Bloomberg and Buttheads

We were extremely pleased this morning to read that Mayor Mike has finally decided to take strong legal action against Indian cigarette dealers. As Newsday reports: "After banning smoking in bars and restaurants, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is now targeting eight Mastic smoke shops, filing a lawsuit yesterday against the retailers on the Poospatuck Indian reservation, claiming they are unlawfully selling untaxed cigarettes.The shops can sell the cigarettes tax-free to reservation residents but not to others, New York City officials said. New York City said the illegal untaxed cigarettes sold at the shops means at least $525 million lost in state tax revenue each year, while the city loses $195 million from city residents making purchases there.
Bootleggers buying and then reselling the tax-free cigarettes from reservations statewide costs taxpayers more than $1 billion annually, city officials said."

Now this is an issue we have been hammering away on for over a decade, and the city's lawsuit follows the one brought by Red Apple Company's CEO John Catsimatidis. As Newsday points out: "The city's lawsuit isn't the only legal challenge to Long Island tribes over cigarette taxes. In 2006 Gristede's Foods Inc. of Manhattan sued the Poospatuck Smoke Shop and Trading Post, the Shinnecock Tribe and Unkechauga Nation in federal court in Brooklyn over allegations that the sale of untaxed cigarettes to non-tribe members had created a black market in illegally discounted cigarette sales."

During the current economic meltdown, it is all hands on deck time. This means that the city and the state can ill afford to disregard these tax scofflaws-no matter what specious arguments they may raise. All eyes are on Governor Paterson who has been exhibiting a case of cold feet on the issue: "Errol Cockfield, a spokesman for Paterson, said the governor will, in coming weeks, meet with leaders of the various Indian tribes and hopes to "reach a resolution to preclude the need for more endless litigation."

Which is, of course, both disingenuous and fruitless. There's no need for any further discussion-and if there's to be "endless litigation," than let it occur after the state enforces the law and the aggrieved Indians file suit. Bloomberg gets this exactly right: "I think the governor should go to the reservations, and say as of tomorrow morning, stop this practice," Bloomberg said. "I think he can make this decision and I'm urging him to do so." Bloomberg said he spoke with Paterson, who he said told him that "he would look into it."

Today's NY Times story is somewhat behind the curve on this issue: "The latest move seeks to go after cigarette retailers, but it could also entangle issues of Indian sovereignty, said Kathryn R. L. Rand, a law professor at the University of North Dakota who is an expert on Indian gambling. “It has legal merit, but I think it’s pushing the envelope a little bit,” she said."

Simply untrue. The issue was resolved over a decade ago when the US Supreme Court ruled, in a unanimous decision, that New York had the right to tax this off-reservation sales; and kudos to then NYS AG Oliver Koppell who successfully brought the action on the state's behalf.

Now we need all of our elected officials to act in concert on this-and collect the money that is going directly into this black market. The time for discussion has long past, and it's a Jerry McGuire moment for the Poospatuck: "Show us the money!"

Let the Voters Speak

All of the calls for extending Mike Bloomberg's term in office begin to remind us of the stench of insider trading. As we have said before, if the mayor was so prescient-and indispensible according to some-why wasn't he on top of this fiscal crisis from the get go? And isn't it instructive to point out that all of the culprits in the economic meltdown are part of Bloomberg's cohort?

Take Hank Paulsen; or, as Henny Youngman would have said, "Please!" Here's a guy, recruited from Goldman Sachs, who never had a clue and whose only interest in a solution seems to involve bailing out his banker friends. Here's Michael Daley's wonderful piece in the NY Daily News this morning: "No honest, hardworking New Yorker can rightly blame those hayseeds beyond the Hudson for balking at bailing out Wall Street. Just stroll past the new Goldman Sachs headquarters going up at the edge of Ground Zero with subsidies it squeezed from us in our desperation to recover from 9/11."

And who headed up GS at the time? "The firm was being run by none other than Henry Paulson when it shook us down for more than $115 million in tax breaks along with $1.65 billion in low-interest, tax-free Liberty Bonds." And as Daley points out: "Paulson assured us the financial system was sound right up to when it began to implode. He predicted a complete collapse unless there was what he called a bailout." And who was the mayor who approved this largess? Yup, that's right, Mayor Mike; doing what comes naturally-supporting his own.

The same good government fella who evicted small merchants from the BTM on behalf of Billionaire Ross and his Related Company-the same company who was given $5 million dollars in subsidies to supplant the Fernandez Brothers on Bradhurst Avenue. The same mayor looking to use eminent domain to evict Nick Sprayregen for Columbia University, and 250 businesses and 2,000 workers from Willets Point so that another fat cat can profit-all in the public interest; at least as it is conceived of by the NYC Partnership (partners with the people?)

If Bloomberg wants another term, let him call for a special election and put it to the voters. If that's not feasible, well, too bad. As the Villager points out, "Let the Voters Speak:" "Some would argue that, given the current financial crisis, it would be a good idea to allow Mayor Bloomberg — a self-made billionaire businessman and tested public servant — a chance to serve another term. Actually, we agree with that logic. That said, who decides on extending term limits? Should it be 52 individuals — the council members and the mayor — or millions of voters? We feel strongly it must be the latter."

Anything less amounts to little more than a putsch. As the NY post story today underscores: "Voters overwhelmingly supported term limits in two voter referendums in the 1990s, including a bid by then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani to extend the law for the City Council to three terms in 1996. The measure failed." Time to evict all of the insider traders.

Billionaire Boys Club

As if you didn't need further confirmation that the push to extend Mayor Mike's term was a conspiracy of the billionaires-the assertion of droit du seignior by the city's monied elites, all you need to do is take a quick peek at the front page of today's NY Post. There, in the interest of full disclosure, is Mike Bloomberg wearing a crown!

Why the coronation? Well, because it now appears that fellow billionaire Ron Lauder, the rich dilettante who gave us term limits, is now prepared to make a regal exception for Brother Michael, Here's the Post's breathless take on all of this: "Mayor Bloomberg geared up to seek a third term after the path to four more years was cleared yesterday when billionaire term-limits advocate Ron Lauder vowed to support a change in the law that would allow Hizzoner to run again, The Post has learned. In a surprise move, Lauder said in an exclusive interview with The Post that he would back a one-time extension from eight years to 12 years because he feels the city."

Let's make one thing clear. Whatever Ron Lauder's role in the term limits law may have been last century, he doesn't own the referendum-and it's not up to him to determine what the will of New Yorkers will be on an issue that has already been decided. But the editorialists at the Post, owned of course by the billionaire Rupert Murdoch, are in full and vocal support of the idea; along with the folks over at the News, owned by the billionaire Mort Zuckerman. Adding their voices to those of the NYC Partnership, controlled by the real estate billionaires, Steve Ross and Steve Roth.

Is the picture becoming clearer for everyone? Lauder wants to make a one time exception in the law so that Mayor Mike can continue to-what?-protect his own, and the rest of the city billionaires, class interests: "Because of the unprecedented times, this is welcome news. To me, Mayor Bloomberg's brilliance in the financial sector, particularly Wall Street, would be invaluable." He added, "If it wasn't for the fact of what's happening today in the world, particularly Wall Street, it would be a different story. But we need [Bloomberg's] expertise in New York."

This is precisely the thinking of those who spearheaded the rise of fascism after the economic collapse of 1929. And how did that work out? Perhaps, four years hence another crisis will occur. Will we need to make more exceptions? Here's the Post's editorial: "Let's face it: The massive restructuring in the financial markets is going to hit New York like a ton of bricks. The traditional up-and-down market cycles seem a thing of the past. Jobs are vanishing; tax revenue is drying up...And Mike has proven himself in tough times: He took office just months after 9/11, when the city saw a massive hemorrhage of jobs and tax revenue. He brought New York City back strong from that crisis; other would-be mayors might not have done so."

Perhaps they wouldn't, but perhaps they would have done a better job at restructuring city government than the ideologically tone deaf Bloomberg. That, friends, is what democracy is all about. The Post disagrees: "After all, it makes little sense to boot someone who's done great work for the city, just because of some abstract notion about changing leaders periodically."

That abstract notion was a referendum voted overwhelmingly into law by the people of New York. Can't get more concrete than that. It's time that the folks let the power elites know that they're not going to be ruled by an economic junta-tough times is no excuse for this equivalent of a coup d'etat.

Whole Foods, Half Baked

Well it looks like Whole Foods isn't gonna be coming to Park Slope anytime soon. According to the Brownstoner (via the Real Estate Blog of the Observer): "The Whole Foods superstore that's been planned for the corner of 3rd Street and 3rd Avenue in Gowanus will never happen, according to a source with close connections to the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the government agency that needs to sign off on the clean-up of the polluted site before any building can begin. Environmental concerns aside, evidently the trend in the supermarket biz has swung away from superstores, our source notes; in addition, in the wake of poor earnings this summer, Whole Foods announced that it would be cutting back on the number of new stores next year. The likely upshot? Even if Whole Foods decided to open a smaller store in Brooklyn, says our source, it's unlikely it would want to use this site. You buying it?"

Lost in all of this was some behind the scenes maneuvering by an unnamed state senator known for working the DEC angle every once and awhile. The Alliance sheds no tears for this anti-union operation; and encourages the city to promote neighborhood markets instead.

News Flackery

We have a suggestion for the good folks over at the NY Daily News editorial board: Just eliminate the middle man! Take today's paean to Mayor Mike, a missive that appears to have been taken without editorial interruption directly from a city hall press release: "Perhaps the most notable aspect of Mayor Bloomberg's latest budgetary belt-tightening is that there was so little howling and squealing in this city of howlers and squealers. The Armageddon chorus let pass the chance to declare that the apocalypse is now."

The reason? Well, it's none other than the mayor's demonstrated acumen: "Today, New York takes pretty much for granted that City Hall can hold the line on expenses without noticeably diminishing services. Bloomberg has done it before, so, hey, he'll do it again, seems the attitude." What a load!

Number one, no one really knows how much will need to be cut, and where the scalpel's blade will do the most damage-it's a little too early for that. But not for the paper's effusiveness that borders on blind sycophancy: "Such confidence is well-placed, given Bloomberg's track record in stretching dollars while maintaining services that are critical to the quality of life. But the accomplishment should not be taken for granted."

But what's fascinating here, is what the Daily News doesn't discuss-the mayor's call for a property tax hike. Shouldn't there at least be some discussion of what will likely be the most contentious aspect of the mayor's budget modifications?

Oh, the possibility is mentioned-en passant, as it were: "Between March 2007 and March 2008, Bloomberg ordered commissioners to make three successively larger reductions in projected expenses. More than $1 billion came off the top in each of two fiscal years. Crime went down, reading scores continued to go up and New Yorkers got $400 property tax rebates, along with a 7% cut in property levies. Now, as the Wall Street financial crisis has only begun to batter the city, that tax cut is in jeopardy."

So where does Mister Zuckerman stand on tax cuts in the middle of an economic downturn? And why does it take a calamity to actually look to significantly rein in government spending? Perhaps the praise here should be a bit more faint.

Not, however, when your wet suit is clouding your critical judgment. So, instead, we get the following: "The mayor believes the city can hit the targets without perceptibly undermining service delivery. Like many others, we have reason to expect he'll make good on his intentions - adding to an enviable record he could bring to a run for reelection in 2009. Which, of course, assumes New York comes to its senses and extends mayoral term limits from eight to 12 years, allowing Bloomberg to seek office once more, as he should, and enabling voters to decide whether to rely on him or go with someone new in the extraordinarily tough times that are about to slam us."

This could have all been accomplished, of course, if the mayor had decided to be straight forward and had simply put the proposition before the voters. Having failed to have such foresight, just as his fiscal prescience wasn't in place to forewarn us on the current collapse, it is not judicious for either Bloomberg, or his fellow editorial plutocrats, to look for a backroom deal to engineer a third term.

Lemmings Refuse to Jump

In yesterday's NY Post, Dave Seifman has an interesting column on the refusal of some of the candidates being supported by Mike Bloomberg to back the mayor's call for a property tax increase: "Every local candidate that Mayor Bloomberg has endorsed in the upcoming election is running away from his call to raise property taxes six months earlier than scheduled.
"I have enormous respect for Mayor Bloomberg's fiscal acumen and was proud to work with him to bring the city out of the 2001 downturn, but without much more information, I can't support raising taxes in the city at this time," said City Councilman Mike McMahon."

The mayor's call for the increase-especially if it comes on the heels of an overturning of the term limits law-is bound to roil every single council district where home owner neighborhoods predominate. The mayor's position is being heralded as both prudent and courageous-and there are those who hearken back to the 2002 real estate tax hike as a profile in courage.

It wasn't. It was a signal that the mayor really had little understanding about the way in which tax policy can help or hurt a local economy-and, of course, its tax paying citizens who foot the bill. 2002 was just the right moment for someone who actually understood all of this, to use the crisis to drastically streamline government and embark on the kind of efficiency program that any good CEO would seek to implement if her company was awash in red ink; instead, the rookie mayor went right to his philosophical wheelhouse, and raised taxes.

And he continues along these lines today. In his weekly radio address (via Liz) he tells New Yorkers the following: "Every single agency is going to have to do more with less. But we absolutely won't let City services suffer. We learned that lesson during the 1970s, when City government was on the brink of bankruptcy and failed to maintain our quality of life. Thousands of New Yorkers fled for greener pastures elsewhere, compounding an already desperate situation for the city."

Those thousands of fleeing New Yorkers were middle class tax payers who didn't want to keep paying for the city's attempt to recreate a municipal socialism on their backs-especially while the really vital city services like fire and police protection were being diminished. Read Ken Auletta's The Streets Were Paved with Gold for an understanding of what really went on; the mayor's obviously no historian, but seems quite adept at at least re-writing history.

One of the most significant variables spearheading NYC's decline was it's confiscatory tax policy, a policy making the city a poor place to do business. As Auletta said: "It was no surprise, then, that the Fantus company, the world's largest business location consultant, concluded in 1975 that New York had the worst business climate of the fifty states" (pg. 64)

Now pardon us, if we're not just a little taken aback by the mayor's current proposal to go to the tax well one more time. After all, wasn't it mayor Mike who, just a short few months ago, said that tax increases wouldn't be necessary even if the city was entering an economic down turn? Here's what he did say, according to the NY Sun's report at the time: "Defying expectations that the city would increase property taxes to help close a projected $3.1 billion budget gap, Mayor Bloomberg will argue today that the budget can be balanced without the pain of a tax hike. In his annual State of the City address, Mr. Bloomberg will propose extending the 7% property tax cut he instituted last year, initially presented as a one-time bonus, an aide familiar with the speech said."

Didn't our billionaire financial genius see the economic train wreck coming down the tracks? Aren't all of these folks bailing out of Lehman, Merrill and AIG his cohort of Good Old Boys? To us, the mayor's lack of foresight rivals that of Mayor Giuliani, who saw fit to put his bunker high up on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. You mean to say that our financial guru was actually blindsided by the collapse? We're wondering why any one would want to bring this guy back for a third term.

Columbia's Lebensraum

The CU Spectator has a fascinating story about the ESDC/Columbia expansion plan that was recently released. A key point raised in the document is the fact that eminent domain will not be used to evict any resident-at least until after 2018! "The plan’s line on 20 years ahead states, “ESDC would not use its eminent domain power to acquire possession of any legal residential unit prior to 2018.” University officials have consistently stated that Columbia will not seek to acquire any residential properties in the Manhattanville campus footprint through eminent domain—the state’s power to seize private land for the public good."

And after that date? What we've been saying all along-and the handwriting on the wall is right in the environmental review statement prepared for the university-is that the expansion will led to a massive displacement of area residents; some 5,000 folks, as the EIS states very clearly.

But now we're looking at something much more significant-and sinister: a massive removal so that Columbia attains the kind of gentrified lebensraum that it has always sought-never mind it's progressive political posturing: “We never were aware of these dates,” said State Senator Bill Perkins (D-Harlem), who later added, “The fact that they have such a date out there is scaring folks.” This fear has been voiced at recent hearings on the Manhattanville expansion. Community members have focused on whether the ESDC would be justified in using eminent domain to seize private commercial properties in the area and give them to the University so Columbia can build its campus according to the already-approved construction plan."

All of which makes the current Sprayregen lawsuit that much more important-it strikes at the heart of not only a legal monstrosity, but also at the core of the survival of West Harlem; because once Columbia begins its inexorable march you can be sure it will be scorched earth. And even some of the plan's supporters are, as they should, getting nervous: "ESDC Communications Director Warner Johnston explained that the 2018 date is “something we came up with, with Columbia. The project was approved and expressed that they would have 10 years to work with the remaining residents.” Despite the surprise expressed by Sen. Perkins and others, Johnston said, “It’s not a new date.” “We’re trying to understand what the GPP means,” said WHLDC member Susan Russell, who is also chief of staff for City Councilman Robert Jackson (D-Washington Heights and West Harlem). “We want to make sure that nobody gets kicked out.”

Maybe a little late for that concern, but hopefully the clear and present danger will provoke the supportive elected officials to take remedial action before it's too late. One approach that makes sense is for Council Members Jackson and Dickens, is to try to jump start the negotiations between Sprayregn and CU on the swap plan that could generate hundreds of new housing units; after all, there is no new housing in the expansion footprint.

In any event there's no real indication that Columbia has any clear vision of what a university partnership might look like. In this regard the comments of VP Kasdin take on the coloration of farce: “I think there needs to be a shift in the discussion from the notion that Columbia is involved in a transaction to the notion that Columbia has a long-standing relationship. ... Columbia, unlike a private developer, will be in this community and concerned with the health of this community long after construction is complete.”

Without any housing initiative-and in the face of likely widespread residential displacement, both direct and indirect-the Columbia expansion will likely leave the university without any community to partner with.

Slush Puppy

We didn't get around last week to comment on the news stories surrounding the fact that Mayor Mike had his own slush fund for pliant council members. As the NY Daily News pointed out: "Mayor Bloomberg used a secret fund to reward City Council allies with $20 million for their districts - some of it going to questionable organizations, he revealed Wednesday."

Now we aren't really gonna hold are breathe waiting for the spate of vicious attack editorials, much like those concerning the city council's questionable earmarking practices, directed at the mayor. A nice little chunk of change even went to an organization that had come under fire for nepotism: "Some of the mayor's cash ended up with nonprofits later linked to the scandal.
Among them were the North Brooklyn Community Council, run by the wife of Councilman Erik Martin Dilan. Dilan gave $30,000 from the mayor to that group in 2005."

But one newspaper did take the time to chastise Mayor Mike-and it was the NY Times holding his hand to the fire: "Each day, it seems, there is more news about how New York’s politicians — in the City Council and the State Legislature — hand out taxpayer funds as political sweets to friends and allies. The only one who seemed exempt from the game was Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Not quite, it turns out. As Mr. Bloomberg’s administration has reported, the mayor’s office has its own small pot of taxpayer cash to reward favorite city politicians who then reward their favorite local projects."

Well, not really so small, as it turns out, since there is an entire city expense and capitol budget at the mayor's disposal-and trust us, it is definitely used politically to advance the mayor's agenda-as it should be, since the last we looked it was Mike Bloomberg who the people re-elected mayor in 2005. The Times, however, would like to eliminate "discretionary" spending: "This process is far too prone to abuse. Albany, the City Council and the mayor’s office should eliminate all discretionary funds. Recipients should compete for the money as part of a normal bidding process, and the money should be allocated through the normal budgetary process. That is a good deal for all taxpayers."

Now we know that the idea of a "normal bidding process," appeals to the good government types; but this affinity too often misses how normal pure favoritism is in these procurement processes. We do believe that all money allocated should be a matter of public record-with the elected official responsible linked directly to the expenditure-whether the money is allocated one way or another is not that salient an issue.

Check Mayor!

In a column this morning, Liz Benjamin of the NY Daily News reports that NYS Assembly Dems may be in the process of delivering an ultimatum to the mayor about over staying his term welcome: "Assembly democrats may soon push Mayor Bloomberg into the ultimate Sophie's Choice dilemma, forcing him to choose between trying to stay in office for four more years or preserving a key element of his legacy. The more Bloomberg flirts with changing term limits, the less inclined some lawmakers are to reapprove mayoral control of the city's schools, according to one highly placed Assembly Democrat."

Ah, there's nothing like checks and balances, and Liz's highly placed source indicates that there are at least some folks who aren't buying the school nirvana Kool-Aid that Mayor Mike's been serving: "When school control was given to the mayor, there was a thought that he would be in office for no more than eight years," the lawmaker said. "The notion we'd be granting control so that this gang can continue doing what they're doing is not appealing."

The more the Assembly asserts its prerogatives, the more apparent it becomes how little our local legislature does so; and let's not forget that the UFT and Speaker Silver are perfect together: "When it comes to mayoral control, much will rest on the United Federation of Teachers, which is closely allied with Silver. The union hosted his primary night victory party at its Broadway headquarters. UFT President Randi Weingarten has said mayoral control needs "checks and balances," but the union has yet to take a formal position on either mayoral control or term limits."

Bloomberg runs real risks if he attempts to stay beyond where the voters felt his term should end-and his chaos-causing actions will reverberate throughout the city's political system, with unknowable consequences for the mayor and the current members of the city council. Having an Amen editorial choir is not enough when the city's chief executive, a product of the financial sector's culture of privilege, may become another symbol of Wall Street selfishness.

Supermarket Coalition Building for East Harlem

As we have already pointed out, there is a growing coalition of community and advocacy groups that are coming together to call for an immediate response from the city on the disappearance of supermarkets in East Harlem. Here's one report on the coalition: "The Harlem Food and Fitness Consortium (HFFC), which includes WE ACT for Environmental Justice, a leading advocate for environmental justice for two decades, and numerous other community groups, is sponsoring a Town Hall meeting on the need for more and better supermarkets in Harlem – particularly East and Central Harlem."

As we have said, the meeting was held, and was a resounding success; now it appears as if we're about to go into Phase II. The coalition, along with the support of Local 1500 of the UFCW, is planning a press conference for next Thursday on the steps of city hall. The presser coincides with the crucial committee vote scheduled on the Uptown Harlem development project; and that's no accident.

The coinciding is designed to dramatize the fact that the Uptown project needs to include a new modern supermarket-and unless there is some direct intervention from the council and the administration, the chances of this happening are nil. You see, there is city owned property in the mix here, and the only way to insure a supermarket's inclusion is to specifically carve out some of this public land for a truly public purpose. If, on the other hand, all of the property is deeded over to a developer, than the cost of the space will inevitably rise beyond the reach of any supermarket.

The right deal would be a direct one-with a local LDC in partnership with the supermarket to develop a carved out site along Second Avenue. The administration's rhetoric on the supermarket retention issue has fallen way short of concrete action; the current East Harlem site is a marvelous opportunity for the Bloombergistas to put their money where their public health mouth has been.

We'll give the task force the final word on why this is all important: "Advocates for increasing supermarket reach in low income neighborhoods, such as Harlem, complain that a lack of real food stores forces neighborhood residents, typically minorities, to do more of their shopping in bodegas. Those stores usually lack healthy foods like green vegetables and fruit, though they have no shortage of pre-packaged snacks and sugary drinks. Residents have to buy what is available, and are forced to make less than healthy food choices."

Michael One Note

It now looks as if the "inevitable" reinstatement of the property tax increase may not be such a foregone conclusion. According to the NY Daily News: "At least 20 City Council members have gone on record opposing Mayor Bloomberg's bid to rescind the 7% property tax cut in January, saying it would cause too much pain to middle-class homeowners."Many people think that raising taxes is a given, but for many of us, raising taxes is a heavy lift on people we have gone back to year after year after year," said Councilman James Vacca (D-Bronx), who is working with Councilman Simcha Felder (D-Brooklyn) to round up opponents."

Well, good for them. It's about time that someone stands up for the tax paying homeowners-and calls, hopefully, the mayor on his New York Times-driven tax philosophy: "You can't go back and tax homeowners," Felder said. "You can't do that until you try to cut a lot more and try to reinstate the commuter tax." The mayor, however, has a cut-and-run fiscal policy that has never systematically examined the way the government operates; and how it could work more efficiently. Bloomberg's too busy figuring out how to pay kids to learn and incentivize families-through cash payments-to lift themselves out of poverty.

All of these liberal schemes have been a distraction from the hard work that should have been done over the past seven years-when the city was flush. This is not simply putting money aside for a rainy day, which is a good thing indeed. It does mean, however, a greater appreciation for the folks in the boroughs-those who rely on clean streets, functional schools and public safety-who are struggling in the current economic downturn.

The mayor's notion of vital services is more expansive, and his Hobson's Choice rhetoric is misleading: "Bloomberg scoffed at the opposition yesterday, saying the money had to come from somewhere. "They can come up with another revenue source; we're certainly happy to do it. They could, for example, say that their neighborhoods don't need any services," the mayor said."

If Mayor Mike had been streamlining government and cutting the city's tax burden we would have beem seeing a great deal more economic growth post 9/11. Bloomberg, a creature of the financial markets, has simply little feel for the small business sector that does drive the economy; instead, his policies have driven these folks away.

And the real estate tax increase will hurt renters-residents and store owners alike: "Bloomberg will face opposition to raising taxes from outside City Hall, too - landlords and their tenants also fear the impact. "It has a direct effect on rents," said renters' advocate Michael McKee of Tenants PAC. Added Joseph Strasburg, president of the Rent Stabilization Association, which represents 25,000 landlords, "It's a disproportionate impact, real hard on the small guys."

Given the mayor's economic philosophy, he's exactly the wrong fella to ask to come down to Washington to spearhead any economic recovery. If he does go, however, at least the city might better understand the concept of addition by subtraction.

Wilted Greens

There was a NY Daily News article on the city's Green Cart experiment that we missed while away in August. Apparently, things aren't going so well, and as of August 18th, only 8 peddlers had been designated for all of those poor nabes that lack access to fresh produce: "Special veggie vendors who city officials hope will help tackle the growing obesity problem have quietly hit the streets. But all is not rosy with the so-called Green Carts. One of the eight approved vendors - who have the right to sell fruits and vegetables on the street in poor neighborhoods with specially designed carts - told the Daily News business is the pits. Monawara Sultana and her two daughters sold nectarines, bananas and other fresh produce to customers on East Gun Hill Road in the Bronx yesterday, but the Bangladeshi family said competition in the area makes it tough to turn a profit."

We just can't wait for the Consumer Affairs Committee to do the oversight on this fiasco; eight vendors when the city said it would roll out 500 this year? Why the gap? Are the vendors reluctant to get out into communities because: (1) there are already fruit and veggie stores taking care of the folks; and, (2) Demand for produce isn't overwhelming in certain neighborhoods?

We do know, however, that these veggie peddlers have metastasized all over Manhattan-so is it possible that there's a supply and demand equation at work here? "Spearheaded by Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden and Mayor Bloomberg, the initiative was passed in City Council despite opposition from established food sellers. Frieden argued that poor people are deprived of affordable fresh fruits and veggies; bodegas and supermarkets said vendors would undercut their prices."

Maybe we were wrong about the undercutting, but we also said that the "unmet demand" argument was definitely overstated by the city: "Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Linda Gibbs said problems like Sultana's will sort themselves out. "The vendors will find their niche," Gibbs said. "These are new markets they're entering, and in time they'll learn where the demand is and where it isn't."

And perhaps the city will learn that it can't repeal the laws of supply and demand just because it is conducting a feel good social experiment based on a false hypothesis. Meanwhile, we await the first concrete city initiative to promote supermarkets in the city; time's well past for these health firsters to actually put their money where their mouths are.

East Harlem Update

The Runnin' Scared Blog at the Village Voice covered last night's supermarket task force meeting: "Is it sinister racism or a misunderstanding of markets that shapes food policy in the city's poor neighborhoods? The Harlem Food & Fitness Consortium was looking for answers on Wednesday. Yesterday evening the group held a town hall forum to discuss the dearth of supermarkets in Harlem and other communities like it. Local and citywide food activists addressed a crowd of more than 100 attendees on the importance of expanding supermarket access in their neighborhood, and how that expansion could lead to healthy eating."

While we don't always agree with the underlying views of those who see the dearth of markets as some sort of racist conspiracy, the absence of supermarkets is a real problem-and we see the rising cost of real estate as the crux of the issue: "James Subudhi (pictured) of WE ACT for Environmental Justice, which helped organize the event, said that the market argument is a fallacy, and that the lack of healthy vegetables in Harlem and elsewhere can be attributed to three reasons: "Classism, free markets, and racism." Subudhi offered the numerous street vendors that peddle fruits and vegetables along 125th Street as proof."

This LA Times piece is more on point, and it's a situation that impacts both supermarkets and bodegas: "Across the city, a food crisis is unfolding in low-income neighborhoods, as one-third of New York's supermarkets have closed over the last five years, according to a recent city report. Most New Yorkers don't own cars; having a nearby store is important when grocery shopping means traveling by foot, cab or subway. Well-to-do residents who don't live near a supermarket can pay extra to order groceries online and have them delivered; poor residents must turn to the closest bodegas. "The sales have been down for the last nine months," said Jose Fernandez, president of the Bodega Assn. of the United States, which claims membership of 7,800 of New York's 11,400 bodegas. A weakening economy and rising rents and food prices have forced many to close, he said; the number of bodegas in New York has decreased by nearly 1000 from two years ago, according to his organization's most recent tally."

Whatever the reason, however, the compelling need for a government intervention is indubitable, since the issue is a public health challenge: "Advocates for increasing supermarket reach in low income neighborhoods, such as Harlem, complain that a lack of real food stores forces neighborhood residents, typically minorities, to do more of their shopping in bodegas. Those stores usually lack healthy foods like green vegetables and fruit, though they have no shortage of pre-packaged snacks and sugary drinks. Residents have to buy what is available, and are forced to make less than healthy food choices."

And, as we said in our previous post, a government solution is at hand. The proposed redevelopment of 125th-127th Streets on Second Avenue could be used to insure that a new market is available to the East Harlem and South Bronx community. This should become the number one priority of Council member Viverito, BP Stringer and let's not forget the mayor and health commissioner who have made this a putative priority of the administration without devoting any real resources to some immediate remedy.

To Market, To Market...

Last night there was a meeting of the Super Market Task Force of East Harlem, a community that is badly in need of new supermarkets but has instead been experiencing a loss of food stores as rising rents have forced out six markets-with an additional half dozen or so threatened with closure as their leases expire in the next few years. The crisis is a subject of a DOH report: "Supermarkets offer the widest variety of foods and healthy choices—but are less common than bodegas and are dispersed unequally through the neighborhoods. In East and Central Harlem, there are 2 supermarkets per 10,000 people compared to 3 supermarkets per 10,000 on the Upper East Side, which allows Upper East Side residents more opportunity to purchase healthy food. This finding supports other research indicating that supermarket density is associated with higher-income areas and areas with a lower proportion of black residents."

There is, however, one immediate solution at hand-the 125th-127th Street redevelopment project in East Harlem which comes to the City Council for a vote next month could include a new supermarket right on Second Avenue-but a certain degree of flexibility will be necessary in order to make sure it can happen. It certainly won't happen if the city just hands over the entire parcel-as it appears likely-to our friends over at Vornado Realty and Distrust.

And while we have a particular animus against Vornado for its efforts to evict an existing Key Food fro a shopping center it owns in the Bronx, the difficulty here transcends the poor citizenship of the real estate giant. If Vornado, or any other company, is designated it will seek the highest rent possible for a retailer on the site-probably $45 per square foot or more; a rent that no market could afford to pay.

There is a good alternative, and we have spoken to Council Member Viverito about this. The best method for guaranteeing a new market would be for the city to take a chunk of the city owned land and set it aside for a supermarket. By reducing the land acquisition costs to zero-after all, this is a public health crisis, the building f an affordable supermarket could get done on the site.

In fact, the city could emulate the original Pathmark deal on 125th and Lexington where a community partnership was devised between the supermarket and Abyssinian Church. This should be seen as an imperative since the recently released DCP report on the dearth of supermarkets in certain low income neighborhoods has made this-supposedly-a major city priority: "Three million New Yorkers live in neighborhoods with high need for grocery stores and supermarkets. Neighborhoods such as Central and East Harlem and Washington Heights in Manhattan; Bushwick, Bedford Stuyvesant, East New York and Sunset Park in Brooklyn; Corona, Jamaica and Far Rockaway in Queens...show the greatest need for full-line supermarkets."

It's time for the city to put up or shut up. All this lip service about the need for new supermarkets has not been met with any commensurate action. In fact, the failure to even consider a supermarket as a vital component of this proposed project is all telling. The land on Second Avenue is available and would be ideal for a new market-let's get busy Mayor Mike.

Error of Commission

As expected, the City Planning Commission voted to support the administration's plan to redevelop Willets Point. The lone dissenter was our old friend Karen Phillips, an appointee of Betsy Gotbaum. Here's Eliot Brown's take at the Observer: "The Council has about two months to act, and typically takes much of that time for negotiations with the administration. Willets Point is the most contested large-scale project to come before the Council in years, as a majority of members have signed onto a letter of opposition to the plan in its current form. A Council defeat would kill the project, and would be an unprecedented step for a project of this size in the land use approval process."

Which makes the following exchange between some of the EDC folks and one of Hiram Monseratte's staffers all the more amusing. When the fellow in question bumped into the EDC contingent, they supposedly regaled him with all of the encomiums that were heaped on the project by the various CP commissioners. It kinda reminds us of a time-quite long ago sadly-when, as a teenager I bumped into a friend who had just come from a maiden voyage, so to speak, at a brothel. When asked how it went, he told me: " The woman told me I was the best lover she ever had."

Such is the naivete of our good agency folks, who better be prepared for the more critical response that they will receive from council members. The council is particularly concerned about the abuse of eminent domain: "Also on the table is the use of eminent domain—never very popular among Council members seeking reelection or higher office—which the city has said is needed to guarantee that the entire 61-acre site can be assembled and developed. The existing landowners have vehemently resisted the plan, particularly the eminent domain aspect of it, and have been fighting back with a constant stream of rallies, lobbying and campaign donations."

Not to worry, apparently the Bloombergistas have all of this potential displacement under control. According to NY1: "The mayor's office has announced an initiative to provide training and job placement for displaced workers." Reminds us of the relocation charade that went on with the Bronx Terminal Market merchants. Not anything to inspire confidence.

As Monseratte told the NY Sun this morning: "The current Willets Point plan sets a precedent for community planning by decree, rather than discussion. The City Planning Commission's vote is further proof that the Administration is more interested in steamrolling this process rather than accepting the community's many pleas for collaboration..."

Which means, as the NY Daily News reports, that a showdown is definitely on the way: "The controversial plan to turn Willets Point into a glitzy megadevelopment got the green light Wednesday from the City Planning Commission, setting the stage for a final showdown in the City Council.The potential for the city to use eminent domain to acquire private land in the gritty industrial zone is expected to fuel fierce debate in the Council, which now has 60 days to cast a make-or-break vote on the project."

Monseratte continues to make the abuse of eminent domain a major issue: "Councilman Hiram Monserrate (D-Jackson Heights), who has led opposition to the Willets Point plan, called the Planning Commission's vote a "rubber stamp." He faulted the commission - and the administration - for ignoring concerns of the Council majority, who want eminent domain off the table, more affordable housing and a relocation plan for the 260 businesses at the so-called Iron Triangle."

So now we'll see just how much skill the mayor can exercise-and whether the chip of term limits will be played-in order to get this shot in the dark approved: "Last month, 31 council members signed a letter that expressed "absolute opposition" to the plan. The council vote will vote on the issue in November, and in the coming weeks the deputy mayor for economic development, Robert Lieber, will continue negotiations with local business owners and Mr. Monserrate." At this juncture, it doesn't appear likely that the plan will pass without major changes.

Where There's A Willets, There's a Way?

Today the City Planning Commission will vote, hold on to your hats folks, in favor of the Willets Point redevelopment project-institutionalizing the concept of the rubber stamp. In the NY post this morning, a strong advocate for the development, citing environmental reasons, makes her case: "The City Planning Commission will vote today on the Bloomberg administration's plan to transform the Willets Point peninsula. The proposals would turn what's probably the most polluted 60 acres in New York into a mixed-use development of housing, offices, retail space and parks, plus a hotel, school and perhaps a convention center. The plan has generated great controversy, but it fully merits the commission's OK."

No one we know would argue that the Iron Triangle isn't environmentally challenged. And we agree with Vitullo-Martin when she points out: "Kevin McCarty, director of environmental investigations for HDR Engineering & Architecture, has been studying the site. He says that businesses "are operating like it's still 1950 and you can paint cars in the street and dump whatever you want on the ground." Worse, he notes that even if businesses wanted to comply fully with current environmental regulations, they couldn't - because the infrastructure isn't there to contain and recycle the waste. "All this bad stuff goes right into the bay," he says."

Let's be very clear. The fact that the area's operating as if it were the 1950s, is only the result of the fact that the city's been treating Willets Point as if it were still the turn of the last century-having allowed the area to deteriorate by conscious neglect. So, in effect, we're at the point of blaming the businesses who have been systematically victimized by decades of neglect.

The argument, therefore, that the environmental hazard of Willets Point demands that the existing businesses must scram, is inequitable in the extreme-and Vitullo-Martin fails to even address the unfairness of the state's eminent domain laws that will leave the businesses with little legal redress. Here's how she sees it: "Seth Pinsky is the president of the city Economic Development Corp., which is overseeing the project. He says the EDC is trying hard to avoid eminent domain by analyzing what every owner has now and asking them what they need. It has settled with several owners and thinks it will be able to come to terms with most."

Frankly, Vitullo-Marin should be a little less sanguine about the official pronouncements of EDC. We saw how this agency gave the bum rush to businesses at the old Bronx Terminal Market. Why? Because they could; there was little of the political will we see on the Point operating in that most dysfunctional of political environments. In fact, the one real champion of the Bronx wholesalers was Hiram Monserrate of Queens-the very council member who's leading the opposition to the Willets Point eminent domain scheme.

So let's take EDC spin for what's it's worth-absolutely nothing, especially if the zoning is approved and the council's leverage is deeded over to the city and its repo agency. And what of all of the jobs lost? "Most of Willets' 260 or so companies are very small; together, they pay about a million dollars a year in taxes. But they also employ some 1,700 people - no minor matter in a city that has seen manufacturing jobs fall by two-thirds over the last half-century."

And most of the businesses that employ the bulk of these immigrant workers are renters, unable to even partially benefit from compensation reached through eminent domain negotiations. Which is why the City Council needs to say no to this development.

All of the discussions and negotiations at the Point needed to have been done before any ULURP process was commenced; and the designation of the developer and a project plan needed to be proffered at that time so that the council would have some idea about what it was actually voting on-besides the eviction of thousands of workers and hundreds of businesses. Once the council cedes this over to the city heaven help the folks at Willets Point; just ask the Terminal Market merchants.

The First Cut is the Deepest

As we pointed out yesterday, the city is now being forced to cut its budget basically on the fly-having avoided the more creative approach of really reinventing government that could have been ushered in after 9/11 when the city's sense of crisis was most severe. Instead, we get the more pedestrian budget cutting dance that Mayor Mike began yesterday. As the NY Times highlights: "With an eye on Wall Street’s turmoil and New York City’s fragile economy, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg ordered city agencies on Tuesday to cut spending by about $500 million this year and $1 billion next year. The cuts are to be made across the board, affecting agencies including the Police Department, which must cut costs by $95 million this year, and the school system, which needs to trim $185 million."

All of which is merely prelude to the tax hikes that are soon to come: "The timing of the announcement suggests that Mr. Bloomberg may be seeking to soften the political fallout of a possible 7 percent property tax increase, which he disclosed on Monday. The spending cuts, aides said, showed that everyone, including government, will feel the pain from a slowing economy." You'll notice, there's no indication from the mayor that it's really risky-not to mention bad economic policy-to raise taxes during an economic downturn.

In fact, the mayor's basic approach is very much in line with standard liberal approaches that see maintaining government as the priority over encouraging greater investment in the private sector. As we have pointed out, it is the billionaire financial serves guys like Bloomberg and Buffet who are the least likely to adhere to a low tax, more economic growth philosophy-since this sector is least likely to be impacted by property or income tax hikes.

But if we remember clearly, when Freddy Ferrer supported a small tax on Wall Street investments. Mayor Mike was quick to oppose the so-called "transfer tax," citing the way it would hurt NYC's economy. No such luck with other forms of taxation-like the real estate fees- that cripple small store owners; or the summonses blitzes that hurt homeowners and businesses alike.

Instead Bloomberg takes a "principled" stand in favor of strong cutting measures now, and higher fees later, to support the maintenance of a government service infrastructure that remains the same from when John Lindsay was mayor. As the NY Post points out: "At a town hall meeting last night on the Upper East Side, the mayor said the city faces "tough times" that will force him to reduce expenses and raise revenues. "It won't make me popular, but that's the job," said Bloomberg. "It's going to be annoying, but it won't be so painful that we're cutting any services. We're just going to have to learn to do more with less."

This do more with less sounds all well and good, but it reflects the failure to really undertake a government reform program that would reduce the size of government because it reflects the fact that society as a whole does better when government does less-the "more" in this case being what the businesses and citizens in the private sector are able to do with less of a tax and regulatory burden. This , however, goes against the tax more crowd at the editorial page of the Times, and with our good buddies over at the Drum Major Institute who see higher taxes as the true sign of higher civilization.

Here's the DMI point of view: "With the Wall Street bailout about to push our federal deficit over the brink, it is time that Americans and politicians face up to reality and acknowledge the relationship between taxes and the ability of government to protect and strengthen our country. For, as Mayor Bloomberg pointed out, if we don't, what kind of country will we be handing to our children and grandchildren? "

We are facing some hard economic times; and if we follow the Drum beat we'll soon be back in the fiscal morass of the 1970s. It is the private sector that supports the ability of government to provide the basic services that some folks need and others require. When will NYC stop its golden goose-killing policies? Perhaps when we have a mayor who's truly an innovator, and who understands that business is not only Wall Street finance and billion dollar real estate companies.

Tax Chickens Coming Home to Term Limits Roost

As the NY Times reports this morning, plan are being made to raise the city's property taxes-and the timing couldn't be more of a potential perfect storm since discussions are continuing around the controversial move to rescind term limits. Still, the economic climate for most city homeowners is no a propitious one for another round of tax increases-in spite of the sage advice of the NY Times editorial board: "In 2007, with the city on better financial footing, he and the City Council agreed to a 7 percent tax cut for homeowners. But this year, in May, as the national economic downturn began to take its toll, Mr. Bloomberg said that he doubted that the city would be able to continue the tax cut beyond July 2009. The prospect of higher property taxes can hardly be welcome news for residents reeling from skyrocketing fuel costs and a weakening housing market."

As we have said time and time again, we're in this situation because of the failure of the current mayor to understand the need to rein in the cost of government-and to truly appreciate just how much the city's tax and regulatory policies impeded the growth of business here. Coming from the financial services sector, an area that is fairly insulated from the city's taxing and regulatory arm, Mayor Mike has never really understood (or cared to any degree about) small business or other economic growth centers that are impacted because of how expensive it is to operate here.
It is why, for instance, that immigrant supermarket operators-one of the city's remarkable success stories- are opting to open stores in the south; but Bloomberg has remained oblivious over the course of his tenure, prattling on about how "high end" the city is, and will always be.

This incapacity is the focus of Nicole Gelinas' prescient piece on New York's "debt disaster" in this morning's NY Post. Gelinas warns how current city debt will be exacerbated if we raise taxes in response to the current revenue short fall: "But as debt service consumes more and more of shrinking revenues in the next few years, our leaders will be tempted to call it an "uncontrollable" cost - and hike taxes. In that case, people likely won't come to New York to take advantage of lower private-sector costs, because public-sector costs - taxes - will be so high, relative to cities like Houston and even Boston. The tax base would then further erode, as we wait for the ghost of Wall Street to re-appear. And all of that debt will have done us little good."

So now we come to a point where the days of wine and roses are ending and the mayor is being falsely lionized-by self-serving acolytes in the press and in the world of big real estate-as a savior in troubled times. In our view, we're facing some tough decisions because Bloomberg came into office in 2002 with no clue about how government works, and with a big government philosophy that exacerbated his ignorance. So it's a little late now to be innovative, leaving the current, in Mayor Mike's view, Hobson's Choice: “I said we will look at all the different possibilities, but I think the solution is a combination of expense reduction, which nobody is going to be happy about, and revenue enhancements, which nobody is going to be happy about.”

And the current economic downturn, when coupled with the hosannas for him from the press, seems to give the mayor a sense of droit du seigneur “I don’t think that this will be contentious, or at least very contentious, even though it will be a difficult time because I think the City Council really does understand that we are living in a different world than we did a very short period ago,” he said. “New York City has an awful lot going for it. We want to make sure that we don’t jeopardize or reduce or remove all our advantages.”

In the Bloomberg world view, our "advantages" are related to the "vital" services that government provides-there's no concept of how reducing the size and scope of government-and lowering the city's tax burden-can generate business and increase revenue. The real 24 dollar question is how the coming tax hike will play into the term limit debate; potential opponents for incumbent council members are already lining up, and over turning the popular will will not enhance their popularity.

As the NY Sun points out: "A candidate running for an open seat currently held by Council Member James Gennaro in Queens, Michael Simanowitz, said yesterday that he has yet to decide if he would remain in the race if Mr. Gennaro runs again. According to Mr. Simanowitz, incumbents who vote to extend term limits could find their seat harder to hold onto given the popularity of term limits with voters. "Any sitting council member who votes to change term limit laws is going to be a target — I have no doubt." Mr. Simanowitz said."

And any sitting council member who does so, while at the same time raising the property taxes on already over burdened homeowners, will face an electorate in an anti-incumbent mood that just may moot the entire term limits repeal.

Perversing Course

In today's City Room Blog, Michael Barbaro muses on the NY Daily News editorial in favor of a third Bloomberg term. As he points out, this is an extreme about face-or in our view, simply a sign that true love and rationality are quite like oil and water: "In a stark reversal of its longtime stand on the issue, the editorial board of The Daily News said that the city’s term limits law should be changed to allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek a third term."

City Room takes us back to the good old days when the News was inveighing against the whole idea as "shameless." Quite the right word for the editors themselves, don't you think? "The News has strenuously opposed revising term limits through legislation in the past. In a 2006 editorial entitled “Council Pushes the Limits,” the newspaper called a plan by members of the Council to tweak the law “shameless.” “Just what part of “no” doesn’t the City Council understand?” The News editorial said. “Repeatedly, it has urged the voters of New York to reject term limits, and repeatedly the voters have refused. But the Council keeps trying an end run around the public. Pitiful. Shameful. Shameless.”

Indeed it is, but the shameful shoe is on another foot here-and City Room rightfully points out, as we have also commented, that the News fails to address the issue of just how the limits should be rescinded: "The News did not say exactly how term limits should be changed – through legislation in the City Council or by a public referendum. That question has become central to the debate over revising the law, since New York City voters approved the existing rules twice, in 1993 and 1996. At this point, lawmakers and legal experts say, the most logical route is through the Council."

Not logical, more like expedient, since the voters will appears to be fairly immutable on this topic. Shamelessness appears to be epidemic when it comes to the lack of concern for the people's voice.

The Daily News' Hallelujah Chorus

It really comes as no surprise that the NY Daily News would be in the forefront of the campaign to convince Mike Bloomberg to over turn the term limits law-after all, the editors have been a regular Hallelujah chorus for Mayor Mike. So in today's paper we get the following panegyric: "Michael Bloomberg must stand for reelection to a third term as mayor in 2009. Run, Mike, run...Bloomberg and the city have both benefited handsomely from his service. For his part, the mayoralty transformed a once little-known businessman-billionaire into an internationally prominent public figure, one who was seriously and deservedly discussed for the presidency. And he must forge on."

Be still our hearts! But they do go on: "Put simply, Bloomberg knows what he's doing. And there's every indication that he's as fresh as the day he was inaugurated. It would be folly under these daunting circumstances to deny voters the chance to consider his vast experience and remarkable record when choosing a chief executive next November."

But that's a folly that the voters must be the ones to decide to change-but the News elides this serious obstacle: "To enable that, the law limiting mayors to two consecutive terms must be amended to give voters the choice to extend Bloomberg's leadership for four more years, should they so desire." Amended? The only way to properly do this is the same method used to encat it in the first place-a referendum.

The News ends with this rather amusing ditty: "Term limits were a good government reform. They were aimed at opening a political system stacked in favor of incumbents - a City Council and borough presidents who hung on forever. But mayors were never part of a permanent government." What exactly does this mean? And the concept of the permanent government has been quite nicely undermined to mean the rather mediocre governing class, instead of those power brokers that Newfield and DuBrul so exquisitely excoriated-and who Mike Bloomberg represents in almost a caricature of a Thomas Wolfe novel.

No, if the term limits are to be repealed, we need to follow Chris Smith's lead in New York Magazine:
"Which is one reason the mayor should act now if he’s serious about running for a third term. Giuliani’s personal popularity was soaring after 9/11, but his attempt to extend his stay in City Hall failed because it appeared to be (and was) blatantly anti-democratic. Bloomberg faces a similar hurdle: Even those who’d like to see him stick around are made queasy by the notion of changing the rules this late in the game. So Bloomberg needs to do it as transparently as possible. Sure, it would be easier for him to quietly back a City Council bill making the limit three terms instead of two, but that would smell of sneaky insider deal-making. Bloomberg should do it the hard way: He should ask that a referendum be placed on this November’s ballot. Calling for a vote of confidence would be sort of British, and essentially make this fall a one-man mayoral primary—certainly not a fair contest, but a good test of whether the city really wants him for four more years. Third terms are historically treacherous; Bloomberg could use a clear public mandate going in."

Getting the issue before the voters in a little over a month doesn't seem realistic; but perhaps a special election in January would do the trick. In any case with a property tax rise on the horizon-see today's NY Post story-it would be appropriate to ask the voters if they'd like to change the law on the mayor's behalf. After all, he told the Post: "Anybody that is in city government and hopes to run for office a year from November will have had to stand up and be counted on balancing our budget," the mayor said last week in a reference to council members he's going to ask to vote for higher taxes."

So let the fun begin, and let the mayor's Amen Chorus among the Best and the Brightest step up to tell their lessors just why Mayor Mike's continuance in office is actually good for all of us, and not just for the favored few.

Eminent Domain Fight in Albany

As the NY Sun writes this morning, a shift in political power in the New York State Senate could mean that the state's eminent domain laws could be amended so that property owners, who now really don't have many statutory protections, could be given more legal rights to fight eminent domain abuse: "A Democratic takeover of the Senate in November could result in changes to the state's eminent domain law, possibly complicating several of the city's largest development projects. State Senator Bill Perkins, a Democrat of Harlem, is calling for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain and said he is willing to push for more restrictions on the use of eminent domain, provided the political climate is right in Albany. "I don't know of too many other issues where you have such diverse and pervasive outrage," he said yesterday in an interview."

Currently, New York is one of a handful of states that has seen no movement for change in the post-Kelo environment. 43 states have changed their eminent domain laws since the Supreme Court's ruling on Kelo threw the ball back into the states' legislative courts: "With the Republicans holding a one-seat edge in the Senate, a changing of the guard in Albany could lead Mr. Perkins and Assemblyman Richard Brodsky to lead the charge to change the state's eminent domain law. "I think the Democrats taking control will mean a lot of important things and I would hope eminent domain would be one of them," Mr. Brodsky said."

As we have been saying in a series of posts today, the NY State law needs to be changed in order to initiate a level of fairness when property owners are threatened: "A land-use attorney, Michael Rikon, said an effective alteration of New York State's law would not be easy. He said the obstacles are myriad, ranging from vague definitions of "public purpose," which can be used in certain instances to justify seizure of privately owned property, to whether "economic development" is justifiable cause for land seizure. Mr. Rikon said the process of designating an area as "blighted" is flawed and added that there are too few procedures to allow private property owners to effectively challenge the state. Mr. Rikon, who said he favors changing the law, said that under the current law, "Every home can be shown to be worth less than a site for a Costco."

Mayor Mike, however, believes that the use of ED is an essential tool-but, according to a spokesman, only as a "last resort." What we're seeing, though, is that there seem to be a great many instances where the last resort is seen as an easily available alternative; and it's always the small business owner who's store or property is resorted to in the name of having it over to some better heeled business firm or institution.

Senator Perkins remains optimistic that some change can occur: "Mr. Perkins said he would be meeting with Governor Paterson this week to discuss the findings of a hearing he held last week examining the possible use of eminent domain for the proposed $7 billion expansion of Columbia University's campus. He said Mr. Paterson was "supportive" of his work on eminent domain, but said he had not discussed specifics with the governor." Much may hinge, however, on what happens on November 4th.

American Dream Denied

The abuse of eminent domain often has a harsh personal impact-something that is brought home in Timothy Williams' story yesterday in the NY Times: "The two gas stations sit at the western end of 125th Street in Manhattan, anonymous amid rows of vacant factories and lines of cars edging toward the highway. Even for service stations, they are modest: One has peeling green paint; the second, chipped red paint and an attached car wash. Each has only a few pumps.
But for Gurnam Singh, the businesses represent a quarter-century of hard work."

What the Singh's story represents is just how inequitable the entire ED process is, with property owners negotiating on the most unlevel of playing fields-with a government gun to their heads. In this context the comments of Columbia University are revealingly perverse: "Ms. Fountain said the university had dealt fairly with each of the businesses it had had discussions with in Manhattanville during the past several years. “Columbia University has successfully negotiated the acquisition of over three dozen properties in five years within the old Manhattanville manufacturing area,” Ms. Fountain said. “Many of those who sold their properties to Columbia have testified at public hearings about Columbia’s fairness and ongoing commitment to resolutions supportive of sellers’ continuing business and employment interests in New York. Columbia has a longstanding policy of not commenting on negotiations, though it is worth noting that the remaining two business owners are being officially represented by legal counsel in their discussions with the university.”

Of course this statement amounts to little more than "crackpot rationality," a term coined by C Wright Mills: "Crackpot rationality is reason unhinged from a larger religious and moral context..." As is the notion that Columbia treated all of its property negotiaions fairly, especially when the taking of someone's property without their consent is concerned.

Here's the more likely version: "The family said that one Columbia official in particular, Philip Silverman, the university’s vice president for real estate, had been “disrespectful” toward them. They said Mr. Silverman told them the state would simply take their property if they refused to sell. “He’s treating me like, ‘This is an Indian family — we don’t know anything,’ ” Mr. Singh said."

Now it's perfectly clear that the area in West Harlem needs gas stations-particularly because of its location right next to the highway. So why hasn't the city intervened here to accommodate both Columbia and the Singhs? The reason is that the city is merely the university's cat's paw, or perhaps partner is a better term. This goes to the core of Norman Siegal's legal arguments on behalf of Nick Sptayregen and the Singhs: a true public plan would have (or should have) sought to accommodate competing interests. Instead, the city simply adopted Columbia's vision-this is not a public plan by any manner of definition.

And in the process, an immigrant family's dream gets shattered: "These properties are the bread and butter for our family,” said Amar Kaur, 16, Ms. Kaur’s daughter. “If we lose this, it would be equivalent to losing everything we have in our lives. My parents have put blood, sweat, tears and time for the past 25-plus years to be where we are at in society today.”

The Singhs came to West Harlem when economic times were tough. as was the neighborhood: "At the time, crime in the area was high, and many drivers took their chances with an empty tank rather than stop at the Singhs’ stations, which were robbed at gunpoint with regularity, Mr. Singh said.“Everybody was scared to come here,” he said. “There were many, many holdups. What can I do? I risk my life all the time.” In the early 1990s, his brother was fatally shot during an armed robbery at the Queens gas station."

And now Columbia and the state of New York wants to simply eradicate all that the Singh family has built. We'll give Nick Sprayregen the last word on this travesty: "They are a prime example of the American dream,” said Mr. Sprayregen, who owns a storage building that abuts one of the service stations. “It would be a terrible signal to other immigrants who look at America as a golden beacon if someone could lose everything they’ve worked for because someone more powerful covets their property.”

For more on Sprayregen's position see his website-http://mylandismine.com/; and this article from the Spectator.

Epochal Battle on Eminent Domain

In response to last week's eminent domain press conference and rally in East Harlem, the Epoch Times ran an interesting article on the event: "Community members protested a new Harlem development project on Wednesday that is being proposed to City council. The protesters claim that homes and businesses on 126th street and 3rd Avenue, including the NY Dry Cleaning Academy where the protest was held, are subject to threats of forceful eviction by the private development using eminent domain, if owners refuse to sell."

The East Harlem community protest underscores the extent to which the use of eminent domain is uniting small businesses and local communities. As Richard Lipsky told the ET, the East Harlem development on 125th street has no designated developer, and really no development plan: “Unlike other development projects, with a plan and proposed developer, with this East Harlem development project no plan has been made and no developer has been chosen. It could end up being some residential, some retail?” said Lipsky. “But in this current economic climate, one wonders what will come of it.”

In addition, it appears that Vornado Realty and Distrust will be the likely EDC designee for the site-yes, the same developer/landlord that's looking to evict the Key Food from a shopping center that it owns on Bruckner Boulevard. So once again the property of small business owners is being handed over to a multi-billion dollar real estate firm.

Now wouldn't it be poetic justice if a movement was started to condemn the Vornado-owned Bruckner shopping center? After all, since the definition of blight is so vague and the concept of public purpose undefinable, what would Vornado's defense be if condemnation was proposed for its property since the eviction of the Key Food threatens the public health of the Soundview neighborhood? What is more a public purpose than the promotion of public health? And, if an area lacks access to fresh fruits and vegetables, that certainly fits for us as a definition of a public health blight.

The taking away of the property of the little guys needs to cease and desist. In East Harlem it is a hard working Korean dry cleaner, along with nine other small shop owners, in the path of the
condemnation bulldozer: "Damon, a local business owner from NY Dry Cleaners Academy, explained his predicament. His is one of the businesses that will have to sell or be forced out if the plan is approved. “The city told me, ‘We don’t want to use eminent domain. Eminent domain will be used only as a last resort.’ That’s just like me holding a gun to your head telling you, ‘I don’t want to shoot you, don’t make me shoot you, I’ll only shoot you as a last resort if you don’t sell me your house at the price that I dictate.’” Damon continues, “Isn’t that what happens in all those mob movies? Aren’t they in fact just making me an offer I can’t refuse?”

Exactly so. And turning the tables on Vornado would be just the right move to focus attention on the theft of property from small owners-for when was the last time that any taking was done from the mega-rich? Councilman Monseratte gets the last word on this injustice: “Eminent domain, as it is currently practiced in New York State, is a deeply flawed law and must be changed to protect everyone’s home and business,” said Monseratte."

Watch Out for the Undertow

It now appears that the Citizens Union is prepared to lead the charge against the extension of the term limits law. According to Liz: "Citizens Union is gearing up to play an active role in the still-brewing term limits battle and plans to not only voice its opposition to any legislative action but try to prevent it as well."

Hi Ho Silver! This may just be the beginning of a city wide grass roots movement to preserve the will of the people. Cu, along with other good government groups is setting up "citizen hearings: "Dadey also revealed that CU, Common Cause/NY, CU, and NYPIRG are setting up citizen-initiated public hearings on term limits "since there does not seem to be any effort afoot in the Council to hold a public meeting on the matter and take the temperature of New Yorkers." In a brief interview, Dadey said CU's goal is to create a unified yet diverse coalition of people who might not have very much more in common than the fact that happen to be on the same page regarding term limits."

Good for him, and caution for those who are headed forward unmindful of the potential wrath of the voters. Here's a portion of Dadey's Dear Colleagues letter: "As another part of our strategy, Common Cause/NY, CU, and NYPIRG, are in the process of lining up locations to hold citizen initiated town hall public hearings across the city so that New Yorkers can come and publicly declare their positions on the matter to us and their neighbors since there does not seem to be any effort afoot in the Council to hold a public meeting on the matter and take the temperature of New Yorkers."

We can wait to see the response of the Wylders, and those council members that appear to be scornful of the popular will. As Bill Thompson told Liz yesterday, the attempt to try to use the current fiscal mess to overturn the law, the so-called "Rudy defense," just doesn't wash: "I remember the same argument being made by former Mayor Giuliani and New York City appears to have survived and done well after that," Thompson said. "This isn't about an individual. This is about the people of this city, it's about this city. we're stronger than any one person...I think this city will continue to do well in the future, and while I think Mayor Bloomberg has done a good job, I think others could do well for New York City also."

And Thompson sent the following message to the city council: "I think the discussions right now about going to the City Council, and with all due respect to my colleagues on the Council, it's wrong. It's just a mistake. It would be, and I don't care how it would be dressed up, it would be a backroom deal. We can't engage in that. We need to respect what the voters of New York have said in the past, and that's where I stand, and I'm going to continue to stand there."

Can you get better political theater in NYC? Stay tuned; more turmoil and blow back is on the way.

Timely Advice?

In what is likely not anything that will surprise anyone, the NY Times today editorializes in favor of raising city property taxes:
"It will be tough to tighten budgets as the region’s economies reel. But regional officials can find a good example to follow in New York City’s response to the combined effects of the bursting of the dot-com bubble, a recession and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It offers hope that the current crisis can be handled without undermining essential government functions.

Federal aid helped, but the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg also raised the property tax rate by 18.5 percent in January 2003. Health and education budgets were protected. Other expenditures, especially on police and other uniformed services were sharply cut."

So, let's get this straight. Health and education budgets were maintained while police and fire were cut, yet we didn't undermine essential government services? And now the Times is saying that, in the middle of what could certainly become a nasty recession, we should raise taxes again: "While the city is likely to have to cut spending again, there are potential sources of additional revenue available. Property tax rates were cut 7 percent in 2007. A property tax rebate was introduced in 2004. Reversing these two measures could raise more than $1.5 billion."

Great advice. And if the city council and the mayor go ahead and do it, while rescinding the referendum on term limits, we'd pay to watch the electoral fall out. Remember where the mayor's approval ratings were in 2002. This double whammy will send them back into the dumpster.

Coalition Builds Against Eminent Domain

Yesterday's hearing on eminent domain brought together a wide range of opponents concerned with the need to change the current law in order to better protect the property rights of New Yorkers. As the NY Observer reports: "State Senator Bill Perkins, along with Senators Velmanette Montgomery and Efrain Gonzales, held a hearing this morning in Harlem where he said he intends to create a commission to study reform of New York's eminent domain laws. While most states saw a backlash against its use following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. City of New London in 2005, New York's laws went unchanged."

Small business owners and residents from West and East Harlem, as well as Willets Point, went from the state senate hearing and held a street corner press conference in front of Fancy Cleaners on 126th Street and Third Avenue-a business threatened with closure if the East Harlem development is approved by the city council: "Then came a press conference in East Harlem, protesting the planned use of eminent domain at all of the projects around town, but particularly a rezoning of the eastern portions of 125th Street to make way for a large mixed-use project, which potentially needs forced acquisitions. Willets Point business owners, the major landowner in the Columbia footprint, Queens Councilman Hiram Monserrate and other advocates all chimed in."

New York 1's coverage of the press conference highlighted the common concerns: "Dozens gathered in Harlem Wednesday to take a stand against eminent domain. Community activists and city leaders joined community residents in protest of what they called the city's over-reaching use of eminent domain to seize property for private development...City Councilman Hiram Monseratte spoke out in support of the residents who fear the loss of their homes. 'You can't just go around taking people's property to hand it over to rich developers. That's unjust, and it ain't right and it's un-American...'"

And in today's NY Daily News Errol Louis, while overall in support of the use of eminent domain, makes this strong point about the need to change current law:
"In West Harlem, there are a couple of business owners who don't want to sell their property at any price, which Columbia and ESDC say would cripple the planned project. The most prominent holdout, a man named Nick Sprayregen, is a developer in his own right, with a considerable number of business ventures and commercial properties in Harlem, the Bronx and elsewhere.
Sprayregen has hired civil rights attorney and public advocate candidate Norman Siegel to battle ESDC and Columbia and a series of lawsuits have been launched, along with a frontal attack on New York's eminent domain laws. Siegel and Sprayregen are perfectly within their rights to try and rewrite the law, and a re-examination of the 40-year-old rules makes sense. New York, unlike most states, gives broad leeway to agencies like ESDC to define when and how eminent domain may be applied, and only a fleeting window of time for property owners to object.

Sprayregen himself underscores this point in his own Op-ed today in the News: "Sadly for all New Yorkers, our state is the most egregious perpetrator of eminent domain abuse in our country. I should know since for the last four years I have battled the state and Columbia University - a private entity - in their threatened use of eminent domain. Columbia wants my land in West Harlem to assist the school in a planned 17-acre expansion in the Manhattanville neighborhood."

And just what exactly is wrong here? "The game is rigged, in multiple ways. Start with how New York paves the way for private property to be condemned using eminent domain. In order to take a house or a business or a piece of land (and, yes, pay "fair market" value to the owner in return), the state must first make a determination that the area in question is "blighted." But what makes an area blighted? Nothing but the arbitrary determination of the state's Empire State Development Corp."

And from this vague starting point, the process actually gets worse: "And here's the most frustrating part of all. After an area is designated as blighted and condemnation proceedings are announced, the person whose property is being condemned has no power - zero - to challenge the condemnation in a trial court. This makes eminent domain proceedings in New York different from those in every other state that I am aware of. Instead, property owners are required to file the lawsuit at an appellate court - where no witnesses are allowed, there is no cross-examination, there is no opportunity to raise new evidence and there is no right to discovery. Adding insult to injury, one's attorney is allowed, at most, 10 minutes to speak to the judge. This is inherently unfair."

In the case of Columbia's expansion, a bad process was actually further corrupted by backroom collusion: "Indeed, the entire eminent domain process works backward. Instead of a town or city first coming up with a comprehensive plan that involves community input and is shaped and formed through a deliberative and democratic process (with the developer only chosen by competitive bidding at the end), large, politically connected private entities typically go straight to the municipality with a plan that they themselves have hatched. As a result, these plans principally benefit a developer, not the people."

Is it really surprising that the rebuttal to Sprayregen comes from Kathy Wylde, the leader of the group that benefits most from the unfairness of the current law? As she tells the News concerning Columbia's expansion: "And we should applaud the fact that the government does not have to use precious tax dollars to bring this project to fruition, but simply the power the Constitution has created to ensure that individuals cannot defy the public interest."

Only in Kathy in Wonderland's view could a perversion of the Constitution be construed as a defense of this country's basic principles. Wylde outlines the concerns of owners, but never discusses the process itself; and only reminds us that their is always "fair market value" paid for property taken: "Unfortunately, eminent domain is under attack. Property rights advocates believe it is unconstitutional to condemn private property for almost any purpose. Anti-development groups claim that it allows big government to collude with rich developers to override the interests of the little guy. Bills have been proposed in the state Legislature and the City Council that would limit the use of eminent domain and slow down economic development in New York at the worst possible point in the economic cycle."

Of course, there's a big jump from "almost any purpose," to purposes that bear little relationship to the public good-an elastic notion in the case of New York State's ED laws. No one is saying that the device should never be used, but a better law is certainly needed to protect what should be seen as a basic civil liberty-the right to own one's own property unfettered by a rapacious local government.

Mr. Indispensible

Mayor Mike appears to be milking the current fiscal mess for all it's worth. As the NY Times reports this morning, he's adopting the line of his acolytes that the current crisis needs a continuing firm hand-his:
"The mayor’s high visibility — and the near-collapse of two major New York City financial institutions — have stirred discussions among his advisers and outside analysts about whether the turmoil could strengthen the argument for Mr. Bloomberg to overturn the term limits law and serve four more years.Mr. Bloomberg, asked at a press conference Tuesday whether the Wall Street woes bolstered such a case, said he could see both sides. “There is an argument for experience,” he said. “There is an argument for change, and I think it’s purely a question of what you think the appropriate level of balance is.”

Is there any doubt where Bloomberg sees the balance lying? Councilman John Liu has another perspective: "A third term under those circumstances, they suggest, might be less than appealing — for Mr. Bloomberg and for voters. “As the economy goes south, so will his popularity ratings,” said City Councilman John C. Liu, a Democrat from Queens. “No one, not even this mayor, can control the economy.”

This is starting to shape up as a real political donnybrook; with the usual suspects puckering up in the usual ways: "Still, many of Mr. Bloomberg’s colleagues and associates see an opportunity in the current climate to make a case for a third term. “He is uniquely situated to understand this crisis and to cope with it,” said Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban policy at New York University and a former Bloomberg adviser."

All of which should make the upcoming round table discussion of term limits at Baruch College all the more interesting, with Councilman Koppell headlining: "While we're waiting for the bill to be drafted, Koppell is scheduled to discuss term limits at an event hosted on Oct. 16 by Baruch College. Also scheduled to participate on the panel is Kenneth Moltner of New Yorkers for Term Limits; Richard Niemi, a Rochester University political science professor; and former city Corporation Counsel Frederick A.O. Schwartz. The event will be moderated by former Council Speaker Peter Vallone Sr., who is lobbying in favor of getting term limits extended. (Fittingly, the forum is part of the Peter F. Vallone Sr. Seminars in Government Lecture Series)."

Abusing Eminent Domain Protested

A diverse coalition of business owners, community leaders and elected officials will be attending a state senate hearing on the abuse of eminent domain in New York City this morning. The hearing called by State Senator Bill Perkins, will focus on the way in which the current eminent domain law fails to provide due process for those who are threatened with condemnation.

Under the existing statute, there is virtually no due process available since it fails to provide any real adjudicating venue for those threatened: there is no opportunity for a trial on the merits of the condemnation; a trial that would allow those threatened to depose witnesses, subpoena economic development officials, and conduct a discovery to determine whether the taking of property is either legal or necessary.

The foundational weakness of the eminent domain law lies with the fact that it has allowed for the perversion of the constitutional principle that property should only be taken for a public use. Instead, NYS has changed public use into public purpose-without, however, defining just what a public purpose is. Without an adequate definition, the concept is so vague and malleable that virtually any project can be subsumed under its banner.

In addition, in order to be able to condemn some one's property, the state must be able to determine that the area in question is blighted. As with public purpose, however, there is no clear definition in the statute as to what the blight term means-allowing for almost any area to be labeled blighted and, owing to the definitional vagueness, preventing anyone threatened with condemnation from challenging the finding.

Joining together today at the hearing, and a press conference at 1:00PM in front of Fancy Cleaners on the corner of 126th Street and Third Avenue, will be State Senator Carl Kruger from Brooklyn and Council member (and state senator-elect) Hiram Monseratte from Queens. These elected officials will themselves be joined by Nick Spreyregen and Norman Siegel, from the fight against Columbia University's expansion, and business owners and workers from Willets Point.

In addition, Nellie Bailey from the Harlem Tenants will lead a contingent of community leaders and small business folks from East Harlem. This group is fighting the 5 acre development plan for 125th-127th Street at Second Avenue. Thirteen local businesses within the site are being forced out under the threat of eminent domain that would allows New York State under its agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, to seize private businesses & properties for wealthy private developers.Tenants cite inevitable displacement because of spiraling rents as landlords cash in on the mega development that will provide only about 200 units of "affordable" housing, even that is beyond the median income range of East Harlem predominately low income residents.

Small business leaders and labor officials will be joining with the various groups-in solidarity on the issue of how eminent domain is abused on behalf of the wealthy at the expense of workers and small businesses. Expected to attend this morning are Pat Purcell of Local 1500 of the UFCW, Jose Fernadz of the Bodega Association, Alfredo Placeras of the NYS Federation of Hispanc Chambers of Commerce, Stave Barrison of the Small Business Congress, and Louis Nunez of the Latino Restaurant Association.

Self-Caricature

The following from Azi probably needs no comment: "Oliver Koppell, the City Councilman who is introducing a bill to extend term limits from a maximum of two terms to a maximum of three, said what’s happening on Wall Street helps make his case. “To have a mayor that is knowledgeable about financial matters is good," Koppell said, referring to the very real possibility that Michael Bloomberg would seek a third term if the law were changed. "And we want the financial community to have confidence in the city as they’re making decisions in this very turbulent time.”

But comment we will. Can you imagine all of the discussions down at AIG right about now concerning the issue of term limits? Gee, if we only know that Mayor Mike will be around-more than a year from now-for another four years, we'll definitely be able to navigate this impending disaster so much better. You really can't make this up.

Peter in Wonderland

Peter Vallone Jr. took to the pages of the NY Post yesterday and argued that the current mayoral control governance system over the city's schools-along with the crack oversight of the city council-was working just great, and he uses the old dysfunctional Board of Ed as a straw man: "When the defunct Board of Education controlled city schools, making a criticism was like throwing sand in the wind. Unaccountable panels of functionaries made decisions in a byzantine process. Everyone was in charge, many were to blame, but no one was accountable. The council can often be a harsh critic of the administration, but this system of oversight works much better than the old contrary relationship between the mayor and the board-appointed chancellor. That system made for high drama and good headlines but little improvement. Students and their problems were ignored."

Now, however, the buck stops at the mayor's feet: "I HAVEN'T always agreed with Mayor Bloomberg on education matters, but it's good to know he's in charge of them - at least I know where the buck stops. As a member of the City Council's Education Committee, which oversees the Department of Education, I can't overstate the importance of this fact. Even when you get stonewalled, the wall lets you know you're facing in the right direction. With work, you can chip away or knock it down."

Of course, Peter doesn't point out how the mayor's lack of transparency, the information hoarding and the no bid contracting, has generally made oversight into a pro forma exercise around a few highly charged but marginal issues such as cell phone use. Much of the end running that goes on seems to be operating efficiently-that is, it's made an end run around Vallone's consciousness.

So we read this morning the following from the NY Sun: "State school officials are asking the city's Department of Education to explain how it failed to reach its own goal of reducing class sizes by using a new influx of state money. State officials said 54% of city schools saw either class sizes or their student-teacher ratios increase in the last school years, despite a $106 million plan the department unveiled last year to reduce class sizes in high-need schools."

And this from the NY Post: "The number of teachers without classroom assignments at the start of the school year - but receiving full pay - jumped by more than 13 percent since last year, according to new data. The pool of teachers known as the Absent Teacher Reserve - which grew from 1,220 teachers last year to 1,395 this year - has grown annually since a 2005 teachers' contract amendment gave principals more say over hiring decisions."

But at least we can hold hearings on this, and get what? Misdirection and obfuscation; but we can feel better knowing exactly where the stonewall lies. Seriously, the current system does offer a number of improvements over the old structure, but we can do without panegyrics from our elected officials=folks who need to exercise better skepticism in these kinds of matters.

Chicken Little Wylde and Mayor Mike

As Yogi Berra might have said, "It's deja vu all over again." This time it's the fiscal crisis that is leading business leader Kathy Wylde to call for the extension of the mayor's term in office-mirroring the calls after 9/11 for the extension of Rudy's mayoral tenure. Here's how Azi at the Observer reported this quite expected cheer leading: "Turning to politics, Wylde said the financial crisis makes a “powerful argument" against Bloomberg being term-limited out of office.
“I think, and I don’t know this, but my guess is that he could have made up his mind this weekend,” she told me, referring to whether the mayor will decide to seek a change to the term-limits law so he can run for re-election."

Not to be out argued, our old buddy Mark Green rebuts this silliness over at the Daily Politics: "While today's Wall Street crisis is real, it'll significantly play itself out over his next 16 months as Mayor and doesn't come close to The War in Europe and 9/11 as calamities leading chief executives to rethink a third term in 1940, which worked, and a three month extension in 2001, which rightly failed. The 'indispensible man' argument is so Putin-like as to be unAmerican - and remember that it was Mike who earlier observed that he was against an undemocratic term limits extension since I've always said that the next guy can do it better. In a debate with himself, Mike was right last June but wrong today. If Wall Street's gonna be the excuse, why not just cancel the election and hire Buffet?"

Indeed so; in fact, this kind of crisis might only exacerbate all of the mayor's weaknesses, and at the same time encourage his imperiousness. For a full explication of the entire term limits debate take a look at the Gotham Gazette's analysis. The Gazette has a good section that analyzes what it calls, "constituent backlash." Here's a quote from Dean Birdsell over at Baruch: "This is not a good way to be having a debate," said David Birdsell, the dean of the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College. "It should not be a debate about individuals. It should be about structure of choice." For that reason, some members argue any change should be done prospectively for the next class of council members. The council, as a legislative body, could get all the benefits of a longer term (including, the enhanced ability to stand up to the all-powerful executive branch, experience to get larger policy initiatives passed, less reliance on staff members, etc.) without the political ramifications."

Would the backlash throw out the incumbents? "If thy made any change take effect immediately -- benefiting themselves -- political consultants say the council might see a backlash from the electorate, who could vote them out of office anyway. "There is a danger that the voters may revolt and might go in and elect (challengers)," said Shienkopf. On the other hand, the incumbents' popularity, particularly the mayor's, is precisely what's fueling the debate. More than 70 percent of voters approve of Bloomberg, according to a poll this summer by Quinnipiac University, but 56 percent don't want to see a change in term limit law."

Perhaps, but the mayor's popularity might turn out to be a thin reed, as voters see him reneging on an important public promise. And whatever popularity the mayor has, it doesn't extend to the council that would probably be seen as the major culprit in a self serving exercise. It does, however, make for one interesting political debate.

Spoiling for a Food Fight

In today's NY post, the paper highlights what is described as a, "Spoiler Alert," an expose of supposed violations of health regs by the city's bodegas and small restaurants: "Many owners of local bodegas, delis and other small food businesses are routinely violating health laws - and imperiling their customers' health - by transporting perishable food in nonrefrigerated vehicles after buying it wholesale, a Post investigation has found."

What's real here, and what's not? What we do know is this. The city's thirteen thousand bodegas and 15,000 or so small restaurants have been using the cash-and-carry methodology for the past four decades-without any kind of health epidemic that would be expected from the allegations that the paper breathlessly writes about today: "By law, such food must be transported at temperatures of less than 45 degrees Fahrenheit to prevent the growth of bacteria such as salmonella and listeria that can sicken or even kill. And meat and poultry, whose drippings can contaminate other food, must be kept segregated."

We're not sure that this is accurate, but we are sure that the city's small food businesses remain competitive and provide local stores and restaurants with healthy and affordable food and meals because of warehouse businesses such as Jetro. We also know that large out of town wholesalers would love to be able to deliver directly to all of these small outlets-at greatly higher costs to the businesses and their customers (most of whom are already paying drastically higher food prices).

And there are ways to keep products cool without using refrigerated trucks: "When told about what The Post reporter witnessed, Joseph Ferrara, director of the state Agriculture Department's division of food safety and inspection, said, "We've found similar problems." He said that in the majority of cases, buyers at wholesale outlets are not using any refrigeration for the food or "they're typically using coolers."

Did the Post examine all of these vehicles? From what we've been told, as long as trips are relatively short and local, there is no law mandated refrigerated conveyance vehicles. As Jetro told the paper: "Stanley Fleishman, CEO of the company that operates 58 Restaurant Depot and Jetro food wholesalers nationwide, said, "We do not believe there is a problem with transporting perishables because we have programs to address the challenge and customers who need to stay in business."

Nor do we think there is a huge health issue here; and in the absence of statistics on food borne illnesses, we really think that the entire article is a hit piece, a scare tactic, instigated by companies that are upset that they aren't able to deliver their goods as economically as the Jetros of the city, in symbiosis with the bodegueros and small restaurants, can manage.

Shelly's Shot Across the Bow

In this morning's NY Daily News, Liz Benjamin reports that Shelly Silver is warning Mayor Mike-who curiously never phoned him on his big victory last week-not to override the will of the people on term limits: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has a warning for Mayor Bloomberg: Change term limits at your own risk. "I think people will be angry at him ... and his approval ratings will go down," Silver said. "But he's got to make that determination, not me." "I'm opposed to term limits," he continued. "But the people still voted for them twice."

If the mayor and his band of merry men and women on the other side of city hall ignore Silver it could lead to four years of fierce fighting-beginning with the mayoral control of the schools issue that will come to a head as the current law sunsets in June of 09. Bloomberg can anticipate a fierce grilling and major changes to the current governance system should he go ahead and extend the term limits law in this fashion.

As Liz reminds us: "If the mayor does a deal with the City Council to extend term limits and then runs and wins in 2009, he would be facing four more years of wrangling with Silver - the very man who has stymied high-profile Bloomberg legacy projects like the West Side stadium and congestion pricing."

Science Fare

Just as we continue to see the ramping up of the efforts to regalize Mayor Mike, we find this small, but illuminating story from the NY Post: "The Department of Education's multimillion-dollar science project is falling further behind the curve - and leaving teachers' heads spinning.
A test that was to be a key element in a $60 million science curriculum, which had been unveiled nearly two years ago to improve subpar scores, is now being postponed for the second straight year. A spokesman cited "budget issues."

Another example of the way in which the DOE operates below the radar of an uninquisitive press corp-and if Bloomberg gets his way for a third Quinn-aided term, this failure of oversight will be perpetuated for an additional four years. Money is spent, independent review is absent, and we get the continuing soap opera of term limits instead of diligent governance.

Here's the final Post info on this typical DOE fiasco: "The DOE spent $30 million last year on textbooks and training for 2,700 teachers and plans to spend another $30 million over the next two years. "We really don't know what's going on," said a third-grade teacher from the Upper West Side. "I'm preparing my kids for reading and math tests [and] worrying about teaching science and preparing them for that test but apparently for nothing."

But that's not all. In this morning's Post-and thank you NY Post for tracking all of this- we get the following about the city's T&G program: "The Department of Education is shelling out more than $1 million to defray the costs of empty seats in under-enrolled gifted and talented programs - vacant slots that parents attribute to bureaucratic bungling." Another example of inefficiency-and with greater degree of transparency and oversight what else do you think will float to the surface down at Chambers Street?

Interminable Debate

According to Adam Lisberg at the NY Daily News, city council members are awaiting divine intervention before making any moves to extend term limits: "The natives are restless. But they still fear the king. They want to keep their jobs, their taxpayer-funded offices, their special parking permits - and they're willing to ignore the will of the people to do it, because they think Mayor Bloomberg is on their side..."The members we've spoken to aren't going to go out there and run it up the flagpole unless the mayor runs it up the flagpole first," said one person deeply involved in the discussions. "Nobody wants to go out there and have him veto it and then end up looking foolish."

Carpe Diem-Not! It looks as if no one down at city hall wants to get too far out in front of Mayor Mike on all of this: "The votes are there to pass it," said Lewis Fidler (D-Brooklyn), one of the Council members doing the counting. "Some would only vote 'yes' if the mayor would be willing to sign it - I would guess as many as 10. If the mayor opposed it, I don't know if it would ever come to a vote."

So we guess that,as we have oft stated before, it's up to Bloomberg to come out publicly here if he truly wants to void the will of the people on this issue-and run the risk of tarnishing his legacy, as it were. That is Mark Green's point, expressed well in yesterday's News: "Bloomberg has come to his fork in the road: One route ends with his reputation and legacy intact as an accomplished, nonpartisan mayor. The other leads to a dead end where no one can ever again believe what he says, which convulses ongoing city elections, and that allows him to run and then either lose because of a public backlash or win ugly, by the weight of his wealth." Indeed. And Green is also on point with the following: "It's one thing to change your mind on, say, whether the tax code should impose a 30% or 38% top rate or whether to continue supporting a war after it goes bad. It's quite another thing to do a 180 when you are ignoring voters to benefit yourself. The issue is not so much term limits, as Queens Councilman John Liu said, but who decides. "Is it 52 people - the mayor and 51 council members - or 8 million people?" Reasonable people can differ over whether there should be term limits at all, or if so whether it should be two or three terms. But reasonable people cannot allow ambitious politicians to veto voters."

Perhaps making a bad situation worse is the following tidbit from yesterday's NY Post: "Mayor Bloomberg wants to ensure that Christine Quinn keeps her post as City Council speaker before he decides whether to extend term limits, according to political insiders. "This is a lot more real than people realize," said one insider, speaking of Bloomberg's flirtation with a third term. "What happens to Chris Quinn is a big issue for him."

So Mayor Mike may not only want to give himself a third term, he may also want to insure that his "partner in government" rides along in a self made bicycle built for two: "The insider said the mayor is making calls to line up support for Quinn so he wouldn't have to deal with a new speaker if the term-limits law is revamped. She and Bloomberg have formed an unusually close political alliance over the last three years, a sharp contrast to the mayor's antagonistic dealings with the previous speaker, Gifford Miller."

But there's no guarantee of the speaker's longevity: "Even if Bloomberg decides to support a change in term limits from eight years to 12 - a move that would allow him and Quinn to run again for their current jobs - there's no guarantee she'd retain her powerful leadership position in 2010...Some council members complain that Quinn has been too accommodating to the mayor, especially in the last budget, which required them to slash $129 million in council priorities to restore cuts the administration made to schools."

The one compelling reason, then, for giving the city council three terms-bolstering its institutional power-would then be wiped out in the manner that Austrian independence was wiped out in the Anschluss with Nazi Germany. And in the process, all checks and balances would go out the window and a real coronation would inexorably follow; a real disaster for good government in NYC.

Term Limits are Healthy...For Whom?

On Saturday the NY Times outlined just how a term limits extension would aggrandize the health benefits of council members and their staffs: "But should they succeed, many stand to gain a significant financial perk: lifetime retiree health insurance that costs the city up to $12,600 a year. Those benefits could amount to millions of dollars in expenses over the next few decades, especially as health insurance costs surge, according to interviews with city officials."

The Times goes on to point out: "Changing term limits to three consecutive terms instead of two, as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and members of the Council have hinted they might, would allow those officials — and members of their staff — to hit the 10-year mark without having to look for a new job with the city." And just like that, the health insurance crisis that is hitting so many average Americans would be eliminated for the term extenders.

We are eagerly awaiting Ollie Koppell's public defense of the extension; that is, if his colleagues feel that he should continue in his well exercised role as term limits spokesman. Here's the Citizens Union's Take: "But the benefit could still open those who support changing the rule to fresh charges of self-dealing. “It’s great work if you can get it — and if you can keep it, because of the benefits,” said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a nonprofit watchdog group in the city."

Councilman Alan Gerson makes a good point on this concerning perception: "Like many council members, Mr. Gerson said that retiree health insurance is not a motivation for changing term limits because working for the city or state for 10 years is not an especially high hurdle. “Just about any council member who wants to can get a job with the city,” after they leave office, he said. As for the cost of adding council members to the retiree health rolls, he said: “I just don’t see this as a budget issue. It’s a policy issue, and it may be a perception issue — legitimately so.”

We simply can't wait for this to get a full head of steam. The exposure here will do wonders for open government for years to come.

Water Boarding Tripp

The NY Post reported on Saturday about the forced resignation of Jim Tripp, the current chair of the city's Water Board: "A respected environmentalist who publicly criticized City Hall's soaking of water ratepayers was forced out by Mayor Bloomberg yesterday as chairman of the Water Board. Jim Tripp, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund and a 16-year member of the Water Board, unexpectedly announced his resignation at a routine meeting of the panel in lower Manhattan."

Tripp is reportedly being replaced by a long time government bureaucrat, someone who know doubt, will be more amenable to the persistent mayoral soaking that we've come to expect from the agency that sets water rates. Here's the Post's take on his replacement: "Moss told The Post he agreed with Tripp that "we don't want the city budget to be balanced on [water] rates." But he parted ways on tactics. Moss, whose government service dates back five decades to the Wagner era, was the only board member who wouldn't sign a letter to City Hall questioning the rental agreement. "You don't do that until you've exhausted everything else," Moss said. "My experience and take on the matter is you fight this out first with various agencies of the city internally."

Translation-"I'm not gonna do anything stupid by rocking the boat and embarrassing the mayor for his inept DEP." This is another example of the imperiousness of the Bloombergistas. As the NY Daily News highlights: "Water Board Chairman James Tripp quit Friday amid speculation that he was forced out after slamming city officials for draining more than $76 million from the system that could be used to hold the line on rate hikes."Jim Tripp spoke out against what the mayor was doing about the diversion of funds and this is what he got for his efforts," said Councilman James Gennaro (D-Queens), who opposed rate hikes and spotlighted a controversial rental compact."

The way in which water rates are miscalculated in this city is an open scandal-even Law and Order did an episode on the issue-and Mayor Mike continues to allow the agency to run rudderless; with the clueless Emily Lloyd at the helm. The only thing absent here is the lack of a crane collapse that would force the mayor to act to insure competency at this poster child for bureaucratic skulduggery.

F Who?

In this morning's City Room Blog, Jennifer Lee reports on the fact that a Brooklyn Heights elementary school, praised by the mayor two years ago, may soon receive an "F" on the DOE's "complicated" grading system: "A respected Brooklyn Heights elementary school, so popular in its gentrifying neighborhood that it has doubled enrollment since 2002, is set to get an F in the second year of the Bloomberg administration’s heavily contested system of grading individual schools, which has renewed questions about the methodology behind the grades."

Questions indeed! Just another example of the smoke, mirrors and methodological miasma that is part and parcel of the DOE's educational governance system. As Lee enlightens us: "The letter grades are based on a complicated formula that gives the most weight to children’s progress from one year to the next and compares the overall number meeting state achievement standards with the number at schools serving demographically similar populations. As a result, the report cards can label even a seemingly successful school as a failure."

Does everyone get that? It reminds us of Tom Lehrer's ditty, "The New Math." "Hooray for New Math, New-hoo-hoo Math, It won't do you a bit of good to review math. It's so simple, So very simple, That only a child can do it!"

Perhaps so, but it may also mean the kind of bureaucratic obfuscation that allows the evaluators to come to any conclusion they want. It would seem that way since, "The school, Public School 8, was once avoided by the well-off residents of neighboring brownstones but has been the paragon of a turnaround tale in recent years, leading Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to declare in 2006 that if the rest of New York’s schools made similar strides, “the future of this city would be assured.”

It's time to set fire to this educational edifice-and bring some needed sunlight into the room. We'll give the last word to Harriet Brown, a Daily News letter writer responding to the paper's panegyric to mayoral control: " I strongly disagree with your editorial "Keep mayoral control" (Sept. 8). The law should at least be modified to add checks and balances. Our mayor believes that education can be measured only by test scores. So, too much class time is spent on test preparation. Then, if scores aren't what he wants them to be, he labels the school as "failing," closes it and replaces it instead of improving the school. Also, he hired highly paid business consultants who came up with hare-brained schemes. And he doesn't understand that sometimes schools have to be closed because of weather. Every child is an individual and learns differently. One size does not fit all. If mayoral control is kept, it should be modified to include more input from parents and teachers."

JackAssessment

In today's NY Daily News, Juan Gonzales examines the crack assessment techniques of the city in regards to the new Yankee Stadium: "In January 2007, the city assessed land under the new Yankee Stadium at 10 times the market value of virtually all other land in the South Bronx neighborhood. The assessment - not including the new ballpark - worked out to a fair market value of $275 per square foot. But a Daily News analysis of city property records shows that city assessors said land on a dozen blocks around the site was worth an average of less than $25 a square foot."

The city responded as follows: "Assistant Finance Commissioner Sam Miller denied that allegation. "Finance estimated the value of the new Yankee Stadium accurately and independently by using a standard cost approach for new construction, and by comparing the costs to other new stadia around the country," Miller said."

Yet, as Gonzales points out: "Among the most astounding disparities:
- The site of a VIP parking garage that will be connected to the new stadium: $20 a square foot.
- Land under the old Yankee Stadium: $16 a square foot.
- Land under the giant Gateway Center mall, currently under construction a few blocks south of the stadium: $9 a square foot."

Last we heard, the Gateway Mall qualifies as new construction, Could its low assessment reflect a further city aggrandizement of its owner Steve Ross (close friend of Deputy Dan)?" In any case, there is a lot of shenanigans here, and if true, would raise asome serious questions about the political integrity of the Imperial Mayor's reign. After all, as Juan says, the assessment of Bronx parks has already been exposed: "This column reported on July 27 that a separate appraisal of the new stadium site done in 2006 - one the city commissioned and submitted to the National Park Service - claimed it was worth $46 a square foot. "Our assessors jacked up the numbers and the comparables...to justify the stadium bonds," a veteran Finance Department official said."

Who knows, if this all turns out to be a fraudulent process, maybe Mayor Mike could say, kinda like Charlie Rangel. that he just got confused because the assessors started to speak Spanish. Que Lastima, indeed.

Ollie and the Public Pulse

According to the City Room Blog, Councilman Ollie Koppell isn't seeing any strong public response to his term limits extension bill: “I have gotten much, much less commentary than I anticipated,” said Mr. Koppell, a Democrat representing the Riverdale section of the Bronx. “I thought I would get a flood of e-mails. We have gotten, maybe, a few negative phone calls. People that I’ve seen on the street tell me only that they saw an article with my name in the paper. But they don’t say anything else.”

Well, if we were Ollie we wouldn't necessary get comfortable with this view-perhaps most of Riverdale was on summer hiatus and hadn't yet heard that Koppell was leading the charge to over turn the will of the people. We're pretty certain that, once the folks are all back and paying attention, the veteran legislator will be hearing from his constituents. The blow back hasn't even gotten a good head of steam yet.

What's as interesting, and unsurprising coming from a thirty year office holder, is Koppell's negative take on direct democracy: “Personally, I don’t favor legislation by referendum,” Mr. Koppell said in an interview this week. “If you look at California, they have referendums on all kinds of things. And they are not necessarily in the best interest of the public.”

So what we have here is someone who not only believes in legislative longevity-ad nauseum, so to speak-but also the superior wisdom of the legislator: “I served for 23 years in the state Assembly, and I can tell you that some of the most effective people in the Legislature have been there for some time,” he said. “In fact, I always wanted the issue of extending term limits to come up while in office, because I always wanted to have a role in trying to change the laws.”

One could also observe that some of those long standing legislators-stamped with an indelible incumbency-have also been, well, crooks and dolts. Current headlines underscore this point: "Disgraced ex-lawmaker and union boss Brian McLaughlin is a secret witness in an FBI probe that led to Wednesday's arrest of a Queens pol on influence-peddling charges, the Daily News has learned. The ongoing investigation - which featured an undercover FBI agent trolling the Assembly floor for corrupt pols - has snared its first collar: Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio (D-Ozone Park)."

So this is all a fascinating political science debate-except for the inconvenient fact that Ollie's arguments are the most tendentious kind-those uttered with unmistakable self interest. Some of this quality is captured in his following observations: “In New York City, we have made it much easier for insurgents to run and to have a shot at beating an incumbent,” he said. “I haven’t seen a great hue and cry for term limits for State Legislature or for members of Congress. So, I don’t see the rationale for a system where council people should have term limits and no one else. It doesn’t make sense.”

Of course, it is next to impossible for term limits to be extended to the state and federal levels, given the onerous-no, nigh impossible-referendum process in New York State. If we could put term limits for all office holders on a statewide referendum, does Oliver Koppell truly believe that it wouldn't pass overwhelmingly?

Meanwhile, Tony Avella, has a different outlook, as the NY Sun reports today: "Council Member Tony Avella, who represents parts of Queens, said yesterday that he has directed the council's legal division to draft the legislation, which would require that any changes to term limits be enacted through a voter referendum." This, as the NY Daily News points out today, puts Speaker Quinn square in the middle. In our view, Koppell has a better measure of the pulse of his colleagues; Avella, however, better mirrors the depth of popular sentiment on this contentious issue. Where the Speaker stands remains, one might say, fluctuatingly contingent.

Thanks to Liz for the link.

Educating Educators

This just in from the NY Post; the DOE has just devised another management gimmick designed to help city schools become better at educating our kids: "The Department of Education is assembling a million-dollar team charged with getting schools to learn from one another how best to educate their students, The Post has learned. The 10-person team will have a budget of more than $1 million and will be headed by a "director of knowledge management." The initiative will create a computerized "warehouse" that will allow schools to share ideas about organization, scheduling and other aspects of educating kids."

Oh, good grief! Another whiz kid style management approach from an unaccountable agency that hasn't really figured out how to do simple teaching with any degree of efficiency. But the innovations, unexamined by any one without an axe to grind, just keep coming-shining examples no doubt, that will soon be on Power Point display before the bribed and the bought.

And check this management team concept out: "One will help about 20 schools learn how to pinpoint concepts students are struggling with, and the other will show teachers at 25 middle schools how to tailor their lessons for each student." This is simply the marriage of an old educating dowager with a young management stud. More smoke and mirrors from a department whose time may be about to come to a deserved end.

Bloomberg's Dream

In this week's Village Voice, Tom Robbins depicts a poignant dream sequence. After toying with us for the better part of a year on a non run for the presidency, Mayor Mike is now engaged in similar musings over term limits:
"Bloomberg looked at the daylight seeping past the drawn curtains in the shrouded bedroom. He wondered if he should fly the jet down to the Bahamas this weekend or just hang out at the horse farm in North Salem. And then the feeling returned in a rush. His pulse leaped as it hit him: Term limits! He had decided to crush them! At the end of the dinner, Steve Rattner and Jerry Speyer—Bloomberg considered them both solid guys who understood politics the way only successful businessmen can—had taken him aside and pushed him hard about a third term. The city needs him, they insisted. He had plans to finish. Most of all, the wannabe mayors waiting in the wings were second-rate. Nobody can handle this city like you, they said. "Aren't you forgetting a little something?" he said. "Like the two-term limit and the two referendums that approved it?" Not a problem, they responded. What he needed to do was to get Quinn to pass a bill adding one more term."

And now the mayor's dream is threatening to turn into the city's nightmare, as the entire election cycle is being put into disarray because of the mayor's speculations-and the thought that Speaker Quinn, weakened by scandals at the council, would jump at an additional four years: ""Oh, I don't think so," Bloomberg shot back. "I thought the Council Speaker was pretty definite back in December when she announced she wouldn't change the rules. I think she said it was her 'firm and final position."
"Rattner looked at him queerly. "Are you kidding?" he asked. "She'd jump at it. She knows her City Hall hopes went down the drain with that funding probe. She'd love to just get another term as Speaker, maybe give people time to forget her little problem."

And so she may, as long as the mayor publicly signals that he'll support the legislative efforts on this. What Robbins underscores, is the extent to which all of this speculation is undergirded by the city's power elite-and the likely cheer leading from the fourth estate: "Not a problem," said Speyer. "Count on it. Hell, I bet Rupert will put you on the Post's front page every day, like he did for Koch in '82 when he got him to run for governor. And I've spoken to Mort Zuckerman. He loves the idea. He says he'll have his hitmen on the News editorial page rip to shreds anyone who gets in your way. Sulzberger won't say it outright, but talk to him. He's for it."

Now, however, the time for dreaming must end; Mike Bloomberg, avoiding serious scrutiny and bolstered by a rather incurious media, is nowhere near as indispensable as those who have benefited lavishly from his tenure would have you believe. Let's not forget just how laughable the Bloomberg candidacy was in the Spring of 2001. There are capable people waiting in the wings. Bloomberg is one hell of a charitable guy, so we suggest he do the right thing here; New York would receive no better gift than his timely departure.

Mike Bloomberg: The Real Mc-Coy

Mike Bloomberg just can't seem to help himself-but the faux coyness really is unbecoming. As the NY Daily News reports this morning, Mayor Mike is still playing footsie on the term limits question: "Mayor Bloomberg vowed Tuesday to veto a bill that would end term limits but admitted for the first time that "discussions are going on" about extending them.
Bloomberg said he would "think long and hard" about a measure to extend the limits to three terms from two. "I have been lobbied by both sides continuously over the last few weeks and I'll just have to see what the details are," Bloomberg said. "I do think term limits are a good idea, and whether it should be two or three is an interesting discussion, but if this bill were to end term limits I'd certainly veto it."

What a load of... Mayor Mike doesn't need to await the reading of the fine print on legislation that would allow him a third term in order to be able to decide its merits. That's a decision he can, and should, make now! Without all of the peek-a-boo nonsense that we're getting from this great decisive leader.

The late civil rights attorney Flo Kennedy used to lecture about how politicians like to serve up manure disguised as "bridge mix." You know, when you got close enough to smell it, or God forbid, taste it, you quickly realized that it was pure sh*t. So with the mayor: "I'm not sure what I should do. Clearly there is a discussion going on in the city about whether two or three terms is appropriate," he admitted for the first time since sparking the political storm several weeks ago by hinting he may be open to a revision."

Can you believe the level of disingenuousness here? Mayor Mike wants to stay on, but doesn't have the cajones to come right out and say it. You know, three terms may be better than two.... Please! The question here is not about some esoteric government policy, but whether, in order to self-perpetuate, law makers should vote to override the will of the voters. As one Daily News commenter, getting the last word here, points out: "Bloomberg said that there's an ongoing discussion about extending term limits. He's the only one keeping it going the rest of us have already gone on record as to how we feel about the subject. Maybe the mayor should stop fanning the fires and just hold his breath. For a long long time!"

Net Gains Coming

According to the NY Times, it appears that the long awaited ground breaking for the Nets arena may finally be here: "The developer Bruce C. Ratner has told state and city officials that he plans to break ground in December on his long-delayed $4 billion Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, which will feature thousands of apartments and offices in 16 towers built around a glamorous basketball arena for the Nets."

We can only hope so, since the arena and the team would be a huge boost, not only for the city, but for the thousands of young people that are playing ball in Brooklyn harboring the dream of playing professionally. It will be inspiring for these youngsters, and the Nets will be partnering with the amateur sports groups in the borough to channel the dreams into constructive directions for those majority of young people whose dreams are not commensurate with professional talent.

At the same time, the project will be a big economic boost for the city at a time when the both the mayor and the governor are looking to raise taxes to cover revenue shortfalls; but it hasn't been easy for FCRC (also our client): "But it is unclear whether Mr. Ratner will be able to meet his own deadline to start one of the most ambitious projects in Brooklyn in decades, given the softening economy, the crisis in the debt markets, rising costs and a persistent group of opponents who have filed one lawsuit after another."

There are those who have criticized us for alleged inconsistency over the issue of eminent domain because of our opposition to the efforts of Columbia. That being said, the two projects substantially differ in regards to their relationship to the public interest. Forest City's going to build thousands of affordable housing units, while Columbia resists doing anything substantive for the West Harlem community-and this is without factoring in the economic and social boost that the Nets relocation will bring to Brooklyn.

Still, much may depend on a favorable tax ruling that will give the developer the funds to proceed: "But that financing plan for the arena, known as Barclays Center, is dependent on a favorable ruling by the Treasury Department in the coming weeks that would allow Mr. Ratner to use tax-exempt bonds and a final victory over court challenges. If he is barred from using tax-exempt bonds, his costs will increase substantially for what would already be the most expensive arena in the world."

Let's hope it works out. We're looking forward to a vibrant partnership between the Nets, the borough of Brooklyn, and the city of New York.

Non Kosher Practices

Agriprocessors, a Kosher meat packing plant in Iowa has been hit with child labor charges. According to the NY Sun the plant, also facing an organizing campaign in a Brooklyn facility from Local 342 of the UFCW, "The owner and managers of the nation's largest kosher meatpacking plant were charged yesterday with more than 9,000 misdemeanors alleging they hired minors and had children younger than 16 handle dangerous equipment such as circular saws and meat grinders."

The company has also been cited in the past with health and safety violations-and questions about the way in which all of the Kosher meat is processed. In the latest episode, immigrant children are alleged to have been exposed to dangerous chemicals as well: "The complaint filed by the Iowa attorney general's office said the violations involved 32 illegal-immigrant children under age 18, including seven who were younger than 16. Aside from handling dangerous equipment, the complaint says children were exposed to dangerous chemicals such as chlorine solutions and dry ice."

The company is owned by the Rabashkin family of Brooklyn, and its owners could face even more tsuris if it continues to exploit immigrant labor and run shoddy facilities. We expect that others will join with the UFCW in Brooklyn to pressure Agriprocessors to reform its operating methods.

Consumption Cops

Elizabeth Whalen lashes out at the DOH food police in this morning's NY Post: "IF the city Health Department gets its way, government officials - local, state and federal - will soon be deciding what you can and can't eat. Writing in The Journal of the American Medical Association last month, Drs. Lynn Silver and Mary Bassett (both of the Health Department) argue that Americans eat too much fat, sugar, salt and calories and that it's up to government to take urgent action to protect citizens from "unhealthy food" - in other words, to protect people from themselves."

Now Lynn is a friend of ours, and she's one of the nicest people we know; but her ideas, on the other hand, well, we just don't agree with her whole approach to the country's health problems. Frankly, the cure they suggest is much worse than the disease. In fact, it smacks of the kind of "liberal fascism" that Jonah Goldberg chronicles so well.

The phenomenon in question encompasses the impulse to compel folks to behave better-in their own interest of course, but the larger public good is seen as underpinning all of the policy initiatives. It is what made up the core of the eugenics movement, a belief system that resonated well with National Socialism's own health consciousness. In many cases, especially in the United States, this form of social hygienics was championed by all of the reformers coming from the supposed better classes. It is, moreover, an impulse that leads us down a slippery slope to a system of "soft" government control; one that sacrifices individual liberty for the Health of the larger polity.

Which is exactly what characterizes the good intentions of Lynn Silver and her co-author: "Specifically, the doctors call on government to take immediate emergency action to force the food industry to make "healthier" food, including placing hefty taxes on fare they deem unhealthy - thus contributing to the already soaring price of food. They reject government guidelines and education as "relatively weak interventions" and argue that "stronger actions are needed immediately to reduce obesity, hypertension, heart disease and other chronic ills."

And with national health care on the horizon-tax supported, of course-it's not a big leap from the coercion of industry to the force feeding of the citizens: " They argue that "the ubiquity of food [has become] treacherous" and that food should be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes, "putting reasonable limits on where and how [food] can be sold . . . amending zoning [to] limit the number or density of locations selling unhealthy foods in restaurants, vending machines and other outlets."

This all hearkens back to Rousseau's observation, that sometimes you have to, "Force people to be free." The slippery slope here is ominously treacherous-particularly when those promoting the coercion actually believe that their actions are enlightened: "In other words, the Food Police is getting warmed up for a major government push to make us eat healthier - whether or not we want to. The tragedy of these proposals is twofold: First, eating habits are culturally determined and very hard to change. People want to eat what they want - they want choice and don't want to hear that the only tomato juice they can buy is the dreadful-tasting "low-sodium" kind."

Well, that's too bad-particularly when Big Brother's paying for your medical bills; and if these folks have their way, choices will be circumscribed-determined by the health agency bureaucrats. It is a frightful vision of expanded government and circumscribed liberty. Frankly, it's a Brave New World that we wouldn't want to live in.

Tale of Two Cities

In this morning's NY Times, the paper takes a very interesting look at the two-sided opposition to the Willets Point redevelopment: "No one seems to disagree that Willets Point needs help. But when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg unveiled a plan last year to overhaul the area with a hotel, school and convention center, homes, offices, parks and retail stores, two distinct groups rose up in opposition. One comprises the owners of the area’s largest businesses, who own half the land in Willets Point and who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbyists, consultants and political contributions to the City Council members who will vote on the city’s plan. The other consists of auto shop workers and shop owners who rent space in Willets Point. They are, for the most part, poor and Latino, and can afford to do little more than print T-shirts denouncing the project."

And it's the second group that the Times expresses most concern over because these small businesses, comprising around 90% of the roughly 250 firms in the endangered area, are renters-and the city has given these poor, mostly immigrant owners and workers no reassurances that they will have a place to go after the bigger companies are relocated: "Robert C. Lieber, the deputy mayor for economic development, said the city was still in the “relatively early stages” of devising a relocation plan for the Willets Point tenants. For now, Mr. Lieber said, the priority is negotiating with owners of businesses and property in the area. Finding adequate land for the types of business found in Willets Point had been one of the biggest challenges, in part because of a scarcity of heavy manufacturing zones in the city, Mr. Lieber said. Another city official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the project, said that the city would probably not be able to relocate all the auto repair shops. The reason, he said, was that some neighborhoods might simply not want them."

Simply collateral damage, then. Hundreds of struggling but productive folks facing the eminent domain scythe-another example of what the Bloombergistas feel about small immigrant firms. Displacing the wholesalers at the Bronx Terminal Market, and displacing minority-owned supermarkets with box stores, is the essence of the Bloomberg game plan. Instead of the current entrepreneurism, the city offers "job training."

All of which is why next week's eminent domain hearing is so important-and why hats are off to State Senator Bill Perkins for calling it. Currently, the New York State law offers, not only no protection for rental businesses, but also no due process for anyone; a better system needs to be legislated so that the swells don't get to take property from all of the little guys. Today it is the Iron Triangle, tomorrow it will be city homeowners unless the law can be changed to better protect people's property.

DeBlasio on Mayoral Control

Bill De Blasio underscores some of our points about mayoral control in this morning's NY Sun: "Data from a survey I distributed at the town hall showed that 80% of parents did not know how or where to voice their concerns about the school system. Parents also expressed concerns about transparency and accountability — 76% of the surveys called for easier access to more information. We must listen to these concerns and use them to inform school policy."

And De Blasio also highlights some of the highly publicized snafus by the DOE, fumbles that indicate that all isn't as the mayor would like us to believe over at Tweed: "We all recall DOE's ill-conceived move to change school bus routes in the middle of winter without notifying the community; the one-dimensional school report cards that confused parents and provided little insight into the actual successes and failures of individual schools; and, this summer, the centralization of pre-k admissions, which took information away from parents and split families between different schools. Opening up the lines of communication and listening to the voices of the affected families may have prevented each of these problems."

Perhaps so, but at least it would have been a start. Now isn't the time to embrace the kind of Papal infallibility that the Daily News is trying to sell. Power is, of course, corrupting; and there's no better municipal example of this axiom than the educational governance system.

Stopped Clock Gets it Right This Time

In this morning's NY Daily News, the paper's Mike Lupica calls out Mayor Mike on term limits-and gets it just right:

"Nobody ever wants to leave. Rudolph Giuliani, who decided he wasn't just a total hero mayor but also totally indispensable, did not want to leave City Hall at the end, whatever he said. Now neither does the successor, Michael Bloomberg, Giuliani once carried across the finish line. Whatever Bloomberg says these days. Or doesn't say. They do not want to leave City Hall, they do not want to leave the spotlight or the stage, and they do not want to leave the best job either one of them is ever going to have in politics. And the closer they get to the end of their terms, they certainly don't want term limits to get in the way of what they really want, which is a third term that turns the office of mayor into what they really think it should be: a monarchy."

And while Lupica simply cannot let his animus for Ruddy slip by, and his misplaced approbation of Mayor Mike, he dramatizes the same power grabbing impulses in both of them: "Bloomberg has been 10 times the mayor that Giuliani was. His administration is more civil, and so is the city, and he is a more competent manager, just on his experience in business alone, than his predecessor ever was. But he is as ambitious as Giuliani ever was in New York, and is never wrong, not on the Olympics, not on a West Side stadium for the Jets, not on congestion pricing, not when he wants the area on Broadway south of 42nd St. and almost all the way to Madison Square Garden turned into our big, bad city's version of the Champs Élysées."

So Little Mike may not be the best of political analysts, but he sure does get the issue of self-aggrandizement; something that, as the NY Sun reports this morning, is sure to galvanize the folks over the next few months. What with Ron Lauder up on the tube with ads and a new coalition of grass roots groups in formation, it's only a matter of time before Mayor Mike does his Lily Tomlin routine: "Never mind!"

Oops Update

As Doug Muzzio reminds us, it was the late Gilda Radner, not Lily Tomlin, who coined the "Never mind" phrase.

Duped and Rebuked

Reading the NY Daily News editorial this morning on its support for maintaining mayoral control of the schools, we couldn't help but feel the whiff of Armageddon: "The assault has begun - and the city's 1.1 million public school students are in jeopardy. The drive has started to place children's futures in the hands of unaccountable, unelected, politically wired functionaries. The campaign is underway to turn the clock back to the days when responsibility for running the nation's largest school system was sliced and diced so many ways that everyone was in charge and no one was in charge."

Beware the forces of evil at work-looking to undo all of the wondrous work that Mayor Mike and the Kleinemen have done: "Now, the forces are gathering for what would be the most destructive power grab in the city's history. New York's public schools have made huge strides since 2002. Reading and math scores are up. So, too, are graduation rates. City kids are gaining on their peers across the state. The achievement gap between minority and white children is closing. None of that would have happened without a politically accountable chief executive wielding the power to force change. And all this progress could come to a crashing halt if the mayor loses authority."

Really now, this is over the top for even the most sycophantic. The facts here don't nearly support, either the beyond laudatory rhetoric, or the charge that critics of the current educational dictatorship are out to return the schools to the dark ages. Having transparency and a modicum of checks and balances does not signal a, "destructive power grab."

Actually, when we reflect a bit on this, it is the current system that most resembles the power grab that the News seems terrified of. What's particularly sad, is just how far the paper goes in swallowing whole the mayor's masterful spin job. It's way past time for the legislative deconstruction to begin; the governance system, along with its putative achievements, need a full and thorough review.

Moreover, there is a big difference between oversight and transparency and a system that would, "reduce the mayor to serving as a figurehead over the schools." As usual, the answer probably lies somewhere in between; but the News does the issue little service in its caricature of legitimate opposition to the current unaccountable royal structure.

Soiling for a Fight

Well, it looks like it won't be all clear sailing for those who want to alter the term limits law so that the emperor penguin can remain in office. Ron Lauder, the old term limits nemesis, appears to be back in the hunt. As the NY Times reported last week, Lauder has launched an ad campaign that appears to be a warning shot for the mischief makers: "In the first signs of organized opposition to changing the city’s term limits law, Ronald S. Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics heir, is bankrolling a series of television commercials, set to run this weekend, that strongly defend the current rules."

The ads' focus, however, is more on the city council than the mayor; a move that makes sense considering the popularity disparities that are present: "Mr. Lauder, for example, appears to take pains not to insult Mr. Bloomberg, a fellow billionaire. The ads he is financing this weekend refer pointedly to the Council, reminding voters of a “slush fund scandal” involving fake community organizations, but conspicuously ignore the mayor."

And the Lauder effort is not an isolated one: "At the same time, two influential good-government groups in the city, Citizens Union and the New York Public Interest Research Group, signaled on Friday that they opposed amending the law without a public vote. Both said they were not coordinating their efforts with Mr. Lauder’s. In a statement, Citizens Union said, “Any attempt to change the limits by legislation would undermine New Yorkers’ confidence in government by making it appear that our elected officials are acting in their own self-interest, rather than in the public interest.”Gene Russianoff, a senior lawyer at the research group and the staff lawyer for the Straphangers Campaign, a transit rider advocacy group, said, “It is wrong to overturn the will of the voters.” He added: “I am astonished it is coming up at this late date. It smacks of a limited appreciation of the American style of checks and balances.”

The tenor of the ads is quite graphic, with the use of dirty diaper references designed to convey to voters the underhanded nature of the political purpose of changing the law. As the NY Daily News points out: "The commercial likens politicians to diapered babies, saying they "need to be changed regularly," is to air Sunday on the network public affairs programs: ABC's "This Week," CBS' "Face the Nation," NBC's "Meet the Press" and "Fox News Sunday." It will also air next week on New York 1."

Given the recent revelations regarding the City Council earmarks, it is no wonder that Lauder places greatest emphasis on the arena that the voters will see most clearly as acting in a self serving fashion: "The ad goes on to knock the City Council for "talking about killing term limits so they can stay in office longer." It cites tax hikes and the budget "slush fund scandal" that rocked the Council this year."

The News goes on to muse that the Lauder ad buy-a modest $50,000-isn't something that would daunt the mayor, saying: "The mayor isn't commenting on term limits, but given that he spent a combined $158 million of his own dough to win his two terms he may be undaunted by Lauder's lob."

This seems to us as somewhat cavalier, since the Lauder effort represents a reflection of the will of the the voters-twice reflected in an unequivocal manner. Lauder doesn't need to get into a dollar for dollar pissing contest with the mayor; and Bloomberg better be careful here since, if he does start to spend millions, it can come around to bite him in his legacy if an aroused public sees him attempting to suborn the popular will.

This is brought home by the Times' account of the opposition to all of this by the Citizens Union: "A few years ago, Citizens Union called for a public discussion about term limits and recommended in a report [pdf] that a charter revision commission be created to look more closely at the impact of the laws.“New York now has the benefit of experience, but has not analyzed the experiment Friday’s statement said. “Any attempt to change these limits by legislation would undermine New Yorkers’ confidence in government by making it appear that our elected officials are acting in their own self-interest rather than in the public interest. The expressed will of the citizens rises above all other considerations.”

Beware-the blowback is just beginning.

No Mayor Left Behind

Mayor Mike is beginning to get kinda testy about the prospects of having his educational dictatorship independently reviewed. As the NY Daily News reported last week, a state commission is recommending a number of changes to the city's educational governance system-and, guess what?-Mike's not happy: "An eagerly awaited report that supports extending mayoral control of the school system didn't go far enough for Mayor Bloomberg, who branded it "just a political thing." "I can't take it very seriously because they have yet to even provide a copy to the Department of Education, so I assume it's just a political thing," Bloomberg said, charging there are provisions in it that would "basically end mayoral control, gut it completely."

Just a political thing? As opposed to the manner in which Bloomberg, Klein, and their army of flacks down at Tweed have turned the Chambers Street headquarters into "Spin City?" Please stop it Mike! The entire process by which mayoral control was granted was quintessentially political-as it should be, since educating the city's children is probably the single most important policy that any mayor could have.

But let's take a closer look at what Bloomberg's really saying. His main point here is that, unless the mayor has total control, the law will be "gutted!" A viewpoint that fully underscores the mayor's regal mindset, but one that at the same time dramatizes the compelling need to get the power corrupted from their position of unchecked authority.

As one critic pointed out: "Billy Easton, who is coordinating a coalition of parent and community groups focused on mayoral control, called the report a good starting place for the discussion. "They've emphasized the needs for checks and balances, for transparency, and the critical need for parents to have a real voice," he said."

The report emphasizes the need for proper oversight, something that has been almost totally absent under the Politburo-like governance system that Vladimir Bloomberg has set up: "The report recommends that the city's Independent Budget Office have the same oversight at the Education Department as it does over other city agencies and that the city controller have auditing power. The commission also suggests that the city reestablish 32 geographical school districts to allow parents more access to school officials."

Mayoral ally Kathy Wylde disagrees, but who cares? Wylde has no ed cred and runs a business group that is so in the tank for the mayor that its members should wear scuba suits. More worrisome is the way in which the Bloomberg charitable giving-actual and potential-has suborned the independent educational voices that would normally be heard on this issue.

Instead, Wylde is front an center with bogus gloom and doom predictions: "There's a danger of totally diluting mayoral control and undermining all the progress that's been made," said Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City. "Who knows what can happen in the middle of the night in Albany."

What progress? That's the key question here; one that can't be answered unless we can transcend the deliberate fogging that has characterized the Bloomberg-Klein regime.

Educational Flaws and Political Ceilings

Betsy Gotbaum has come in for her share of ridicule in her role as Public Advocate, but the work of her commission on educational governance doesn't deserve any similar opprobrium. This view is highlighted in last week's Andy Wolf column in the NY Sun: "The panel does recommend some useful reform here, and the legislature should take heed. There is a recommendation that the city comptroller be given full audit power over the Department of Education, something he does not now have. A quirk in the law that fails to properly define exactly who can oversee this huge expenditure of public funds, has left the department largely to its own devices and has led to a vast increase in expensive no-bid contracts."

What does deserve ridicule, however, is the mayor's efforts to bogart opponents of his one man rule. As Wolf points out: "So adamant is the mayor about the governance issue that he convened a meeting of about 100 supporters from the non-profit and philanthropic communities earlier this week to unveil a $20-million dollar initiative to "sell" the public on continuing unfettered mayoral control." But Wolf is right-educational success, if it is indeed present, doesn't need a multi-million dollar PR campaign to insure its perpetuation.

And the cold facts here are revealed by the results of the NAEP tests-national exams that are generally, unlike the state derivatives, 100 proof: "If the mayor's "success" with education was unequivocal, there would be no need to supplement publicly-funded public relations efforts with this privately-funded campaign. But the "proof" of his results is largely based on New York State standardized testing which has been criticized as inflated when compared with national benchmarks such as NAEP and the SAT." Not to mention, the remediation industry known as the city's community colleges."

The crying need for checks on mayoral excess relates to the self serving aspect of the entire governance system: "Moreover, the panel suggests "the need for an independent source of data concerning the performance of the school system," noting that "the finding is a pragmatic recognition of the fact that a public official who runs for office on the basis of his or her past performance has built-in institutional incentive to present things in the best possible light." They propose that the Independent Budget Office be given oversight over school performance."

Which brings us to Wolf more ominous suggestion of the linkage between the mayoral control issue and the mayor's dalliance with extending term limits: "Which brings us to the term limits question. The zeal to preserve the current system of mayoral control suggests the mayor is indeed prepared to ignore the twice-expressed will of the public and join with the Council in overturning the current two-term limitation."

We're not sure about the correlation between the two issues, but perhaps they are both linked to the mayor's natural hubris. In any case, Wolf is right: "The just and appropriate response here would be yet a third referendum on the matter, a better place for the mayor and his friends to invest their $20-million to influence the public. If the mayor leaves, the city will go on, as it did after the departure of such celebrated mayors as LaGuardia, Koch, and Giuliani."

Indeed, it is time to end the "L'État, c'est moi" regime of the Bloombergistas. If Gloria Gaynor could survive, so can we all.

Columbia's Domain

The eminent domain fight over the expansion of Columbia University is really just beginning to heat up. The ESDC hearing yesterday, chaired by an android, exemplified the charade-like nature of the ED current process that Nick Sprayregen and his lawyer Norm Siegel are looking to take on; and State Senator Bill Perkins is looking to change through legislation.. As the NY Observer points out: "

"In the documents submitted to the Empire State Development Corporation today--the state agency that uses eminent domain--Mr. Sprayregen takes issue with the general notion that the area in the footprint is "blighted," a necessary condition for eminent domain. Any blight, he wrote is "created by, maintained by, or exacerbated by Columbia University," given that the university owns or controls much of the property.
More generally, Mr. Sprayregen, represented by attorney Norman Siegel, wrote that the process by which eminent domain has been permitted went against the "public use" standard set in the renowned Kelo v. City of New London case, in part because Columbia was the preferred developer from the start--not one selected via a bid."

The NY Times also highlights the fight, and reports on the testimony from yesterday's hearing farce: "But while the two-day hearing featured testimony from a former mayor, members of the State Legislature and the president of Columbia University, the group that will make the ultimate decision, the development corporation’s board, was not there. Instead, a lone hearing officer, a lawyer named Edward C. Kramer, listened stoically to more than 13 hours of often emotional testimony." How appropriately symbolic: When it comes to eminent domain ESDC is not all there!

The Observer posted the Sprayregen legal brief, and the opponent will seek to demonstrate that, even by the elastic decision of the SC, New York's standards are notoriously porous. Of particularly poignancy, is the plight of the gas station owners-a business that the neighborhood needs and will continue to need right up until the time that Columbia, utilizing all of the scientific knowledge that will be housed on its new campus, makes the discovery to create the alternative to fossil fuels. The daughter of the station owners told the Times: "Aman Kaur, the teenage daughter of the family that owns the two gas stations and has so far refused to sell to Columbia, urged the development corporation not to invoke eminent domain. “Our livelihood depends solely on the profits of these two properties,” she said. “Can they not spare two properties that mean so much to us? In just one moment, Columbia wants to take our dream and break it.”

Opponents of the state use of ED will all gather at the Perkins hearing on the 17th. Whatever you feel about the use of this device, it is the process that is in place that needs to be changed: it shouldn't be so easy to take away a fundamental constitutional right, even one that certain folks don't seem to hold dear as long as its not their property on the chopping block.

Not Beyond Certain Limits

Now its Betsy Gotbaum who's taking aim against any legislative tampering with term limits: "Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum is putting her new blog to good use and slamming city lawmakers for thinking about extending term limits. This morning, Gotbaum wrote, "the opinion of one elected official, or a handful for that matter, should be irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the people of this city have spoken twice on the issue, first voting for and then voting to uphold term limits."

She may be right, but we'd still love to see this in a new referendum-even with the mayor's money backing an alteration. It seems to us, though, that any legislative maneuvering will, as the NY Daily News pointed out yesterday, end in a wonderful string of lawsuits that would really roil the upcoming election cycle: "The City Council can change term limits simply by passing a bill, legal experts told the Daily News, but it would trigger a heck of a legal battle.
Civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel said he's already been contacted by a number of politicians about suing Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council if they change term limits without a voter referendum."

Will the mayor and the council roll the political dice on this? As we've said before, this fight needs a Clint Eastwood-"Make My Day"-style champion. Whoever leads the charge will elevate him or her self to iconic status with the voters. But apparently, it won't be Ollie Koppel, who is poised to introduce a bill that would allow his self perpetuation beyond the current term of office: "City Councilman G. Oliver Koppell said on Thursday that he would introduce legislation “within weeks” that would allow the city’s elected officials to serve three full terms instead of the current two."

Great, just what is needed in the wake of the Slush Fund debacle-naked self-aggrandizement: "In an interview, Mr. Koppell said term limits “cut off people’s careers in politics, which makes no sense.”“If one looks at members of the City Council,” he said, “some of the most creative served for 20 years. The limits, he added, “rob the public of a choice.” Perhaps, but there are also examples of dead weight that lasted for decades because of the power of incumbency. It's probably best to let the people have one more shot at this-along with an addendum that would make the results of a referendum definitive; trumping any future legislative hi jinks.

Let's give Betsy the last word: "I cannot support extending term limits by anything other than a public vote. Despite the popularity of our mayor, I think it’s up to the people of New York to decide how long they want their elected officials in office, and they’ve already told us twice."

UFCW on the Iron Triangle

In this week's Crain's Insider, the UFCW's Local 1500 voices its concerns with Willets Point:

Willets Point Snag

The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 is reconsidering its support for the city’s Willets Point project because the union now questions whether the Bloomberg administration will push for supermarkets there. A (nonunion) Costco proposed for the West Side infuriated the union, which represents supermarket workers. “The mayor’s support of the Costco in Manhattan is giving us great pause to question the sincerity of the supermarket initiative,” says Local 1500 official Pat Purcell. “It seems to completely contradict the stated priorities"—reducing congestion and aiding supermarkets. A spokesman for the mayor says, “Given the immense benefits of the project, we are confident UFCW will continue to support it.”

Well, it appears that the Local will not withdraw its support for the Willets Point project-at least not entirely-but according to Pat Purcell, there will be plenty of public commenting about the mayor's lack of sincerity when it comes to standing up for those who support his initiatives. Look for the union's presence at the (Senator Bill Perkins sponsored) eminent domain hearing to be held on the 17th. Pat, et al, feel that if eminent domain can be used to displace small, minority owned businesses, then it could also be used to protect and promote supermarkets and their workers (Bruckner Boulevard anyone?).

Mayoral Control Reform

The NY Times is reporting on the educational panel set up by the Public Advocate on the issue of continued mayoral control of the NYC schools. Changes are recommended-no more carte blanche: "A commission appointed by the city’s public advocate recommends in a report scheduled for release on Thursday that the state law giving the mayor control over New York’s public schools be renewed, but amended to place more limits on City Hall’s power."

Indeed, there are those who will say that this doesn't go far enough-given how much the mayor and chancellor, rather unbeknownst to most, have botched the entire effort. It's little wonder that Joel Klein is barnstorming the country on education with that other well known fabulist Al Sharpton; a definite MasterCard moment.

The Gotbaum Commission makes a point that we've been emphasizing: the need for more oversight: "The mayor should appoint the chancellor, the 10-member commission of education experts and advocates concluded after hearing testimony from 50 witnesses, but an independent board, the Panel for Educational Policy, should have more influence on the city’s educational policies and budget."

The Commission recognizes as well, the lack of checks and balances in the current governing structure: "“There is a general consensus that putting one elected official in charge of education is preferable to the former governance arrangement that dispersed authority and responsibility,” the report states, but it adds, “The law needs to be amended for additional checks on the power of the mayor.”

All of which is a good beginning to what should, hopefully, be a robust debate on the mayor and the chancellor's "achievements." As Karl Marx wondered, "Who will educate the educators?"

Importance of Korean Grocers

The other day in the City Room Blog. Sewell Chan focused on the contribution to NYC that has been made by Korean green grocers: "Few immigrant groups are as closely identified with an occupational niche as Koreans with grocery stores. While mom-and-pop produce stores have become an engine of economic mobility and opportunity for some Korean families, Korean produce merchants in New York City have often found themselves in conflict with white wholesale distributors, black customers and labor unions representing Hispanic employees, according to a new book by a Queens College sociologist."

But let's be clear, Sewell, it's not just that these entrepreneurs have become an engine for their own community, but rather how these enterprising small businesses folks revitalized whole neighborhood; while at the same time bringing fresh fruits and vegetables to communities that lacked good access: "Starting in the 1970s, Koreans bought small grocery stores in minority neighborhoods from retiring white owners, but more often set up new stores by leasing buildings vacated by white business owners. The stores served mostly minority customers: Caribbeans and African-Americans in Brooklyn and Jamaica, Queens, and Puerto Ricans and blacks in the Bronx."

These are the store owners who were totally ignored and disrespected when the health commissioner launched, aided and abetted by Speaker Quinn, the "green carts" initiative. In fact Commissioner Frieden never mentioned green grocers when he gave his other worldly testimony before the City Council; remarks that were properly skewered by Council Members Liu and Felder.

Friden simply had no clue about the extent to which these retail pioneers were doing exactly what he was advocating; and he ignored the extent to which his peddler nonsense would threaten the ability of green grocers to continue to thrive. In fact, the green carts law fails to understand the variables needed that would help to provide access to fresh produce by legitimate tax paying store owners-he simply doesn't care, and the plutocrat that runs the city has no interest in commerce this insignificant.

And the number of grocers, unfortunately, is declining: "The book suggests that the phenomenon of the Korean grocery — still considered ubiquitous for many New Yorkers — may prove to be only temporary. By the 2005, there were probably fewer than 1,800 Korean produce stores in the New York-New Jersey area, according to Dr. Min — a significant decline from the early 1990s."

This is what city law makers should be focusing on; not the creation of a new peddler class. We haven't heard to much about the results of this summer's green carts effort; and since the DOH controls the flow of info we're not sanguine that righteous data will be available. Just another example of how thew Bloombergistas make their own rules-to the detriment in this case of an important small business segment in the city.

Nicking Columbia

In today's Wall Street Journal, our client Nick Sprayregen makes a strong case against the inherent defects and unfairness of the eminent domain law of New York State: "When I go to court in a few months to contest the condemnation, I will face an overwhelmingly unfair process particular to New York, and to eminent domain trials. I will not be permitted to question any of the state or Columbia's representatives, nor will I be allowed to have anyone take the witness stand on my behalf. My attorney will only be provided with 15 minutes to speak to the court on a matter that Columbia and the state have been working on for over four years."

And then there's the definition of what constitutes blight, or lack thereof: "Another problem is that in New York, the precise definition of what is blighted is nowhere to be found. It is virtually impossible to defend oneself from something that is not properly defined." Which doesn't mean that Columbia and NY State have not gone to great lengths to "prove" the area where Nick's property sits is blighted.

In fact, they brought in some real experts-the same folks who advocated ion Columbia's behalf in the ULURP process: "There is also a conflict of interest in the condemnation process. The firm the state hired to perform the "impartial" blight study -- the planning, engineering and environmental consultant Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. (AKRF) -- had been retained by Columbia two years earlier to advocate for governmental approval of the university's expansion, including the possible use of eminent domain."

AKRF apparently glossed over the fact that their client actively engaged in the creation of the blight that they now say demands that the Sprayregen property be condemned. This is not only a case of one lying and the other swearing to it; it's a case where the "one" and the "other" are one and the same. As Nick points out: "The study's conclusion was unsurprising. Since the commencement of acquisitions in Manhattanville by Columbia, the school has made a solid effort to create the appearance of "blight." Once active buildings became vacant as Columbia either refused to renew leases, pressured small businesses to vacate, or made unreasonable demands that resulted in the businesses moving elsewhere. Columbia also let their holdings decay and left code violations unaddressed."

So what's the legal process here like? "When I go to court in a few months to contest the condemnation, I will face an overwhelmingly unfair process particular to New York, and to eminent domain trials. I will not be permitted to question any of the state or Columbia's representatives, nor will I be allowed to have anyone take the witness stand on my behalf. My attorney will only be provided with 15 minutes to speak to the court on a matter that Columbia and the state have been working on for over four years."

Nice huh? Due process, you say? It is quite a shaky legal foundation that the State of New York uses to take away a person's constitutionally guaranteed rights. It's also a procedure crying for legal redress.

Standing Up and Being Counted

Momentum is building for a show of hands for all those who stand to gain from term limits extension. As the NY Daily News reports: "Pressure is mounting on City Council Speaker Christine Quinn to take a firm stand on term limits as Mayor Bloomberg publicly toys with extending them."Why not come out and say, 'No matter what the mayor does we are not going to entertain this,'" said City Councilman Tony Avella."

Now we know why Avella's popularity down at the council is ebbing fast-that's not advice that most council members want to hear. It is, however, what the public needs to hear, and as the NY Times points out, it is what Comptroller Thompson is demanding to hear from the mayor: "Irritated by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s protracted dalliance with overturning the city’s term limits, leading candidates for a variety of New York City offices are demanding, in unusually pointed language, that he make up his mind...“It is time that the mayor clearly state his position and not continue this charade,” said the New York City comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., who is expected to run for mayor next year — unless, perhaps, Mr. Bloomberg seeks to extend term limits so that he can seek a third term."

So let the debate begin on all of this-it's shaky ground for all of those looking to self perpetuate, but the stakes are high enough for those involved to take the risk; that is, unless the public outcry reaches a crescendo of disapproval.

Shell Game?

In today's NY Daily News, the paper reports that Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver wants to keep the current school governance system in place. Or does he? As the News tells us: "As Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein spent the first day of classes touting their successes since the mayor took control of schools six years ago, Silver told the Daily News Editorial Board that the law is probably safe. "I don't think we're going to scrap the system," Silver said. "There may be some tweaks to the system that are necessary."

Ah, the Devil is indeed in the details. One person's tweak maybe an other's massive dislocation. One thing's for sure-there will be some significant changes and no mayor will be able to act as unilaterally as Mike Bloomberg has been able to do.

Here's what Shelly says: "Silver said that while he is proud to have a part in the "overall product" created by mayoral control, he echoed the concerns of some critics by saying that parents need a "greater voice" in the system. "The parent who has a problem with their child's school, I believe, is relegated now to standing on the steps of City Hall with a placard in order to complain," he said."

And that's not all. As the NY Sun reported yesterday, everything will get more scrutiny this year: "With mayoral control at stake at the end of this year, this year has to be at least as good as last year. That's the story," an aide to Mr. Klein who runs a network of about 500 schools, Eric Nadelstern, said. "It's all about execution and keeping people motivated and focused so the success keeps going."

Welcome to Spin City folks. The real question here is will the overseers get the data needed to make some sound changes to the current system? The mayor and Joel Klein have created a remarkably self contained and massive bureaucratic monument to information control. The walls of this citadel need to be breached so that real knowledge about what works and what doesn't can be gleaned.

Only then can the right changes be made. Getting beyond the mayor's self serving hyperbole is a necessary first step: "While touring schools Tuesday morning, Bloomberg credited mayoral control with everything from lowering crime to getting textbooks into classrooms faster. He also said he believes the Legislature will uphold the law. "The alternative is too devastating to contemplate," he said. "The parents of kids in our public school system will not stand there and watch the future of their children be taken away for political reasons."

It's good to know that politics has been absent for the past six years. Makes us feel a whole lot better about all of this.

Eminent Grist

As the ESDC charade on the use of eminent domain continues, it appears that, at least according to the NY Sun, that Columbia honcho Lee Bollinger is looking for "conciliation." Nothing in the story, however, indicates the manner in which the university hopes to achieve this laudable goal as landowner Mick Sprayregen (out client) continues to vow to fight the taking of his property: "Facing the prospect of a drawn-out legal battle with at least one private landowner, the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, is seeking conciliation in the final stages of the approval process for Columbia's $6 billion expansion plan."

The opportunity for real conciliation would mean that Columbia would become proactive in entertaining the kind of creative compromise that Sprayregen has proposed to create housing in exchange for his swapping property with the university. Conciliation, he should realize, is not something that can be reached posthumously-a state that would result from the successful effort to use eminent domain in the sole private benefit of Columbia.

The continues presence of former mayor David Dinkins in all of this has become offensive. The fact that this has been, and failed mayor, is actually teaching students-or going through the motions according to reports we've seen-is satire enough; unless he's having students gain insights by learning from his mistakes. Dinkens told the Sun: "Earlier in the day, Mayor Dinkins testified in support of Columbia's plan. He said the opposition to the plan was being fanned by "two or three people, yelling and screaming. That doesn't make it controversy."

It must have been earlier in the day, since any later and Dinkins would have joined Charlie Rangel snoozing on the beach-as the two octogenarians need their beauty rest. To bring someone to testify who's been given a sinecure at the university, only further exposes the tawdry nature of Columbia's land grab. New York's eminent domain law may be in for some real forced change, and the university a long problematic battle: the Sprayregen/Siegal lawsuit is that strong.

Poor School Oversight Hides Reality

As the countdown begins for what could be the final year of mayoral control of the schools, we still don't know if the exercise in changing educational governance has been effective; this lack of understanding is directly related to the way in which mayoral control was allowed to be structured. Sol Stern captures the essence of the problem in the City Journal:
"The problem was that the legislation failed to ensure that voters would have access to unimpeachable information about student achievement, a prerequisite to any reasoned judgment about how well the schools were doing under the new regime. Greater accountability was the theoretical argument for mayoral control, but it has been turned on its head in practice. An ambitious mayor—first running for reelection, then flirting with running for president, and now contemplating a change in the term-limits law so that he can run for mayor again—gained extraordinary power to control the flow of data on how the schools were performing under his administration."

So the reality here is that, when the mayor said if he didn't turn the schools around we could hold him accountable, he was playing with a stacked deck-one that he dealt himself. As we have said all along, echoing Stern and Andrew Wolf, the system needs to be subject to independent review. As Stern points out: "Too often, the Bloomberg administration has made claims about student achievement gains that no independent agency has vetted and that in light of other evidence appear unjustified. As for the spectacularly higher graduation rates that the Bloomberg administration has advertised as its greatest accomplishment, we have no way of knowing whether they are legitimate or whether they are the result of dumbed-down Regents exams—five of which the city’s high school students must pass in order to graduate."

Our point earlier in the year was similar: "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."

Stern underscores this, and calls for a General Accounting Office (GAO) style review agency: "But the single most important change that our city legislators should insist on—and without which they should not vote for reauthorization of mayoral control—is the creation of an independent agency, removed from all political influence, to monitor the data about test scores and graduation rates, to do research about which school programs are working and which are not, and then to make all that information available to the public on a regular, timely basis. We need something like a General Accounting Office (the federal government’s chief accountability agency) for the school system. Without such an institution, we can’t have a fair democratic debate about the city’s education policies."

Finally, in this morning's NY Daily News, the following report should help to dramatize the importance of what Stern has been saying: "About 83% of students entering City University of New York community colleges last year failed placement exams and had to take remedial courses in reading, writing or math - and most graduated from city high schools, records show. "It costs a lot of money," said Matt Zeidenberg, a researcher at Columbia University's Community College Research Center. "You're basically paying for the same stuff over again." About two-thirds of students graduating from city high schools will have to take remedial courses."

It's time for the Mayor Mike disinformation brigade to be subject to the disinfectant of sunlight. Stern and Wolf have started us in the right direction; it's time for Albany to finish the job properly so that NYC schools have the best governing structure possible.

Kosher Labor Practices?

In yesterday's NY Times, the paper focused on the questionable labor practices of a Kosher meat processor, a company with problems all over the country: "Agriprocessors, the Brooklyn-based company that is the nation’s largest kosher meat producer, is well known for the labor troubles at its meatpacking plant in Iowa — federal agents detained 389 of its workers as illegal immigrants in May, and labor officials in Iowa have accused it of employing 57 under-age workers."

Now, however, Local 342 of the UFCW (and our client) is exposing similar shenanigans right here in NYC: "But Agriprocessors is also having labor troubles closer to home, with the company asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a vote to unionize at its distribution center along the Brooklyn waterfront. If successful, the company’s appeal could have repercussions at companies across the country: it is trying to persuade the Supreme Court to rule that illegal immigrants do not have the right to join labor unions."

It seems that, according to the Times article, Agriprocessors wants to have it both ways-hire illegals so it can exploit them; and then contest their unionization because they are, well, illegal: "In September 2005, the company’s Brooklyn employees voted 15 to 5 to unionize, with one ballot challenged. The workers, most of them immigrants from Mexico, complained of low pay, not receiving time-and-a-half for overtime and not having health insurance or paid holidays.
“It was a dirty place to work, and they treated some of the workers real bad,” said Lucilo Brito, a former Agriprocessors truck driver. Days after the vote, Agriprocessors stunned its employees by announcing that it would not recognize the union because, it said, it had just discovered that 17 of the workers were illegal immigrants."

And we're sure that they were shocked by the discovery: "After Agriprocessors refused to deal with the union, 14 of the workers went on strike for seven weeks. The company responded by firing the strikers. (During the strike, union officials said, management hired day laborers from a nearby street corner, many of them illegal immigrants.)"

There are a number of issues with this company-and its union status is just one. As one blog poster points out:
"There has been a lot of press in the past year or two about how Rubashkin, the second biggest kosher meat producer, has mistreated both the animals it slaughters, and the workers in the plants it operates...Then the Forward published an article about how poorly workers were being treated at the Postville, Iowa plant that had previously been the subject of the PETA video. Among the many complaints were low wages (the cap was at seven dollars an hour for most workers), and no unions because the workers, many of whom are undocumented immigrants, are afraid of being deported. There were also reports of workers being shortchanged for hours they worked, and of supervisers demanding bribes from employees who want to change shifts, or help relatives get a job. Perhaps the most troubling issue in the article is the lack of safety training given to the workers at the plant. The Forward quoted one man who said he received no training at all, and learned what to do only by being chewed out for bad work."

It's about time that these workers at Agriprocessors get the same rights and benefits as the other Kosher meat employees at the Brooklyn wholesale market: "Ante Vulin, a butcher at International Glatt Kosher Meats, a unionized wholesaler directly across from Agriprocessors, said belonging to the union meant higher pay and better benefits.“What’s the purpose of leaving here when you don’t get more at another place?” said Mr. Vulin, who earns $20.25 an hour after 20 years on the job."

So what about the company's argument concerning the rights of illegals? This final comment from the Times highlights its absurdity: "Last Thursday, a butcher who had just finished the midnight-to-9 a.m. shift at the Agriprocessors distribution center said that the company had improved wages and conditions somewhat since the unionization vote three years ago. The worker said he was paid $8.50 an hour, got one week vacation a year and received time-and-a-half pay for overtime. “We don’t get health insurance,” said the worker, who insisted on anonymity for fear of retaliation. And in a candid moment, he acknowledged that he was an illegal immigrant."

Who's Extorting Whom?

Imagine our surprise when we saw the headline on a NY Post editorial; yesterday that read, "Blackmail at Willets Point." We instinctively assumed that the paper was referring to the possibility that the mayor would use the carrot of a term limit extension to suborn the council into supporting a project that a large majority of members are on record as opposing.

Well, we were dead wrong. Instead, the Post is accusing Councilman Monserrate of extortion for raising questions about a project without any designated developer, and bereft of a definitive development plan:
"The ringleader this time is City Councilman Hiram Monserrate. With one eye squarely on higher office - the state Senate - he's working against the rezoning...Days earlier, he got 32 of the council's 51 members to agree that the Willets Point project won't go forward unless the city promises not to use eminent domain to remove some 200 small businesses in the affected area. Eminent domain - a process whereby a municipality may confiscate certain properties with appropriate compensation for a larger public purpose - is controversial, and should indeed be debated. But that's not what Monserrate is up to. Rather, he's trying to hold up the project in order to squeeze out more "community" benefits."

Just when are we supposed to debate the "controversial" use of eminent domain? After the council gives the mayor carte blance by ceding to him its only oversight authority? And what exactly are the projects benefits? According to the Post: "Under proposed rezoning, the area would be opened for hotels, a convention center, offices, retail and residential space."

A re-zoning, however, merely permits certain use groups for a designated area-it is in no way a plan! And it would be grossly irresponsible of the council to give this a green light without any development scheme that can be properly vetted-especially not to a mayor who has exhibited not one iota of concern for the kinds of small businesses that would be replaced at the Point should Bloomberg get his way.

So the Post should shelve its accusations here. Checks and balances are still important even when the chief executive is given papal infallibility by so many media commentators.

Who Will Speak for the People?

With the term limits extension roiling the political waters in NYC, the following question comes to Mind: Who will speak for the people? Certainly it won't be the business and media elites who, as we write, are lining up to insure that their fair-haired boy continues in office. This from Sunday's NY Daily News: "The city faces extraordinary challenges. A Wall Street meltdown has triggered a sudden decline in revenue. Corporate and individual tax collections have fallen sharply, and the big real estate deals that generate mega-taxes have slowed...Early on in his mayoralty, after 9/11 and in a national recession, Bloomberg demonstrated that he was equal to the challenge of leading the city through similar dire circumstances. He made the tough choice to raise taxes rather than slash police, schools, parks and other services that are critical to the quality of life. The decision paid enormous dividends."

Cue the iconic music; All hail Caeser! This kind of editorial comment is sure to continue as an incessant drum beat-a sycophantic chorus of permanent government pleas to keep the ship of state-so to speak-in capable hands. As if the city will collapse without Mike Bloomberg at its helm.

All of the soon to be unveiled editorial encomiums to the mayor, and the need to override the myopic popular will, will gloss over the dangers here-dangers that were emphasized by many of the same voices in the wake of 9/11 when Rudy tried to end run the term limits law. It was wrong them-in the middle of the worst crisis in NYC history-and it's just as wrong now; and the only reason its rearing its ugly head is because the mayor knows, even with all of his billions, he wouldn't be the favorite to overturn the will of the people in another referendum.

So now its incumbent on the folks to take a stand on all of this mishogos. And the grass roots needs to be activated. In order for that to happen, leadership must step up and play an active role. Who will that be? Let's see who among us is smart, savvy and courageous enough to seize this opportunity to lead.

Update:

In yesterday' Daily Politics post, Liz gets the following from Bill Thompson: "The voters of this city have cast their ballots twice on this issue, and clearly voiced their opinion. While I personally feel that city council seats should be extended to three terms, I do not believe that change should be made without voter approval."

Terms of Extortion

According to Dave Seifman's column at the NY Post, the possibility that the mayor will support a term limits extension strengthens his hand in negotiations with the city council on some major policy initiatives: "The possibility that Mayor Bloomberg will support an extension of term limits is going to provide him with a stronger hand than ever in his future dealings with the City Council. "They'll give him anything to get term limits changed," one council insider said."

Perhaps so, but we would think that this should evoke a Clint Eastwood response from the council-a call for the mayor to, "Make My Day," by publicly coming out and saying he supports what the council presumably is inclined to do. Without his public endorsement, the council could be played on a continuing basis, with the possible extension as a carrot always just out of reach.

This is a part of what the NY Daily News is arguing in its Sunday editorial. "Stop being coy," Mayor Mike, is the News' refrain: "Mayor Bloomberg is playing it altogether too cute in sending up flares that he might like to run for a third term in 2009. If that's his intention, he should simply make the call.Bloomberg must spare New Yorkers a prolonged period of will-he-or-won't-he speculation. Are you in or out, Mayor Mike?"

Than there's all of those who are making plans to abide by the terms of the current law, and who are running for new offices. As the News points out: "The mere possibility of a Bloomberg candidacy would chill, if not freeze, the plans of qualified would-be successors, depriving them of the time needed to raise funds and do all the other spade work for campaigns. Potential contenders need to know sooner rather than later whether the mayor plans to stay on the field of battle. The stakes are too serious for an extended tease."

Particularly if the mayor uses the interregnum to try to get stuff passed at the council, initiatives that the legislature wouldn't ordinarily support. As the Post indicates, Willets Point may be a test case here: 'Topping the list is the rezoning of Willets Point, a $3 billion project to create a gleaming minicity out of acres of dilapidated industrial and commercial space near Shea Stadium. But 32 of 51 council members, siding with business owners who don't want to move, have warned that they won't go along without significant changes. The buzz among the New York delegation at the Democratic convention in Denver was that there could be a trade: term limits for Willets Point."

How tawdry! Our view is that if the mayor wants term limits, it's his initiative and he should come forward and own it publicly. He should tell us, straight up, why he and the city council should stick around for another term, even though the voters view of all this has been made abundantly clear. If we were the council leadership, we would just tell the mayor to take a stand, and not allow itself to be subject to blackmail. In the words of President Jefferson to the Barbary Pirates: "Millions for Defense, but not one cent for tribute."

Indeterminate

In Saturday's NY Post, the paper continued with a chronicling of Mayor Mike's well-orchestrated campaign to self perpetuate: "Mayor Bloomberg invited the City Council yesterday to send him a bill to amend term limits so he and all other city officials could serve an extra four years - and hinted he might just sign it. "I never speculate on what I'll do until I see a piece of legislation," the mayor said on his weekly WOR radio show. "But everything they've done I've given careful consideration to. Usually, they know where we stand before they vote on something, not always. Usually, where we stand before they vote is where we come out."

This, after all of his now obviously discredited definitive statements about his support for the current term limits restriction. As Randy Mastro pointed out, Bloomberg sung a different tune in 2002: "Before facing the end of his own time in office, Mr. Bloomberg felt very differently about the City Council's attempt in 2002 to alter voter-approved term limits by legislation. "I would oppose any change in the law that a legislative body tries to make," he declared. "I do think after you've asked the public to express their views twice, you don't try to circumvent the will of the public."

So, just like any power hungry pol enamored with his own indispensability, Bloomberg does an about face. As the Post says, it isn't the city council driving the term limits change: "Bloomberg's comments were surprising, because he is the one driving the issue, not the council, and insiders said he hadn't consulted council Speaker Christine Quinn, an ally who has declared her unequivocal opposition to any legislative changes to term limits."

And don't take the misdirection about what his aides re supposedly saying with any degree of seriousness-they're just playing all of us with this coy game of cat and mouse; testing the waters and using the city council as their foil. Pretty soon, however, the real Slim Shady will have to stand up.

Mastroful Performance on Term Limits

In last week's NY Sun, former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro laid out an impressive rationale for why the mayor is playing with fire on the alteration of term limits: "As mayor, Mr. Bloomberg could have stayed true to his word and appointed a mayoral charter commission to put a term limits proposition on the November ballot for voter approval. Instead, according to published reports, he did what a typical politician would do: He had a poll conducted that determined that, as popular a mayor as he is, New Yorkers overwhelmingly still favor term limits. Going the referendum route the mayor would hit a dead end."

So, continuing in this vein, Bloomberg starts to rope-a-dope the issue; with the story in last Friday's Times that his aides are not in sync with any third term antics. How many folks believe that this story is genuine? The key line in the piece was when Sheekey, et al, said that they'd, of course, follow the mayor's wishes-whatever they turned out to be. So in our view, this is all a phony exercise in insulating Bloomberg from ant direct accountability-as he plays with the idea and inveigles the gullible minions over at the other side of city hall.

As far as that's concerned, we haven't seen so much self serving going on since Horn & Hardart was in its heyday in NYC; and that definitely includes the mayor. Mastro hits it here: "Ultimately, that's the problem for Mr. Bloomberg. He won over New Yorkers as the anti-politician — the incorruptible private businessman who was above politics and would always put the public's interests first. Yet his latest machinations seem like politics as usual motivated by personal self-interest. He risks irreparably tainting his brand by so blatantly reversing himself and ignoring the will of the people on term limits."

So what's a mayor to do? Well, stir the pot and get others to do his bidding; and let the issue percolate without his direct finger prints on it. Isn't it time, then, to bell the cat? This is all a sophisticated effort by Bloomberg to end run his definitive statements on term limits-and he's already waffling like an old pol.

Once again, Mastro's right on point with his observation that New York can do very well-thank you-with a new cast of characters. There's no need to cry havoc: "Today, there is no such crisis in our city — only a popular mayor at a crossroad. That Mr. Bloomberg should even be at this crossroad is proof that term limits have served their purpose, giving new faces a chance to serve and reinvigorating our city government with fresh perspectives, for he almost certainly never would have run for that office had term limits not created the opportunity."