruling that came down on Tuesday from a state appellate court. The ruling upheld a June 2007 decision that said the ESDC's decision to hire AKRF, which had also worked for Columbia, represented a conflict of interest."

State Senator Bill Perkins chimed in for the Sun on this precise issue: "State Senator William Perkins said in an interview that in light of the ruling, the Columbia University development process should be immediately halted because, if nothing else, it fuels "the perception of collusion" between the state, Columbia, and AKRF. "It would seem to me that it would have been easy to get another consultant and avoid any stench of collusion, and it would seem to me very irresponsible to subject the agency and its credibility to such an easily avoidable accusation," he said."

Perkins, who is the ranking minority member on the senate's corporation committee (and potentially Richard Brodsky's partner in crime should the Dems take over), continued in this vein at yesterday's ESDC hearing. According to the Observer: "So everything's copacetic, right?
State Senator Bill Perkins, the main elected official critical of the expansion, was not too pleased that he wasn't informed about the second study (he told the Sun today that the state should do a second study). In his comments at the board meeting, he had a rather contentious back and forth with Mr. Schick, seemingly trying to push his buttons (at least in private, many in government say Mr. Schick has something of a short fuse), though the ESDC president kept his cool.
A sampling of the exchange:

Mr. Perkins: "Why was I not told that such a study was in the works?"
"Senator, I don't know, there are numerous—"
...
Mr. Perkins: "Do we have staff here that can go get the information that I am requesting so that before I leave I can know for sure what I'm talking about?"

"Senator before you leave today, we will endeavor to get the answer—

"Endeavor? That sounds like it's something that's difficult to do. It is either yes you will get it, or no you won't."

"Senator—Senator, with all respect, in the dozen meetings and conversations you and I have had—"

Perkins was simply underscoring the larger conflict of interest point-one that isn't resolved by last minute sleights of hand that pull a new consultant out of a hat. Perkins went on to ask: "Whose data is being used? (by the new guys); "When were the surveys done?" Clearly, Perkins knows a set-up when he sees it.

Here's how Sprayregen, in yesterday' Crain's Insider, described the court's verdict on the AKRF matter: "But the key is the court’s finding of “an inherent conflict in [Alee King] serving two masters,” Sprayregen says. “This puts a cloud over the blight study. It raises issues of bias. We intend to attack the validity of the blight study. Without that study, there is no eminent domain.” The substitution effect fools no one. As we told one reporter, when you put a new cover on an old study isn't that, by definition, a cover-up?

The hearing also brought the issue of housing to the fore, with Nellie Baily of the Harlem Tenants Council blasting the CU plan for its displacement-according to Columbia's own report-of 5,000 residents. Nothing in the new bennies reported addresses the housing question-a real big opening to the Sprayregen swap concept unveiled at the end of last year.

Which brings us to the blight designation itself. According to the Times CityRoom Blog yesterday: "Opponents of the $6 billion expansion plan said the results of the study that found the area to blighted were a foregone conclusion, because AKRF Inc., the firm hired by the state to conduct the report, known as a blight study, had also performed an environmental analysis of the same site for Columbia University. (Two courts have questioned whether it was appropriate for the state to have used the same consultant that Columbia did.) The report by AKRF found that the area mostly comprised “aging, poorly maintained and functionally obsolete industrial buildings with little indication of recent reinvestment to revive their generally deteriorated condition.”

So, which report's being used here? And what use is the new consultant? As Norman Siegel told the hearing, the idea that the area in question is blighted is directly challenged by the definition in the statute; and any deterioration in the neighborhood is a direct result of the planned destruction initiated by Columbia itself after it purchased the properties it currently owns. It should be one heck of a legal battle ahead.

Conflicted Loyalties

The relative lack of press coverage of the decision by the state appellate court to uphold the lower court's ruling on the freedom of information lawsuit brought by the West Harlem Business Group was disappointing. Clearly, the appellate court upheld, not only the supreme court's initial ruling, but the underlying premise of the ruling.

That underlying premise, captured well by the CityRoom blog of the NY Times (the one outlet other than the Observer that broke the story the other day) was that there was an unnatural intimacy between Columbia, ESDC, and the consultant AKRF: "Consultants dealing with state agencies may be exempt from public disclosure laws, but in this case the judges found that a conflict of interest nullified the exemption in certain areas. “Supreme Court clearly had reason to doubt A.K.R.F.’s independence, objectivity and sense of what good judgment calls for,” because of the consultant’s ties to Columbia, Judge James M. Catterson wrote in his majority opinion."

Powerful stuff, redolent it seems to us, of collusion at the highest level. If anyone thinks that this soon to be released blight study is anything more than "one lying and the other one swearing to it," than their naivete is robust indeed. As our client Nick Sprayregen told the Times: "Nick Sprayregen, a member for the group, said the court’s ruling affirmed his belief “that the whole process of Columbia's request for the state to condemn private property is tainted with conflicts of interest.”

ESDC, long with Columbia, will be really rolling the dice if it goes into court defending the work of AKRF; and the parties involved in all of these shenanigans would be better served to sit with Nick and negotiate a deal that would extricate the colluders from serious potential harm. What we've found over the years, however, is folks don't always understand where their own interests lie.

Blight is in the Mind of the Beholden

On Thursday, according to the intrepid Eliot Brown at the Observer, it appears that the long awaited ESDC blight study will be unveiled: "Just when news started to slow for the summer on the development front, New York's Empire State Development Corporation dropped this bombshell in the agenda for its monthly meeting [PDF]: Columbia University "Land Use Improvement Project and Civic Project Findings." Translation: the state will unveil the blight study, the first step in the use of eminent domain for Columbia's 17-acre West Harlem site."

Get ready for the fireworks on this front. Remember that the study has been done by Columbia's own in-house consultants AKRF-an abbreviation that stands for "Dewey, Cheatum and Howe!" Blight, in this case, is in the mind of the beholden.

This unnaturally close, almost incestuous, relationship between Columbia, AKRF and ESDC has been one of the subjects of a lawsuit brought by our client Tuck-it-Away, the self-storage company that is in the line of the Columbia bulldozer. As one commenter to the blog post points out: "Perhaps more important is a decision handed down just today that ruled in favor of Mr. Sprayregen. It upholds a lower court's decision to release documents that the state refused to hand over plus the court raises the real issue of conflict of interest between Columbia and the state in their hiring, at the same time, the same consultant. Stay tuned for more."

The line in the sand nature of what's ahead comes as a result of the university's lack of eagerness to pursue the land swap that Mr. Sprayregen put forward late last year. As Nick's attorney Norman Siegel points out: "Columbia had numerous opportunities to amicably resolve this, but ethey chose not to, and the battle lines are drawn," said Norman Siegal, Mr. Sprayregen's attorney. "This controversy has been brewing for at least five years."

In Brown's follow-up post on the successful Sprayregen lawsuit, the conflict of interest issue is brought to the fore: "The major landowner fighting Columbia University's expansion, Nick Sprayregen, today came out victorious over the state's Empire State Development Corporation today in an appellate court ruling on a case involving the Freedom of Information Law.
The case concerned the release of documents and correspondences between the state and its contractor AKRF, mostly surrounding the creation of a blight study (slated for release Thursday). Mr. Sprayregen, represented by attorney Norman Siegel, defeated the state at the first level last year, with the court offering criticism that the same contractor, AKRF, was used for both the blight study and the environmental review."

The question that remains in all of this, is how the courts will view the AKRF "findings." The bigger question perhaps should be, in the words of Clint Eastwood, be posed to Columbia: "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Budweiser Goes Foreign

Now that the Anheuser Busch company is no longer an American company, perhaps some state lawmakers will be taking a very close look at the beer distribution system in New York. The system, set up after the repeal of prohibition, is designed to protect the interests of local businesses. This is certainly not the case in NYC where Anheuser-now InterBev-directly controls over 60% of the beer wholesaling for its flagship Bud brand.

What this means is that a foreign entity, with no ties with, or concerns for, local businesses sets the parameters for beer marketing-and this is being done at the expense of local independent wholesalers who are being discriminated against by the brewer/wholesaler. This is precisely why the independents are supporting legislation (A10216; and S6752) that would protect local wholesalers against price fixing and discrimination.

The sale of Anheuser is rightfully upsetting to New York's hard core beer drinkers. As the NY Times reported yesterday: "John Dooley sidled up to the bar at his favorite neighborhood pub on Monday afternoon and, like a cuckolded lover, vowed to remain true to his beloved despite the sudden betrayal he felt. “It’s the best beer in the world,” said Mr. Dooley, draining his second glass of Budweiser at Kennedy’s pub and restaurant in Breezy Point, Queens. “If you wanted to buy me a Heineken, I’d refuse. Nothing short of a nuclear war could make me stop.”

Mr Dooley's sentiments ring true to the independent, wholesalers that made Budweiser No.1 when it first came into the NYC market many years ago: "And so it was with bitterness, and resignation, that many Breezy Point locals met the news on Monday that Anheuser-Busch, the St. Louis-based maker of Budweiser, was to be sold to a Belgian company for $52 billion. “I don’t like it, I don’t like it a bit,” Mr. Dooley said. Then he raised his empty glass, which the bartender, Tom Coady, promptly refilled. "

Some of the legislative opponents of the bills based their misguided opposition to the legislation on the importance of preserving local business, and some kind of theoretical support for the "three tier system." When foreign-owned brewers are directly distributing, however, the distribution system is in a shambles; which makes the legislation proposed that much more compelling.

Armored for Battle

According to this morning's NY Daily News, CB# 7 in the Bronx is beginning a discussion process for the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment plans: "As the vacant Kingsbridge Armory continues its long march toward redevelopment, the local community board is aiming to take command of the community approval process. Community Board 7 plans to convene a number of stakeholders meetings over the summer to make sure neighborhood residents' views are heard as the city finalizes plans for the 575,000-square-foot former National Guard armory."

All in all, this isn't a bad idea. The more the community is allowed in, the greater the opportunity there is to insure that the process reflects its views. That doesn't mean, however, that the end product will be community friendly-not with our friends at Related Companies in the driver's seat: "It's the beginning of a series of meetings to develop a good working relationship with the developer," said CB7 District Manager Fernando Tirado. Tirado plans for the meeting to break into smaller discussion groups to make a list of the topics for the community board to raise with the city and the developer before the next stakeholders meeting, which Tirado expects to hold next month."

Maybe the DM will midwife an epiphany here; with Related all of a sudden becoming imbued with real community concern. Nothing in its resume suggests that this is likely to happen any time soon. Which means to us that KARA, the real community coalition, has its work cut out for itself.

And the posture of Mr. Tirado appears to underscore this point: "Separate from CB7's process, the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, a coalition of community groups, unions and churches led by the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, is pressuring Related to sign a binding community benefits agreement. While not discounting the idea of a CBA, Tirado said he hopes to keep the conversation more cooperative than confrontational. "The armory is bigger than any of us," said Tirado, "and it will outlast all of us."

This might be setting up to be a fight between the community board, and its putative relationship to the community's welfare, and KARA, a genuine grass roots phenomenon. In the Bronx this makes for interesting theater but the real battle is for what's best for the Kingsbridge community. The danger lies that the fight between the locals will only benefit the bottom line of Related.

No Computer Left Behind

The most serious indicator of how well the schools are doing is the graduation rate for high school seniors. So how well are the city's kids doing? Well, we just don't know because the state and city can't seen to calculate this complex data. As the NY Times reports this morning: "The Class of 2008 has already tossed aside caps and gowns for swimsuits and tank tops. The Class of 2009 has begun dreaming of proms, diplomas and exit strategies. But the public has yet to learn what percentage of New York State’s Class of 2007 actually graduated from high school."

It seems as if the DOEs of both the state and the city are running into computer programming problems that's making it difficult to determine who actually is graduating-a fine mess, isn't it? "Blame the state’s new data system, which is expected to cost $39.4 million over six years. Tom Dunn, a spokesman for the state’s Education Department, acknowledged that the system had been “not completely successful” in uploading and processing information from New York’s 695 school districts. He said the move to a single data repository had “caused a number of problems.”

And how about the city? It's hard to know since the 2006 rate wasn't announced until April 2007-and the move to a single data stream for both the state and the city hasn't been properly worked out: "Asking the public to be patient here is simply not an answer,” said Merryl H. Tisch, a member of the State Board of Regents, who described the delay as “frustrating and intolerable.” “I think the public should frankly demand more timely testing results and more timely graduation data,” she said, “because, after all, they’re being asked to invest an enormous amount of money in the system.”

The city's own computer system apparently has a few glitches, as Advocate Gotbaum told the Times: "Betsy Gotbaum, the New York City public advocate, noted that the city Department of Education’s own $80 million data system, developed by I.B.M. and called ARIS, has been criticized by principals and teachers as cumbersome and difficult to use, even as parents have questioned its hefty price tag. “We have already seen with ARIS here in the city how expensive and flashy computer systems are turning out to be clunky and flawed,” Ms. Gotbaum said in a statement. “The longer we have to wait for these data systems to produce results, the more skeptical people become.” Mr. Cantor said the city was improving ARIS. “While it did not come out of the box perfect,” he said, “we got an awful lot of information to a large number of people.”

This is all pretty funny, especially when we have a mayor whose billionaire fortune was built on computer technology. What it shows to us, and the NY Sun's article on testing underscores as well, is that we simply can't take anything that these DOE folks say for granted. It's time to educate the educators with an independent review of their so-called achievements.

Speaking of Measuring

Andrew Wolf just responded to our comments on Mayor Mike's poverty measuring, and he told us: " Meanwhile he can't measure kids reading and math grades right. Who is he to lecture on how to measure poverty?" Which brings us to Sol Stern's column on reading in today's NY Post.

Stern's piece is in response to the Obama flap over immigrants learning English-how the real problem is that Americans can't speak other languages. As Stern points out: "What should embarrass him is that, in the communities he claims to know so much about, schools are failing to teach black and Hispanic children how to read English - the prerequisite to all other learning. Two-thirds of black children in urban US school districts can't read at the minimally appropriate level by fourth grade - a failure that is at the heart of the "racial achievement gap."

And this serious problem is still endemic to our NYC schools, where the Kleineman botched the reading challenge by allowing the so-called progressive educators to hold sway: "Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Klein deserve credit for talking of ending the racial achievement gap - but they made the mistake of relying on the wrong "experts." In 2003, they entrusted most instructional decisions to educators who deem it a crime to teach children how to read through scripted phonics lessons."

And what are the results of this error? According to Stern (and Wolf for that matter): "Six years later, we're seeing the fruits of that tragic decision. On the federal NAEP tests, known as the "nation's report card," New York City showed no improvement from 2003 to 2007 in both fourth and eighth grade reading." But Bloomberg and Klein continue to crow about the results from watered down or doctored tests that fail to disguise, in our view, the failure of this version of a mayoral control experiment.

"South Bronx, No Thonx"

In yesterday's NY Times the paper remarks on the theme that Juan Gonzalez has been trumpeting: the redlining of the folks in the South Bronx by the Yankees and MLB. As the Times points out: "Three weeks ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared that the All-Star Game, to be played Tuesday at Yankee Stadium, would put the revival of the South Bronx in the national spotlight. Major League Baseball seems not to have gotten the memo. Planners for the event overlooked the neighborhood where it will take place."

The real victims in all of this? The Little Leaguers who have been shut out: "There are some 1,000 youngsters in Little League in the South Bronx. They are overwhelmingly Hispanic — Puerto Rican, Dominican and, increasingly, Mexican. They represent the nation’s fastest-growing population, and none of them have a prayer of seeing their All-Star heroes. A few free seats, given by lottery, would have earned a lot of good will at little cost."

But why should MLB look after the kids in the South Bronx when the area's elected officials failed to do so when they teamed up to alienate community parks with absolutely no public debate? And the deal that was subsequently crafted around the building of a new stadium should have raised red flags in the editorial board room of the Times; but it didn't.

The paper supported the charade with the following: "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."

Perhaps the Times would have been more skeptical in its observations if George Bush was the fellow spearheading the stadium deal. It's amazing how often the paper suspends its disbelief around real estate deals in NYC that disadvantage poor people and small business. Its so-called progressive stance is inversely proportional to the geographic distance an issue or event has from the paper's corporate headquarters.

The Times concludes with the following: "The South Bronx deserves another look, not the snub it got from baseball’s executive suite." It should apply this critique to its own editorialists, folks who apparently can't grasp corporate greed and political malfeasance when it takes place almost in front of their eyes.

Poor Measures

Just what exactly is Mike Bloomnerg up to with his redefinition of poverty? As the NY Sun reports this morning: "Nearly one in four New Yorkers are living below the poverty line, according to Mayor Bloomberg, who says the federal government is underestimating the number of poor people in the city.The Bloomberg administration is adopting a new poverty measurement that raises the rate of poverty in the city to 23% from 18.9% by accounting for the cost of food, clothing, shelter, and utilities, as well as tax credits and government subsidies received."

Okay so we may. according to the redefinition, have more poor people than the Feds believe. So what? The purpose of these indicators is to give government parameters in the meting out of public benefits-it certainly doesn't change anyone's circumstances. According to the NY Times, Mayor Mike thinks this is helpful: "City officials hope that the new model will be adopted by other cities and states, and will also start a national re-examination about the way poverty is gauged...That model, while updated for inflation, has been criticized for being out of date, inaccurate and not taking into account how expenses like housing vary nationwide."

We're not sure what Bloomberg is up to with all of this, but we do know that his development policies have not resulted in a rising tide that lifts all boats-a fact that was drowned out by a $80 million chorus in the last election cycle. And it is instructive to point out that Hispanics as a group are rated the poorest New Yorkers since the mayor has done all he can to make it difficult for Hispanic entrepreneurs to thrive among the chain stores and mega-retailers he's been promoting.

The whole enterprise smacks of an attempt to codify a problem so that Big Brother can better address it; as if that was the best method for doing so in our economic system. The Sun captures this from the mayor: "In Washington, while there's a never-ending debate about how to confront poverty, there is hardly any clarity on who is actually poor. I spent most of my career in the private sector, and I'm a big believer in the saying, 'If you can't measure it, you can't manage it,'" Mr. Bloomberg was to have said, according to his prepared remarks."

There it is in a nutshell: poverty as a management problem. Are income supports, cash payments, far behind? The mayor has raised taxes, increased regulations, and ignored the small businesses that are the engine of neighborhood economic health. This is how poor communities rise out of their circumstances-led by their entrepreneurial class. You know what he can do with his measuring stick.

Vornado Diminished

It looks as if our friends at Vornado will be cutting down the size of its new office building in Harlem. As the NY Times reported on Saturday: "A 21-story office building planned in East Harlem for Major League Baseball is shrinking...But, according to real estate executives and city officials, Vornado’s inability to finance the $435 million project, known as Harlem Park, has delayed construction and is doing what critics who had complained about the tower’s size could not: reduce its height by about a third."

The project does, however, make an important point that we've been emphasizing about the real estate chazza, it's success is often linked to the ability to get the tax payers to foot the bill for its grandiosity: "The city also provided Vornado with up to $17 million in mortgage-recording and sales tax breaks for the project and an additional $5 million in sales tax exemptions for Major League Baseball’s network, for creating 250 new jobs. Although the site is close to public transportation, the city and Vornado argued that it, unlike other stretches of 125th Street, was hardscrabble and difficult to develop."

As the late Mel Allen would have said, "How about that!" Does Vornado even need the public money? Not according to our friends at Good Jobs NY who testified against the hand outs: "
GJNY has two concerns with IDA’s claim that this development wouldn’t happen “but
for” the subsidies:
The cost/benefit analysis for Vornado clearly states an alternative plan that would include a department store and condominiums. It should be made clear why the city is subsidizing one type of development when the developer clearly had a plan for another. The explanation might be reasonable, but absent one the public won’t know.

Secondly, it’s not fair to assume the city needs to use tax breaks to lure MLB Enterprises considering the site has access to transportation facilities such as the subway and Metro North and easy access other business and residential locations and Yankee Stadium and Citi Field."

With the shrinkage of the building it's quite possible that the subsidies will likewise be reduced. Not to be outdone, Vornado's looking for alternative sources of public money. As the Times points out: "The city’s tax breaks would decline with a smaller building. But Vornado has applied to the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone Development Corporation for a $25 million loan and for tax-exempt financing, which the developer, not the city, is obligated to repay. The project would also qualify for a property tax abatement and income tax credits from both the city and the federal government."

This is the same Empowerment Zone that is systematically redlining Hispanic East Harlem, and is an organization whose president, Ken Knuckles (a planning commissioner, no less), once questioned us as to why we were, "against everything?" Someone should start to examine the activities of Mr. Knuckles and the UMEZDC, and find out why he is in favor of so many questionable things-and why, perhaps, he is such a toady to the powerful.

Clearly, as Keith Wright tells the Times, “It’s like chickens coming home to roost,” said Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright of Harlem. “What the political forces couldn’t do, economic reality has forced upon them. Nobody wanted towering office buildings on 125th Street. We wanted it to reflect Harlem architecture.” Still up in the air, literally, is the fate of the $1 million that Vornado pledged for community benefits.

Vornado is reaching the end of its rope, and the rest of the city is getting wise to its tricks. If it believes that it will get to develop 125th Street and Second Avenue, we think that it's in for a rude awakening And if it thinks it can act to threaten the public health of Bronxites in Soundview by evicting Key Food, well, the handwriting's on the wall for these public trough eate

Its days as a favored nation are about to end. Bettina Damiani of GJNY gets the last word on the MLB devlopment: "But critics have always questioned the level of subsidies for the project and the difficulty in determining the full extent of public assistance for Vornado and Major League Baseball. “It seemed like they were getting extra-special treatment,” said Bettina Damiani, director of an advocacy group, Good Jobs New York."

Campaigning Double Standards

Once again the city's new campaign finance law is coming under fire. Already the subject of a lawsuit that challenges its constitutionality, the law is now being questioned by one of its sponsors. This case of buyer's remorse is detailed in today's NY Sun: "A City Council member who helped pass the city's new campaign finance rules is now trying to roll back a key component of the effort to crack down on political donations from lobbyists and business owners.
Council Member Peter Vallone Jr., a Democrat of Queens, said he is proposing to amend the campaign finance rules so that political candidates would no longer be required to ask contributors to disclose their relationship with the city when making a donation."

Of course, the real disparity here is the way in which business and labor are treated separately. As the Sun points out: "His amendment proposal is poised to become the latest attack on the rules, which have been called the toughest in the nation. Opponents of the legislation say it favors candidates who collect contributions from unions, which are exempt from the rules, and punish those who are supported by businesses and developers."

Which it certainly does. Our view is that there should be limits that apply equally to all, and since labor has a tremendous influence in city politics, it shouldn't be exempted from any campaign law that restricts others. In our view, all interests are special and none should be more special than others.

The NY Post editorializes on this issue morning, commenting on the attempt by Melinda Katz to find a loophole in the application of the current law: "Councilwoman Melinda Katz (D- Queens), a candidate for city comptroller next year, tried to skirt the city's selectively restrictive campaign-finance laws. She failed - but good for her, anyway...Because that tough new campaign-finance law - which is supposed to end pay-to-play in New York - doesn't apply at all to labor unions. Unlike business and industry, their donations weren't cut back in the slightest.
Never mind that they're the top organized contributors to city candidates. Or that they arguably do more business with the city than anyone else. This means that candidates who sell themselves to the unions are substantially better off than those who, like Katz, sell themselves to industry. True, when you've got a joke of a campaign-finance law, you've got to expect more than a little funny business. But fair's fair. Katz should sue."

The goal of campaign finance reform should be greater transparency-voters should know who's contributing so that they can better understand the interests that each candidate may be favoring. An unlevel playing field is, well, unfair, and the mayor and the speaker should insure that the rules apply equally to all the players in the system.

Parking Up the Wrong Tree

Juan Gonzalez continues today with his exposing of the shameful way in which the community around Yankee Stadium has been dealt a bad hand by both the Yankees and the Bronx electeds. This time, it's the Little Leaguers who've gotten shafted: "When they televise the All-Star Game from Yankee Stadium Tuesday, the cameras will show dazzling shots of the team's majestic replacement home rising across the street - the most expensive sports venue in America.
One thing you will not hear from the announcers is how hundreds of South Bronx youngsters have lost their parks and baseball fields so the Yankees can erect a new palace geared to the corporate elite."

Let's not forget that it's the same mayor who's threatening to become as green as Kermit the Frog who instigated all of this: "Then, in 2005, Mayor Bloomberg rushed a bill through the Legislature to give 22 acres of Macombs Dam Park and part of John Mullaly Park as sites for the new stadium and its parking garages. The city promised to replace the lost parkland, but all the new baseball fields won't be completed until 2010 at the earliest. When stadium construction started in August 2006, four different youth leagues at Macombs Park were forced to look for temporary fields."

So the sustainability nonsense is theoretical, while the loss of the parkland is all too real: ""Hundreds of millions to subsidize a new stadium, but still not enough ballfields for neighborhood kids. That picture you won't see at the All-Star Game." What Bloomberg should do is reach into his own pocket and insure that the parks are ready when his administration claimed they would be. That would, however, be an indication that he really gave a crap about this poor, asthma-challenged, neighborhood and its loss of green space-a stretch for sure!

Pointing to Disaster?

In yesterday' Observer Real Estate Blog, Eliot Brown takes a look at the gathering storm that is Willets Point. He concludes that the jury is out whether the Bloombergistas can get this development to the ULURP finish line: "The road to approving a mega-project in New York City often follows a similar formula, with a months-long political dance carried out between the city or developer and local member/members of the City Council. Last-minute compromises and agreements are routine, and once a project starts the city's land-use approval process, defeats are almost without precedent. However, the dynamic surrounding the planned redevelopment of Willets Point is proving far less simple than the typical fare, as both observers and those involved seem genuinely unsure as to how the Council will ultimately vote on the project."

The sticking point? Why our good friend Hiram Monseratte, of course. Hiram type cast as a gadfly and an obstructionist has played himself into contention as a potential title holder; having amassed considerable support in the Council for a No vote. As Brown points out: "A majority of the Council, led by local Councilman Hiram Monserrate, publicly opposed the city's move to start the rezoning process three months ago. And while the Bloomberg administration has won some victories recently--the community board endorsed the plan; the city has reached acquisition deals with three property owners; and organized labor now supports the project--Mr. Monserrate and others still express clear opposition to the project as currently planned."

Brown also indicates that the Speaker may be weakened so that the normal bogarting role of the leader may not be as effective with this project. To which we would add that the "pig-in-a-poke" nature of the ULURP sans developer does directly challenge the institutional authority of the Council: "...an atypical approval structure whereby the city selects a developer post-rezoning..." This is something that may also come back to haunt the ULURP efforts in East Harlem that we've referred to in the past.

So Willets rezoning has along way to go, and if Hiram has his way the Council will get a deserved second bite at the apple-a thumbs up or down on the developer after the city makes its choice (something that should be emulated for the East Harlem and 127th Street site as well). Here's what Hiram told the Observer:

"Developer Approval--The plan currently calls for the city first to rezone the land with Council approval and then select a developer (the city believes it has to go this route to comply with eminent domain law). Mr. Monserrate and others, including the Land Use Committee's chairwoman, Melinda Katz, have expressed concerns with this structure. (The Council often wrests concessions from a developer, and without a second approval round, would be unable to have much say in the final plan.) "It has to come back to the Council," he said. "We are the check and balance system in city government."

That's a good standard to uphold, here and any where else. Once the land is re-zoned the council is sidelined with nothing else to say on a land use question; a bad precedent indeed.

Unchartered Water

The NY Sun is reporting this morning that Mayor Mike is gearing up for some version of charter reform, and there appears to be some nervous rumblings: "Mayor Bloomberg's plan to permanently change the structure of local government is prompting anxiety among public officials and community leaders. There is talk in political circles that a commission to be appointed by the mayor to perform a top-to-bottom review of the city charter would seek to curtail the authority of borough presidents and the public advocate, or do away with their positions altogether. Officials say they also are hearing that the commission may attempt to restructure the charter to remove community boards from the often contentious approval process for development projects."

Well, count us among those who view the prospects of Bloomberg's tinkering with the structure of city government with some degree of trepidation. That's because, in our view, the mayor is no democrat, in the sense that he is a fan of the untidiness of the rough and tumble of democratic politics. Any reform from Bloomberg is likely to result in more top down control-and as far as the land use process is concerned, this would be a giant mistake.

That being said, Bloomberg has already been defeated on non partisan elections, and an effort to make ULURP less accountable to local communities would, we believe, suffer the same fate. The process does need reform, but the changes that we'd like to see would be to insure greater local accountability and not less. As we said once before: "Well, well. Just how do you think Mayor Mike would want to reform the land use review process? Make it more accountable, kinda of like mirroring the Brodsky proposal on accountable development? No, that's unlikely from someone who has no faith in the voice of any impacted community."

If reform of land use is on the upcoming charter revision agenda, then it will more likely take the "streamlined and efficiency" direction; an approach that will further enervate the ability of the people to be heard. The Manhattan Institute's critique of ULURP comes to mind here. Well, we welcome the mayor if he decides to enter into the land use waters; it will expose his Father Knows Best mentality and ultimately, just as with non-partisan elections, it will be rejected by the voters.

Local 1500 Leads Food Fight

In the fight to prevent the erosion of NYC supermarkets, Local 1500 of the UFCW has led the way; wherever there has been a fight against non-union box stores-and we think particularly of the Wal-Mart battle in Rego Park and the BJs fight in the Bronx-this local has used its resources and political capital to win important struggles for their members and the supermarkets they work for. As part of the UFCW's Region One (our client), 1500 has been an invaluable ally of the Alliance.

Now the Local is conducting a food policy conference today down at 32 BJ, that will bring together various stakeholders from around the city to address the crisis of disappearing supermarkets. Here's the full agenda from the union:

Building Blocks Food Policy Conference Greetings!

We look forward to meeting you on Thursday at the "Building Blocks Project" Food Policy Conference and would like to thank you for your commitment to these important issues. There will be tabling space if you would like to bring materials to share with the group.If you have any additional questions or need directions please email mkinberg@ufcw1500.org or call 516-491-6232.

"Building Blocks Project" Food Policy ConferenceThursday, July 10th from 9:00 am to 11:30 am 32 BJ - 101 Avenue of the Americas 22nd Fl. (between Grand and Watts Streets) A Hot Breakfast will be served starting at 8:30Subway directions:A - C - E or 1 train to Canal St.Conference Goal
1.) Mapping New York City's policy landscape
2.) Summary of issues and campaigns that food policy groups are working on
3.) Feedback on UFCW's Food Policy Principles
4.) Assess community needs for policy support
5.) Determine obstacles groups are facing that policy initiatives can help overcome
6.) Moving forward: building trust between organizations, forming bonds and creating organization process

Agenda

Welcome 9:00 am – 9:05 amUFCW Local 1500 Building Blocks Project Presentation

9:05 – 9:25 Panel Presentation – Mapping NYC Food Policy

9:25 – 9:55Sean Sweeney, Director, Global Labor Institute
James Subudhi, Sustainability Coordinator, WE ACT
Roger Hayes, Program Director of the Harlem DPHO, NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
Dan Miner, Chair of Sierra Club NYC Group
Sarita Daftary, Director, East New York Farms! Project
Triada Stampas, Director of Government Relations & Public Education, Food Bank/Food Change

Q&A – 9:55-10:15

Breakout Groups 10:15 – 10:50
Discussion topics Policy Principles

Moving Forward Breakout Group report back – 10:50 -11:20

Mapping review – 11:20 -11:25

Next Steps – 11:25 -

Quoth The Raven: "Nevermore!"

Once again, we're facing a public policy contradiction in terms. As NY1 is reporting, city health officials are handing out "Health Bucks" to food stamp recipients in the Bronx to buy fruits and vegetables at a local green market: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and other local officials helped open the Bronx’s Poe Park Greenmarket Tuesday, as the city increased low-income access to fresh produce. The Department of Health announced Tuesday an increase in its Health Bucks program, which gives people credits towards fresh produce at green markets if they're in the Food Stamp program. The DOH will distribute 30,000 Health Bucks this year, up from 15,000 last year."

Now Poe Park is just a couple of blocks away from two MortonWilliams Associated Supermarkets. The one on Jerome and Kingsbridge is actually the first supermarket to come to the Bronx over fifty years ago, and the Sloan brothers have spent millions of dollars to renovate the store, as well as to purchase and renovate the supermarket that they bought on Jerome and Fordham (also just a stone's throw away from the greenmarket). In addition, the Sloans hire all of the workers for their Manhattan markets from this neighborhood (around 650 employees), making them one of the largest employers in the Kingsbridge community.

Make no mistake about it, the greenmarkets and the veggie peddlers to come, will take away produce business from existing supermarkets. Manhattan peddlers already are draining the Sloans' business to the tune of tens of thousands of lost sales per week. It's a zero-sum game, and in the midst of a supermarket crisis it will result in the further erosion of local supermarket presence in so-called underserved neighborhoods.

Welfare Reform: Credit, Where Credit's Due

In this morning's NY Post, the paper writes about the new historic low in the city's welfare rolls: "Fewer New Yorkers are on the dole today than at any point over the past 45 years, figures obtained by The Post show. The city's welfare caseload had dropped to 341,329 by June 30 - a 5.4 percent decrease from the same time last year, and an astounding 26.2 percent dip since the beginning of Mayor Bloomberg's tenure, the Human Resources Administration reported. The welfare tally is the lowest since 1963 - and Bloomberg attributes the striking drop to his
administration's reforms, as well as to the dramatic changes instituted under his predecessor. Rudy Giuliani."

Let's give credit to Mayor Mike for continuing along the path that Rudy blazed in the Nineties; but make no mistake, the initial changes were Herculean-and unleashed tremendous scorn against Giuliani, contributing to his labeling as "harsh," vindictive," and yes, even "racist."

Compared to what Giuliani was up against Mayor Mike was simply painting by the numbers: "Under Rudy's reign, welfare rolls - at 1,160,593 in 1995 - plummeted to 462,595 in 2001, a vanishing act tied to his tightening of standards and his weeding out fraud...Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, squarely credited Giuliani for the dip. "I think it's very much a product of the change in welfare philosophy that Mayor Giuliani introduced in '95," she said.
She said that message is still loud and clear: "The city expects you to look for work and find a job."

So, whether its welfare or crime, it's clear that Rudy was a transformational figure. What Bloomberg has demonstrated on these fronts (with a tipping of the hat to Ray Kelly), is that the next mayor needs to follow in Giuliani's footsteps and not allow any backsliding.

Whole Foods No Answer

In this morning's AMNY there's an article heralding the arrival of Whole Foods to "underserved" Soho: "If there’s one things residents of TriBeCa routinely complain about, it’s the lack of grocery stores.They’ll be hard-pressed to complain starting at 8 a.m. Wednesday, when a ribbon-cuttng marks the opening of a Whole Foods at Greenwich and Warren streets.
“TriBeCa is an underserved area when it comes to grocery stores and we’re happy to give them a supermarket selling high quality food at competitive prices,” Fred Shank, a spokesman for Whole Foods, told Urbanite."

Well, all of this is fine and dandy for the upscale folks in Tribeca and Soho; but the arrival of the Whole Foods chain, whose CEO once compared labor unions to herpes, does absolutely nothing for the middle class neighborhoods of New York who are hemorrhaging supermarkets at a rapid pace while the city commissions discussions of the problem.

The evictions of the Key Food in Soundview and the Met Foods in Pelham Gardens-along with the loss of the Associated markets in Brooklyn, and the list goes on-is a crisis that needs more than discussions. Particularly so when the commission (or is is task force?) is cluttered-with a number of important exceptions-with folks who have no clue about the way in which the industry operates.

Isn't it time, for instance, for Mayor Mike to tell Vornado that any attempt to evict the Key Food from its shopping center will result in the company being blacklisted from any new city development? But that would mean the mayor would be taking on those "special interests" that he doesn't see as special in the way in which that term is understood. The Vornados of the world are part of the class, Bloomberg's own home team, that the mayor sees as stewards for the downtrodden-not as uncaring bottom liners who couldn't give a rat's ass about the poor folks of Soundview. As we have said before, Mike's not above these interests, he embodies them.

Major League Gaming

In this morning's NY Daily News, Juan Gonzales discusses the shameless redlining of the Bronx by Major League Baseball. It seems that the celebration of the last All Star Game at the old Yankee Stadium will exclude any participation from the neighborhoods and kids who surround the ball park: "Many saw next week's All-Star Game as a chance to change the image of the entire borough. More than a dozen Bronx non-profit directors reached out to Major League Baseball a year ago and asked Commissioner Bud Selig to help the world see the new South Bronx. The response was shocking. "We got a nasty reply that we should stop using the word 'All-Star' because it's trademarked," said Bill Aguado, director of the Bronx Council on the Arts."

As shocking as the response may be, it certainly isn't surprising since the host team itself sets the stage for the callous disregard. Yet as bad as the Yankees destruction of local parks may be, it is the borough's elected officials who deserve the scorn from the ignored Bronxites. These electeds, and their bottom feeding consultants, are living large at the expense of the people.

Beginning with the dead of night give away of neighborhood parks, and culminating with the creation of a faux fund for the community, this has been one big disgrace-and this comes from a Yankee fan who saw his first game in 1955! Why should we expect the Yankees, however, to act better than the borough's elected officials who are supposed to look after the interests of the people?

Here We Go Again: Another Supermarket Goes Away

In today's Brooklyn Daily Eagle there's a front page story chronicling the demise of yet another local supermarket: "Last Wednesday, many shoppers walked into The Associated market on Tillary Street at the corner of Jay Street in Downtown Brooklyn completely unaware that the shop would be closing later this month. Expecting fully stocked aisles, instead they walked in to find shelves half-empty, aisles deserted and hand-written "50% off" signs taped to the walls."

And just like with many of the other closings, this one will disproportionately impact the elderly and the poor: "The only communication to residents from the Concord Village Board of Directors, in fact, was a notice that the store was closing on July 15th with an offer of assistance to the complex’s elderly residents to help them find alternative methods by which they can buy their groceries...Though the cause of the closing may be unclear, the effects are not. One shopper related, “I’m worried about the older residents nearby, where will they go to get their staple foods?”

The epidemic of local market closings is a city small business and public health crisis, one that the mayor and his minions are not responding to with sufficient alacrity. Commissions and task forces are fine, but the city's neighborhoods need real and immediate action. As State Senator Marty Golden told the Eagle when the Key Food closed in Bay Ridge this past May: "“As our community has grown, numerous supermarkets have closed,” Golden noted. “Purchasing of the most basic necessities has become a challenge to many people, including our seniors, who are forced to walk great distances to a supermarket. We need a supermarket in this community.”

And not just in Bay Ridge, of course-Soundview, South Jamaica, Pelham Gardens and East Harlem, just to name a few neighborhoods, are all experiencing supermarket disinvestment. When is the mayor going to act?

Bloomberg's Self-Promotion

We did a post yesterday on the NY Times story about the high anxiety being experienced by the permanent government about the mayor's forced departure next year. Now we have it on pretty good authority that it was the mayor's own folks who pitched the piece-hoping that it would focus, not on the yearning for Dick Parsons, which it did-but on the need to over turn term limits.

Which brings us to another take on all this from Choire Sicha (courtesy of Azi): "There's a remarkable piece of lobbying in the New York Times this morning—a bit of sophisticated propaganda from the forces (led by Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey) fighting the extremely negative public opinion about the possibility of a third term for New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. The headline is actually bizarre: While it reads "Titans Seek New York Mayor in Bloomberg's Mold," what it is actually about is convincing New Yorkers to repeal term limits on behalf of our current mayor."

Choire's right about the intent of the Bloombergistas, but the results don't uphold the effort; in fact, if this was their pitch, it was a real wild one indeed since the article does little, in our view, to push the third term ball down the field. But she's right to feel that we all should be on the alert for the effort by the mayor and his gold plated lackeys to perpetuate their own class interests:
"This article somehow brings together an entirely expected coalition of the "New York City Investment Fund"—that's what we call the former New York City Chamber of Commerce, which is responsible for funneling private money into the running of the City—as well as a select group of other clients of the publicist Howard Rubenstein, and a few random others, all banded together to pointedly express the (admittedly, true!) fact that there is no decent mayoral candidate for next year's election. This is the biggest, most sophisticated public-private partnership ever yet conceived! Congratulations to Mr. Sheekey."

What this does is underscore the extent to which special interests aren't simply those of labor or community groups, an idea that's dramatized in today's NY Sun's article about Bloomberg LLP and Merril Lynch, its minority stakeholder The idea that the most well heeled among us want to ward off the recrudescence of the bad old days of the special interests, is a theme that's best explored by the satirists at the Onion.

Evicting the Foxes from the Chicken Coop

In yesterday's NY Sun there's an Op-Ed piece on the righteousness-or lack thereof-of the recent school achievement test scores. The author Luis Huerta, is a professor at Teacher's College and he offers the following important observation: "The schools have graduated to a "different league," proclaimed a triumphant Mayor Bloomberg in Harlem, announcing a meteoric rise in test scores at the end of June. But do these buoyant results and sparking celebrations around the state truly gauge student progress? To many parents the mayor's claim sounds like locker room boasting. "I think the numbers are dubious," said Laurie Gluck, whose two boys attend M.S. 54 on the Upper West Side. "

As we have pointed out before, these scores need to be evaluated by less self interested observers, and Huerta agrees: "Mr. Bloomberg favors upbeat estimates from state exams, such as the claim that 61% of the city's fourth graders now are proficient readers. But, according to federal education officials, only 25% tested at the proficiency level after taking the National Assessment of Education Progress, a more reliable test, one year ago. Similar disparities have surfaced in math and for older students, illuminating how low Albany sets its definition of proficient achievement. The federal NAEP exam is immune to the classroom drill-and-kill that now commonly precedes testing week."

So it seems as if NYC was a kid taking the SATs, and had scored so dramatically better the second time around, all sorts of red flags would have been waived-which is why the mayor was doing his victory lap and spinning like a top. The entire process needs to be put under an independent monitor. Consider this: "Mr. Bloomberg's asseveration of dramatic achievement growth feels dubious when placed in historical context. The mayor claims that the share of eighth graders proficient in math has climbed to more than 59% this past spring from 29% in 2002 — a 30-point climb in six years, twice the rise gauged by the federal assessment over the past 18 years."

Where's the media hue and cry on all of this? Aside from this piece and the Sun's Andrew Wolf's work, the usual conspiracy of silence surrounding the mayor's bluster continues-and this is the key policy area that the Bloomberg told voters he would need to be judged on. Outlets like the NY Times need to get busy since; "Few doubt that youngsters statewide are acquiring basic literacy skills more effectively now than a decade ago. But when Albany lowers standards and mayors exaggerate progress, it's no surprise that parents and employers remain skeptical over the schools' true efficacy."

Which is why a more rigorous and nonpartisan review mechanism is needed, one outside of the control of the mayor's educational tall tale tellers: "What's key in moving forward is to depoliticize student testing. Senator Kennedy has introduced legislation that would force governors to publish federal test results alongside states' scores. Multiple measures of progress are needed, and accented by the current debate over the city's dismal high school graduation rates. Given Mr. Bloomberg's faith in competition — heavily backing new options, like charter schools — he should know that markets work only when parents can exercise choice based on sound information. Recent test results prompted a feeling of disbelief, not one of confidence."

The Bloomberg years have been largely ones of media quiescence, and some of our most reliable past critics, such as former mayor Ed Koch, have been silently sleeping in the current mayor's pocket (why is that?). Our view is that the educational reforms the mayor has initiated are much less than meets the eye when it comes to actual results-running the schools like a data company is probably not the best model for education. Like so much else Bloomberg has claimed to have done, much of the real achievements were accomplished before he arrived, allowing him to stand on third base crowing that he hit a triple.

Unchain My Heart

A report by the East Village Community Coalition (EVCC) is highlighted in this week's Villager. The report underscores ways in which zoning can be used to prevent the proliferation of chain stores in the East Village: "New York City zoning regulations currently allow chain stores to move in as of right and offer no protection to small businesses from rising rent, rising wholesale prices and a declining customer base. That policy could change for the East Village if a community group’s plan to amend the city’s Zoning Resolution to prevent chains like Starbucks and CVS from displacing local businesses and altering the character of the neighborhood is successful."

The EVCC effort is patterned after those of other jurisdictions concerned about the loss of local independent retailers, and the homogenization of neighborhood shopping: "Formula businesses typically include retail stores, restaurants and hotels that offer standardized services, operating methods, decor, uniforms and architecture, along the lines of Starbucks and McDonald’s, for example."

This is, in our view, a creative policy initiative that could dovetail nicely with our own efforts to preserve local supermarkets. In fact, we've been following the plight of a local Met Supermarket on Second Avenue-directly in the heart of the EVCC target area. The most radical proposal in the plan calls for an outright ban of chains from a specific zone: "The most stringent recommendation of the report, “Retail Studies and Initiatives for the East Village,” is to ban formula retail, or chains, on St. Mark’s Place from Third Ave. to Avenue A. Existing chains would be grandfathered in, meaning they could remain. This recommendation is modeled after San Francisco, which is the largest U.S. city to restrict formula or chain businesses, banning them in two neighborhoods and regulating them almost everywhere else."

The restrictions on chains-which would apply to both banks and drug stores-would make it much more difficult to displace neighborhood food markets. That is why we applaud EVCC and recommend that its report be fully scrutinized by planners and elected officials concerned with the supermarket drain in NYC.

Altered States?

According to AMNY, New Yorkers are altering their fast food eating patterns because of the city's menu posting regs: "Two months after many New York chain restaurants began posting the number of calories in their food, customers are shying away from their calorie-laden favorites and opting for lighter fare."

Isn't it amazing how the press can discover just what they would hope to find? Would AMNY consider this a scientific survey? And where did they concentrate their efforts to gauge this phenomenon? Either at neighborhoods where the folks are more likely to get this: "Employees at Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks locations in Park Slope said they have noticed a change in their customers' eating habits, leading to a drop in the sale of pastries. Workers spoke on condition of anonymity, because they are not authorized to comment. Company officials would not discuss how the listings have impacted sales."--Or at restaurants where diet consciousness is more advanced; i.e., where the folks aren't in the forefront of the city's obesity epidemic.

What about the real targets? Here's what was discovered: "Officials at McDonald's declined to comment, but a Burger King spokesman said the company is still fighting the regulations. However, officials at the city's Department of Health said last week that the rules are final and any hopes of an appeal are futile. A federal appeals court is still reviewing the matter." So, nothing in the Hood at those Big Mac heavens.

What we find truly amazing is that a media outlet could send a reporter out on a story like this and not come back with at least one reluctant respondent. It's what we've come to expect from the DOH, but not from press that is supposed to be more skeptical. Hopefully, someone with no axe to grind will examine the impact that this social experiment has in reducing obesity among the city's low income eaters.

Bloomberg's Business Accolades

In the NY Times this morning, there's a fascinating article about how the city's "titans" are on the look out for someone to replace Mike Bloomberg; someone who, just like Mayor Mike, is above the "special interests:"At charity balls and board meetings, on putting greens and in telephone conversations, New York’s corporate titans are on the hunt: Michael R. Bloomberg will end his reign as mayor in 18 months, and they are desperate to find someone from their ranks to take his place."

In the view of the corporate elite, the mayor has broken the mold, an indication that they feel he has done a remarkably good job at reflecting their own class interests: "They have told colleagues that Mr. Bloomberg’s financial independence, his lack of party affiliation and his corporate, by-the-numbers approach to management have created a golden age of New York City government that none of his would-be successors seem poised to reproduce, according to people familiar with the conversations."

All of this rhapsody, however, is a mask for the way in which Mike Bloomberg has embodied the corporate interests to the extent that he has almost made lobbying on behalf of real estate goals to be superfluous: "Business leaders, of course, have a vested interested in recruiting one of their own, like Mr. Bloomberg, to run for mayor. The Bloomberg administration is considered an ally to many corporations, especially developers. Rezoning projects under his watch have opened large swaths of the city to new construction. And Mr. Bloomberg, especially, travels in the same orbit as many of the city’s elite; he goes to their functions and they to his; he gives to their causes and they reciprocate."

Make no mistake about this. The chattering among the permanent government types is not a reflection of any disinterested concern for the public good. When they talk about "special interests," they're referring to those that counteract their own self-interest. What they like about the mayor is that he's not beholden to these countervailing forces, and has allowed their interests to flourish.

In our comments about campaign finance reform we have pointed out that the city's law aggrandizes labor interests and hurts business. In this case, however, it is more so for smaller business concerns that lack the resources of larger firms-companies with legions of lawyers and consultants that can still bundle large sums. Still, the mantra surrounding the law's passage was that it was taking politics away from those dreaded special interests. Nonsense!

In both cases, whether we have corporate toadies crooning about Mayor Mike, or council speakers rapping about reform, the picture is the same: certain interests are elevated while others are held back-stymieing the democratic rough and tumble of politics. And as the Times piece highlights, all's not rosy in Bloomberg land: "Of course, Mr. Bloomberg’s model as the chief executive-mayor has proved problematic at times. Many attribute Mr. Bloomberg’s high-profile failures — a stadium on the West Side of Manhattan and congestion pricing in Midtown — to his blunt, my-way-or-the-highway style, which is better suited to the boardroom than, say, the State Assembly."

In the Times piece, the paper also highlights the potential candidacy of our client John Catsimatiidis. Our less than disinterested perspective is that what separates him from Mike Bloomberg is a genuine concern for people-he's a product of the streets of New York and, while comfortable in the suites, has never lost his perspective about where he comes from. On the contrary, Mike Bloomberg is an unabashed elitest.

It is also, in our view, way too soon to bestow garlands on the mayor's accomplishments, and the benefits of the corporate model. We take issue with the following: "He hired top-flight managers, regardless of party, and judged them on rigid measurements. He took control of the school system and instituted a blunt new A through F rating system that judges schools on performance and on students’ progress. He pushed forcefully for a smoking ban, embracing an unpopular political fight that few career politicians would dare to take on."

An examination of the Bloomberg hires would yield a less than bipartisan picture since he recruited heavily from Ed Koch's old stable of retreads-and we're hard pressed to pinpoint the Republicans that have been chosen to lead city agencies. In addition, the mayor's educational achievements are less than meets the eye.

As far as the idea that no career politician would have taken on the smoking ban, the Times forgets that it was Speaker Peter Vallone who initiated this fight, and there's little doubt that he would have successfully finished it if he were elected mayor in 2001. Bloomberg, however, never even campaigned on the issue, so busy was he blowing $80 million worth of smoke on the voters of the city.

The Times piece is a useful depiction of some of the important questions facing voters in 2009. What kind of person is most qualified to run the city? Should business success be considered as a qualification? If so, is this the sine qua non of requirements? In our view, we need to look for someone who not only has a resume of success, but who also has the ability to empathize with the plight of the average New Yorker and see their perspectives and interests as important. Mike Bloomberg never has or will.

Partisan His Confusion

Last week Liz had an interesting post on Mayor Mike that dealt with Bloomberg's strikingly prescient observation that one part rule wouldn't be good for New York State: "Bloomberg did say that he thinks it's "terribly important to government to have multiple parties having influence. While calling himself "as non-partisan, I guess, as you can be," Bloomberg insisted that one party rule is even worse than the two-party wrangling against which he is always railing.
"History has shown that when one party dominates all branches of any government there's not the normal checks and balances to try to make sure all points of views are included and that the decisions that are made are decisions that try to encompass as many people as possible," Bloomberg said."

Quite the political scientist, isn't he? Of course, as Liz wryly observes, it is the partisan wrangling that Mayor Mike likes to give the impression that he is always rising elegantly above. We guess that the mayor just doesn't quite get the essence of the democratic political system; and understand how important the partisan wrangling is for real democracy to exist.

What it underscores for us is just how much the nonpartisan mantra is pure smokescreen for the personal ambitions of the mayor-and really nothing else of any substance. Democracy is a process, one that we often get the best results from when it gets as messy and contentious as possible. The great man theory holds no attraction for us; especially when the putative greatness is exposed as little more than high end store bought goods.

Testing, Testing, One, Two, Three

Ase suggested before, the NYC school test results are in need of independent review. And, as the NY Sun reports this morning, some experts agree: "A top adviser to the state Education Department is pushing Albany education officials to scour their test results for possible score inflation...The adviser, Howard Everson, a psychometrician at Fordham University who is chairman of the state's Technical Advisory Group and also advises the federal government on its testing regime, said he is confident that New York's tests are not getting easier, as some have speculated in the wake of large test score gains this year. But Mr. Everson said he is concerned that the rises in scores could partially reflect an inflation phenomenon, in which practices at the school level make test scores rise regardless of whether true learning has occurred."

Indeed so! And it's time for the educrats to take action since," Practices can include teaching test material to the exclusion of other topics; "gaming" to get around rules by, for instance, giving students extra time, and outright cheating."

For now state ED isn't biting on the review: "Mr. Everson and a colleague, the Harvard education professor Daniel Koretz, are crafting a research project that would attempt to isolate real improvements from inflated results by rewriting tests as "self-auditing assessments." They approached an assistant commissioner of the state's education department, David Abrams, with the idea last year, asking if New York would consider participating."David wrote that NYSED was not prepared to participate at that time, in part because of the workload it would impose, but he did not rule out participation at a later date,,,"

Let's hope that the department overcomes its reluctance, and that the current foot dragging isn't pure obstructionism. New Yorkers need to know if the current educational regime is above board and really working for the kids.

Trouble for Vornado

Vornado, the putative favorite for designation to develop the East Harlem site at 127th Street, may be in for some trouble. Aside from its attack on the people of Soundview, where it wants to evict the local Key Food supermarket, the real estate giant, it may now find that the land use review for the 127th street project is about to hit the skids.

As the NY Sun reports this morning, it's none other than Manhattan BP Scott Stringer who is saying to the city-"no mas." Here's the Sun's take: "The president of Manhattan, Scott Stringer, is accusing the Bloomberg administration of circumventing the land use review process to push through a mixed-use development project in East Harlem. "With no developer selected, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed dispositions meet the highest achievable public good, which should be the standard when disposing of scarce public resources," Mr. Stringer said in a letter entered as part of the review process. He said he does not support the city's plan for a mixed-use development project proposed for a multiblock site along East 125th Street, because the process has lacked transparency."

Well, good for Scott. After his collapse on the Columbia deal he's doing the right thing in East Harlem. As we've said before, no one should allow a ULURP to proceed without a developer and a specific plan. Vornado is about to face its own eviction in East Harlem, and if it continues to stonewall in Soundview, the company's grief will continue to multiply.

Bobble-Head Bloomberg at Yankee Stadium

In this morning's NY Daily News, Juan Gonzales zeroes-in on more Yankee Stadium boondoggling, a focus of Richard Brodsky's Assembly hearing today: "Brodsky, who heads the assembly committee that oversees public authorities, demanded the documents after learning last month that the city's Industrial Development Agency was backing a Yankee request for $366 million in additional tax-exempt financing to complete the Bronx project. The new request comes on top of the $942 million in taxexempt bonds the Yankees have received. Brodsky has scheduled a public hearing today on the entire project. It is likely to be the toughest public review the $1.3 billion stadium has received."

What gets us here is the over inflation by the mayor of all the job creation: "According to other documents IDA released to Brodsky, Mayor Bloomberg and former Gov. George Pataki greatly exaggerated the number of permanent jobs the new Yankee stadium will produce. At the groundbreaking in August 2006, Bloomberg announced that the new stadium would "result in about 1,000 permanent jobs." The actual job figures the Yankees submitted in their application to the IDA told a far different story. They show the Yankees had only 104 full-time permanent employees in 2005. Included in that total were all team executives, ballplayers, office workers and maintenance personnel. Barely half were city residents."

Is that the "progress" that Bloomberg is always talking about? Or is it just an old fashioned giveaway from the guy who isn't beholden to the special interests? It certainly looks as if the folks at Good Jobs NY had it right when they wrote the expose on all of this scamming: "To seize public parklands, win rapid permitting, and land massive taxpayer subsidies for their new stadium in the South Bronx, the New York Yankees hired numerous former public officials and benefited from the actions of a few current elected officials to play insider baseball, shutting out Bronx residents and New York City taxpayers."

And what about all of those jobs? In another report GJNY wrote: "Subsidizing this stadium is a costly and inefficient strategy for creating jobs. Even by the city’s account, many of the “permanent jobs” created by this project will be seasonal and low-wage. Compared to other uses of the money, it is difficult to justify spending and foregoing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue for poorly compensated jobs such as ticket takers, ushers, vendors,restaurant workers, and parking lot attendants. Jobs such as these would not effectively address thealarmingly high rates of poverty and unemployment in the stadium’s South Bronx community – the U.S. Congressional district with the nation’s highest rate of poverty. The surrounding community has been excluded from the planning process. Despite the massive sizeof this project, little or no effort was made to include community residents in its development. This topdown approach has created resentment among many residents, park advocates, and transportation groups. Public officials have taken great pains to expedite the public review and subsidy allocation processes while obscuring the deal from local residents. As a result, many residents believe the new stadium would not address the long standing needs and concerns of their community."

And let's not forget, Mayor Mike, how this deal-along with the Gateway Mall-makes a mockery of all of your sustainable development malarkey. As Good Jobs points out: "It was June 2005, and residents of the South Bronx enjoyed the return of summer while playing in their cherished Macombs Dam and Mullaly Parks. They had no idea that in these waning days of the legislative session in Albany city and state representatives were stealthily preparing to introduce "emergency" legislation in Albany that would seize the parks."

This is all along "Asthma Alley." As the GJNY earlier report points out: "The state-legislated seizure of two parks – Macomb’s Dam Park and sections of John Mulally Park –sent shockwaves through the area. Together they function as the South Bronx’s Central Park,and Macomb’s Dam Park would be entirely lost to the stadium and parking garages. The Bronx Borough President and local officials seek to plan replacement parks, but these plans have fallen short of what the community currently has. Instead, smaller parks would be sprawled about the area of Yankee
stadium. New recreational space is even proposed for the roofs of the parking garages, not ideal for a neighborhood with one of the highest asthma rates in the city. Other new park space would have to compete with the sounds of elevated subways and shadows from the new stadium."

Quite a story indeed, but kudos to Brodsky for looking to expose all of the shenanigans that have, so far, left the community without its promised parks, with one designated park spot full of contamination. And Adolfo Carrion wants to be comptroller? All of this is part of the mayor's tawdry legacy of promoting the special interests above the common good of the city.

Point and Counterpoint

The decision by CB# 7 in Queens to approve, by a 20-15 vote, the controversial rezoning plan for Willets Point may be less than it appears. As the NY Sun reports today: "The Willets Point Industry and Realty Association, a group of 10 business owners who oppose the rezoning, called yesterday's 1 a.m. vote "tantamount to a rejection," based on the long list of conditions the community board said would have to be met for it to agree to the plan. The community board "said we're going to say yes, but we're going to put so many restrictions on the plan, that we're not approving it," the owner of Feinstein Iron Works Inc., David Feinstein, said."

And just what are these conditions? The NY Daily News lays some of this out this morning: "Community Board 7 voted 22 to 15 earlier yesterday to back the controversial plan, though it had asked the city to give the Queens Borough Board veto power over the proposal after it goes through the normal land-use review process." For those of us with a bit of memory, it was the Manhattan Borough Board that came within one vote of killing the Pathmark plan in East Harlem when everyone assumed that all its approvals had been garnered.

The reason for this unusual situation is the fact that the city has yest to choose a developer or announce exactly what the plan for the Point will be; so this amounts to little more than the Blind Man's Bluff of land use decisions, and the local elected officials aren't pleased which makes the final City Council decision less than certain. As the Daily News points out: "But Councilman Hiram Monserrate said the borough board is "not the appropriate venue" for such oversight. Monserrate (D-Jackson Heights) is one of 29 Council members who oppose Bloomberg's sweeping vision to transform the so-called Iron Triangle into a commercial and residential megadevelopment. Normally, a project would move forward once the Council approves a land-review process."

It's instructive to point out that a similar process is at work in East Harlem with the city's Uptown USA project. Approving rezonings without the developer being named is a risky business for both local communities and for their representatives. After all, there are developers, and than there are developers. And if Vornado's involved in East Harlem there's sure to be fire works over that ongoing ULURP. East Harlem could easily follow Willets Point's lead on all of this.

Which brings us to the enlightened comments of the mayor. As the News indicates: "Mayor Bloomberg called local approval of his Willets Point redevelopment plan "a major step forward" Tuesday - and suggested some business owners are standing in the way of progress. "You can't let, unfortunately, a handful of people stop progress for the vast bulk of people or we would still be living in tents or in log cabins or not be in America at all," Bloomberg said."

Progress indeed. But the eviction of property owners is not an easy prospect, and certainly shouldn't be treated in such a cavalier fashion. If, however, the mayor feels that eminent domain and progress are inextricably linked, than what about ED and public health? He has, after all, made public health his signature issue.

If it is than surely he will intervene in the Vornado decision to evict the Key Food supermarket from the Bruckner Plaza shopping center that it owns. As we've said before, it would go a great deal towards legitimizing the use of ED as a public policy tool, if the mayor used it against the property interests of a multi-billion dollar real estate firm, and not just to bludgeon small property owners with less resources than the cantankerous Steve Roth.

Produce Stop-Gap

In this morning's Metro, there's a story about the efforts of the folks on Myrtle Avenue to provide fresh produce for area residents who are hurting since their Associated Supermarket was torn down ti make way for a development project: "The lack of affordable and fresh produce was so dire along Myrtle Avenue that a local group had organized a free shuttle bus to the Pathmark on Atlantic Avenue. That was until “we ran out of money,” said Eddie Leigh, board member of FUREE (Families United for Racial and Economic Equality).” Neighborhood leaders are now finding other creative ways to bring some fresh food to the area — projects that may also enhance public space and community involvement."

The new way here is a "Community Supported Agriculture group," and the effort appears to be getting some good local support: "Already, a decrepit corner of Fort Greene Park at Myrtle Avenue and Washington Park is transformed every Wednesday into a gathering space for members of a Community Supported Agriculture group, including Leigh, who last week got collard greens and squash from a Jersey farm."

We wish our friends from Furee well, but we know that the group's prime objective is to promote the return of an affordable supermarket that could provide the neighborhood with the full range of grocery products. Unfortunately, that may not happen since the new residential complex is expensive to build and John Catsimatidis, the development's owner (and our client), cannot simply subsidize a new market so that it can sell at a price structure the low income residents can afford.

This is ideally where city policy should come in. The policy makers and the developer should determine just how much the supermarket retail space is worth, and then a subsidized purchase arrangement should be worked out so that a supermarket can occupy the space with an ownership position that will insulate against the vagaries of the rental market. Everyone benefits. But without the city being proactive it's hard to see how Myrtle Avenue will ever see an affordable supermarket any time soon.

Bloomberg's Real Legacy

In today's NY Post, Mayor Mike Bloomberg pronounces the possibility of budgetary gloom and doom next year: "The budget cuts made this year to nonprofit groups are going to "look like child's play" if gloomy forecasts are on target and the economy tanks, Mayor Bloomberg warned yesterday. The mayor said he'd be thrilled to restore tens of millions of dollars to the nonprofit sector if the predictions turn out to be wrong and revenues go up, instead of down. But he indicated that's highly unlikely."

And while he's probably right, what's missing here is all of the opportunities the mayor has missed to be a true government reformer and not the expansive program supporter that has characterized his lackluster reign. With all of his money, and his latent potential to sell New Yorkers on a different approach to the delivery of government services, the mayor has missed a golden opportunity to be truly a voice for change.

In the process, wasteful big government approaches to all manner of programs have been left in place while Bloomberg has raised the cost of living and doing business in the city. Higher taxes and fees, and not just calorie counts, are inevitably on next year's Bloomberg menu. On top of this lost opportunity, he's allowed his acolyte Doctoroff to deed the development rights of the city to a small group of billionaires who have no idea how to develop with any sense of fairness or vision.

The Gateway Mall and Yankee Stadium projects will be seen as Bloomberg's true legacy-sweetheart deals with parks destroyed and small business evicted and scattered to the four winds. The fact that land swapped by the Related Company up in the Bronx was contaminated is the ultimate symbol of the mayor's development legacy. We'll give Patrick Arden of Metro the last word here:
"“Sweetheart deal” was the label critics attached to the $400 million Gateway Mall at the Bronx Terminal Market. How else to explain the tax breaks, cash grants, cheap rent and money-back guarantees that went to handpicked developer Stephen Ross of the Related Companies, a onetime business partner of former deputy mayor Daniel Doctoroff? Now, add millions more to the tab: Taxpayers are on the hook to clean up land that was originally part of the project... In 2004, Related was supposed to pay for a 2-acre Harlem River park, but it later agreed to transfer 7.5 acres of waterfront property to the city in exchange for a $2.5 million rent credit. The city needed part of this land to replace parks lost to the new Yankee Stadium, a Parks rep said. Last week, Parks officials said all the acreage is heavily polluted, pushing the cost of the new parks from $14 million to $56 million."