Remember the old left wing ditty? "Daily News. daily blues, pick up a copy any time you choose. Seven little pennies in the newsboy's hands, send you right off to never never land." Well, it appears that never never land is right where a critical story on the city schools was sent-after the story had been already uploaded to the paper's website.
Here's the Gotham Schools take on the matter-done in her usual hard hitting style by Elizabeth Green: "Parents are outraged about those fat cat educrats at Tweed Courthouse, at least five of whom earned between $1.7 and $6 million in salaries and investments last year, the Daily News was supposed to report in today’s newspaper — but didn’t, after a late-night move killed the story."
This, on the heels of Juan Gonzales' piece on the expensive couriers being used at Tweed, was apparently too much for the Kleinemen to take: "Mr. Zuckerman, can you take a call from the chancellor?" As Green tells us: "My understanding is that the story was slated to run today both in the newspaper and online, but then got scrapped late last night. This appears to have happened because of an outside intervention, since the story had already been uploaded to the paper’s Web site, meaning it had gone all the way through the editing process. Word of the decision to kill the story — not postpone or delay or just put on the Web, but kill — came to both print and Web designers, who dutifully destroyed it, except for one thing: the Web headline, which was still visible this morning."
The story was slated to tell us the following, as one commenter at the Gotham blog culled it from Google News:
"Klein with Garth Harries, who oversees creation of new schools and boasts investments of up to $6 million. Also pictured with Klein is former aide Kristen Kane.City schoolkids and their families may be feeling the pinch of hard times, but at least five senior DOE advisers had salaries and investments that totaled between $1.7 and $6 million each last year…Deputy Chancellor Christopher Cerf, who once ran the controversial for-profit education company Edison Schools, had between $1.8 million and $3.3 million in …The department’s chief operating officer, Photeine Anagnostopoulos, was sitting on stocks and bonds worth anywhere from $2.2 million to $4.8 million. “It exposes a degree of insularity in this administration,” said David Bloomfield, a parent member of the Chancellor’s Citywide Council on High Schools."
Warning to the News: you can't keep doing this or you'll end up like the LA Times, ridiculed for withholding important information that doesn't fit your political agenda. And as the mayoral school control fight heats up, the folks will know who's telling the truth, and who's playing footsie with his billionaire buddy.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Term Tension
The NY Times-and we need to single out Michael Barbaro here-has been doing journalism a real solid over the past few months. Barbaro, following in the footsteps of Ray Rivera and, to some extent Charles Bagli, has been examining the Bloomberg record and actions with just the right soupcon of skepticism. Today, the focus is on a new tension between the mayor's aides and the speaker after a bruising term limits battle: "Tensions between City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn and aides to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg are erupting just a week after Ms. Quinn shepherded the mayor’s divisive legislation to loosen the city’s term limits law through the Council."
This tension devolves from the fact that it was the speaker, someone without the resources of a vast fortune, who has been the cynosure of the term limits battle; while the mayor "monitored" the hearings-staying in the background as his city council staff did the heavy lifting: "Feelings are raw between the two sides largely because Ms. Quinn took heavy political shrapnel for the mayor during the term limits battle as she rounded up support for what became an unusually difficult vote."
So now, moving ahead as if there's been nothing unusual going on, the mayor wants to revamp the way in which senior centers are managed-once again the vaunted "business model" is thrust front and center-and is getting ready for his tax hike: "In closed-door meetings over the last few days that occasionally escalated into shouting, Ms. Quinn has told the mayor’s aides to back off a plan that would change how hundreds of programs for the elderly are financed, a proposal that has infuriated several council members. According to people briefed on the conversations, she has warned that the mayor’s plan to push for a property tax increase as early as next week could encounter resistance, especially since council members are still reeling from the term limits vote."
So an interesting unintended consequence of the term limit fight, is a council that feels. perhaps, that it doesn't have to roll over for the mayor after bequeathing an extra term for his benefit: "The tensions reveal the degree to which the bruising term limits battle, initiated by the mayor so that he can run for a third term, altered the political landscape, with Ms. Quinn and her colleagues feeling empowered to challenge the Bloomberg administration as never before. “There is a sense that the mayor has damaged his popularity and that is emboldening members,” said David Yassky, a councilman from Brooklyn who supported the mayor’s term limits extension."
Who's Yassky referring to here, and why's he being quoted? After all, David appeared with the mayor at his faux stimulus package announcement yesterday. It would have served him better to use a first person narrative, since it is Yassky's popularity that has suffered even more, at least in his own Park Slope district.
But Bloomberg isn't totally clueless about his need to assuage the bruised feelings-it's just that he doesn't do, "I feel you pain," with any degree of believability: "To calm nerves, Mr. Bloomberg, in a step that is unusual for him, has begun to personally call every council member, telling them they must find ways to work together even if they disagreed over term limits. But some of those calls are not going very well, as council members say the mayor expressed fleeting gratitude for their support before launching into lectures about taxes.“I thought that the phone call was going to be simply and purely, ‘Thanks for casting a tough vote,’ ” said Councilman Lewis Fidler of Brooklyn, who voted to change the term limits. “I didn’t expect him to talk about the next tough vote.”
And, except for the quotable Charles Barron, the Times is largely citing council members who supported the mayor. Here's Jimmy Vacca (along with Arroyo) on the senior center issue so dear to his East Bronx constituents: "Two lawmakers who voted for Mr. Bloomberg’s term limits legislation, James Vacca and Maria del Carmen Arroyo, both of the Bronx, immediately expressed their anger over the plans for the seniors programs to Ms. Quinn. Mr. Vacca said that early this week, he told the speaker’s staff members that “if we don’t fight this, the Council will be the emperor with no clothes.”
It's a tad late for the clothing reference, after most observers would agree that the mayor efficiently undressed the council in his bogarting for a third term. The Speaker is trying to regain some semblance of balance in a power struggle that she's been uncomfortable fighting: "In an interview on Thursday, Ms. Quinn said, “I have come to believe this is not the right time for this restructuring,” citing the economic turmoil, which could make the centers even more crucial to city residents. Ms. Quinn said she had not been given the assurances she needs from the Bloomberg administration that senior centers would not lose financing — or close — under the overhaul now under consideration."
And all of this even before the tax issue rears its ugly and controversial head: "Next week, the mayor is expected to rescind, six months early, a 7 percent property tax cut and lay out a 5 percent annual cut in spending for city agencies, according to city officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plans are not yet public. Both measures require the support of council members, and Ms. Quinn has already embraced Mr. Bloomberg’s call for swift action on the budget."
So, as we have said, second fiddle is a hard role to play when you've already turned your bow over to the mayor; but the speaker and her term limited colleagues who voted for continuance, are realizing that they must do something or else the public's anger-which could be deflected from the mayor by a $100 million disinformation campaign-could be heaped on council members seeking an extended third term.
This tension devolves from the fact that it was the speaker, someone without the resources of a vast fortune, who has been the cynosure of the term limits battle; while the mayor "monitored" the hearings-staying in the background as his city council staff did the heavy lifting: "Feelings are raw between the two sides largely because Ms. Quinn took heavy political shrapnel for the mayor during the term limits battle as she rounded up support for what became an unusually difficult vote."
So now, moving ahead as if there's been nothing unusual going on, the mayor wants to revamp the way in which senior centers are managed-once again the vaunted "business model" is thrust front and center-and is getting ready for his tax hike: "In closed-door meetings over the last few days that occasionally escalated into shouting, Ms. Quinn has told the mayor’s aides to back off a plan that would change how hundreds of programs for the elderly are financed, a proposal that has infuriated several council members. According to people briefed on the conversations, she has warned that the mayor’s plan to push for a property tax increase as early as next week could encounter resistance, especially since council members are still reeling from the term limits vote."
So an interesting unintended consequence of the term limit fight, is a council that feels. perhaps, that it doesn't have to roll over for the mayor after bequeathing an extra term for his benefit: "The tensions reveal the degree to which the bruising term limits battle, initiated by the mayor so that he can run for a third term, altered the political landscape, with Ms. Quinn and her colleagues feeling empowered to challenge the Bloomberg administration as never before. “There is a sense that the mayor has damaged his popularity and that is emboldening members,” said David Yassky, a councilman from Brooklyn who supported the mayor’s term limits extension."
Who's Yassky referring to here, and why's he being quoted? After all, David appeared with the mayor at his faux stimulus package announcement yesterday. It would have served him better to use a first person narrative, since it is Yassky's popularity that has suffered even more, at least in his own Park Slope district.
But Bloomberg isn't totally clueless about his need to assuage the bruised feelings-it's just that he doesn't do, "I feel you pain," with any degree of believability: "To calm nerves, Mr. Bloomberg, in a step that is unusual for him, has begun to personally call every council member, telling them they must find ways to work together even if they disagreed over term limits. But some of those calls are not going very well, as council members say the mayor expressed fleeting gratitude for their support before launching into lectures about taxes.“I thought that the phone call was going to be simply and purely, ‘Thanks for casting a tough vote,’ ” said Councilman Lewis Fidler of Brooklyn, who voted to change the term limits. “I didn’t expect him to talk about the next tough vote.”
And, except for the quotable Charles Barron, the Times is largely citing council members who supported the mayor. Here's Jimmy Vacca (along with Arroyo) on the senior center issue so dear to his East Bronx constituents: "Two lawmakers who voted for Mr. Bloomberg’s term limits legislation, James Vacca and Maria del Carmen Arroyo, both of the Bronx, immediately expressed their anger over the plans for the seniors programs to Ms. Quinn. Mr. Vacca said that early this week, he told the speaker’s staff members that “if we don’t fight this, the Council will be the emperor with no clothes.”
It's a tad late for the clothing reference, after most observers would agree that the mayor efficiently undressed the council in his bogarting for a third term. The Speaker is trying to regain some semblance of balance in a power struggle that she's been uncomfortable fighting: "In an interview on Thursday, Ms. Quinn said, “I have come to believe this is not the right time for this restructuring,” citing the economic turmoil, which could make the centers even more crucial to city residents. Ms. Quinn said she had not been given the assurances she needs from the Bloomberg administration that senior centers would not lose financing — or close — under the overhaul now under consideration."
And all of this even before the tax issue rears its ugly and controversial head: "Next week, the mayor is expected to rescind, six months early, a 7 percent property tax cut and lay out a 5 percent annual cut in spending for city agencies, according to city officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plans are not yet public. Both measures require the support of council members, and Ms. Quinn has already embraced Mr. Bloomberg’s call for swift action on the budget."
So, as we have said, second fiddle is a hard role to play when you've already turned your bow over to the mayor; but the speaker and her term limited colleagues who voted for continuance, are realizing that they must do something or else the public's anger-which could be deflected from the mayor by a $100 million disinformation campaign-could be heaped on council members seeking an extended third term.
Paterson's Promise and WFP Peril
In this morning's NY Post, the paper heaps editorial praise on Governor Paterson for his sober budgeting: "New Yorkers might want to get this in writing: "We have agreed that any taxation right now would only exacerbate the problem. If anything, we need to lower taxes." That's what Gov. Paterson told Congress on Wednesday - even as he asked plaintively for federal funds to make up for state tax revenue lost in the Wall Street meltdown. "We have to put our own house in order," Paterson conceded. And he all but took tax hikes off the table."
The stance of the governor sharply contrasts with that of our city leaders-particularly on the correlation of lower taxes with job creation: "We need to lower taxes for some of our businesses [in order to] create jobs," he said, "so that hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers don't leave the state, as they do every year, for other areas where the life quality is better." Paterson hit it on the head: Tax hikes will drive away the very folks who can revive the economy - and regenerate depleted tax dollars."
What's the city response to the meltdown?-a whole laundry list of cockamamie programs of assistance; something that we questioned earlier. As the NY Daily News tells us: "Warning that the recession "won't end quickly or painlessly," Mayor Bloomberg outlined an 18-point plan Thursday to ease New Yorkers' burden in tough times."We have an increased obligation to New Yorkers who face harsh, short-term problems," said Bloomberg."
Of course, there's not a hint of a tax relief plan, instead: "Next week Bloomberg will unveil a modified budget that reflects a 2.5% reduction in across-agency spending. He has also hinted that he may raise property taxes to plug pending budget holes."
Some contrast between the supposedly savvy businessman, and the career politician. Do you think that the Post wants to re-evaluate its third term support for Mr. Indispensable? Which brings us to the Working Families Party and its rising influence.
As the NY Times reports: "In just 10 years, the tiny Working Families Party has built a reputation for pulling off upset victories in low-turnout primaries and special elections, one or two at a time. Now, however, in a presidential election year, and with the Senate’s Republican majority endangered for the first time in decades, the party is putting its record on the line in half a dozen races from Ronkonkoma to Rochester. Democrats in the Senate have effectively outsourced their entire ground game to the unassuming army of Working Families canvassers at a price of about $700,000. On any given day, about 200 of its people are in the field."
There's no question that the party has gained great leverage, but the question that remains is just how that newly gained power will be influenced. Will the WFP aggressively promote its tax raising, no service cutting agenda? And, if it does, will it find itself at odds with the frugal attitude of New York's governor? As the Times points out: "Victory would mean a chance to demand that newly empowered — and deeply indebted — Democratic lawmakers press the party’s liberal agenda on issues like taxation, rent control and health care. A monumental achievement for any third party, let alone one so young."
And then there's Kruger and the three amigos, whose "independent caucus," could control an upcoming senate leadership battle even if Democrats do take over with WFP help. An Obama-like political agenda on taxes would thrust WFP right into the eye of the political storm; with the state's first African American governor as its adversary.
The stance of the governor sharply contrasts with that of our city leaders-particularly on the correlation of lower taxes with job creation: "We need to lower taxes for some of our businesses [in order to] create jobs," he said, "so that hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers don't leave the state, as they do every year, for other areas where the life quality is better." Paterson hit it on the head: Tax hikes will drive away the very folks who can revive the economy - and regenerate depleted tax dollars."
What's the city response to the meltdown?-a whole laundry list of cockamamie programs of assistance; something that we questioned earlier. As the NY Daily News tells us: "Warning that the recession "won't end quickly or painlessly," Mayor Bloomberg outlined an 18-point plan Thursday to ease New Yorkers' burden in tough times."We have an increased obligation to New Yorkers who face harsh, short-term problems," said Bloomberg."
Of course, there's not a hint of a tax relief plan, instead: "Next week Bloomberg will unveil a modified budget that reflects a 2.5% reduction in across-agency spending. He has also hinted that he may raise property taxes to plug pending budget holes."
Some contrast between the supposedly savvy businessman, and the career politician. Do you think that the Post wants to re-evaluate its third term support for Mr. Indispensable? Which brings us to the Working Families Party and its rising influence.
As the NY Times reports: "In just 10 years, the tiny Working Families Party has built a reputation for pulling off upset victories in low-turnout primaries and special elections, one or two at a time. Now, however, in a presidential election year, and with the Senate’s Republican majority endangered for the first time in decades, the party is putting its record on the line in half a dozen races from Ronkonkoma to Rochester. Democrats in the Senate have effectively outsourced their entire ground game to the unassuming army of Working Families canvassers at a price of about $700,000. On any given day, about 200 of its people are in the field."
There's no question that the party has gained great leverage, but the question that remains is just how that newly gained power will be influenced. Will the WFP aggressively promote its tax raising, no service cutting agenda? And, if it does, will it find itself at odds with the frugal attitude of New York's governor? As the Times points out: "Victory would mean a chance to demand that newly empowered — and deeply indebted — Democratic lawmakers press the party’s liberal agenda on issues like taxation, rent control and health care. A monumental achievement for any third party, let alone one so young."
And then there's Kruger and the three amigos, whose "independent caucus," could control an upcoming senate leadership battle even if Democrats do take over with WFP help. An Obama-like political agenda on taxes would thrust WFP right into the eye of the political storm; with the state's first African American governor as its adversary.
Mayoral Wolf Tickets on Schools
With the mayoral backdraft on term limits in its infancy, it's useful to look forward to the battle over school governance. In all likelihood, the mayor will be facing an increasingly skeptical public; folks who will be more receptive to dissonant voices, such as those represented by the Riverdale Riview's Andrew Wolf.
Wolf, writing in the Public Advocate Corner opines: "By the statistics, mayoral control has failed, as Diane Ravitch has previously pointed out in this space. Test results on the most reliable measures are flat, despite an unprecedented influx of funds – a 79% increase in the education budget in just six years." But this failure extends beyond the numbers themselves.
As Wolf demonstrates: "But mayoral control has failed in a more profound way. Desperate to show “progress,” a laundry list of structural reforms has been implemented by the gang at the Tweed Courthouse. Most of these have to do with providing incentives to principals, teachers and students. If you want to believe that teachers will only do a good job if we give them the chance to earn an extra $3,000 bonus for higher test scores, than I have a bridge to sell you."
The educrats fail to get the essence of what it means to dedicate yourself to teaching kids. Having built their models on false assumptions, is it any wonder that their achievements are so meager? As Wolf indicates: "Most teachers I know desperately want to do a good job. Meeting with success makes the life of the teacher more rewarding. No small bonus, or even large bonus could ever replace that satisfaction."
Nor will bribing pupils have any real lasting impact-and the analogue of paying folks to lift them out of poverty is equally ridiculous: "The idea that students will be motivated by giving them cash prizes or, more perversely, cellular telephones that they aren’t allowed to bring to school with them, sends the wrong message. We have to imbue in our young people an appreciation for the value of learning – as a way to help them succeed financially, sure, but even more for the enrichment it gives to their lives." It is sad, but not all kids will be motivated; nor will all students be equally successful in spite of our best efforts.
But we need to develop the right methodologies-something that the Tweedlers haven't understood: "The changes we need are the ones that have been ignored. We are following an empty curriculum that leaves even the brightest students woefully deficient in the sciences, history, geography, music and art. We are training teachers to use methodologies, such as “balanced literacy,” that have been proven ineffective with the most at-risk students, while jettisoning strategies with much better track records and far more promise."
Worst of all, the Bloombergistas have recruited an army of MBAs who have a trained incapacity to make any positive educational impact:"In trying to impose a “business model” on our schools, we have failed our children in a profound way. We then use the “creative accounting” of inflated test scores and never-ending test prep to “prove” that the schools are bringing “profits” for the huge investment in public capital that is being poured into them. It is all an illusion, reinforced by a public relations army spending ten times more to sell their product us than the old Board of Education did. If we have learned nothing else during the last few weeks, it is that the Bloombergian “business model” doesn’t even work in the business world. Why should we think that it works in the far more complicated world of education?"
We can't wait till this fight becomes acrimoniously public. Once it does, the mayor's crumbling PR fortress will collapse, and the term limits battle may well be decided in November, 2009-with Mike Bloomberg suffering a humiliating defeat.
Wolf, writing in the Public Advocate Corner opines: "By the statistics, mayoral control has failed, as Diane Ravitch has previously pointed out in this space. Test results on the most reliable measures are flat, despite an unprecedented influx of funds – a 79% increase in the education budget in just six years." But this failure extends beyond the numbers themselves.
As Wolf demonstrates: "But mayoral control has failed in a more profound way. Desperate to show “progress,” a laundry list of structural reforms has been implemented by the gang at the Tweed Courthouse. Most of these have to do with providing incentives to principals, teachers and students. If you want to believe that teachers will only do a good job if we give them the chance to earn an extra $3,000 bonus for higher test scores, than I have a bridge to sell you."
The educrats fail to get the essence of what it means to dedicate yourself to teaching kids. Having built their models on false assumptions, is it any wonder that their achievements are so meager? As Wolf indicates: "Most teachers I know desperately want to do a good job. Meeting with success makes the life of the teacher more rewarding. No small bonus, or even large bonus could ever replace that satisfaction."
Nor will bribing pupils have any real lasting impact-and the analogue of paying folks to lift them out of poverty is equally ridiculous: "The idea that students will be motivated by giving them cash prizes or, more perversely, cellular telephones that they aren’t allowed to bring to school with them, sends the wrong message. We have to imbue in our young people an appreciation for the value of learning – as a way to help them succeed financially, sure, but even more for the enrichment it gives to their lives." It is sad, but not all kids will be motivated; nor will all students be equally successful in spite of our best efforts.
But we need to develop the right methodologies-something that the Tweedlers haven't understood: "The changes we need are the ones that have been ignored. We are following an empty curriculum that leaves even the brightest students woefully deficient in the sciences, history, geography, music and art. We are training teachers to use methodologies, such as “balanced literacy,” that have been proven ineffective with the most at-risk students, while jettisoning strategies with much better track records and far more promise."
Worst of all, the Bloombergistas have recruited an army of MBAs who have a trained incapacity to make any positive educational impact:"In trying to impose a “business model” on our schools, we have failed our children in a profound way. We then use the “creative accounting” of inflated test scores and never-ending test prep to “prove” that the schools are bringing “profits” for the huge investment in public capital that is being poured into them. It is all an illusion, reinforced by a public relations army spending ten times more to sell their product us than the old Board of Education did. If we have learned nothing else during the last few weeks, it is that the Bloombergian “business model” doesn’t even work in the business world. Why should we think that it works in the far more complicated world of education?"
We can't wait till this fight becomes acrimoniously public. Once it does, the mayor's crumbling PR fortress will collapse, and the term limits battle may well be decided in November, 2009-with Mike Bloomberg suffering a humiliating defeat.
With Help Like This...
City Room blog picks up on the Bloomberg/Quinn economic stimulus package: "It may not be a bailout, but every little bit helps. That was the message on Thursday when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn and six other Council members unveiled a package of 18 initiatives that they said would help New Yorkers absorb the impact of the global economic crisis."
Keeping up with the Machiavellian notion, that it's better to appear good than to be good, Quinnberg unveils initiatives that will have little impact on the real world situation of most New Yorkers. The promotion of this package of irrelevancies is designed to generate a symbolic attachment to the belief that the city is rallying to our side during these troubled times.
Yet, Speaker Quinn sees this differently: “Getting ahead of this storm won’t be easy, but with all of the people here today stepping up to the challenge together, I’m confident we’ll help New Yorkers deal with this economic downturn, in tangible ways that can make an immediate impact,” Ms. Quinn said." Encouraging, no?
As we said before, the mayor and the speaker refrain from doing the most positive of tangible initiatives-reducing taxes and regulations, substituting symbols for concrete relief: "Among some of the specifics, the city wants to allow homeowners with properties valued at under $250,000 to pay quarterly, rather than semi-annually. Then again, he is widely expected to announce as early as next week that the city needs to raise property taxes by 7 percent, starting in January, to generate another $600 million to pad city coffers until the end of the fiscal year, on June 30."
This is the highest form of crackpot realism-permitting homeowners to pay higher taxes quarterly so that they won't feel the elevated payments as much. And this can be announced with a straight face? Get ready folks for the backdraft on all of this flim flammery.
Keeping up with the Machiavellian notion, that it's better to appear good than to be good, Quinnberg unveils initiatives that will have little impact on the real world situation of most New Yorkers. The promotion of this package of irrelevancies is designed to generate a symbolic attachment to the belief that the city is rallying to our side during these troubled times.
Yet, Speaker Quinn sees this differently: “Getting ahead of this storm won’t be easy, but with all of the people here today stepping up to the challenge together, I’m confident we’ll help New Yorkers deal with this economic downturn, in tangible ways that can make an immediate impact,” Ms. Quinn said." Encouraging, no?
As we said before, the mayor and the speaker refrain from doing the most positive of tangible initiatives-reducing taxes and regulations, substituting symbols for concrete relief: "Among some of the specifics, the city wants to allow homeowners with properties valued at under $250,000 to pay quarterly, rather than semi-annually. Then again, he is widely expected to announce as early as next week that the city needs to raise property taxes by 7 percent, starting in January, to generate another $600 million to pad city coffers until the end of the fiscal year, on June 30."
This is the highest form of crackpot realism-permitting homeowners to pay higher taxes quarterly so that they won't feel the elevated payments as much. And this can be announced with a straight face? Get ready folks for the backdraft on all of this flim flammery.
Preposterous or Presumptuous?
In Daily Politics yesterday, Liz regaled us with the mayor taking umbrage at the gall of anyone challenged his droit de seigneur : "Mayor Bloomberg reacted strongly when asked this morning about the legal challenges opponents to the term limits extension legislation plan to file after Monday's bill-signing ceremony, saying: "I don't even know what they're taking about; they're so preposterous."
Now, knowing the mayor's regal hubris as well as we do, we believe that what he really meant to say was that his challengers were "presumptuous." Which our dictionary tells us means: "unwarrantedly or impertinently bold; forward." Subjects aren't supposed to challenge the regent in this manner. As His Honor tells us:
"The City Council passed the law; it was well-debated. Lots of people had a say, and if there are court challenges the corporation counsel will defend the city on those, and I think that the public wants a choice and they'll make the choice a year from November."
Or, in other words, it's pretty clear to Mike that what the public wants is, well, Him. But wait, what's that we here in Satchel Paige fashion? Remember what the old Negro League all star warned against: "Don't look back," he used to say, "Something may be gaining on you."
And that something, at least according to the City Room, could be an Albany challenge to term limits.
As City Room tells us: "Assemblyman Hakeem S. Jeffries said Thursday that a number of his colleagues in Albany have announced their support for legislation he is sponsoring to require a public referendum before the change in New York City’s term limit law becomes effective. Mr. Jeffries said that there are now 15 members of the Assembly’s Democratic majority who have joined him as co-sponsors of the bill."
Can this actually happen? "Mr. Jeffries’s bill would create a new state law requiring any municipality with term limits to hold a public referendum before making any changes that would affect how long elected officials can serve. Because the law would apply statewide, it would supersede any law passed by the City Council. That could throw up a road block for Mr. Bloomberg, who recently won a victory in his campaign to get the City Council to extend term limits."
But what about the state senate, you may ask? Ah, there's the rub-because even with all of the Bloomie Bucks pouring in, there's no guarantee that the senate will stay under Republican control. And if it doesn't? Who knows just how far this bit of preposturousness will go. As Hakim Jeffries says: "The fix was in at City Hall and democracy did not stand a chance,” he said. “The vote to legislatively change term limits was one of the biggest shams ever perpetrated on New Yorkers,” Mr. Jeffries added. “With breathtaking arrogance and reckless disregard for the public sentiment, a few self-interested politicians conspired to undermine the will of the people.”
What we see here, is the potential for the kind of perfect storm that will flood the mayor and his abettors right out of city hall. Maybe that's presumptuous, but in our view it's far from preposterous.
Now, knowing the mayor's regal hubris as well as we do, we believe that what he really meant to say was that his challengers were "presumptuous." Which our dictionary tells us means: "unwarrantedly or impertinently bold; forward." Subjects aren't supposed to challenge the regent in this manner. As His Honor tells us:
"The City Council passed the law; it was well-debated. Lots of people had a say, and if there are court challenges the corporation counsel will defend the city on those, and I think that the public wants a choice and they'll make the choice a year from November."
Or, in other words, it's pretty clear to Mike that what the public wants is, well, Him. But wait, what's that we here in Satchel Paige fashion? Remember what the old Negro League all star warned against: "Don't look back," he used to say, "Something may be gaining on you."
And that something, at least according to the City Room, could be an Albany challenge to term limits.
As City Room tells us: "Assemblyman Hakeem S. Jeffries said Thursday that a number of his colleagues in Albany have announced their support for legislation he is sponsoring to require a public referendum before the change in New York City’s term limit law becomes effective. Mr. Jeffries said that there are now 15 members of the Assembly’s Democratic majority who have joined him as co-sponsors of the bill."
Can this actually happen? "Mr. Jeffries’s bill would create a new state law requiring any municipality with term limits to hold a public referendum before making any changes that would affect how long elected officials can serve. Because the law would apply statewide, it would supersede any law passed by the City Council. That could throw up a road block for Mr. Bloomberg, who recently won a victory in his campaign to get the City Council to extend term limits."
But what about the state senate, you may ask? Ah, there's the rub-because even with all of the Bloomie Bucks pouring in, there's no guarantee that the senate will stay under Republican control. And if it doesn't? Who knows just how far this bit of preposturousness will go. As Hakim Jeffries says: "The fix was in at City Hall and democracy did not stand a chance,” he said. “The vote to legislatively change term limits was one of the biggest shams ever perpetrated on New Yorkers,” Mr. Jeffries added. “With breathtaking arrogance and reckless disregard for the public sentiment, a few self-interested politicians conspired to undermine the will of the people.”
What we see here, is the potential for the kind of perfect storm that will flood the mayor and his abettors right out of city hall. Maybe that's presumptuous, but in our view it's far from preposterous.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Help is on the Way: God Help Us!
The mayor-trying to demonstrate a proactive stance on the economy, as well as a bit of feigned empathy at the same time-is announcing his Five Point Plan to help out. According to the Washington Post: "To help New Yorkers weather the economic downturn, Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to relax tax deadlines for some property owners, launch a public awareness campaign about debt and create a special Web site for laid-off financial workers as part of a package of immediate steps to ease the burden."
The mayor is alleging, at least according to NY1, that this effort is partially aimed at helping the city's small businesses: "The five point plan intends to keep New Yorkers working, strengthen small business, make sure home ownership remains the American dream..." Yada, yada yada.
What a load.
And the NY Daily News also tells us that the administration is looking for ways to help the little guys who have been impacted by the economic meltdown: "They may be small, but from boutiques and bodegas to salons and storefronts, New York's mom-and-pop businesses are in some big-time pain. Wall Street turmoil is trickling down to borough streets, where the city's 220,000 small businesses are increasingly short on free-spending customers and loans to keep them afloat."
So what's the big response? As the News points out: "Small Business Services Commissioner Rob Walsh said he's been pounding the pavement trying to listen to pressured entrepreneurs. Last week, Walsh said he walked around six different Brooklyn neighborhoods asking business owners how the city can help. Today, the city is expected to launch an initiative to help mom-and-pops - New York's other big engine of job generation besides shrinking Wall Street. City Hall supports a $700 million small business stimulus package that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is championing. It calls for increased funding for federal loan guarantees and an expansion of the U.S. Small Business Administration."
Now we're not knee jerk fans of Ronald Reagan, but we're reminded of his admonition about not believing the following: "We're from the government, and we're here to help you." If the mayor really wanted to help small businesses and homeowners, he could begin by simply reducing the cost of living and doing business in NYC. We remember vividly how the Bloomberg property tax increase sent homeowners packing in 2003; an exodus that was only stemmed when the irrational housing bubble took off.
The exodus wasn't limited to homeowners. As the Times reported earlier this year, minority supermarket owners have begun the out migration because of the city's out of control costs: "In one corner of southeast Queens, four supermarkets have closed in the last two years. Over a similar period in East Harlem, six small supermarkets have closed, and two more are on the brink, local officials said...The supermarket closings — not confined to poor neighborhoods — result from rising rents and slim profit margins, among other causes."
It's not only the rents, it's the city's commercial real estate tax-increased by 20% under the mayor's impetus-regulatory blitzes and a bottle law that turns stores into waste dumps. Add to this the cost of light, heat and power, and the absurd workman's comp laws-not to mention the slip and fall lawyers who target the markets-and you get one lousy business environment for a sector, small business, that's touted as the city's other economic engine.
So if the mayor and his small business guru want to help, they have a sure fire way to proceed: simply lower the costs of doing business. But wait, there's a problem with doing that because it would lower the revenues that the city claims it needs for "vital services." Which reminds us of how the mayor approached the cigarette black market,
Back in 2003 when the mayor went on his tax hike binge, he raised the cigarette tax by over 1800%! At the time we complained, pointing out that the city's bodegas, green grocers and news dealers, would lose over $250 million a year to a black market driven by illegal sales from Indian retailers. The mayor's response? He called it a "minor economic issue."
But fast forward to 2008, and we find Mayor Mike suing the very same Indians: "Officials estimate that untaxed cigarette sales by the eight dealers have cut city revenues by nearly $195 million a year, an amount the city can ill afford during a financial crisis." Oh, so now we see, it's an issue only when the city's revenues are threatened.
New Yorkers are living in the most hostile business climate in America. The mayor's faux concerns about the little guy are really disingenuous because they divert attention away from the real source of the problem: the man in the mirror.
The mayor is alleging, at least according to NY1, that this effort is partially aimed at helping the city's small businesses: "The five point plan intends to keep New Yorkers working, strengthen small business, make sure home ownership remains the American dream..." Yada, yada yada.
What a load.
And the NY Daily News also tells us that the administration is looking for ways to help the little guys who have been impacted by the economic meltdown: "They may be small, but from boutiques and bodegas to salons and storefronts, New York's mom-and-pop businesses are in some big-time pain. Wall Street turmoil is trickling down to borough streets, where the city's 220,000 small businesses are increasingly short on free-spending customers and loans to keep them afloat."
So what's the big response? As the News points out: "Small Business Services Commissioner Rob Walsh said he's been pounding the pavement trying to listen to pressured entrepreneurs. Last week, Walsh said he walked around six different Brooklyn neighborhoods asking business owners how the city can help. Today, the city is expected to launch an initiative to help mom-and-pops - New York's other big engine of job generation besides shrinking Wall Street. City Hall supports a $700 million small business stimulus package that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is championing. It calls for increased funding for federal loan guarantees and an expansion of the U.S. Small Business Administration."
Now we're not knee jerk fans of Ronald Reagan, but we're reminded of his admonition about not believing the following: "We're from the government, and we're here to help you." If the mayor really wanted to help small businesses and homeowners, he could begin by simply reducing the cost of living and doing business in NYC. We remember vividly how the Bloomberg property tax increase sent homeowners packing in 2003; an exodus that was only stemmed when the irrational housing bubble took off.
The exodus wasn't limited to homeowners. As the Times reported earlier this year, minority supermarket owners have begun the out migration because of the city's out of control costs: "In one corner of southeast Queens, four supermarkets have closed in the last two years. Over a similar period in East Harlem, six small supermarkets have closed, and two more are on the brink, local officials said...The supermarket closings — not confined to poor neighborhoods — result from rising rents and slim profit margins, among other causes."
It's not only the rents, it's the city's commercial real estate tax-increased by 20% under the mayor's impetus-regulatory blitzes and a bottle law that turns stores into waste dumps. Add to this the cost of light, heat and power, and the absurd workman's comp laws-not to mention the slip and fall lawyers who target the markets-and you get one lousy business environment for a sector, small business, that's touted as the city's other economic engine.
So if the mayor and his small business guru want to help, they have a sure fire way to proceed: simply lower the costs of doing business. But wait, there's a problem with doing that because it would lower the revenues that the city claims it needs for "vital services." Which reminds us of how the mayor approached the cigarette black market,
Back in 2003 when the mayor went on his tax hike binge, he raised the cigarette tax by over 1800%! At the time we complained, pointing out that the city's bodegas, green grocers and news dealers, would lose over $250 million a year to a black market driven by illegal sales from Indian retailers. The mayor's response? He called it a "minor economic issue."
But fast forward to 2008, and we find Mayor Mike suing the very same Indians: "Officials estimate that untaxed cigarette sales by the eight dealers have cut city revenues by nearly $195 million a year, an amount the city can ill afford during a financial crisis." Oh, so now we see, it's an issue only when the city's revenues are threatened.
New Yorkers are living in the most hostile business climate in America. The mayor's faux concerns about the little guy are really disingenuous because they divert attention away from the real source of the problem: the man in the mirror.
State Senate Poll Positions
Liz has the new Siena Poll results for four state senate districts-and the evidence here, it seems to us, is that an Obama tsunami is unlikely to surge marginal Dems into a large majority. Turnout-the great unpredictable factor-could upset the apple cart, but in all likelihood, the battle to control the Senate will remain very close.
Slippery Slope?
Another item in the Crain's Insider caught our eye-it had to do with the beginning erosion of the mayor's popularity: "Amid the fight to extend term limits, Mayor Bloomberg’s unfavorable rating soared to 27%, according to a Siena Research Institute poll. It was 16% in September. Minorities account for much of the jump. A third of African-Americans and Latinos now disapprove of Bloomberg."
And the poll in question was conducted before the council vote on the 23rd-and before the likely swirling of the legal ramifications of the challenge to the vote that will begin after the mayor signs the bill this Monday. As Newsday reports: "Adversaries of the bill extending term limits vowed yesterday that the fight will continue, calling on Mayor Michael Bloomberg to not sign what they described as a self-benefiting piece of legislation."You have a chance to redeem yourself and respect the people's process," Councilman Charles Barron said. "Don't sign it. Don't sign your bill."
And since it appears that this issue has had a disproportionately negative impact in the minority community, the self-imposed-and likely purchased-silence of Al Sharpton is becoming deafening-particularly when elected officials like Bill Thompson are making this a voting rights issue: "We've seen in history when voters' rights have been ignored, we've gone and turned to the courts," Thompson said. "We are standing again together to say we are going back to the courts for justice."
When the Bush Justice Department turns down the challenge ("After Bloomberg signs his bill, it has to be approved by the U.S. Justice Department, which will determine whether it violates the federal Voting Rights Act"), can Sharpton stay on the sidelines. We'll see; but we might want to bet that when the time comes, Bloomberg's going to find himself in the position of the frog who reluctantly gives the scorpion a ride across the river only to wind up fatally stung. Before his demise, the frog asks the scorpion why he would do such a thing, since it dooms the both of them. The reply: "Because that's what scorpions do."
And the poll in question was conducted before the council vote on the 23rd-and before the likely swirling of the legal ramifications of the challenge to the vote that will begin after the mayor signs the bill this Monday. As Newsday reports: "Adversaries of the bill extending term limits vowed yesterday that the fight will continue, calling on Mayor Michael Bloomberg to not sign what they described as a self-benefiting piece of legislation."You have a chance to redeem yourself and respect the people's process," Councilman Charles Barron said. "Don't sign it. Don't sign your bill."
And since it appears that this issue has had a disproportionately negative impact in the minority community, the self-imposed-and likely purchased-silence of Al Sharpton is becoming deafening-particularly when elected officials like Bill Thompson are making this a voting rights issue: "We've seen in history when voters' rights have been ignored, we've gone and turned to the courts," Thompson said. "We are standing again together to say we are going back to the courts for justice."
When the Bush Justice Department turns down the challenge ("After Bloomberg signs his bill, it has to be approved by the U.S. Justice Department, which will determine whether it violates the federal Voting Rights Act"), can Sharpton stay on the sidelines. We'll see; but we might want to bet that when the time comes, Bloomberg's going to find himself in the position of the frog who reluctantly gives the scorpion a ride across the river only to wind up fatally stung. Before his demise, the frog asks the scorpion why he would do such a thing, since it dooms the both of them. The reply: "Because that's what scorpions do."
Term Limits Twist and Shout
In this morning's NY Daily News, Errol Louis focuses in on the arm twisting that preceded last week's vote: "The wrongness of the term-limits power grab by Mayor Bloomberg and his bought-off City Council majority was made clear by the dissembling, bribery, cowardice and coercion that went on at City Hall during the farcical hearings and rushed vote to overturn what voters twice approved by referendum.
He's particularly disappointed with Jimmy Vacca: "Jimmy Vacca of the Bronx, who'd vowed to vote against a change to the law, babbled and shook like a leaf as he caved in and changed his vote, looking for all the world like Fredo Corleone, the dim-witted pawn in the "Godfather" movies." People wonder what the deal was here.
As they do with the nauseous Darlene Mealy: "Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn reportedly had what might be the most understandable reaction to the whole sorry spectacle: She threw up. Placed under unrelenting pressure that sources tell me included threats of legal action against her, Mealy - who had publicly promised to oppose any tampering with term limits - quietly changed her vote, then left the chamber to vomit."
While it's unlikely that the popular Vacca is threatened with removal by the voters next year, Mealy is extremely vulnerable, as is-at least according to the Crain's Insider-Tom White: "A political operative says Tom White of Queens should be added to the list of City Council members who will be vulnerable next year because they voted to extend term limits. “He’s going down,” the source says."
All of which will make for an interesting year, with everything transpiring under the glare and gloom of a growing budget deficit and predictable service cuts. In the course of next year's drama we will really discover the extent to which NYC is a paragon of voter sophistication-and a place where the will of the people is considered sacrosanct.
He's particularly disappointed with Jimmy Vacca: "Jimmy Vacca of the Bronx, who'd vowed to vote against a change to the law, babbled and shook like a leaf as he caved in and changed his vote, looking for all the world like Fredo Corleone, the dim-witted pawn in the "Godfather" movies." People wonder what the deal was here.
As they do with the nauseous Darlene Mealy: "Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn reportedly had what might be the most understandable reaction to the whole sorry spectacle: She threw up. Placed under unrelenting pressure that sources tell me included threats of legal action against her, Mealy - who had publicly promised to oppose any tampering with term limits - quietly changed her vote, then left the chamber to vomit."
While it's unlikely that the popular Vacca is threatened with removal by the voters next year, Mealy is extremely vulnerable, as is-at least according to the Crain's Insider-Tom White: "A political operative says Tom White of Queens should be added to the list of City Council members who will be vulnerable next year because they voted to extend term limits. “He’s going down,” the source says."
All of which will make for an interesting year, with everything transpiring under the glare and gloom of a growing budget deficit and predictable service cuts. In the course of next year's drama we will really discover the extent to which NYC is a paragon of voter sophistication-and a place where the will of the people is considered sacrosanct.
Bloomberg, Bloomberg, Pants on Fire
When Clyde Haberman wrote last week on the mayor and the term limits debate, he pointed out-referring to the complete about face that Bloomberg had made on the issue-that: "Having legislatively muscled his way into a possible third term as mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg now faces what may be a more onerous challenge: How to convince New Yorkers that they can believe a single thing he says."
Well, it didn't take long to find an issue that further erodes the mayor's rather flimsy credibility. It now appears that Mayor Mike, eager to bum rush his extension coronation, purposefully mislead New Yorkers about the size of the city's current deficit. As the NY Times reports this morning: "On Oct. 21, two days before the City Council voted by a thin margin to allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek a third term, the mayor sounded an alarm on the city’s economy. New York City’s annual budget deficit, he said, would swell by $500 million during the current fiscal year because of weakening tax revenues. At the time, the worsening picture seemed to strengthen his central argument for changing term limits — a vulnerable city needed his steady hand and business background for four more years."
But the dire warning turns out to be, at least for the current year-what a shock-simply false: "But some of those inside and outside the administration say that Mr. Bloomberg’s remarks were inaccurate and may have painted a more dire financial situation than was warranted. Interviews with these people show that the city does not expect any budget deficit in the current fiscal year, which began July 1."
So Michael Bloomberg, the above special interests statesman, is acting just like any other glibly prevaricating pol in support of the politician's time honored favorite special interest-self-aggrandizement: "In fact, data that was provided to the city about the same time the mayor was speaking showed the city’s tax revenue grew at an unexpectedly brisk pace during July, August and September. During that time, the city took in at least $200 million more than it had planned for, data and interviews show. Much of the unexpected revenue stemmed from sales, personal income and property transfer taxes."
So why did he lie Mr, Loeser? "Asked why the mayor said the city faces a deficit this year, aides said that Mr. Bloomberg may have been referring instead to his expectation that revenues would be lower than the city forecast. But even if the mayor were referring to a potential falloff in this year’s tax receipts, the $500 million number is a greater decline than what many city officials and economists predict."
And the mayor's words carry consider weight, especially in the fawning pages of the city's tabloids: "Mr. Bloomberg’s Oct. 21 remarks carried significant weight, and prompted articles in The Daily News and The New York Post about the city’s worsening economy. Both articles reported that the city’s budget deficit would swell by $500 million, and mayoral aides never sought to correct those stories. “I can tell you,” the mayor said, “that our deficit — we originally had ’09 balanced. Now we’ve got a $500 million hole in it.”
So we're back to Haberman's observation on the mayor's evanescent credibility and the still roiling issue of term limits. As he mused yesterday: "On the radio, Mr. Bloomberg left little doubt about his distaste for going that route. He cited the complex nature of city government. “You don’t run that by taking referendums on everything,” he said. His comment misrepresented reality. New York hardly holds referendums on everything; we’re not California. We have referendums on very few things."
So the upcoming 2010 referendum is certainly not a sure thing-and certainly not so given the lack of weight we're able to assign to whatever comes out of the mayor's mouth: "But in one such instance, five years ago, the voters soundly thumped Mr. Bloomberg when he sought their support for nonpartisan elections. That experience seems to have soured him on plebiscites. A reasonable inference from his latest remarks is that he is not interested in any kind of referendum at all."
The wise Timesman ends by highlighting the observations of the villainous "Chinatown" character, Noah Cross: "Mr. Bloomberg knows that his reputation has taken hard blows in the fight over term limits. But he is apparently betting that the passage of time will restore whatever he may have lost in respectability. Noah Cross would have counseled him to hang in there. “Politicians, ugly buildings and whores,” he said, “all get respectable if they last long enough.”
This hope-and $100 million-is what motivates Bloomberg; and he's someone who probably follows PT Barnum rather than Noah Cross. The old circus dude's motto certainly must guide the mayor: "There's a sucker born every minute,"
Well, it didn't take long to find an issue that further erodes the mayor's rather flimsy credibility. It now appears that Mayor Mike, eager to bum rush his extension coronation, purposefully mislead New Yorkers about the size of the city's current deficit. As the NY Times reports this morning: "On Oct. 21, two days before the City Council voted by a thin margin to allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek a third term, the mayor sounded an alarm on the city’s economy. New York City’s annual budget deficit, he said, would swell by $500 million during the current fiscal year because of weakening tax revenues. At the time, the worsening picture seemed to strengthen his central argument for changing term limits — a vulnerable city needed his steady hand and business background for four more years."
But the dire warning turns out to be, at least for the current year-what a shock-simply false: "But some of those inside and outside the administration say that Mr. Bloomberg’s remarks were inaccurate and may have painted a more dire financial situation than was warranted. Interviews with these people show that the city does not expect any budget deficit in the current fiscal year, which began July 1."
So Michael Bloomberg, the above special interests statesman, is acting just like any other glibly prevaricating pol in support of the politician's time honored favorite special interest-self-aggrandizement: "In fact, data that was provided to the city about the same time the mayor was speaking showed the city’s tax revenue grew at an unexpectedly brisk pace during July, August and September. During that time, the city took in at least $200 million more than it had planned for, data and interviews show. Much of the unexpected revenue stemmed from sales, personal income and property transfer taxes."
So why did he lie Mr, Loeser? "Asked why the mayor said the city faces a deficit this year, aides said that Mr. Bloomberg may have been referring instead to his expectation that revenues would be lower than the city forecast. But even if the mayor were referring to a potential falloff in this year’s tax receipts, the $500 million number is a greater decline than what many city officials and economists predict."
And the mayor's words carry consider weight, especially in the fawning pages of the city's tabloids: "Mr. Bloomberg’s Oct. 21 remarks carried significant weight, and prompted articles in The Daily News and The New York Post about the city’s worsening economy. Both articles reported that the city’s budget deficit would swell by $500 million, and mayoral aides never sought to correct those stories. “I can tell you,” the mayor said, “that our deficit — we originally had ’09 balanced. Now we’ve got a $500 million hole in it.”
So we're back to Haberman's observation on the mayor's evanescent credibility and the still roiling issue of term limits. As he mused yesterday: "On the radio, Mr. Bloomberg left little doubt about his distaste for going that route. He cited the complex nature of city government. “You don’t run that by taking referendums on everything,” he said. His comment misrepresented reality. New York hardly holds referendums on everything; we’re not California. We have referendums on very few things."
So the upcoming 2010 referendum is certainly not a sure thing-and certainly not so given the lack of weight we're able to assign to whatever comes out of the mayor's mouth: "But in one such instance, five years ago, the voters soundly thumped Mr. Bloomberg when he sought their support for nonpartisan elections. That experience seems to have soured him on plebiscites. A reasonable inference from his latest remarks is that he is not interested in any kind of referendum at all."
The wise Timesman ends by highlighting the observations of the villainous "Chinatown" character, Noah Cross: "Mr. Bloomberg knows that his reputation has taken hard blows in the fight over term limits. But he is apparently betting that the passage of time will restore whatever he may have lost in respectability. Noah Cross would have counseled him to hang in there. “Politicians, ugly buildings and whores,” he said, “all get respectable if they last long enough.”
This hope-and $100 million-is what motivates Bloomberg; and he's someone who probably follows PT Barnum rather than Noah Cross. The old circus dude's motto certainly must guide the mayor: "There's a sucker born every minute,"
Bye Bye Biaz?
According to the West Bronx blog (via Liz B), there will be at least two contested council races in the Bronx: "Many local insurgent candidates launched Web sites and have been fundraising for months. Now faced with the probability of facing well-financed, well-known incumbents, candidates are reassessing their campaigns. A couple have already dropped out or signaled their intention to do so. But after surveying the post-term limits political landscape in the 11th and 14th Council districts, it appears most candidates have not been cowed, meaning some spirited and competitive races may be coming next fall."
While we think that challenging long time Riverdaler Ollie Koppell will be formidable indeed, Maria Ausente Biaz is another story altogether: "In the 14th District (Mount Hope, University Heights and Kingsbridge Heights), none of Maria Baez’s previously announced opponents seem scared off by the prospect of facing the incumbent." Nor should they, considering the fact that the evanescent Biaz is never around enough to establish any sold presence.
We did, however, get a kick out of the Biaz comments: "Baez told the Mount Hope Monitor recently that she will run again and that the term limits extension will “give an opportunity for members like myself to finish projects.” What it will do, if she ever did serve three terms, would be to enable the tardy Biaz to actually get the chance to serve two full terms.
While we think that challenging long time Riverdaler Ollie Koppell will be formidable indeed, Maria Ausente Biaz is another story altogether: "In the 14th District (Mount Hope, University Heights and Kingsbridge Heights), none of Maria Baez’s previously announced opponents seem scared off by the prospect of facing the incumbent." Nor should they, considering the fact that the evanescent Biaz is never around enough to establish any sold presence.
We did, however, get a kick out of the Biaz comments: "Baez told the Mount Hope Monitor recently that she will run again and that the term limits extension will “give an opportunity for members like myself to finish projects.” What it will do, if she ever did serve three terms, would be to enable the tardy Biaz to actually get the chance to serve two full terms.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Gaming the Schools
In the NY Post this morning comes this: "A group launched more than a year ago to conduct independent research on the city school system's practices is - well - re-launching.
Since its inaugural conference on Oct. 7, 2007, the Research Alliance for New York City Schools has disappeared into a fund-raising, leadership-seeking cocoon...Some have voiced concern about the alliance's ability to remain independent, since Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and UFT chief Randi Weingarten will sit on its board."
Yuh think? Which takes us back to another Post missive by Marcus Winters-an editorial in favor of maintaining mayoral control a few days ago: "The issue of mayoral control is much bigger than any one mayor. The real question is what setup makes the most sense for governing a large urban school system. In that light, most arguments against reauthorization just crumble."
And what arguments are those? It seems that the debate over what form of governance system should be maintained hasn't even begun-although there have been some trenchant criticisms of the Bloomberg era. So while the Op-ed author is right-"Under mayoral control, by contrast, no school reform sees the light of day without at least the mayor's implicit approval. If voters and parents don't like what's going on in city schools, they know whom to blame. If they approve, then they know whom to praise"-there a big gulf between a critique of how the Bloombergistas have utilized their control, and complete reversion to an older system.
It all comes off as another Bloomberg-driven straw man. And severe crticisms continue to pour in. In this morning's NY Daily News, Juan Gonzales dramatizes additional waste at the DOE; and underscores the fact that contracts are being let with absolutely no accountability to the tax payers-other than the nuclear option of throwing the mayor out on his pencil holder: "Send it by courier" has become a favorite catch phrase at the school system's Tweed Courthouse headquarters these days. Tweed educrats are on track to spend $5 million this year for private couriers - more than double the messenger tab before Schools Chancellor Joel Klein took over in 2002 - a Daily News review of city budget records shows. The biggest share of that increase is coming from Klein's office of assessment and accountability, the controversial new division that oversees student testing."
And as one Tweed critic points out: "The Department of Education is out of control," said Leonie Haimson, head of Class Size Matters, a parent advocacy group. "It's unrestrained by reality," she said. "Here we're told there's a financial crisis and schools will have to cut budgets, but this element at Tweed keeps mushrooming with spending. "They're bringing stuff in my school by courier from downtown," one principal said. "Bulletins, memos, fancy color brochures, sometimes they come in on hand trucks. It's astounding because none of this stuff helps us teach our students."
Unaccountability at the Office of Accountability-priceless: "They've got all these people feeding information into computers, tweaking numbers to produce a grade for a school that is totally useless," another principal said. "It's like some Kafkaesque novel."
Information is power in evaluating school performance. Here's how Winters diminishes this argument: "Still others argue that the mayor shouldn't have control over so much information pertaining to the schools. They charge that the Bloomberg team manipulates data via a sophisticated marketing operation and worry that future mayors could do so as well. They say that we shouldn't reauthorize the law unless it includes the creation of an outside organization, similar to the federal General Accounting Office, that would be the official arbiter of "truth."
An outside auditor might not be a bad thing, but it's hardly required. Exactly what data isn't available now?
Winters goes on to point out: "Yes, the administration has trumpeted somewhat misleading numbers, such as gains in the percentage of students meeting particular benchmarks. But press releases from the Department of Education are hardly our only source of information. The state and city report mean test scores overall, by subgroup and by school, and provide this information to parents, researchers and journalists on the Web or by request. Researchers at a variety of think tanks and universities have independently gained access to student-level data and are using it to study the city's schools."
But the fact still remains that the DOE is spending millions to not only tweak the numbers, but to also spin results in a blizzard of misleading statistics-which is precisely why the monitor, and a truly independent one at that, is needed. Most folks can't keep up with Tweedle Dee; and the unmonitored spending is inexcusable in this fiscal climate.
Winters ends with the continuing resort to his straw man argument, and goes after unnamed educational critics in the most unprofessional fashion: "Yet most people believe that the reforms are working - that is, they are unconvinced by the dissenters' arguments. The dissenters point to this fact as proof of a coverup - a claim that defines arrogance.That said, naysayers are welcome to argue that this administration is unresponsive and that the recent reforms have been unproductive. The benefit of mayoral control is that such people know exactly where to address their displeasure. Their issue is with the mayor, not with mayoral control."
So bring on the review process-with all of the attendant zeal that is needed to combat the true source of arrogance-Tweedle Bloomberg and Tweedle Klein.
Since its inaugural conference on Oct. 7, 2007, the Research Alliance for New York City Schools has disappeared into a fund-raising, leadership-seeking cocoon...Some have voiced concern about the alliance's ability to remain independent, since Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and UFT chief Randi Weingarten will sit on its board."
Yuh think? Which takes us back to another Post missive by Marcus Winters-an editorial in favor of maintaining mayoral control a few days ago: "The issue of mayoral control is much bigger than any one mayor. The real question is what setup makes the most sense for governing a large urban school system. In that light, most arguments against reauthorization just crumble."
And what arguments are those? It seems that the debate over what form of governance system should be maintained hasn't even begun-although there have been some trenchant criticisms of the Bloomberg era. So while the Op-ed author is right-"Under mayoral control, by contrast, no school reform sees the light of day without at least the mayor's implicit approval. If voters and parents don't like what's going on in city schools, they know whom to blame. If they approve, then they know whom to praise"-there a big gulf between a critique of how the Bloombergistas have utilized their control, and complete reversion to an older system.
It all comes off as another Bloomberg-driven straw man. And severe crticisms continue to pour in. In this morning's NY Daily News, Juan Gonzales dramatizes additional waste at the DOE; and underscores the fact that contracts are being let with absolutely no accountability to the tax payers-other than the nuclear option of throwing the mayor out on his pencil holder: "Send it by courier" has become a favorite catch phrase at the school system's Tweed Courthouse headquarters these days. Tweed educrats are on track to spend $5 million this year for private couriers - more than double the messenger tab before Schools Chancellor Joel Klein took over in 2002 - a Daily News review of city budget records shows. The biggest share of that increase is coming from Klein's office of assessment and accountability, the controversial new division that oversees student testing."
And as one Tweed critic points out: "The Department of Education is out of control," said Leonie Haimson, head of Class Size Matters, a parent advocacy group. "It's unrestrained by reality," she said. "Here we're told there's a financial crisis and schools will have to cut budgets, but this element at Tweed keeps mushrooming with spending. "They're bringing stuff in my school by courier from downtown," one principal said. "Bulletins, memos, fancy color brochures, sometimes they come in on hand trucks. It's astounding because none of this stuff helps us teach our students."
Unaccountability at the Office of Accountability-priceless: "They've got all these people feeding information into computers, tweaking numbers to produce a grade for a school that is totally useless," another principal said. "It's like some Kafkaesque novel."
Information is power in evaluating school performance. Here's how Winters diminishes this argument: "Still others argue that the mayor shouldn't have control over so much information pertaining to the schools. They charge that the Bloomberg team manipulates data via a sophisticated marketing operation and worry that future mayors could do so as well. They say that we shouldn't reauthorize the law unless it includes the creation of an outside organization, similar to the federal General Accounting Office, that would be the official arbiter of "truth."
An outside auditor might not be a bad thing, but it's hardly required. Exactly what data isn't available now?
Winters goes on to point out: "Yes, the administration has trumpeted somewhat misleading numbers, such as gains in the percentage of students meeting particular benchmarks. But press releases from the Department of Education are hardly our only source of information. The state and city report mean test scores overall, by subgroup and by school, and provide this information to parents, researchers and journalists on the Web or by request. Researchers at a variety of think tanks and universities have independently gained access to student-level data and are using it to study the city's schools."
But the fact still remains that the DOE is spending millions to not only tweak the numbers, but to also spin results in a blizzard of misleading statistics-which is precisely why the monitor, and a truly independent one at that, is needed. Most folks can't keep up with Tweedle Dee; and the unmonitored spending is inexcusable in this fiscal climate.
Winters ends with the continuing resort to his straw man argument, and goes after unnamed educational critics in the most unprofessional fashion: "Yet most people believe that the reforms are working - that is, they are unconvinced by the dissenters' arguments. The dissenters point to this fact as proof of a coverup - a claim that defines arrogance.That said, naysayers are welcome to argue that this administration is unresponsive and that the recent reforms have been unproductive. The benefit of mayoral control is that such people know exactly where to address their displeasure. Their issue is with the mayor, not with mayoral control."
So bring on the review process-with all of the attendant zeal that is needed to combat the true source of arrogance-Tweedle Bloomberg and Tweedle Klein.
Hammond Eggs on Legislature
In this morning's NY Daily News, the paper's Bill Hammond lauds Governor Paterson on his budget realism, while attacking pandering state legislators for a head in the sand attitude: "Facing its worst financial crisis since the Depression, New York State needs more courageous leaders like Gov. Paterson who are willing to confront reality head-on. What they do not need is state lawmakers who pretend Albany can plow ahead with big-spending business as usual. Yet, that's exactly what they saw Tuesday."
The problem is simple; a pre-election necessity to keep the allies in place in order to maintain power: "At a time when New York is billions in the red, four Republican senators - Marty Golden of Brooklyn, Serphin Maltese of Queens, George Maziarz of Niagara County and Catharine Young of Cattaraugus County - complain about a modest $50 million trim in Medicaid spending on prescription drugs...Meanwhile, Skelos restated his probably empty promise not to touch a dime of school aid this fiscal year - a pander that secured his members support from the teachers union as they struggle to save their vanishing Republican majority. Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) cut the same cynical deal. These and other lawmakers obviously think the best way to get reelected is to make a lot of spending promises they can't keep."
So, while Hammond is right and-"Lawmakers have a responsibility to be honest with voters before Election Day - to spell out not just what parts of state government they want to keep, but also what they're ready to trim back."-the reality here is that the governor isn't facing the voters until 2010. Still, as the News' editorial today underscores, the state is going to need real creative action: "The day of reckoning, and hopefully revolution, has arrived for New York's top elected leaders. The long era of gorging on tax revenues thrown off by Wall Street is over, and the time is at hand to overhaul and dramatically streamline state government. With Albany facing a $1.5 billion deficit through April and a $12.5 billion deficit the next year, the task is as gargantuan as it is inescapable."
With the state senate leadership in the balance, and with a potential paralysis ahead, we're going to need a whole lot of creativity and courage as we approach the day of budget reckoning. Let's hope that whoever emerges from the leadership battle understands the seriousness of what we face.
The problem is simple; a pre-election necessity to keep the allies in place in order to maintain power: "At a time when New York is billions in the red, four Republican senators - Marty Golden of Brooklyn, Serphin Maltese of Queens, George Maziarz of Niagara County and Catharine Young of Cattaraugus County - complain about a modest $50 million trim in Medicaid spending on prescription drugs...Meanwhile, Skelos restated his probably empty promise not to touch a dime of school aid this fiscal year - a pander that secured his members support from the teachers union as they struggle to save their vanishing Republican majority. Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) cut the same cynical deal. These and other lawmakers obviously think the best way to get reelected is to make a lot of spending promises they can't keep."
So, while Hammond is right and-"Lawmakers have a responsibility to be honest with voters before Election Day - to spell out not just what parts of state government they want to keep, but also what they're ready to trim back."-the reality here is that the governor isn't facing the voters until 2010. Still, as the News' editorial today underscores, the state is going to need real creative action: "The day of reckoning, and hopefully revolution, has arrived for New York's top elected leaders. The long era of gorging on tax revenues thrown off by Wall Street is over, and the time is at hand to overhaul and dramatically streamline state government. With Albany facing a $1.5 billion deficit through April and a $12.5 billion deficit the next year, the task is as gargantuan as it is inescapable."
With the state senate leadership in the balance, and with a potential paralysis ahead, we're going to need a whole lot of creativity and courage as we approach the day of budget reckoning. Let's hope that whoever emerges from the leadership battle understands the seriousness of what we face.
The Pointed Knife of Willets
In yesterday's Crain's Insider (subscription), there's an item about Willets Point that was as predictable, as it was disturbing: "Councilman Lew Fidler, D-Brooklyn, says his colleagues, who usually follow the local member on land-use decisions, could buck tradition when they vote on the Willets Point plan Nov. 12. Queens Councilman Hiram Monserrate will oppose the project unless the city adds affordable housing and minimizes condemnations. But Fidler says Willets Point has benefits for the entire city, which could lead to approval even if Monserrate votes no. Flushing Councilman John Liu agrees that members don’t see the project as a local issue. Fidler, who hasn’t taken a position, believes the city and Monserrate will compromise."
Now, let's be clear, almost any land use item can be seen as having city wide implications, and the Fidler Ultimatum-after all, what else can it possibly be?-is designed to pressure Monseratte to compromise. But what is Fidler doing making this statement? Where's his involvement or interest-other than becoming the mayor's cats paw? And what about the 33 members who joined with Monseratte to oppose the plan?
All of which indicates to us that the council may well become divided along mayoral/non mayoral lines; or perhaps Fidler is wearing the labor banner on this. One thing's very clear, however. The council is making a mistake to approve any plan without a developer-EDC says it will now re-bid the project-or any concrete development plan. That, on top of the local member's disapproval, should be enough. If it isn't than another shame on the body.
Now, let's be clear, almost any land use item can be seen as having city wide implications, and the Fidler Ultimatum-after all, what else can it possibly be?-is designed to pressure Monseratte to compromise. But what is Fidler doing making this statement? Where's his involvement or interest-other than becoming the mayor's cats paw? And what about the 33 members who joined with Monseratte to oppose the plan?
All of which indicates to us that the council may well become divided along mayoral/non mayoral lines; or perhaps Fidler is wearing the labor banner on this. One thing's very clear, however. The council is making a mistake to approve any plan without a developer-EDC says it will now re-bid the project-or any concrete development plan. That, on top of the local member's disapproval, should be enough. If it isn't than another shame on the body.
Without Reservation: Show Us the Money
The Bloombergistas have finally figured out what local small businesses have known for the past seven years; buttlegging of cigarettes is costing local retailers-and the city/state tax payers-hundreds of millions of dollars a year. With record deficits facing both governments, drastic enforcement action is needed since estimates indicate that up to $1billion can be found to help balance the state budget, and nearly $200 million alone can be obtained for the city.
As the NY Times details this morning: "Bootleg cigarette traffic from Long Island’s tiny Poospatuck reservation to New York City is brisk, so much so that some cigarette dealers on the reservation don’t even bother to set up storefronts, according to a motion filed in federal court on Tuesday. Instead, the dealers take telephone orders for bulk shipments of untaxed cigarettes. Millions of them are delivered to the city by van and distributed through an underground network that dramatically undercuts tax collection, the city alleged."
When we first brought this up-and pointed out the lost black market sales to city bodegas, green grocers and newsdealers-the mayor labeled it a, "minor economic issue." He was trying to downplay just how much his record cigarette tax increase had walloped retailers-forgetting that in the long run the city was also a big loser: "Officials estimate that untaxed cigarette sales by the eight dealers have cut city revenues by nearly $195 million a year, an amount the city can ill afford during a financial crisis. In addition, bootleg cigarette traffic undermines a Bloomberg administration anti-smoking campaign."
So while the Alliance is happy that the administration is finally getting into the enforcement business we're displeased, to say the least, that the city didn't feel the need to act on behalf of its businesses-only when its own ox was so obviously being gored. And the activities of the phony Indians is too obvious for anyone to ignore: "In making off-reservation sales, including bulk transactions in which defendants sell van loads of cigarettes on a daily basis, which are then trafficked into New York City for resale, defendants grow rich at the expense of tax-paying retailers and city and state taxpayers,” lawyers for the city said in the 43-page memorandum requesting a preliminary injunction against the tribal dealers."
There are only 279 people living on the Poospatuck reservation, yet there are 49 businesses entities selling smokes-an obvious attempt to end run legal limits on bulk sales. The vanning of cigearettes into the city-and the backpacking of resellers-has been documented from the beginning of the Bloomberg tax increase in 2002; so its nice to see that we have been vindicated: "Another defendant, TDM Discount Cigarettes, does not maintain a storefront, a fact that indicates that TDM “engaged entirely in bulk sales,” the court papers said. A confidential informant said that TDM made deliveries to a storage location in Queens owned by cigarette resellers in the city, according to the court papers. A lawyer for TDM could not be reached for comment."
Now if Governor Paterson would get into the act, another important source of new state revenue could be found to close the state's record budget gap: "Mr. Paterson said that a gap of $12.5 billion has already opened between projected revenues and spending for the 2010 fiscal year, which begins on April 1. He expects deficits of $15.8 billion for the following fiscal year and $17.2 billion in fiscal year 2012. “We will face massive deficits in this state,” the governor said at a news conference in Manhattan. “And we’re going to have to take bold and urgent actions to try to accommodate them.”
Like how about enforcing the law on lawless Indian retailers by charging the taxes upstream, so that the city's enforcement efforts would be streamlined. Given the record deficit, the governor's excuses for inaction-much like those of his predecessers-can no longer be accepted. As the NY Post points out this morning, drastic budget cutting is going to be needed: "But the challenge will be to do so in a way that minimizes damage to the economy, upon whose health Albany relies. That means cutting the fat, saving core services - and holding down taxes. Is Albany up to the job?"
As the NY Times details this morning: "Bootleg cigarette traffic from Long Island’s tiny Poospatuck reservation to New York City is brisk, so much so that some cigarette dealers on the reservation don’t even bother to set up storefronts, according to a motion filed in federal court on Tuesday. Instead, the dealers take telephone orders for bulk shipments of untaxed cigarettes. Millions of them are delivered to the city by van and distributed through an underground network that dramatically undercuts tax collection, the city alleged."
When we first brought this up-and pointed out the lost black market sales to city bodegas, green grocers and newsdealers-the mayor labeled it a, "minor economic issue." He was trying to downplay just how much his record cigarette tax increase had walloped retailers-forgetting that in the long run the city was also a big loser: "Officials estimate that untaxed cigarette sales by the eight dealers have cut city revenues by nearly $195 million a year, an amount the city can ill afford during a financial crisis. In addition, bootleg cigarette traffic undermines a Bloomberg administration anti-smoking campaign."
So while the Alliance is happy that the administration is finally getting into the enforcement business we're displeased, to say the least, that the city didn't feel the need to act on behalf of its businesses-only when its own ox was so obviously being gored. And the activities of the phony Indians is too obvious for anyone to ignore: "In making off-reservation sales, including bulk transactions in which defendants sell van loads of cigarettes on a daily basis, which are then trafficked into New York City for resale, defendants grow rich at the expense of tax-paying retailers and city and state taxpayers,” lawyers for the city said in the 43-page memorandum requesting a preliminary injunction against the tribal dealers."
There are only 279 people living on the Poospatuck reservation, yet there are 49 businesses entities selling smokes-an obvious attempt to end run legal limits on bulk sales. The vanning of cigearettes into the city-and the backpacking of resellers-has been documented from the beginning of the Bloomberg tax increase in 2002; so its nice to see that we have been vindicated: "Another defendant, TDM Discount Cigarettes, does not maintain a storefront, a fact that indicates that TDM “engaged entirely in bulk sales,” the court papers said. A confidential informant said that TDM made deliveries to a storage location in Queens owned by cigarette resellers in the city, according to the court papers. A lawyer for TDM could not be reached for comment."
Now if Governor Paterson would get into the act, another important source of new state revenue could be found to close the state's record budget gap: "Mr. Paterson said that a gap of $12.5 billion has already opened between projected revenues and spending for the 2010 fiscal year, which begins on April 1. He expects deficits of $15.8 billion for the following fiscal year and $17.2 billion in fiscal year 2012. “We will face massive deficits in this state,” the governor said at a news conference in Manhattan. “And we’re going to have to take bold and urgent actions to try to accommodate them.”
Like how about enforcing the law on lawless Indian retailers by charging the taxes upstream, so that the city's enforcement efforts would be streamlined. Given the record deficit, the governor's excuses for inaction-much like those of his predecessers-can no longer be accepted. As the NY Post points out this morning, drastic budget cutting is going to be needed: "But the challenge will be to do so in a way that minimizes damage to the economy, upon whose health Albany relies. That means cutting the fat, saving core services - and holding down taxes. Is Albany up to the job?"
Unwilling to Budge(t)
The stuff is just about ready to hit the fan-with a huge state budget shortfall ready to have a major negative impact city finances. As Daily Politics reports: "With the state in increasingly dire fiscal straits, Mayor Bloomberg began calling City Council members today to warn them the city's suffering will likely worsen due to Albany’s budget fiasco, the DN's Kate Lucadamo reports.
“He called me before and said we are going to have a tough time and Albany is not going to help and we are going to have to act sooner rather than later,” said Councilman David Weprin, the head of the Finance Committee." That could mean a mid-year property tax hike or further budget cuts, but will largely depend on how much aid the state ends up withholding."
Are you ready for this? The state is facing a $13 billion shortfall of its own-with school aid scheduled to rise by $2 billion in the next fiscal year, along with a $1.8 billion Medicaid rise. Drastic savings are going to be needed; and yet we read that the state payroll has actually increased. Here's Liz's earlier post: "Calling the fiscal crisis facing New York "unprecedented," Gov. David Paterson today called on legislative leaders to whack another $2 billion from the current budget when they return to Albany Nov. 18 for their second emergency session in three months and stressed that nothing is off the table when it comes to cuts. "Don't get me wrong," the governor said, "there will be hard and painful cuts. There is no segment of this budget that will not be cut."
It is precisely in this environment that we can ill afford legislative gridlock-and we'd like all Obamafiles to keep in mind that the Senator's tax plan would likely cost this high income state around $500,000,000 a year; just when we can least afford it. At the same time we need to find ways to grow other areas of the economy in the face of the Wall Street retrenchment that will only get worse. Up until now Wall Street, only 2-3% of the area jobs, has accounted for around 18% of the taxable wage revenue to the state.
Given this heretofore out sized role for the financial sector, it seems to us that the state and the city is going to need to address-and remedy-the high cost of doing business here. If, as Mike Bloomberg has said, New York isn't like Wal-Mart and is more of a luxury item, then we need to be mindful of how luxury items are the first things that folks sacrifice during hard times.
And the schools, particularly school aid, will be right in the budget cross hairs. NY spends about 30-40% more per pupil (around $13,000) than the national average. The state spends $24.3 billion a year in school aid to localities. Can anyone argue that we're getting the right bang for these bucks? And more school aid is warranted because? However, cutting these funds in the face of teacher union opposition will be the budgetary equivalent of passing a kidney stone.
In the face of these budget and governance realities, Mike Bloomberg has been a minimalist. As Nicole Gelinas comments: "But although Mr Bloomberg was preparing for the downturn, the one hitting the city now is likely to be much worse than anyone expected. Some argue that he has missed an opportunity to deal with the size of the budget in good times, and allowed spending on debt servicing, pensions, healthcare and Medicaid to spiral. “The only thing that stood between us and a fiscal crisis five years ago was a Wall Street business model that is clearly
unsustainable,” says Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute. “We have just finished with the biggest boom ever seen in modern history and we have not used that time to get costs under control.”
It is the governor who is appearing to be the model of fiscal probity; and, aside from threatening the city with a tax increase, the mayor has been quiescent. His approach is, however, exactly wrong. Once again, here's Gelinas: "Gelinas said Bloomberg could go a step further by cutting income taxes across the board, which would encourage job growth on Wall Street as well as work toward diversifying the city’s economy."
And pigs could fly. These are tough times that demand tough leaders; but toughness alone isn't enough. Mayor Mike has coasted for the past six years, with the Wall Street gale force wind at his sails. With the winds shifting, a good sailor learns to tack; but this mayor is a paint-by-the-numbers one note. We need innovative responses on both the state and city levels. Mike Bloomberg isn't going to provide this, his clack of cheer leading billionaires, notwithstanding.
“He called me before and said we are going to have a tough time and Albany is not going to help and we are going to have to act sooner rather than later,” said Councilman David Weprin, the head of the Finance Committee." That could mean a mid-year property tax hike or further budget cuts, but will largely depend on how much aid the state ends up withholding."
Are you ready for this? The state is facing a $13 billion shortfall of its own-with school aid scheduled to rise by $2 billion in the next fiscal year, along with a $1.8 billion Medicaid rise. Drastic savings are going to be needed; and yet we read that the state payroll has actually increased. Here's Liz's earlier post: "Calling the fiscal crisis facing New York "unprecedented," Gov. David Paterson today called on legislative leaders to whack another $2 billion from the current budget when they return to Albany Nov. 18 for their second emergency session in three months and stressed that nothing is off the table when it comes to cuts. "Don't get me wrong," the governor said, "there will be hard and painful cuts. There is no segment of this budget that will not be cut."
It is precisely in this environment that we can ill afford legislative gridlock-and we'd like all Obamafiles to keep in mind that the Senator's tax plan would likely cost this high income state around $500,000,000 a year; just when we can least afford it. At the same time we need to find ways to grow other areas of the economy in the face of the Wall Street retrenchment that will only get worse. Up until now Wall Street, only 2-3% of the area jobs, has accounted for around 18% of the taxable wage revenue to the state.
Given this heretofore out sized role for the financial sector, it seems to us that the state and the city is going to need to address-and remedy-the high cost of doing business here. If, as Mike Bloomberg has said, New York isn't like Wal-Mart and is more of a luxury item, then we need to be mindful of how luxury items are the first things that folks sacrifice during hard times.
And the schools, particularly school aid, will be right in the budget cross hairs. NY spends about 30-40% more per pupil (around $13,000) than the national average. The state spends $24.3 billion a year in school aid to localities. Can anyone argue that we're getting the right bang for these bucks? And more school aid is warranted because? However, cutting these funds in the face of teacher union opposition will be the budgetary equivalent of passing a kidney stone.
In the face of these budget and governance realities, Mike Bloomberg has been a minimalist. As Nicole Gelinas comments: "But although Mr Bloomberg was preparing for the downturn, the one hitting the city now is likely to be much worse than anyone expected. Some argue that he has missed an opportunity to deal with the size of the budget in good times, and allowed spending on debt servicing, pensions, healthcare and Medicaid to spiral. “The only thing that stood between us and a fiscal crisis five years ago was a Wall Street business model that is clearly
unsustainable,” says Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute. “We have just finished with the biggest boom ever seen in modern history and we have not used that time to get costs under control.”
It is the governor who is appearing to be the model of fiscal probity; and, aside from threatening the city with a tax increase, the mayor has been quiescent. His approach is, however, exactly wrong. Once again, here's Gelinas: "Gelinas said Bloomberg could go a step further by cutting income taxes across the board, which would encourage job growth on Wall Street as well as work toward diversifying the city’s economy."
And pigs could fly. These are tough times that demand tough leaders; but toughness alone isn't enough. Mayor Mike has coasted for the past six years, with the Wall Street gale force wind at his sails. With the winds shifting, a good sailor learns to tack; but this mayor is a paint-by-the-numbers one note. We need innovative responses on both the state and city levels. Mike Bloomberg isn't going to provide this, his clack of cheer leading billionaires, notwithstanding.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Kapping the State Senate
Bob Kappstatter has picked up on the battle for leadership of the state senate:
Unholy alliance
"Watch out for lightning around these guys. Mortal political enemies Bronx State Sen. Ruben (The Rev.) Diaz Sr. and state Sen.-elect Pedro (The Wascally Wabbit) Espada Jr. have kissed and made up. On top of that, The Rev. and The Wabbit, seen huddling over lunch last week at the Caridad Restaurant in Westchester Square, have formed an unholy alliance with two fellow Dems, Brooklyn state Sen. Carl Kruger and Queens Sen.-elect Hiram Monserrate, to throw their collective weight around in the closely divided Senate, maybe even playing in the Republican sandbox for district largesse."
And Kappy sees the alliance possibly bearing fruit: "The Downstate Bad Boyz will likely want to have a say in whether Malcolm Smith or someone else should be majority leader if, as expected, Dems wrest slim majority control. We're told the DBBs will go public shortly after next Tuesday's election - if they can keep from stabbing each other in the back that long. ..."
The plot definitely thickens-and we eagerly await the returns next week. It just might not be business as usual.
Unholy alliance
"Watch out for lightning around these guys. Mortal political enemies Bronx State Sen. Ruben (The Rev.) Diaz Sr. and state Sen.-elect Pedro (The Wascally Wabbit) Espada Jr. have kissed and made up. On top of that, The Rev. and The Wabbit, seen huddling over lunch last week at the Caridad Restaurant in Westchester Square, have formed an unholy alliance with two fellow Dems, Brooklyn state Sen. Carl Kruger and Queens Sen.-elect Hiram Monserrate, to throw their collective weight around in the closely divided Senate, maybe even playing in the Republican sandbox for district largesse."
And Kappy sees the alliance possibly bearing fruit: "The Downstate Bad Boyz will likely want to have a say in whether Malcolm Smith or someone else should be majority leader if, as expected, Dems wrest slim majority control. We're told the DBBs will go public shortly after next Tuesday's election - if they can keep from stabbing each other in the back that long. ..."
The plot definitely thickens-and we eagerly await the returns next week. It just might not be business as usual.
Heavens to Betsy!
As the NY Times is reporting today, Betsy Gotbaum will not run for a third term as the city's Public Advocate: "In the interview, Ms. Gotbaum, who was elected in 2001, said that she could not in good faith seek re-election, given how vociferously she had opposed the term limits legislation pushed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and approved by the City Council. The measure extends the number of four-year terms city elected officials can serve from two to three...“It would be very hard for me to benefit from something that I fundamentally disagree with,” she said."
Good for her, and as Shakespeare once said (we paraphrase): "Nothing so much became her as her leaving." Gotbaum, who we have felt has been much too quiescent in her role-particularly since this mayor was badly in need of a hair shirt-leaves with as principled a stand as we've seen lately in city politics.
But we would be remiss if we failed to mention her work on school governance, where Gotbaum exposed a number of problems and fallacies of the mayor's school stewardship. If there were more such actions, we would be reporting her departure with a great deal more sorrow.
Which brings us to the race to succeed her, and we expect a lively battle: "The field of hopefuls to succeed Ms. Gotbaum will most likely include Councilman Eric N. Gioia of Queens, who has all but declared his intention to seek the job and has raised $2.5 million for the campaign; Norman Siegel, the civil liberties lawyer who lost in a runoff to Ms. Gotbaum in 2001; and Councilman John C. Liu, also from Queens. On Monday, Councilman Bill de Blasio of Brooklyn, who had been campaigning to succeed the Brooklyn borough president, Marty Markowitz, also appeared to be strongly leaning toward entering the contest."
We hope, particularly if Mike Bloomberg's coup is successful, that the Gotbaum replacement acts as the pit bull that New Yorkers need: "Scott Levenson, a consultant who has worked on many political campaigns in the city, predicted that whoever succeeded Ms. Gotbaum would be a more aggressive and confrontational critic than she has been. Among other factors, the candidates likely to run for Ms. Gotbaum’s job all opposed Mr. Bloomberg’s change to the term limits law and pointedly criticized him for it."
The campaign for advocate should help to dramatize all that is wrong with the term limits process, and should in addition help to frame the case against a Bloomberg third term. Let's hope so.
Good for her, and as Shakespeare once said (we paraphrase): "Nothing so much became her as her leaving." Gotbaum, who we have felt has been much too quiescent in her role-particularly since this mayor was badly in need of a hair shirt-leaves with as principled a stand as we've seen lately in city politics.
But we would be remiss if we failed to mention her work on school governance, where Gotbaum exposed a number of problems and fallacies of the mayor's school stewardship. If there were more such actions, we would be reporting her departure with a great deal more sorrow.
Which brings us to the race to succeed her, and we expect a lively battle: "The field of hopefuls to succeed Ms. Gotbaum will most likely include Councilman Eric N. Gioia of Queens, who has all but declared his intention to seek the job and has raised $2.5 million for the campaign; Norman Siegel, the civil liberties lawyer who lost in a runoff to Ms. Gotbaum in 2001; and Councilman John C. Liu, also from Queens. On Monday, Councilman Bill de Blasio of Brooklyn, who had been campaigning to succeed the Brooklyn borough president, Marty Markowitz, also appeared to be strongly leaning toward entering the contest."
We hope, particularly if Mike Bloomberg's coup is successful, that the Gotbaum replacement acts as the pit bull that New Yorkers need: "Scott Levenson, a consultant who has worked on many political campaigns in the city, predicted that whoever succeeded Ms. Gotbaum would be a more aggressive and confrontational critic than she has been. Among other factors, the candidates likely to run for Ms. Gotbaum’s job all opposed Mr. Bloomberg’s change to the term limits law and pointedly criticized him for it."
The campaign for advocate should help to dramatize all that is wrong with the term limits process, and should in addition help to frame the case against a Bloomberg third term. Let's hope so.
New York Checks and Imbalances
The NY Times this morning focuses in on the expensive nature of the battle for the state senate in New York: "This year’s State Senate elections are likely to be the most expensive in modern history, driven by the close battle for control of the chamber, the aggressive intervention of Gov. David A. Paterson on behalf of his fellow Democrats and unusually intense fund-raising by both Democratic and Republican candidates."
The shift of two seats could put the Dems in control of all aspects of state government for the first time in over forty years: “Senate Republicans have spent a lot without getting the results,” said Austin Shafran, a Democratic campaign spokesman. “For 40 years, the Republican Senate has failed to meet the needs of working families, and now their time is up.” So, we suppose, if the balance does shift those non working families will get screwed.
Does the issue of checks and balances remain important? That's a good question; with many observers saying that the Republican control of the state senate becoming less of a check than it has been in the past, because the body has become less fiscally frugal as its majority has shrunk. An additional component in the equation has been the support that large powerful labor unions have thrown to the controlling party-support that has pushed Republicans closer to their assembly counterparts on many major issues facing state government.
From our view, the real challenge here goes beyond the partisan make up of the body, and devolves from the incredible challenges that all of the state's governing components will be facing after the first of the year. Record deficits, the Wall Street meltdown, and a growing recession, will make the actions of state government crucial to all families. Of particular importance, is the fact that the state is already one of the most expensive places to live and do business.
So, we're going to need a degree of bipartisan cooperation on all levels like we've never needed it before. A strong measure of intestinal fortitude is going to be needed to rise above the special interests and govern from a sensible center-something that the governor has already begun to do-to the consternation of some on his party's left wing.
The control of the senate, therefore, is less important than the body's ability to act decisively and responsibly in the current crisis. Yesterday we speculated on the "nightmare" scenario of a deadlocked chamber, and observed that there will probably be forces looking to insure that this doesn't happen-and that the body will be structured to take independent action.
The need for intelligent bipartisanship isn't advanced by the acrimony we've seen from some. As the following underscores from the Times:"The Democrats’ central Senate committee also reported $10,000 in outstanding debt owed to Olga A. Méndez, a former Democratic senator from East Harlem who switched parties in 2004 and promptly lost her re-election bid. The debt has been on the committee’s books since the late 1990s. “When Olga Méndez became a Republican, she went the way of the Republican Party in New York — near extinction,” said Mr. Shafran. “We haven’t heard from her since.”
Aside from the unnecessary flippancy of the remark, it's important to add two things about our old friend Olga. She was not only the first Latina elected in New York State, she was also the longest serving; and to say that she hasn't been heard from since she switched parties is extraordinarily offensive, as she continues to wage a tough battle with terminal cancer.
This is the kind of rank partisanship, typical of campaigns we understand, that we should look to transcend since all New Yorkers are hurting and the old government nostrums may be more appropriate for a quieter time. Innovative and creative new approaches will be needed, and we're pretty sure that no one faction has a monopoly on creativity and independent judgment.
Update
In regards to the above, the NY Daily News is reporting on the gigantic budget gap facing New York State: "The state's projected budget gap for next year has ballooned to a record $12.5 billion, a Paterson administration source disclosed Monday. The staggering 2009-10 deficit estimate, which will be included in the midyear financial plan Gov. Paterson releases today, surpasses the previous record of $11.2 billion the state faced after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks."
All of which means that the creativity and independence cited previously are going to be crucial-especially when tired bromides about working families are used to mask more of the same old, same old: "In a statement Monday, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) also said all options for closing the budget gap remain "on the table." He also stressed that there must be shared sacrifice. "[Silver] is committed to the proposition that the burden of New York's fiscal crisis cannot be borne exclusively by working families and the middle class," spokesman Dan Weiller said."
How about the fact that NY has over 1400 municipal subdivisions that act as expensive duplications of service delivery for New Yorkers? How about the fact that the state has over 700 separate school districts-with over fifty, we believe, in Nassau County alone? There is room for reform measures that will save millions; and let's not forget the dysfunctional public authorities like the MTA that hemorrhage money with little real oversight.
It's time to move beyond the hackneyed phrases and remember that all New York's families are working-and struggling. That doesn't mean, however, that we wreck the state's economy in the name of some bogus, and self defeating, concept of economic justice. We're already facing a potential assault on the state's treasury if the Obama tax plan is ever implemented; a replication on the state level would be a shot in the economic gut for all, and not just the wealthy New Yorkers.
The shift of two seats could put the Dems in control of all aspects of state government for the first time in over forty years: “Senate Republicans have spent a lot without getting the results,” said Austin Shafran, a Democratic campaign spokesman. “For 40 years, the Republican Senate has failed to meet the needs of working families, and now their time is up.” So, we suppose, if the balance does shift those non working families will get screwed.
Does the issue of checks and balances remain important? That's a good question; with many observers saying that the Republican control of the state senate becoming less of a check than it has been in the past, because the body has become less fiscally frugal as its majority has shrunk. An additional component in the equation has been the support that large powerful labor unions have thrown to the controlling party-support that has pushed Republicans closer to their assembly counterparts on many major issues facing state government.
From our view, the real challenge here goes beyond the partisan make up of the body, and devolves from the incredible challenges that all of the state's governing components will be facing after the first of the year. Record deficits, the Wall Street meltdown, and a growing recession, will make the actions of state government crucial to all families. Of particular importance, is the fact that the state is already one of the most expensive places to live and do business.
So, we're going to need a degree of bipartisan cooperation on all levels like we've never needed it before. A strong measure of intestinal fortitude is going to be needed to rise above the special interests and govern from a sensible center-something that the governor has already begun to do-to the consternation of some on his party's left wing.
The control of the senate, therefore, is less important than the body's ability to act decisively and responsibly in the current crisis. Yesterday we speculated on the "nightmare" scenario of a deadlocked chamber, and observed that there will probably be forces looking to insure that this doesn't happen-and that the body will be structured to take independent action.
The need for intelligent bipartisanship isn't advanced by the acrimony we've seen from some. As the following underscores from the Times:"The Democrats’ central Senate committee also reported $10,000 in outstanding debt owed to Olga A. Méndez, a former Democratic senator from East Harlem who switched parties in 2004 and promptly lost her re-election bid. The debt has been on the committee’s books since the late 1990s. “When Olga Méndez became a Republican, she went the way of the Republican Party in New York — near extinction,” said Mr. Shafran. “We haven’t heard from her since.”
Aside from the unnecessary flippancy of the remark, it's important to add two things about our old friend Olga. She was not only the first Latina elected in New York State, she was also the longest serving; and to say that she hasn't been heard from since she switched parties is extraordinarily offensive, as she continues to wage a tough battle with terminal cancer.
This is the kind of rank partisanship, typical of campaigns we understand, that we should look to transcend since all New Yorkers are hurting and the old government nostrums may be more appropriate for a quieter time. Innovative and creative new approaches will be needed, and we're pretty sure that no one faction has a monopoly on creativity and independent judgment.
Update
In regards to the above, the NY Daily News is reporting on the gigantic budget gap facing New York State: "The state's projected budget gap for next year has ballooned to a record $12.5 billion, a Paterson administration source disclosed Monday. The staggering 2009-10 deficit estimate, which will be included in the midyear financial plan Gov. Paterson releases today, surpasses the previous record of $11.2 billion the state faced after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks."
All of which means that the creativity and independence cited previously are going to be crucial-especially when tired bromides about working families are used to mask more of the same old, same old: "In a statement Monday, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) also said all options for closing the budget gap remain "on the table." He also stressed that there must be shared sacrifice. "[Silver] is committed to the proposition that the burden of New York's fiscal crisis cannot be borne exclusively by working families and the middle class," spokesman Dan Weiller said."
How about the fact that NY has over 1400 municipal subdivisions that act as expensive duplications of service delivery for New Yorkers? How about the fact that the state has over 700 separate school districts-with over fifty, we believe, in Nassau County alone? There is room for reform measures that will save millions; and let's not forget the dysfunctional public authorities like the MTA that hemorrhage money with little real oversight.
It's time to move beyond the hackneyed phrases and remember that all New York's families are working-and struggling. That doesn't mean, however, that we wreck the state's economy in the name of some bogus, and self defeating, concept of economic justice. We're already facing a potential assault on the state's treasury if the Obama tax plan is ever implemented; a replication on the state level would be a shot in the economic gut for all, and not just the wealthy New Yorkers.
Yassky in Rehab
As we wrote yesterday, it's real difficult to explain just why a very smart David Yassky voted in favor of the mayor's term limits bill; especially since so many in his district were clearly enraged by the Bloomberg coup. But, if anyone can explain the situation, it's David himself-and that's what he tries to do in a blast e-mail to friends and supporters. As the Daily Politics blog reports:
"In the e-mail, which appears in full after the jump, Yassky called the term limits vote was "the most difficult decision I have faced in the City Council - more than congestion pricing, the garbage plan, or the post-9/11 tax increase. "Like many people, my initial reaction to the Mayor's proposal was outrage. While I have always held that the eight-year term limit was bad policy, it was a policy put in place by referendum and the fairest way to change it was by a subsequent referendum," Yassky wrote. "I was saddened by the Mayor's eagerness to bypass the voters, and I strongly disagreed with his assertion that a referendum was not feasible. Most important, I knew that a Council vote to change term limits would confirm many people's most cynical suspicions about politics and politicians."
So why did he then? "But I do know that we are in a period of extraordinary challenge, and that voters may well value stability and experience in the City government. I became convinced that the right choice at this point in time was to leave open for voters the option of choosing to continue the Bloomberg Administration next November."
Does this explanation ring true? One thing we're sure of is that David's decision wasn't in any way venal. But, we ask ourselves, was it at all prudent? And if the answer is, No, then it could mean real big, and potentially insurmountable troubles, ahead for a bright and dedicated elected official. As the City Room blog reminds us: "Many in the district initially believed that Mr. Yassky, who has long described himself as being part of a progressive group of politicians in Brooklyn, would oppose the mayor’s plan to increase the number of terms that city officials would serve from two to three. They had expected that the councilman would approve of changing the law only by a public referendum, pointing out that the laws resulted from two public votes."
They certainly did; and the backdraft here is indeed incendiary. As one potential opponent, Ken Diamondstone, tells City Room: "He said that Mr. Yassky’s real intention represented “an end run around two referenda, which affirmed the people’s strong stance on limiting the city’s elected official to two terms,” and added that Mr. Yassky “clearly demonstrated that he believes his own interests trump the voice of the voters.”
Just as Marty Conner was swept out by a change wind, it appears that Yassky too will be at the mercy of the political Hawk. It will take real political skill to withstand the reaction.
"In the e-mail, which appears in full after the jump, Yassky called the term limits vote was "the most difficult decision I have faced in the City Council - more than congestion pricing, the garbage plan, or the post-9/11 tax increase. "Like many people, my initial reaction to the Mayor's proposal was outrage. While I have always held that the eight-year term limit was bad policy, it was a policy put in place by referendum and the fairest way to change it was by a subsequent referendum," Yassky wrote. "I was saddened by the Mayor's eagerness to bypass the voters, and I strongly disagreed with his assertion that a referendum was not feasible. Most important, I knew that a Council vote to change term limits would confirm many people's most cynical suspicions about politics and politicians."
So why did he then? "But I do know that we are in a period of extraordinary challenge, and that voters may well value stability and experience in the City government. I became convinced that the right choice at this point in time was to leave open for voters the option of choosing to continue the Bloomberg Administration next November."
Does this explanation ring true? One thing we're sure of is that David's decision wasn't in any way venal. But, we ask ourselves, was it at all prudent? And if the answer is, No, then it could mean real big, and potentially insurmountable troubles, ahead for a bright and dedicated elected official. As the City Room blog reminds us: "Many in the district initially believed that Mr. Yassky, who has long described himself as being part of a progressive group of politicians in Brooklyn, would oppose the mayor’s plan to increase the number of terms that city officials would serve from two to three. They had expected that the councilman would approve of changing the law only by a public referendum, pointing out that the laws resulted from two public votes."
They certainly did; and the backdraft here is indeed incendiary. As one potential opponent, Ken Diamondstone, tells City Room: "He said that Mr. Yassky’s real intention represented “an end run around two referenda, which affirmed the people’s strong stance on limiting the city’s elected official to two terms,” and added that Mr. Yassky “clearly demonstrated that he believes his own interests trump the voice of the voters.”
Just as Marty Conner was swept out by a change wind, it appears that Yassky too will be at the mercy of the political Hawk. It will take real political skill to withstand the reaction.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Time to End Conflicts Board
The editorial in this morning's NY Daily News dramatizes a compelling need: dismantling of the city's Conflict of Interest Board. It turns out that the COIB had turned its guns on a Brooklyn Tech librarian for promoting his daughter's book: "The city's ethics cops owe an apology and a clean bill of health to a public high school librarian whom they prosecuted to the most exaggerated extent of the law for the grave offense of being a proud father. Robert Grandt, a 39-year city schools veteran now stationed at Brooklyn Tech, was guilty only of sharing a dad's delight that his daughter had illustrated a pictorial version of "Macbeth."
These Keystone Kops ought to be ashamed of themselves-but shame is so obviously not in their personality profile. After all, these are the clowns who weren't able to see any conflicts in the relationship between former deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff and billionaire real estate developer Steve Ross-even after Deputy Dan ceded the entire Bronx Terminal Market over to Ross for a song; and without any competitive bid.
It should be noted, though, that the Daily News had a bout of lockjaw over this episode, even cheer leading the development without regard to the subornation of the democratic process. And even today, it sets its sights only on the usual suspects-and only very narrowly at that: "And wouldn't it be nice if the board applied the same zeal to officials who brazenly play around with hundreds of thousands of dollars. Such as the City Council, whose members funnel huge sums to private groups run by kinfolk and political pals. The board is just fine with this blatant abuse of power. As long as a Council member discloses that he or she is sending taxpayer money to, say, a brother, sister or spouse, the Council member is free to do exactly as he or she pleases."
So, let's get this straight. Funneling a few thousand dollars to a questionable local group is wrong; but voting to give themselves, as they did in the term limits vote, an additional four years and better than $500,000 of personal income is OK? And it was the same COIB that rubber stamped this after a complaint was lodged. It's a good thing that awards aren't given out for editorial inconsistency-the News would get top prize.
These Keystone Kops ought to be ashamed of themselves-but shame is so obviously not in their personality profile. After all, these are the clowns who weren't able to see any conflicts in the relationship between former deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff and billionaire real estate developer Steve Ross-even after Deputy Dan ceded the entire Bronx Terminal Market over to Ross for a song; and without any competitive bid.
It should be noted, though, that the Daily News had a bout of lockjaw over this episode, even cheer leading the development without regard to the subornation of the democratic process. And even today, it sets its sights only on the usual suspects-and only very narrowly at that: "And wouldn't it be nice if the board applied the same zeal to officials who brazenly play around with hundreds of thousands of dollars. Such as the City Council, whose members funnel huge sums to private groups run by kinfolk and political pals. The board is just fine with this blatant abuse of power. As long as a Council member discloses that he or she is sending taxpayer money to, say, a brother, sister or spouse, the Council member is free to do exactly as he or she pleases."
So, let's get this straight. Funneling a few thousand dollars to a questionable local group is wrong; but voting to give themselves, as they did in the term limits vote, an additional four years and better than $500,000 of personal income is OK? And it was the same COIB that rubber stamped this after a complaint was lodged. It's a good thing that awards aren't given out for editorial inconsistency-the News would get top prize.
Deconstructing David
One of the truly mystifying votes on term limits last week was the one cast in favor of the bill by David Yassky of Park Slope-one that has outraged that liberal, reform minded constituency, and does little to advance the councilman's city wide ambitions. So, why did he do it? For the life of us we can't really say. Neither does City Room: "In Park Slope, there was speculation as to why a politician once opposed to the legislation would then shift from being undecided to, ultimately, a supporter. Was Mr. Yassky seeking support for his plan to run for city comptroller one day? Were there promises made by the mayor or the City Council speaker?
On the one hand, it complicates any re-election bid, guaranteeing as it does that he will have a strong challenger with a grass roots wind at his/her sails. On the other, when seen in conjunction with his aborted attempt at amending the Bloomberg bill, he comes across as an ineffectual quasi-reformer; not the best position to be in when you're looking to run city wide: "In his district, reaction to Mr. Yassky’s support of the mayor’s plan has been immediate and vehement. After the vote, on Thursday night Mr. Yassky attended meetings of two Democratic clubs in the district, where he was met by dozens of voters with sentiment ranging from disappointment to fury."
All of which left David in the awkward position of being a Bloomberg defender:
"When asked if he planned to support the mayor next year, he said, “I have always voted for and supported Democrats and I would expect to do that in 2009.” He added, stating the obvious, “I don’t know who the Democratic candidate will be.” Is it possible that Mr. Bloomberg might seek to run on the Democratic line? “That’s something that has crossed my mind; I think that much of his governance has been consistent with Democratic principles,” Mr. Yassky said. “If you consider the decision to raise revenue rather than slash services, his environmental and affordable housing policies, they are consistent with Democratic
principles.”
Yikes, this is the guy, the chair of the Small Business Committee, who has excoriated the mayor for imperiously legislating through regulation at the expense of neighborhood retailers. We see some very rocky terrain ahead for David; but it's a road that he has decided to travel so we assume he's prepared for the dangers ahead. Given the initial shock in his district, howerver, we're not really sure he is: "Nonetheless, Mr. Yassky’s vote seemed to have sent shock waves in his district, which stretches from Park Slope through Brooklyn Heights and Greenpoint. It is a district widely viewed as the epicenter of reform politics in Brooklyn, and a district where the notion of an extension of term limits without a vote of the public was highly unpopular."
Just one of many for whom last week's vote will reverberate for weeks, months and years to come. A fascinating laboratory for all of us observers of local NYC politics.
On the one hand, it complicates any re-election bid, guaranteeing as it does that he will have a strong challenger with a grass roots wind at his/her sails. On the other, when seen in conjunction with his aborted attempt at amending the Bloomberg bill, he comes across as an ineffectual quasi-reformer; not the best position to be in when you're looking to run city wide: "In his district, reaction to Mr. Yassky’s support of the mayor’s plan has been immediate and vehement. After the vote, on Thursday night Mr. Yassky attended meetings of two Democratic clubs in the district, where he was met by dozens of voters with sentiment ranging from disappointment to fury."
All of which left David in the awkward position of being a Bloomberg defender:
"When asked if he planned to support the mayor next year, he said, “I have always voted for and supported Democrats and I would expect to do that in 2009.” He added, stating the obvious, “I don’t know who the Democratic candidate will be.” Is it possible that Mr. Bloomberg might seek to run on the Democratic line? “That’s something that has crossed my mind; I think that much of his governance has been consistent with Democratic principles,” Mr. Yassky said. “If you consider the decision to raise revenue rather than slash services, his environmental and affordable housing policies, they are consistent with Democratic
principles.”
Yikes, this is the guy, the chair of the Small Business Committee, who has excoriated the mayor for imperiously legislating through regulation at the expense of neighborhood retailers. We see some very rocky terrain ahead for David; but it's a road that he has decided to travel so we assume he's prepared for the dangers ahead. Given the initial shock in his district, howerver, we're not really sure he is: "Nonetheless, Mr. Yassky’s vote seemed to have sent shock waves in his district, which stretches from Park Slope through Brooklyn Heights and Greenpoint. It is a district widely viewed as the epicenter of reform politics in Brooklyn, and a district where the notion of an extension of term limits without a vote of the public was highly unpopular."
Just one of many for whom last week's vote will reverberate for weeks, months and years to come. A fascinating laboratory for all of us observers of local NYC politics.
Al "Slim Shady" Sharpton
Al Sharpton, aptly labeled "Slim Shady" by Curtis Sliwa, has finally surfaced after a long hiatus-and, of course, he's back in his old victimology with a perp who claims that he was assaulted by the police. As the NY Times reports: "As a 24-year-old man who has accused the police of sodomizing him at a subway station in Brooklyn spent another day in the hospital on Saturday, a law enforcement official provided a fuller picture of the injuries the man sustained during the altercation. The man, Michael Mineo, is attached to a tube draining fluid from his abdomen, one of his lawyers said. He was visited at the hospital by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who had spoken about Mr. Mineo’s allegations on his radio program earlier Saturday."
Now we don't know what happened to Mr. Mineo-and the fact that he has a long arrest record should give us some caution here-but we do know that Slim Shady has been incognito for the past four weeks while the city has been roiled in the term limits controversy. And we do know that the voters of this city have been gang violated by a billionaire mayor and some of his political lackeys while apparently Big Al has been on some kind of religious retreat.
Someone should be investigating all of the communications between the Bloomberg gang and the NAN. So it looks as if Rev. Al can stand up for this Mineo character, but not the citizens of New York. Isn't this just the kind of thing that Sharpton would salivate for in the past? And with an African American mayoral candidate waiting in the wings. Imagine if Rudy was still mayor and tried to grab a third term in this way.
And why is it that the NY Times, with its team of reporters, couldn't uncover the last despicable act that Mineo was charged with? The NY Post certainly did: "But the mother of two teens - victims of an April gang assault in which Mineo is charged - said he got what he deserved.
"If the cops snapped off that radio antenna up his ass, I wouldn't give a f- - - about that," said Laura Boston. Her sons Gerald, 16, and Elijah, 14, were allegedly beaten by Mineo and four others in the Downtown Brooklyn tattoo parlor where he works. "My son has dentures because of that man." "Five guys beat up my sons, so it's right that it took five cops to beat him up. I don't wish him any harm or anything, but God don't like ugly. You get what you give, you know."
The Times did find room for this from one of Mineo's attorneys: "Mr. Mineo’s lawyer, Mr. Mosley, said that too much attention was being paid to his client’s past, which includes at least five arrests. “These police officers didn’t have his rap sheet when they tackled him,” he said."
So as we return to the Sharpton three ring circus, remember this New Yorkism-"Not for Nothing." It's a great New York phrase; and Slim Shady, the master of the kickback, ain't working for free on behalf of Mineo. Just as he isn't, in the great tradition of the farm subsidy, not getting paid for refraining from plowing the term limits fields.
Now we don't know what happened to Mr. Mineo-and the fact that he has a long arrest record should give us some caution here-but we do know that Slim Shady has been incognito for the past four weeks while the city has been roiled in the term limits controversy. And we do know that the voters of this city have been gang violated by a billionaire mayor and some of his political lackeys while apparently Big Al has been on some kind of religious retreat.
Someone should be investigating all of the communications between the Bloomberg gang and the NAN. So it looks as if Rev. Al can stand up for this Mineo character, but not the citizens of New York. Isn't this just the kind of thing that Sharpton would salivate for in the past? And with an African American mayoral candidate waiting in the wings. Imagine if Rudy was still mayor and tried to grab a third term in this way.
And why is it that the NY Times, with its team of reporters, couldn't uncover the last despicable act that Mineo was charged with? The NY Post certainly did: "But the mother of two teens - victims of an April gang assault in which Mineo is charged - said he got what he deserved.
"If the cops snapped off that radio antenna up his ass, I wouldn't give a f- - - about that," said Laura Boston. Her sons Gerald, 16, and Elijah, 14, were allegedly beaten by Mineo and four others in the Downtown Brooklyn tattoo parlor where he works. "My son has dentures because of that man." "Five guys beat up my sons, so it's right that it took five cops to beat him up. I don't wish him any harm or anything, but God don't like ugly. You get what you give, you know."
The Times did find room for this from one of Mineo's attorneys: "Mr. Mineo’s lawyer, Mr. Mosley, said that too much attention was being paid to his client’s past, which includes at least five arrests. “These police officers didn’t have his rap sheet when they tackled him,” he said."
So as we return to the Sharpton three ring circus, remember this New Yorkism-"Not for Nothing." It's a great New York phrase; and Slim Shady, the master of the kickback, ain't working for free on behalf of Mineo. Just as he isn't, in the great tradition of the farm subsidy, not getting paid for refraining from plowing the term limits fields.
Term Limits Nausea
On Saturday we learned from the NY Post that the term limits vote really was sickening: "Darlene Mealy - one of only two City Council members to switch sides in the tense term-limits vote - was under such intense pressure and threats that she vomited twice at City Hall before announcing her decision, sources said yesterday." Frankly, we're not surprised, since Mealy went against all of the labor folks who got her elected. And for what?
The Post details what it says is arm twisting from the mayor and the speaker: "She was very upset. She kept saying she has to deliver for her district, and she was tired of being on the losing side," said Councilwoman Letitia James (D-Brooklyn), one of the bill's leading adversaries. Opponents said Mealy was told she would face trouble for trying to sponsor a $25,000 grant for a Brooklyn block association run by her sister in Fiscal Year 2007. Mealy attempted to allocate her council discretionary funds for her sister's group, the Fulton-Atlantic-Ralph-Rochester Community Association (FARR), but the request was mysteriously pulled."
On the other hand, extension proponent Lew Fidler, pushes the immoral equivalency argument: "Even while we were on the floor, Bill Lipton came over to her and tried to flip her back," said Councilman Lew Fidler (D-Brooklyn), a proponent of the bill. He said Mealy told him "people she considered to be political allies were threatening her."
But Big Lew, being pressured by the folks who brought you to the dance, the very people who you should owe some loyalty to, is a lot different from the heat coming from extension supporters-those who hold tightly to the budgetary purse strings.
And let's not forget that the predominately African-American district that Mealy represents is part of the largest cohort of New Yorkers opposed to the council's action. It doesn't take a whole lot of arm twisting to urge an elected to support the popular will, does it?
Here's Andrea Peyser's spot on take: "Still, a stench of inevitability clung to the council chamber like mildew. The mayor yesterday became the first man to profit handsomely from the city's financial mess, doing an end run around voters by threatening that he's the only guy who can lead them out of financial darkness. And, like sheep, the council members, one by one, fell into lock step. I'm no great fan of term limits, but they're the law of the land. And this was a blatant political power grab, executed by a crafty mayor."
The Post details what it says is arm twisting from the mayor and the speaker: "She was very upset. She kept saying she has to deliver for her district, and she was tired of being on the losing side," said Councilwoman Letitia James (D-Brooklyn), one of the bill's leading adversaries. Opponents said Mealy was told she would face trouble for trying to sponsor a $25,000 grant for a Brooklyn block association run by her sister in Fiscal Year 2007. Mealy attempted to allocate her council discretionary funds for her sister's group, the Fulton-Atlantic-Ralph-Rochester Community Association (FARR), but the request was mysteriously pulled."
On the other hand, extension proponent Lew Fidler, pushes the immoral equivalency argument: "Even while we were on the floor, Bill Lipton came over to her and tried to flip her back," said Councilman Lew Fidler (D-Brooklyn), a proponent of the bill. He said Mealy told him "people she considered to be political allies were threatening her."
But Big Lew, being pressured by the folks who brought you to the dance, the very people who you should owe some loyalty to, is a lot different from the heat coming from extension supporters-those who hold tightly to the budgetary purse strings.
And let's not forget that the predominately African-American district that Mealy represents is part of the largest cohort of New Yorkers opposed to the council's action. It doesn't take a whole lot of arm twisting to urge an elected to support the popular will, does it?
Here's Andrea Peyser's spot on take: "Still, a stench of inevitability clung to the council chamber like mildew. The mayor yesterday became the first man to profit handsomely from the city's financial mess, doing an end run around voters by threatening that he's the only guy who can lead them out of financial darkness. And, like sheep, the council members, one by one, fell into lock step. I'm no great fan of term limits, but they're the law of the land. And this was a blatant political power grab, executed by a crafty mayor."
Bloomberg's Economic (Tunnel) Vision
By now every one's familiar with the Bloomberg Savior message. Given the country's fiscal crisis we need the shrewd business sense of the Wall Street mogul to navigate the tough sledding ahead. But, on further examination, does the argument hold up to any independent scrutiny?
Aside from the snide rhetorical flourishes about how it was all of the mayor's pals who got us into this mess in the first place, what is it about the first seven years of the reign of Bloomberg that should encourage us to drink the mayor's Kool Aide? But before we answer that question, let's get back for a second to the metier that we're really comfortable with-snide.
There is something substantive to the point that the mayor's expertise, and his relationships-not to mention his world view, is encapsulated in the Weltanschuung of Wall Street. Just how, one may ask, does that set of experiences make him uniquely qualifies to steer the city out of the difficult straits it will find itself in?
In our view, it creates for the mayor the kind of "trained incapacity" that is ill suited to the coming difficulties. It doesn't, for example, give him unique insights into stabilizing and growing the other aspects of the economy-small business and manufacturing, for instance-that he has neglected in his slavish aggrandizement of big real estate development; a development that has had a pernicious impact on other sectors of the city's economy.
And his dependence on tax hikes and standard liberal bromides concerning governance-hikes that were mitigated by the fact that the city was awash with Wall Street cash that is now sayonara-give us no confidence that he will be the ideal steward for the austerity ahead. Take a look at yesterday's NY Daily News story on falling home values. As the paper points out: "The housing crisis has arrived for middle class New York. The perception that New York largely dodged the housing bust bullet may be true in Manhattan, but in the working-class outer boroughs, house sales are falling faster than the Dow."
How do you think a property tax hike's gonna play in the boros? And, as the News also points out, third terms are often a minefield for even the most nimble of pols. Real creativity and compassion, two attributes that are in short supply in the mayor's personal portfolio, are going to be needed.
Which brings us to the upcoming battle over Willets Point-a fight that is symbolic of some of the issues stated above. Here at the Point we have what can be called a vibrant eyesore-an eyesore that is rich in jobs and productivity. The mayor, using the power of eminent domain, wants to clear this area of all of the less than Triple A uses; and there is a fragrant remembrance in this effort of the old urban renewal impulse that used to be infamously called, "Negro Removal."
It's the kind of slum clearance perspective that Jane Jacobs railed against precisely because it destroyed living, vibrant neighborhoods. But they look "so unsightly," went the old refrain. Perhaps so, but that didn't take away from the loss such so called slum clearance created.
In the case of Willets Point this form of slum clearance is not only the loss of vibrancy for a cleaner sterility, it is a questionable economic development strategy. Nicholas von Hoffman captures this in the Nation as he depicts the world of Willets:
"There were no tourists watching as the metal gates went up on the corrugated-tin auto body shops, muffler repair outfits, and scrap dealers in this part of Queens. Workers took up their posts on the street to spot customers driving by, asking them, "Hey, Papi, what you need?" Massive earth movers growled to life in the bay used by Tully's Construction, and diesel-fired dump trucks plowed through street-width puddles toward Evergreen Recycling. At Feinstein Iron Works, a guy positioned a machine to bore into the end of a steel beam, while over at Bono's, a man in a cloth mask stacked bags of sawdust as they came off a conveyer belt. A driver for United Steel Products tossed his lunch bag into the flatbed he'd steer to a work site.
At the same time the City is destroying the small industrial enterprise that creates employment, it is subsidizing Manhattan real estate. This year it is handing out a half a billion dollars in subsidies to organizations who do not need them, some of which are as frivolous as Major League Baseball. Gotham has bet big on the service economy, particularly the finance part of it, and as a result there could be a loss of 165,000 jobs in the next couple of years."
So, a process that began with the ethnic cleansing of the wholesalers in the Bronx Terminal Market, threatens the 2,500 workers at the Iron Triangle. They are invisible to this mayor because the Bloomberg world view holds no place for them. As von Hoffman reminds us: "Before using his millions to get himself elected mayor, Bloomberg made billions supplying the banking and finance industries with information indispensable to their machinations by displaying them on his computer terminals, which he rented to stock brokers and hedge fund operators at a price the rest of us cannot afford."
All of which should give us pause before we ascribe to the lionization of Mike Bloomberg. It's time to tell the billionaire toadies who've gotten their toast buttered on both sides by Mayor Mike to butt out of the people's business.
Whatever happens with term limits, and the coming legal challenge-and we're always nervous when the circus ringmaster yells, "Send in the clowns," it past time to tell Mike to take his money, and the overstuffed ego that goes with it, and simply leave as soon as possible. Not only will the city survive, there's a better than decent chance it will do better with someone else at the helm.
Aside from the snide rhetorical flourishes about how it was all of the mayor's pals who got us into this mess in the first place, what is it about the first seven years of the reign of Bloomberg that should encourage us to drink the mayor's Kool Aide? But before we answer that question, let's get back for a second to the metier that we're really comfortable with-snide.
There is something substantive to the point that the mayor's expertise, and his relationships-not to mention his world view, is encapsulated in the Weltanschuung of Wall Street. Just how, one may ask, does that set of experiences make him uniquely qualifies to steer the city out of the difficult straits it will find itself in?
In our view, it creates for the mayor the kind of "trained incapacity" that is ill suited to the coming difficulties. It doesn't, for example, give him unique insights into stabilizing and growing the other aspects of the economy-small business and manufacturing, for instance-that he has neglected in his slavish aggrandizement of big real estate development; a development that has had a pernicious impact on other sectors of the city's economy.
And his dependence on tax hikes and standard liberal bromides concerning governance-hikes that were mitigated by the fact that the city was awash with Wall Street cash that is now sayonara-give us no confidence that he will be the ideal steward for the austerity ahead. Take a look at yesterday's NY Daily News story on falling home values. As the paper points out: "The housing crisis has arrived for middle class New York. The perception that New York largely dodged the housing bust bullet may be true in Manhattan, but in the working-class outer boroughs, house sales are falling faster than the Dow."
How do you think a property tax hike's gonna play in the boros? And, as the News also points out, third terms are often a minefield for even the most nimble of pols. Real creativity and compassion, two attributes that are in short supply in the mayor's personal portfolio, are going to be needed.
Which brings us to the upcoming battle over Willets Point-a fight that is symbolic of some of the issues stated above. Here at the Point we have what can be called a vibrant eyesore-an eyesore that is rich in jobs and productivity. The mayor, using the power of eminent domain, wants to clear this area of all of the less than Triple A uses; and there is a fragrant remembrance in this effort of the old urban renewal impulse that used to be infamously called, "Negro Removal."
It's the kind of slum clearance perspective that Jane Jacobs railed against precisely because it destroyed living, vibrant neighborhoods. But they look "so unsightly," went the old refrain. Perhaps so, but that didn't take away from the loss such so called slum clearance created.
In the case of Willets Point this form of slum clearance is not only the loss of vibrancy for a cleaner sterility, it is a questionable economic development strategy. Nicholas von Hoffman captures this in the Nation as he depicts the world of Willets:
"There were no tourists watching as the metal gates went up on the corrugated-tin auto body shops, muffler repair outfits, and scrap dealers in this part of Queens. Workers took up their posts on the street to spot customers driving by, asking them, "Hey, Papi, what you need?" Massive earth movers growled to life in the bay used by Tully's Construction, and diesel-fired dump trucks plowed through street-width puddles toward Evergreen Recycling. At Feinstein Iron Works, a guy positioned a machine to bore into the end of a steel beam, while over at Bono's, a man in a cloth mask stacked bags of sawdust as they came off a conveyer belt. A driver for United Steel Products tossed his lunch bag into the flatbed he'd steer to a work site.
At the same time the City is destroying the small industrial enterprise that creates employment, it is subsidizing Manhattan real estate. This year it is handing out a half a billion dollars in subsidies to organizations who do not need them, some of which are as frivolous as Major League Baseball. Gotham has bet big on the service economy, particularly the finance part of it, and as a result there could be a loss of 165,000 jobs in the next couple of years."
So, a process that began with the ethnic cleansing of the wholesalers in the Bronx Terminal Market, threatens the 2,500 workers at the Iron Triangle. They are invisible to this mayor because the Bloomberg world view holds no place for them. As von Hoffman reminds us: "Before using his millions to get himself elected mayor, Bloomberg made billions supplying the banking and finance industries with information indispensable to their machinations by displaying them on his computer terminals, which he rented to stock brokers and hedge fund operators at a price the rest of us cannot afford."
All of which should give us pause before we ascribe to the lionization of Mike Bloomberg. It's time to tell the billionaire toadies who've gotten their toast buttered on both sides by Mayor Mike to butt out of the people's business.
Whatever happens with term limits, and the coming legal challenge-and we're always nervous when the circus ringmaster yells, "Send in the clowns," it past time to tell Mike to take his money, and the overstuffed ego that goes with it, and simply leave as soon as possible. Not only will the city survive, there's a better than decent chance it will do better with someone else at the helm.
Sense in the State Senate
As the battle to control the state senate winds down to next week's election, observers are beginning to envision the possibility of a statistical dead heat-a 31-31 tie that will throw the leadership fight into a real donnybrook. As Newsday reported yesterday:
"It's being called "the nightmare scenario": a State Senate unable to work because Democrats and Republicans win an equal number of seats in the Nov. 4 elections.Such a tie hasn't occurred before in modern New York history but is looking more likely because there are only a few close races out of 62. And if the legislature's upper chamber were evenly split, there's no lieutenant governor to cast the deciding vote in the leadership election in January.The prospect of a stalemated Senate worries officials here because of the financial crisis. Instead of closing this year's budget deficit of $2 billion, senators could be fighting for control. "It throws the whole Senate into real confusion," said Stanley B. Klein, a political scientist on the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University. "Without a leader, it's every man and woman for themselves and that would be absolute chaos."
Of course, this scenario depends on the absolute political fealty of all involved-particularly on the Democratic side where Minority Leader Smith appears to be on shaky grounds. From where we sit, at least four Dem senators are potential free agents-Carl Kruger, Pedro Espada, Hiram Monseratte and Ruben Diaz; let's call them Kruger and the three amigos.
Diaz is a particular wild card, given his strong feelings about gay rights and abortion-a situation that isn't improved by yesterday's NY Times story about money from gay rights groups pouring into state democratic coffers: "But many of the philanthropists who have bankrolled gay and lesbian causes throughout the country have poured tens of thousands of dollars in the past month into the State Senate campaign of Rick Dollinger, a Democrat and ally of the gay community. Mr. Dollinger is challenging a Republican incumbent, Joseph E. Robach, whose district includes Rochester."
And this from the only openly gay New York State senator isn't likely to warm Ruben Diaz' heart: “The institutional gay community is very, very invested in this,” said Tom Duane, a Democratic state senator from Manhattan who was one of the state’s first openly gay elected officials when he won his seat in 1998. “I think everyone believes this is the year for New York. This is it, and everyone is going all in.”
So the potential for a tie, then, gives Diaz and the others-in Kruger's case someone who has been aligned with the Republicans, and is someone viewed as a less than partisan figure-the potential to be that fabled Archimedean force that can rule the world. How they act in concert can be the deciding factor in any leadership fight. In effect, they have the potential to bring order to chaos.
And what about that chaos? Here's the governor's view: "It's a nightmare scenario if you are afraid of governance," he said. "But this is democracy, and the people of the state seem somewhat split on who should be running the Senate." And the experts weigh in: "There could be a stalemate ... but a short-term interruption in the operation of one legislative house generally does not cause the house of state to fall apart," said Robert Ward of SUNY's Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. "But if there were gridlock that went on for months, clearly that would be damaging to the state."
If that's the case, particularly in the kind of fiscal mess that the state faces, there will be an even greater urgency to resolve the deadlock-giving the four wild cards even more leverage; something that's also true if the vote turns out to be a one seat margin for either of the two parties: "That's what happened 43 years ago when Democrats won a clear majority of Senate seats but couldn't choose a leader. They were split between supporters of then-new U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and New York City Mayor Robert F. Wagner Jr. "We had four or five weeks of total deadlock," said Jerome L. Wilson, a state senator in 1963-66 and Wagner supporter. "The government was totally paralyzed" because the Assembly was bogged down in a leadership fight."
So, as we approach election day, more and more media and partisan attention will be focused on the four senators. If they act and stand together, they could be the most unlikely of power brokers. It's been that kind of wild and crazy year.
"It's being called "the nightmare scenario": a State Senate unable to work because Democrats and Republicans win an equal number of seats in the Nov. 4 elections.Such a tie hasn't occurred before in modern New York history but is looking more likely because there are only a few close races out of 62. And if the legislature's upper chamber were evenly split, there's no lieutenant governor to cast the deciding vote in the leadership election in January.The prospect of a stalemated Senate worries officials here because of the financial crisis. Instead of closing this year's budget deficit of $2 billion, senators could be fighting for control. "It throws the whole Senate into real confusion," said Stanley B. Klein, a political scientist on the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University. "Without a leader, it's every man and woman for themselves and that would be absolute chaos."
Of course, this scenario depends on the absolute political fealty of all involved-particularly on the Democratic side where Minority Leader Smith appears to be on shaky grounds. From where we sit, at least four Dem senators are potential free agents-Carl Kruger, Pedro Espada, Hiram Monseratte and Ruben Diaz; let's call them Kruger and the three amigos.
Diaz is a particular wild card, given his strong feelings about gay rights and abortion-a situation that isn't improved by yesterday's NY Times story about money from gay rights groups pouring into state democratic coffers: "But many of the philanthropists who have bankrolled gay and lesbian causes throughout the country have poured tens of thousands of dollars in the past month into the State Senate campaign of Rick Dollinger, a Democrat and ally of the gay community. Mr. Dollinger is challenging a Republican incumbent, Joseph E. Robach, whose district includes Rochester."
And this from the only openly gay New York State senator isn't likely to warm Ruben Diaz' heart: “The institutional gay community is very, very invested in this,” said Tom Duane, a Democratic state senator from Manhattan who was one of the state’s first openly gay elected officials when he won his seat in 1998. “I think everyone believes this is the year for New York. This is it, and everyone is going all in.”
So the potential for a tie, then, gives Diaz and the others-in Kruger's case someone who has been aligned with the Republicans, and is someone viewed as a less than partisan figure-the potential to be that fabled Archimedean force that can rule the world. How they act in concert can be the deciding factor in any leadership fight. In effect, they have the potential to bring order to chaos.
And what about that chaos? Here's the governor's view: "It's a nightmare scenario if you are afraid of governance," he said. "But this is democracy, and the people of the state seem somewhat split on who should be running the Senate." And the experts weigh in: "There could be a stalemate ... but a short-term interruption in the operation of one legislative house generally does not cause the house of state to fall apart," said Robert Ward of SUNY's Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. "But if there were gridlock that went on for months, clearly that would be damaging to the state."
If that's the case, particularly in the kind of fiscal mess that the state faces, there will be an even greater urgency to resolve the deadlock-giving the four wild cards even more leverage; something that's also true if the vote turns out to be a one seat margin for either of the two parties: "That's what happened 43 years ago when Democrats won a clear majority of Senate seats but couldn't choose a leader. They were split between supporters of then-new U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and New York City Mayor Robert F. Wagner Jr. "We had four or five weeks of total deadlock," said Jerome L. Wilson, a state senator in 1963-66 and Wagner supporter. "The government was totally paralyzed" because the Assembly was bogged down in a leadership fight."
So, as we approach election day, more and more media and partisan attention will be focused on the four senators. If they act and stand together, they could be the most unlikely of power brokers. It's been that kind of wild and crazy year.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Peacemaker?
Now we don't really believe that Liz B is being ironic when she titled her Bloomberg post; "Bloomberg the Peacemaker." But the title got us to thinking about the old George Clooney movie, The Peacemaker, which had about as much violence and terrorism as any one flic could possibly have. In our view the Clooney movie had the decency to be fully aware of its less than noble appeal to our basest instinct-an honest approach, however, eludes Iron Mike.
Bloomberg's battle plan is pure stealth. Unlike the more openly bellicose Giuliani, Bloomberg acts like a choir boy while in reality allowing his minions to play the kind of hard ball that the swells in this town excoriated our former mayor for. And make no mistake, Bloomberg's resources make his muscle-flexing exponentially more threatening to a democratic polity than the geshreis of Rudy.
It's totally the mailed fist in the velvet glove approach; and we're kinda wondering when the NY Times publisher/editorial board will get around to recognizing the danger. Perhaps their reticence here devolves from the paper's fiscal difficulties-being so close to Broadway encourages the hope, no doubt, that an angel like Mike could eventually come to their rescue. In any case, what it underscores is just how much the money plays a role in all of this-and at every level of the discussion.
We did get a kick out of the mayor's comments on direct democracy: "Oddly, Bloomberg took a bit of a shot at referenda-happy California, where he was just campaigning for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's nonpartisan redistricting proposal, Prop. 11, that's on the ballot this fall, saying that you can't run a government "by taking referendums on everything you see" and citing California as a place where referenda has led to having "two laws that can't exist at the same time."
If this keeps up, we're gonna have to send in Joe Biden as the mayor's spokesman-since clarity and consistency is so obviously not a job requirement. In any event, we should all be wary of the mayor's professed magnanimity; it's as genuine as his word.
Bloomberg's battle plan is pure stealth. Unlike the more openly bellicose Giuliani, Bloomberg acts like a choir boy while in reality allowing his minions to play the kind of hard ball that the swells in this town excoriated our former mayor for. And make no mistake, Bloomberg's resources make his muscle-flexing exponentially more threatening to a democratic polity than the geshreis of Rudy.
It's totally the mailed fist in the velvet glove approach; and we're kinda wondering when the NY Times publisher/editorial board will get around to recognizing the danger. Perhaps their reticence here devolves from the paper's fiscal difficulties-being so close to Broadway encourages the hope, no doubt, that an angel like Mike could eventually come to their rescue. In any case, what it underscores is just how much the money plays a role in all of this-and at every level of the discussion.
We did get a kick out of the mayor's comments on direct democracy: "Oddly, Bloomberg took a bit of a shot at referenda-happy California, where he was just campaigning for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's nonpartisan redistricting proposal, Prop. 11, that's on the ballot this fall, saying that you can't run a government "by taking referendums on everything you see" and citing California as a place where referenda has led to having "two laws that can't exist at the same time."
If this keeps up, we're gonna have to send in Joe Biden as the mayor's spokesman-since clarity and consistency is so obviously not a job requirement. In any event, we should all be wary of the mayor's professed magnanimity; it's as genuine as his word.
The End of the Beginning
We the expected council ratification of the mayor's third term completed, we now expect the most interesting phase of the attempted coronation to begin. As Daily Politics pointed out-let the heckling begin: "Not long after his term limits victory on the floor of the Council, Mayor Bloomberg exited City Hall en route to the Greater Jamaica Development Corp. gala at the Grand Hyatt in Midtown. To say that he was not well-received by some of the people who were standing outside would be an understatement. He was met with screams of "Sellout!," "Bloomberg hates New York!", "Liar" and even, "You Bastard; we hate you!" One man was heard to say: "Tell him to get the hell out of town."
We believe that this is just the start-and we expect resentment to build along with a contentious and very public legal battle; one that has already begun: "Here we go! Within minutes of the Council's passage of Mayor Bloomberg's term limits extension bill, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan challenging the move...The suit makes Laurence Laufer's Municipal Home Rule Law argument, which is basically that any local law is also subject to a mandatory referendum if it "abolishes, transfers or curtails any power of an elected officer," and also claims that the plaintiffs' civil rights would be violated if the bill becomes law."
Some of the latent anger that has erupted can be gleaned from the vitriolic nature of some of the comments on the City Room blog. One in particular, stood out for us, since it hits on the appearance versus reality gap that we've been harping on: "Did Bloomberg change while in office, or are we finally just seeing who he really is? One of his great strength’s when he was elected was that he wasn’t part of the political machine - beholden to know one. Now he wants to hijack the political machine? It’s wrong and it’s wrong to pressure charities to support his machinations. I thought that was philanthropy, not buying favor. I guess I’m still naive after all these years."
No, not naive, just bamboozled by a (much more than) two bit phony; and the final chapter of the mayor's ersatz philanthropy has yet to be written-and when it is we expect that the foreword will be dictated by Al Sharpton (writing as Ralph Elllison's Invisible Man). Here's a thought experiment: If Mike Bloomberg had an average bank account, would the city council have been voting today on this term limits bill?
As for the speaker's expression that there was wide support for the council's action-"wide" ain't got the dimension it used to have: "When Ms. Quinn said it was “ludicrous” for critics to suggest the bill was the product of a “back-room deal,” a chorus of boos and jeers erupted from the balcony. Ms. Quinn said the bill had been the subject of vigorous discussion, including “two, well-attended public hearings, 20 hours of public hearings and a vigorous debate.” “Support for this bill is broad and deep,” she said, citing union officials and former elected officials like Gov. Mario M. Cuomo and Mayor Edward I. Koch."
Gee, what is it about 89-7 that is difficult to understand? (now that's what we would call wide) But the picture of the speaker embracing Lew Fidler after the vote yesterday, an exquisite MasterCard moment if we've ever seen one, is almost worth the final council ratification of the mayor's imperial ambitions. And check out this picture of Councilman Recchia at the Wonkster; doesn't he look like the cat who swallowed the canary?
All the news, however, wasn't bad. Our council woman, Gale Brewer, stood up strongly for principle, and we were extremely proud of her statement since she is philosophically opposed to term limits, but respects the will of the people in her district: "Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer of Manhattan said she was in an “ethical bind” and said she felt she was open to “accusations of hypocrisy.” She decided to vote no on extending term limits." In addition, if she had voted the other way there's little doubt in our mind that she wouldn't be beaten.
But now we enter into the next phase, a period where our theory of the expected deconstruction of the Myth of Michael will be put to the test. The smart money's on the mayor; but look what happened to the smart money over at Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. P.T. Barnum's observation that, "You can never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people," will be put to a severe test in the weeks and months ahead. We might not be characterized as smart money, but we see a real shot here for the underdog.
We believe that this is just the start-and we expect resentment to build along with a contentious and very public legal battle; one that has already begun: "Here we go! Within minutes of the Council's passage of Mayor Bloomberg's term limits extension bill, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan challenging the move...The suit makes Laurence Laufer's Municipal Home Rule Law argument, which is basically that any local law is also subject to a mandatory referendum if it "abolishes, transfers or curtails any power of an elected officer," and also claims that the plaintiffs' civil rights would be violated if the bill becomes law."
Some of the latent anger that has erupted can be gleaned from the vitriolic nature of some of the comments on the City Room blog. One in particular, stood out for us, since it hits on the appearance versus reality gap that we've been harping on: "Did Bloomberg change while in office, or are we finally just seeing who he really is? One of his great strength’s when he was elected was that he wasn’t part of the political machine - beholden to know one. Now he wants to hijack the political machine? It’s wrong and it’s wrong to pressure charities to support his machinations. I thought that was philanthropy, not buying favor. I guess I’m still naive after all these years."
No, not naive, just bamboozled by a (much more than) two bit phony; and the final chapter of the mayor's ersatz philanthropy has yet to be written-and when it is we expect that the foreword will be dictated by Al Sharpton (writing as Ralph Elllison's Invisible Man). Here's a thought experiment: If Mike Bloomberg had an average bank account, would the city council have been voting today on this term limits bill?
As for the speaker's expression that there was wide support for the council's action-"wide" ain't got the dimension it used to have: "When Ms. Quinn said it was “ludicrous” for critics to suggest the bill was the product of a “back-room deal,” a chorus of boos and jeers erupted from the balcony. Ms. Quinn said the bill had been the subject of vigorous discussion, including “two, well-attended public hearings, 20 hours of public hearings and a vigorous debate.” “Support for this bill is broad and deep,” she said, citing union officials and former elected officials like Gov. Mario M. Cuomo and Mayor Edward I. Koch."
Gee, what is it about 89-7 that is difficult to understand? (now that's what we would call wide) But the picture of the speaker embracing Lew Fidler after the vote yesterday, an exquisite MasterCard moment if we've ever seen one, is almost worth the final council ratification of the mayor's imperial ambitions. And check out this picture of Councilman Recchia at the Wonkster; doesn't he look like the cat who swallowed the canary?
All the news, however, wasn't bad. Our council woman, Gale Brewer, stood up strongly for principle, and we were extremely proud of her statement since she is philosophically opposed to term limits, but respects the will of the people in her district: "Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer of Manhattan said she was in an “ethical bind” and said she felt she was open to “accusations of hypocrisy.” She decided to vote no on extending term limits." In addition, if she had voted the other way there's little doubt in our mind that she wouldn't be beaten.
But now we enter into the next phase, a period where our theory of the expected deconstruction of the Myth of Michael will be put to the test. The smart money's on the mayor; but look what happened to the smart money over at Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. P.T. Barnum's observation that, "You can never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people," will be put to a severe test in the weeks and months ahead. We might not be characterized as smart money, but we see a real shot here for the underdog.
A Blessing Incognito
As we march headlong...into court on the issue of term limits, we are watching closely the mood of the citizenry. Having awarded themselves a self-served helping of another term, a healthy percentage of the 51 council members should be prepared for a considerable backdraft. One in particular, the first termer Diane Mealy, appears to be dead woman walking. Another, our buddy Jimmy Vacca, made a last minute about face that has his friends wondering.
As the NY Post reports this morning: "As late as Wednesday, two members - Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn and James Vacca of The Bronx - were planning to vote "no," but both flipped at the last minute, prompting more speculation that the mayor and speaker put immense pressure on members. Mealy ran away from reporters inquiring about her vote, and Vacca said he was moved by the personal pleas the mayor made to him but was not offered anything in return for his vote."
The storm clouds are gathering, the weather's gonna get a lot rougher; as the legal fight gears up, with its attendant public furor ratcheting up what many feel is a betrayal of the voters. As usual, the NY Times' Clyde Haberman captures this mood and its inevitable focus on our royal pretender: "Having legislatively muscled his way into a possible third term as mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg now faces what may be a more onerous challenge: How to convince New Yorkers that they can believe a single thing he says."
This lack of integrity is going to get played out for months, and just how disingenuous the mayor-and the council leadership-has been will be dramatically underscored for all New Yorkers. The fiscal crisis will be transmuted into a crisis of credibility for the little big man:
"His argument is that times are hard, that continuity is extra important and that voters deserve a chance to keep him. As on other occasions, he seems to believe that because his overall approval ratings are high, New Yorkers will smile on whatever he does. That isn’t the case. The trouncing that he took on big issues like nonpartisan elections, the West Side stadium and congestion pricing makes that clear. What the mayor plays down in his emphasis on the financial crisis is that he was exploring ways to cling to office long before the stock market went into a kamikaze-like dive. But he hemmed and hawed for months. Had he not done that, another referendum on term limits could have easily been put on the Nov. 4 ballot to see if New Yorkers had changed their minds."
And as Haberman reminds us: "There can be no doubt how New Yorkers feel. In a survey issued this week by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, 89 percent said that a new referendum — not a City Council deal — was the way to go. A mere 7 percent preferred to go through the Council. Till now, had you ever known 89 percent of New Yorkers to agree on anything? “You just don’t get numbers like this,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the polling institute."
Of course, the speaker's credibility is also stretched thin: "That turns the spotlight on the Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, who has been the mayor’s handmaiden on altering term limits and whose own credibility took severe hits. She, too, used to preach about the sanctity of the people’s voice. Ms. Quinn said on Thursday that her sole interest was the common weal. New Yorkers, she said, now have a chance to vote for “consistent leadership” during this crisis. When reminded at a news conference that she used to hold a diametrically opposite position on how to change term limits, she said that elected officials go off course if they “do not evolve” when circumstances change.In other words, she had to be inconsistent to provide consistency. We’ll let you parse that one."
So we may be witnessing our own Charge of the Light Brigade; and the battle may not even get to its potential bloodiest culmination if the lawyers for the opposition get their way. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Now that the City Council has approved changing term limits to allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to run again, this much is certain: The battle will move to the courtroom. Two lawsuits challenging the move are already in the legal system and more are expected."
So its a roll of the dice for council members in particular who have eyes for higher office. If the courts over rule the legislative fiat, than those who voted for extension are going to be coming to the voters viewed by many of the 89% as damaged goods. And the mayor will limp home to the end of his current term with as tarnished a legacy as we could possibly imagine.
That outcome, however, is certainly not preordained, since the legal hurdles are significant: "One point discussed was whether a provision in the municipal home rule law stipulating that a referendum is needed to alter the term of an elected office might apply in this case, several of the participants said. Another suggested that the challenge should be based on the City Charter, which does not specify how term limits ought to be changed — if by law or, as opponents of the Council’s actions have contended, by referendum. Of the many approaches discussed at the meeting, the lawyers are exploring two main avenues, each of which may prove difficult, in part because there is limited legal precedent to guide their argument but also because the courts might simply refuse to interfere with the political process."
The first, a voting rights challenge appears to be a long shot to us; but the other more arcane rationale may have greater promise: "One point discussed was whether a provision in the municipal home rule law stipulating that a referendum is needed to alter the term of an elected office might apply in this case, several of the participants said...The second alternative being considered by the lawyers who met with Mr. Siegel is a lawsuit arguing that extending term limits ought to require a referendum, just as changing the number of years in one term does."
All of which didn't make yesterday's procedures an exercise in good government by any stretch. Haberman gets the last word: "The mayor’s hope is that voters will eventually see Thursday’s action as not a betrayal of democracy, but as a blessing in disguise.Those were the words used by Winston Churchill’s wife, Clementine, after British voters ousted him as prime minister in July 1945. “It may well be a blessing in disguise,” she told him. To which Churchill replied, as many New Yorkers may be saying today, “At the moment it seems quite effectively disguised.”
As the NY Post reports this morning: "As late as Wednesday, two members - Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn and James Vacca of The Bronx - were planning to vote "no," but both flipped at the last minute, prompting more speculation that the mayor and speaker put immense pressure on members. Mealy ran away from reporters inquiring about her vote, and Vacca said he was moved by the personal pleas the mayor made to him but was not offered anything in return for his vote."
The storm clouds are gathering, the weather's gonna get a lot rougher; as the legal fight gears up, with its attendant public furor ratcheting up what many feel is a betrayal of the voters. As usual, the NY Times' Clyde Haberman captures this mood and its inevitable focus on our royal pretender: "Having legislatively muscled his way into a possible third term as mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg now faces what may be a more onerous challenge: How to convince New Yorkers that they can believe a single thing he says."
This lack of integrity is going to get played out for months, and just how disingenuous the mayor-and the council leadership-has been will be dramatically underscored for all New Yorkers. The fiscal crisis will be transmuted into a crisis of credibility for the little big man:
"His argument is that times are hard, that continuity is extra important and that voters deserve a chance to keep him. As on other occasions, he seems to believe that because his overall approval ratings are high, New Yorkers will smile on whatever he does. That isn’t the case. The trouncing that he took on big issues like nonpartisan elections, the West Side stadium and congestion pricing makes that clear. What the mayor plays down in his emphasis on the financial crisis is that he was exploring ways to cling to office long before the stock market went into a kamikaze-like dive. But he hemmed and hawed for months. Had he not done that, another referendum on term limits could have easily been put on the Nov. 4 ballot to see if New Yorkers had changed their minds."
And as Haberman reminds us: "There can be no doubt how New Yorkers feel. In a survey issued this week by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, 89 percent said that a new referendum — not a City Council deal — was the way to go. A mere 7 percent preferred to go through the Council. Till now, had you ever known 89 percent of New Yorkers to agree on anything? “You just don’t get numbers like this,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the polling institute."
Of course, the speaker's credibility is also stretched thin: "That turns the spotlight on the Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, who has been the mayor’s handmaiden on altering term limits and whose own credibility took severe hits. She, too, used to preach about the sanctity of the people’s voice. Ms. Quinn said on Thursday that her sole interest was the common weal. New Yorkers, she said, now have a chance to vote for “consistent leadership” during this crisis. When reminded at a news conference that she used to hold a diametrically opposite position on how to change term limits, she said that elected officials go off course if they “do not evolve” when circumstances change.In other words, she had to be inconsistent to provide consistency. We’ll let you parse that one."
So we may be witnessing our own Charge of the Light Brigade; and the battle may not even get to its potential bloodiest culmination if the lawyers for the opposition get their way. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Now that the City Council has approved changing term limits to allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to run again, this much is certain: The battle will move to the courtroom. Two lawsuits challenging the move are already in the legal system and more are expected."
So its a roll of the dice for council members in particular who have eyes for higher office. If the courts over rule the legislative fiat, than those who voted for extension are going to be coming to the voters viewed by many of the 89% as damaged goods. And the mayor will limp home to the end of his current term with as tarnished a legacy as we could possibly imagine.
That outcome, however, is certainly not preordained, since the legal hurdles are significant: "One point discussed was whether a provision in the municipal home rule law stipulating that a referendum is needed to alter the term of an elected office might apply in this case, several of the participants said. Another suggested that the challenge should be based on the City Charter, which does not specify how term limits ought to be changed — if by law or, as opponents of the Council’s actions have contended, by referendum. Of the many approaches discussed at the meeting, the lawyers are exploring two main avenues, each of which may prove difficult, in part because there is limited legal precedent to guide their argument but also because the courts might simply refuse to interfere with the political process."
The first, a voting rights challenge appears to be a long shot to us; but the other more arcane rationale may have greater promise: "One point discussed was whether a provision in the municipal home rule law stipulating that a referendum is needed to alter the term of an elected office might apply in this case, several of the participants said...The second alternative being considered by the lawyers who met with Mr. Siegel is a lawsuit arguing that extending term limits ought to require a referendum, just as changing the number of years in one term does."
All of which didn't make yesterday's procedures an exercise in good government by any stretch. Haberman gets the last word: "The mayor’s hope is that voters will eventually see Thursday’s action as not a betrayal of democracy, but as a blessing in disguise.Those were the words used by Winston Churchill’s wife, Clementine, after British voters ousted him as prime minister in July 1945. “It may well be a blessing in disguise,” she told him. To which Churchill replied, as many New Yorkers may be saying today, “At the moment it seems quite effectively disguised.”
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Taxing Credulity
In this morning's NY Post there's an editorial about the governor's aide who failed to file his taxes for a number of years; the title is: "Taxing Credibility." The headline, however, would be more appropriately attached to the NY Daily News' lead editorial on term limits; an opinion that sees the overturning of a referendum as "empowering the voter." Orwell would be proud.
But it doesn't stop there, because the News feels that the mayor's acumen uniquely qualifies him during this fiscal crisis:
"It's about empowering New Yorkers to make the best choice, be that Michael Bloomberg or someone else. Two Democrats have declared they'll run: Controller Bill Thompson and Rep. Anthony Weiner. Each has selling points, but the matter must not rest there. Not when there's talk of raising the property tax. Not when there's talk of hiking the income tax. Not when the MTA is floating the possibility of fare hikes and service cuts worse than initially conceived.
Not when state government, in its own $10 billion trough, will be looking for its own new taxes and ways to cut aid to the city. Under these circumstances, the Council must let New Yorkers decide whom they trust to manage in crisis and to preserve their bank accounts."
Are these folks for real? Who was the guy who raised our taxes in the post 9/11 meltdown-only to be bailed out by the supposed infamous George Bush and his federal cuts? And who is the one is already getting us ready for another round of taxes at a time when city residents are the most taxed people in the country? And what about the hiking of the income tax? None other than that partner in crime, the speaker of the city council.
What we don't need is a non innovative, paint-by-the-numbers tax hiker in the current mess we're in; nor do we need such sycophancy from a businessman turned publisher. In fact, in our view, the mayor can readily forgo his yearly colonoscopy by just asking Mort to shine his flash light.
But the city is blessed by a rich choir of voices-and the NY Post chimes in in beautiful harmony: "Bloomberg, of course, is an exception: He's a proven, competent leader - just what the doctor ordered at a time when New York City is facing perhaps unparalleled economic and fiscal challenges."
Sure he is. Mr. Indispensable. Just ask him. Or ask Pinch Sulzberger who has his paper of wreckage, in a fit of unexpected creativity, reprint Bloomberg talking points: "The question of voter choice is particularly relevant now. Although a majority of New Yorkers, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, oppose changing the term-limits rule, a majority of New Yorkers also strongly approve Mr. Bloomberg’s performance and, more to the point, say they would vote for him given the opportunity."
Sound familiar? As the News said: "Many in the public are unsettled by the notion of amending term limits without a referendum. The latest Quinnipiac Poll showed a 51%-to-45% slant against the idea. But the same survey showed that in even larger numbers - 59% - New Yorkers say they'll probably or definitely vote for Bloomberg if he's on the ballot. Almost two in three said they are confident he would meet the challenges of the coming crisis.
But, as this issue continues to roil the public consciousness, the notion of indispensability will gradually recede; replaced by anger and annoyance that a rich dilettante feels such a sense of entitlement that the will of the people be damned. As the contrasting reporting over at the Times has underscored, Mike Bloomberg can no longer hide behind a curtain of false rectitude-this cat's out of the bag.
But it doesn't stop there, because the News feels that the mayor's acumen uniquely qualifies him during this fiscal crisis:
"It's about empowering New Yorkers to make the best choice, be that Michael Bloomberg or someone else. Two Democrats have declared they'll run: Controller Bill Thompson and Rep. Anthony Weiner. Each has selling points, but the matter must not rest there. Not when there's talk of raising the property tax. Not when there's talk of hiking the income tax. Not when the MTA is floating the possibility of fare hikes and service cuts worse than initially conceived.
Not when state government, in its own $10 billion trough, will be looking for its own new taxes and ways to cut aid to the city. Under these circumstances, the Council must let New Yorkers decide whom they trust to manage in crisis and to preserve their bank accounts."
Are these folks for real? Who was the guy who raised our taxes in the post 9/11 meltdown-only to be bailed out by the supposed infamous George Bush and his federal cuts? And who is the one is already getting us ready for another round of taxes at a time when city residents are the most taxed people in the country? And what about the hiking of the income tax? None other than that partner in crime, the speaker of the city council.
What we don't need is a non innovative, paint-by-the-numbers tax hiker in the current mess we're in; nor do we need such sycophancy from a businessman turned publisher. In fact, in our view, the mayor can readily forgo his yearly colonoscopy by just asking Mort to shine his flash light.
But the city is blessed by a rich choir of voices-and the NY Post chimes in in beautiful harmony: "Bloomberg, of course, is an exception: He's a proven, competent leader - just what the doctor ordered at a time when New York City is facing perhaps unparalleled economic and fiscal challenges."
Sure he is. Mr. Indispensable. Just ask him. Or ask Pinch Sulzberger who has his paper of wreckage, in a fit of unexpected creativity, reprint Bloomberg talking points: "The question of voter choice is particularly relevant now. Although a majority of New Yorkers, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, oppose changing the term-limits rule, a majority of New Yorkers also strongly approve Mr. Bloomberg’s performance and, more to the point, say they would vote for him given the opportunity."
Sound familiar? As the News said: "Many in the public are unsettled by the notion of amending term limits without a referendum. The latest Quinnipiac Poll showed a 51%-to-45% slant against the idea. But the same survey showed that in even larger numbers - 59% - New Yorkers say they'll probably or definitely vote for Bloomberg if he's on the ballot. Almost two in three said they are confident he would meet the challenges of the coming crisis.
But, as this issue continues to roil the public consciousness, the notion of indispensability will gradually recede; replaced by anger and annoyance that a rich dilettante feels such a sense of entitlement that the will of the people be damned. As the contrasting reporting over at the Times has underscored, Mike Bloomberg can no longer hide behind a curtain of false rectitude-this cat's out of the bag.
Micheal We Hardly Knew Ya
As the culmination of some rather intense, and some would say unseemly, behind the scenes lobbying ends today in a vote at the city council, we are seeing-finally from our perspective-the deconstruction of the Myth of Michael. Forced for the first time to confront true opposition, and in a campaign that has all of the trappings of the old Tammany Hall, Mike Bloomberg stands revealed as just another power infused office holder over staying his welcome.
The NY Times this morning captures the essence of the revelation: "In his aggressive pursuit of a third term, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has begun to alienate some of his fiercest supporters, who say that his hardball tactics are undercutting his well-earned legacy as a reformer and an anti-politician." But, since we don't count ourselves among his fiercest supporters, our view is that the "well earned" legacy is sheer zirconium; where appearance belies a reality that owes its accolades to not only the good fortune of following a true reformer, but the the failure of the fourth estate to properly evaluate what the mayor's performance has actually been like.
All of which, in one ill-fated move, is changing before our eyes-and will continue to do so as the public begins to see just what the Bloomberg persona really is: "In dozens of interviews, former aides to the mayor, elected officials, good-government advocates and voters said they have become deeply disillusioned by the way Mr. Bloomberg is corralling support to rewrite the city’s term limits law, which New Yorkers have endorsed twice in citywide referendums."
The mayor, at least heretofore, has never really been challenged. When he raised taxes in 2002 his popularity plummeted-remember, in his first hint of a lack of probity, he claimed that the dangerous Mark Green would do that but not a shrewd businessman like himself-only to return when the Bush tax cuts flooded the city coffers with Wall Street cash. In the years to follow, he carefully cultivated a reform image that was sharply divergent-one could even say inversely proportional to his accomplishments. Aside from an aggressive nanny autocratism, what can we really say about Bloomberg reform legacy?
So now we head into a vote today; and although it will be close, it's hard to see how the mayor and the speaker in combination will not achieve what we believe will be a Pyrrhic victory. Here's one of Bloomberg's original boosters: "This is the first move that really pushes the boundary of what he can get away with,” said David Garth, a top political strategist in Mr. Bloomberg’s 2001 campaign for mayor. “This is not a good-government move, and Mike knows it.”
The Times goes further down this path: "If he does prevail, the victory may carry a cost to his reputation. The disenchantment with Mr. Bloomberg runs especially deep among his former aides and advisers at City Hall. In interviews, five of them said they had been surprised and unsettled by the mayor’s tactics. “It stinks of clubhouse politics,” said one former aide. “It’s not like him.”
Ah, Michael we hardly knew ya-the disillusionment of the acolytes! In this morning's NY Daily News an angry and disappointed Errol Louis-no knee jerk opponent of the mayor-takes off on the Bloomberg move to stay on, and particularly on the toadies in the legislature who are supporting it: "At least half the members of our municipal Legislature climb out of bed each morning with a cold shudder, realizing they lack the talent to convince any employer in the public, private or nonprofit sector to pay them a councilman's base salary of $112,500 a year for part-time work. And most employers don't allow workers to vote themselves a 22% salary increase, as the Council did in 2006."
As for the mayor: "So an appalled public will likely witness a depressing carnival of treachery, backstabbing, backroom money deals and self-serving double-talk down at City Hall Wednesday - all brought to you by an ex-reform mayor who values fame and the trappings of political power above his word and reputation." As one probably ex-supporter, the civil rights lawyer Richard Emery, told the Times: “He is becoming a typical hack, playing the same old games,” he said.
“It’s tragic and it’s sad.”
And once the deconstruction process begins, along with the erosion of trust, everything that the mayor attempts to do from now on will be seen from a new jaundiced perspective: "Some of the mayor's aides tell me the matter is simple: The mayor, after years of scorning political attacks on term limits as "disgusting" and "disgraceful," simply changed his mind. Wrong. You change your mind about what color tie to wear or whether it's worth waiting for the crosstown bus. You don't change your mind on matters involving honesty, integrity and keeping your word."
Having to face genuine and tough opposition is the reason why the mayor's true colors are beginning to show-adversity reveals character. As the Times points out: "Friends who originally urged Mr. Bloomberg to seek a third term said he has been taken aback by the depth of the opposition, which has prompted him to engage in a bruising political style he is not entirely comfortable with.“It has required slightly sharper elbows than anyone would have liked,” said one friend, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This is not how he prefers to do business. He is not particularly happy with the situation.”
And the imperious reaction to the testimony of the opposition? Bloomberg claimed he really never even paid attention to the testimony of two days of hearings: "Mr. Bloomberg appeared to antagonize his critics over the last few days by saying he did not listen to any of the testimony and by describing many of the speakers at the hearings as “people who emote.” A majority opposed Mr. Bloomberg’s legislation." Reminds us of his comment when the Alliance pointed out that his cigarette tax was costing bodegas and newsstand dealers over $250 million a year: "It's a minor economic issue," he told reporters.
Davis Garth, likely passing up a lucrative third gig on the Bloomberg gravy train, has the final word on Bloomberg Revealed: "Mr. Garth, the political consultant who worked for Mr. Bloomberg, said New Yorkers were discovering that a mayor they revere as the consummate political outsider is capable of disappointing them. “A part of Mike was always too good to be true. The guy makes very few mistakes for a mayor of a city like this. He has been unbelievably successful.” Still, “there is an arrogance about the mayor, and people resent that.”
The NY Times this morning captures the essence of the revelation: "In his aggressive pursuit of a third term, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has begun to alienate some of his fiercest supporters, who say that his hardball tactics are undercutting his well-earned legacy as a reformer and an anti-politician." But, since we don't count ourselves among his fiercest supporters, our view is that the "well earned" legacy is sheer zirconium; where appearance belies a reality that owes its accolades to not only the good fortune of following a true reformer, but the the failure of the fourth estate to properly evaluate what the mayor's performance has actually been like.
All of which, in one ill-fated move, is changing before our eyes-and will continue to do so as the public begins to see just what the Bloomberg persona really is: "In dozens of interviews, former aides to the mayor, elected officials, good-government advocates and voters said they have become deeply disillusioned by the way Mr. Bloomberg is corralling support to rewrite the city’s term limits law, which New Yorkers have endorsed twice in citywide referendums."
The mayor, at least heretofore, has never really been challenged. When he raised taxes in 2002 his popularity plummeted-remember, in his first hint of a lack of probity, he claimed that the dangerous Mark Green would do that but not a shrewd businessman like himself-only to return when the Bush tax cuts flooded the city coffers with Wall Street cash. In the years to follow, he carefully cultivated a reform image that was sharply divergent-one could even say inversely proportional to his accomplishments. Aside from an aggressive nanny autocratism, what can we really say about Bloomberg reform legacy?
So now we head into a vote today; and although it will be close, it's hard to see how the mayor and the speaker in combination will not achieve what we believe will be a Pyrrhic victory. Here's one of Bloomberg's original boosters: "This is the first move that really pushes the boundary of what he can get away with,” said David Garth, a top political strategist in Mr. Bloomberg’s 2001 campaign for mayor. “This is not a good-government move, and Mike knows it.”
The Times goes further down this path: "If he does prevail, the victory may carry a cost to his reputation. The disenchantment with Mr. Bloomberg runs especially deep among his former aides and advisers at City Hall. In interviews, five of them said they had been surprised and unsettled by the mayor’s tactics. “It stinks of clubhouse politics,” said one former aide. “It’s not like him.”
Ah, Michael we hardly knew ya-the disillusionment of the acolytes! In this morning's NY Daily News an angry and disappointed Errol Louis-no knee jerk opponent of the mayor-takes off on the Bloomberg move to stay on, and particularly on the toadies in the legislature who are supporting it: "At least half the members of our municipal Legislature climb out of bed each morning with a cold shudder, realizing they lack the talent to convince any employer in the public, private or nonprofit sector to pay them a councilman's base salary of $112,500 a year for part-time work. And most employers don't allow workers to vote themselves a 22% salary increase, as the Council did in 2006."
As for the mayor: "So an appalled public will likely witness a depressing carnival of treachery, backstabbing, backroom money deals and self-serving double-talk down at City Hall Wednesday - all brought to you by an ex-reform mayor who values fame and the trappings of political power above his word and reputation." As one probably ex-supporter, the civil rights lawyer Richard Emery, told the Times: “He is becoming a typical hack, playing the same old games,” he said.
“It’s tragic and it’s sad.”
And once the deconstruction process begins, along with the erosion of trust, everything that the mayor attempts to do from now on will be seen from a new jaundiced perspective: "Some of the mayor's aides tell me the matter is simple: The mayor, after years of scorning political attacks on term limits as "disgusting" and "disgraceful," simply changed his mind. Wrong. You change your mind about what color tie to wear or whether it's worth waiting for the crosstown bus. You don't change your mind on matters involving honesty, integrity and keeping your word."
Having to face genuine and tough opposition is the reason why the mayor's true colors are beginning to show-adversity reveals character. As the Times points out: "Friends who originally urged Mr. Bloomberg to seek a third term said he has been taken aback by the depth of the opposition, which has prompted him to engage in a bruising political style he is not entirely comfortable with.“It has required slightly sharper elbows than anyone would have liked,” said one friend, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This is not how he prefers to do business. He is not particularly happy with the situation.”
And the imperious reaction to the testimony of the opposition? Bloomberg claimed he really never even paid attention to the testimony of two days of hearings: "Mr. Bloomberg appeared to antagonize his critics over the last few days by saying he did not listen to any of the testimony and by describing many of the speakers at the hearings as “people who emote.” A majority opposed Mr. Bloomberg’s legislation." Reminds us of his comment when the Alliance pointed out that his cigarette tax was costing bodegas and newsstand dealers over $250 million a year: "It's a minor economic issue," he told reporters.
Davis Garth, likely passing up a lucrative third gig on the Bloomberg gravy train, has the final word on Bloomberg Revealed: "Mr. Garth, the political consultant who worked for Mr. Bloomberg, said New Yorkers were discovering that a mayor they revere as the consummate political outsider is capable of disappointing them. “A part of Mike was always too good to be true. The guy makes very few mistakes for a mayor of a city like this. He has been unbelievably successful.” Still, “there is an arrogance about the mayor, and people resent that.”
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
More Uncertainty
City Room blog's reporting that council members Lappin and McMahon have declared their opposition to the mayor's term limits bill-bring the number of opponents to 23: "Two City Council members added their intended votes on Wednesday afternoon against a move to extend term limits and allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek re-election next year. Councilman Michael E. McMahon, who is the Democratic nominee for a Congressional seat on Staten Island, and Councilwoman Jessica S. Lappin, a first-term member from Manhattan, said they would vote no on the proposal. Mr. McMahon’s vote, in particular, surprised some observers; his brother Thomas, a prominent lobbyist, is married to Deputy Mayor Linda I. Gibbs, and the councilman has been a close ally of the mayor."
McMahon's opposition is based in large part on his race for the Congress in a district where voters strongly supported the original term limits bill. Lappin is somewhat of a surprise since many felt that she would eventually side with the mayor. She is, however, a first termer who may find herself out in the cold if the Lauder-inspired Charter ends up reaffirming term limits for the council members who would remain.
City Room also examines the Yassky-Brewer-Gerson amendment, and raises the fig leaf question that we also raised in an earlier post: "Mr. Yassky, Mr. Gerson and Ms. Brewer are among those who are undecided. But the conventional wisdom is that they will ultimately vote for the bill — even though they said Wednesday that they had not yet made up their minds. Small wonder, then, that several reporters asked the three a variation on the same question: whether their amendment was simply a fig leaf to give them political cover and say that they tried to stop the mayor’s bill, before ultimately voting for it.“Absolutely not,” Mr. Yassky said, in a sentiment that was echoed by the others."
We'll see if that holds up in the face of the speaker's optimism: "Ms. Quinn has told council members and others that she is confident that she has the 26 votes needed for passage in the 51-member Council. “I am very optimistic that the mayor’s bill will pass in the Council tomorrow,” she said Wednesday at an event on Staten Island." Our advice to the intrepid trio comes from Dan Rather; "Courage!"
Update
Erik Engquist at Crain's is also reporting that the mayor's bill may be in for some trouble: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to extend term limits appears to be in serious trouble.Three undecided members of the City Council announced that they will introduce an amendment that would place a major obstacle between the mayor and a third term. Brooklyn’s David Yassky and Manhattan’s Gale Brewer and Alan Gerson said their measure would make the extension subject to a public referendum next year."
Apparently, the council members are reacting to some rather strong constituent sentiment: "Ms. Brewer considers the current limit of two four-year terms to be too short, but is sympathetic to the strong public sentiment against the Council changing the law. She says her office has received about 650 calls, e-mails and letters on the issue, about 75% of them opposing the mayor’s bill.“I think [a limit of] 12 years makes sense,” Brewer said. “On the other hand, people feel very strongly that they want to make the decision.”
McMahon's opposition is based in large part on his race for the Congress in a district where voters strongly supported the original term limits bill. Lappin is somewhat of a surprise since many felt that she would eventually side with the mayor. She is, however, a first termer who may find herself out in the cold if the Lauder-inspired Charter ends up reaffirming term limits for the council members who would remain.
City Room also examines the Yassky-Brewer-Gerson amendment, and raises the fig leaf question that we also raised in an earlier post: "Mr. Yassky, Mr. Gerson and Ms. Brewer are among those who are undecided. But the conventional wisdom is that they will ultimately vote for the bill — even though they said Wednesday that they had not yet made up their minds. Small wonder, then, that several reporters asked the three a variation on the same question: whether their amendment was simply a fig leaf to give them political cover and say that they tried to stop the mayor’s bill, before ultimately voting for it.“Absolutely not,” Mr. Yassky said, in a sentiment that was echoed by the others."
We'll see if that holds up in the face of the speaker's optimism: "Ms. Quinn has told council members and others that she is confident that she has the 26 votes needed for passage in the 51-member Council. “I am very optimistic that the mayor’s bill will pass in the Council tomorrow,” she said Wednesday at an event on Staten Island." Our advice to the intrepid trio comes from Dan Rather; "Courage!"
Update
Erik Engquist at Crain's is also reporting that the mayor's bill may be in for some trouble: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to extend term limits appears to be in serious trouble.Three undecided members of the City Council announced that they will introduce an amendment that would place a major obstacle between the mayor and a third term. Brooklyn’s David Yassky and Manhattan’s Gale Brewer and Alan Gerson said their measure would make the extension subject to a public referendum next year."
Apparently, the council members are reacting to some rather strong constituent sentiment: "Ms. Brewer considers the current limit of two four-year terms to be too short, but is sympathetic to the strong public sentiment against the Council changing the law. She says her office has received about 650 calls, e-mails and letters on the issue, about 75% of them opposing the mayor’s bill.“I think [a limit of] 12 years makes sense,” Brewer said. “On the other hand, people feel very strongly that they want to make the decision.”
Terminal Impediment?
It really is getting curiouser and curiouser with regards to Tomorrow's term limits vote. According to Liz B, three council members will introduce an amendment to the mayor's bill. The three-Yassky, Brewer and Gerson-are undecided, but were seen by most observers to be eventual No votes; and they still may be. But now a great deal of uncertainty has been introduced into the equation: "
"A well-informed source called in to say that three Council members - David Yassky, Alan Gerson and Gale Brewer - are poised to introduce an amendment to the mayor's term limits bill that could throw a sizable wrench into the works of tomorrow's vote. As I understand it, the amendment would change the last paragraph of the bill, which requires that it would take effect immediately, to require that the measure NOT take effect unless and until it is affirmed by a public referendum. The amendment would also create a special election charter commission that would be tasked with setting up the referendum before the 2009 election."
Now, before all of you opponents get excited, there are those we've talked to who believe that this is simply a ruse-a device that will allow the three members, and maybe one or two others, to push for an amendment that, once it is defeated, will enable the amenders to vote Yes on the mayor's bill. Perhaps so, but not everyone agrees. On the other side, is the belief that the (possibly) four amenders will bring the pro referendum cohort very close to victory; and if so, will force the speaker to pull the vote for tomorrow.
Adding to the explosive mixture is the gathering labor/Working Families Part storm. As City Room points out: "City Council members who are considering voting for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to extend term limits are receiving strong pressure from labor leaders to oppose the measure. Some leaders of the coalition of labor unions and community and political groups are making it clear that they intend to take aim at certain council members in next year’s elections should the measure pass."
In combination with the proposed amendment, this poses a considerable obstacle for the weak-kneed-not only being forced to vote against a measure that 89% of New Yorkers believe is the right path to follow; but to do so knowing that a strong grass roots coalition is forming to take aim at them. This is particularly problematic for certain first termers who are planning to vote for the mayor's bill. These council members are not in the same cul-du-sac as their term limited colleagues since they do have an additional term ahead.
And the opposition, led in part by Bertha Lewis, is not to be trifled with: “Our position is quite clear,” said Ms. Lewis, who is also a leader within the Working Families Party. “A change in the law has to be done by a referendum. And we’re watching very closely how the members of the City Council vote. And voting in favor of the mayor’s bill are likely to tip the scale when it comes to decisions about who we will support in the 09 elections.”
All of which makes for quite a potentially dramatic denouement in the city council tomorrow. Many political careers could be hanging in the balance. In any case, this is certainly the most unusual political controversy we've seen in our long tenure watching city politics.
"A well-informed source called in to say that three Council members - David Yassky, Alan Gerson and Gale Brewer - are poised to introduce an amendment to the mayor's term limits bill that could throw a sizable wrench into the works of tomorrow's vote. As I understand it, the amendment would change the last paragraph of the bill, which requires that it would take effect immediately, to require that the measure NOT take effect unless and until it is affirmed by a public referendum. The amendment would also create a special election charter commission that would be tasked with setting up the referendum before the 2009 election."
Now, before all of you opponents get excited, there are those we've talked to who believe that this is simply a ruse-a device that will allow the three members, and maybe one or two others, to push for an amendment that, once it is defeated, will enable the amenders to vote Yes on the mayor's bill. Perhaps so, but not everyone agrees. On the other side, is the belief that the (possibly) four amenders will bring the pro referendum cohort very close to victory; and if so, will force the speaker to pull the vote for tomorrow.
Adding to the explosive mixture is the gathering labor/Working Families Part storm. As City Room points out: "City Council members who are considering voting for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal to extend term limits are receiving strong pressure from labor leaders to oppose the measure. Some leaders of the coalition of labor unions and community and political groups are making it clear that they intend to take aim at certain council members in next year’s elections should the measure pass."
In combination with the proposed amendment, this poses a considerable obstacle for the weak-kneed-not only being forced to vote against a measure that 89% of New Yorkers believe is the right path to follow; but to do so knowing that a strong grass roots coalition is forming to take aim at them. This is particularly problematic for certain first termers who are planning to vote for the mayor's bill. These council members are not in the same cul-du-sac as their term limited colleagues since they do have an additional term ahead.
And the opposition, led in part by Bertha Lewis, is not to be trifled with: “Our position is quite clear,” said Ms. Lewis, who is also a leader within the Working Families Party. “A change in the law has to be done by a referendum. And we’re watching very closely how the members of the City Council vote. And voting in favor of the mayor’s bill are likely to tip the scale when it comes to decisions about who we will support in the 09 elections.”
All of which makes for quite a potentially dramatic denouement in the city council tomorrow. Many political careers could be hanging in the balance. In any case, this is certainly the most unusual political controversy we've seen in our long tenure watching city politics.
Into the Valley of the Shadow...
As the city council showdown on term limits approaches D-Day, with all of the internal lobbying going into its final intense phase, everyone assumes that the votes are there for a narrow Quinnberg victory. The only question remaining is: Will it be a Pyrrhic victory? As the NY Times reports:
"The vote would come just three weeks after Mr. Bloomberg announced his plan to change the law, saying he wants to steer the city through the economic troubles resulting from Wall Street’s crisis. Opponents have complained that Ms. Quinn is rushing the measure through for the mayor. Late last week, two days of public hearings attracted standing-room-only crowds, and most who spoke argued against the bill...But if the bill fails, it would be a stunning defeat for a popular mayor who has rarely failed to sway the Council to his side of an issue."
Well, they do say that haste makes waste, but in this case the choice wasn't pretty-as the latest Q Poll indicating a rapid erosion of support, even for the popular mayor. Any further dawdling, and the public pressure on undecided council members would have been too heated to ignore-hence the rapid move to a vote: "Councilwoman Letitia James of Brooklyn said that since Mr. Lauder was casting doubt on the assurances the mayor and the speaker have given to first-termers, “freshmen are beginning to feel very uncomfortable. There are no guarantees that they are protected.” Ms. James was among those council members heartened by a Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday morning. By 89 percent to 7 percent, city residents prefer changing term limits by referendum, according to the poll; 51 percent oppose extending term limits altogether, even if it means denying Mr. Bloomberg a run at a third term."
This morning's NY Daily News also focuses in on the dramatic shift of public opinion: "The news came as a Quinnipiac University poll found New Yorkers are souring on the plan to give the mayor, Council members and citywide officials a chance at a third four-year term. "It's a bluff," said Councilman Bill de Blasio (D-Brooklyn), one of the leading opponents. "If, God forbid, it passes, there will be lawsuits the next day."
So no matter what the council does tomorrow, there will be a continuing focus on the legal issue, and the public's dim view of the proceedings will grow even further. Into this growing disgust will be the expected Bloomberg knee jerk tax raising. As the NY Post reports: "New Yorkers got a preview yesterday of the impact of the Wall Street meltdown on local government revenues as Mayor Bloomberg predicted the city's budget gap over the next two years would be $1.5 billion larger than forecast in June. Bloomberg also indicated that, one way or another, taxes are going up. "Taxes are clearly one of the things on the table - going to be for us, going to be for the state, going to be for the federal government, I think," he said."
The mayor's fiscal acumen is beginning to sound more like Jimmy Buffet, not Warren; but his political predictions are less uncertain given his past performance. What this means, however, is that the mayor's popularity will continue to be buffeted and bruised-with the contentious school governance issue coming up shortly after the new year.
For the council, we predict that whatever happens there will be leadership challenges. It's hard to rule a body where disagreements and animosity are as pronounced as they are-and where the split is so close. This will be exacerbated by the ongoing legal battle. Of course, if the suits are upheld, all bets are off.
"The vote would come just three weeks after Mr. Bloomberg announced his plan to change the law, saying he wants to steer the city through the economic troubles resulting from Wall Street’s crisis. Opponents have complained that Ms. Quinn is rushing the measure through for the mayor. Late last week, two days of public hearings attracted standing-room-only crowds, and most who spoke argued against the bill...But if the bill fails, it would be a stunning defeat for a popular mayor who has rarely failed to sway the Council to his side of an issue."
Well, they do say that haste makes waste, but in this case the choice wasn't pretty-as the latest Q Poll indicating a rapid erosion of support, even for the popular mayor. Any further dawdling, and the public pressure on undecided council members would have been too heated to ignore-hence the rapid move to a vote: "Councilwoman Letitia James of Brooklyn said that since Mr. Lauder was casting doubt on the assurances the mayor and the speaker have given to first-termers, “freshmen are beginning to feel very uncomfortable. There are no guarantees that they are protected.” Ms. James was among those council members heartened by a Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday morning. By 89 percent to 7 percent, city residents prefer changing term limits by referendum, according to the poll; 51 percent oppose extending term limits altogether, even if it means denying Mr. Bloomberg a run at a third term."
This morning's NY Daily News also focuses in on the dramatic shift of public opinion: "The news came as a Quinnipiac University poll found New Yorkers are souring on the plan to give the mayor, Council members and citywide officials a chance at a third four-year term. "It's a bluff," said Councilman Bill de Blasio (D-Brooklyn), one of the leading opponents. "If, God forbid, it passes, there will be lawsuits the next day."
So no matter what the council does tomorrow, there will be a continuing focus on the legal issue, and the public's dim view of the proceedings will grow even further. Into this growing disgust will be the expected Bloomberg knee jerk tax raising. As the NY Post reports: "New Yorkers got a preview yesterday of the impact of the Wall Street meltdown on local government revenues as Mayor Bloomberg predicted the city's budget gap over the next two years would be $1.5 billion larger than forecast in June. Bloomberg also indicated that, one way or another, taxes are going up. "Taxes are clearly one of the things on the table - going to be for us, going to be for the state, going to be for the federal government, I think," he said."
The mayor's fiscal acumen is beginning to sound more like Jimmy Buffet, not Warren; but his political predictions are less uncertain given his past performance. What this means, however, is that the mayor's popularity will continue to be buffeted and bruised-with the contentious school governance issue coming up shortly after the new year.
For the council, we predict that whatever happens there will be leadership challenges. It's hard to rule a body where disagreements and animosity are as pronounced as they are-and where the split is so close. This will be exacerbated by the ongoing legal battle. Of course, if the suits are upheld, all bets are off.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Hopelessly De-Voted
As City Room blog is reporting, the city council has schedule a term limits vote for Thursday-a lock that they have the votes to pass the mayor's bill: "The City Council has scheduled a Thursday vote on a bill that would extend term limits to allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and other city officials to seek a third term in office, nullifying the outcome of two public referendums, in 1993 and 1996, that imposed term limits."
It's also instructive that the alternative legislation will not be sent up for a vote-probably because it wouldn't even get past the committee in order to go to the floor: "Over 19.5 hours of hearings on Thursday and Friday, the committee heard testimony on two bills: the mayor’s and an alternative, sponsored by Councilman Bill de Blasio and Councilwoman Letitia James, that would require a public referendum on term limits...Eric J. Kuo, a spokesman for Mr. Felder, who heads the committee, said that the de Blasio-James bill “will not be considered for a vote at this time.”
Or any other time we're pretty sure. All of which sets the stage for a raucous political upheaval, one whose consequence is unknowable; we're in the most uncharted of waters. Our view, however, is that this decision could well turn out to be momentous-with the mayor's legacy tarnished and in the balance. Everything that he touches from now on in, could well be refracted through this newly soiled lens. We are going to see just how much good will the mayor can purchase in the months ahead.
It's also instructive that the alternative legislation will not be sent up for a vote-probably because it wouldn't even get past the committee in order to go to the floor: "Over 19.5 hours of hearings on Thursday and Friday, the committee heard testimony on two bills: the mayor’s and an alternative, sponsored by Councilman Bill de Blasio and Councilwoman Letitia James, that would require a public referendum on term limits...Eric J. Kuo, a spokesman for Mr. Felder, who heads the committee, said that the de Blasio-James bill “will not be considered for a vote at this time.”
Or any other time we're pretty sure. All of which sets the stage for a raucous political upheaval, one whose consequence is unknowable; we're in the most uncharted of waters. Our view, however, is that this decision could well turn out to be momentous-with the mayor's legacy tarnished and in the balance. Everything that he touches from now on in, could well be refracted through this newly soiled lens. We are going to see just how much good will the mayor can purchase in the months ahead.
Only on My Terms
It now appears that we have two billionaires who want to regulate the rules of the game in this town-and their shifting positions on the issue of term limits really sets heads spinning. First up is the mayor who doesn't get from the NY Times' Clyde Haberman, the kind of royal treatment he has come to expect:
"In 2002, a prominent New Yorker’s blood was boiling over an attempt in the City Council to fiddle with the city’s term limits law. It was the voters who had imposed those limits in two separate referendums a few years earlier, this man said. “I would oppose any change in the law that a legislative body tries to make,” he said. Three years later, another effort was under way in the Council to monkey with the law, this time to extend the limit to three terms from two — to 12 years from 8. The prominent New Yorker’s blood was still up.
“This is an outrage,” he said in a radio interview. The people had spoken, he said. He added: “There’s no organization that I know that would put somebody in charge for a long period of time. You always want turnover and change. Eight years is great. You learn for four years. You can do for four years.”
That, as they say, was then, and this is now-so the man in the mirror has altered his principle in the name of pragmatism. Ah pragmatism, thy name is Mike Bloomberg; who now argues that the fact have changed because of the country's economic crisis-never mind that this whole soap opera began long before the current market meltdown reared its ugly head.
But, as Haberman aptly informs us, it was the term limits law that bequeathed to us the little cuddly billionaire who now is saying that current events makes him indispensable. Are argument all along has been that the current fiscal mess militates against a third Bloomberg term much more so than it argues for it; our belief here is that we need a government innovator and not this raise taxes/slash services paint by the numbers pedestrian.
Which brings us to the other billionaire, Mr. Ron Lauder. Frankly we're somewhat concerned about the man's mental stability since his shifting positions on the term issue raises some real competency questions. As City Room blog observes: "After threatening to fight Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to seek a third term, then agreeing to sit on the sidelines, then waffling, then backing down again, Ronald S. Lauder is tossing a new — and potentially serious — hurdle into the mayor’s path (at the same time that another billionaire, Tom Golisano, is pledging all-out opposition to the plan). In an interview, Mr. Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics heir, said he strongly opposed allowing members of the City Council now serving their first term to remain in office for three terms.“I think it’s disingenuous for anyone to promise them a third term,” Mr. Lauder said by telephone on Monday night."
It all gets us to longing for the days of Martin Luther's, Here I Stand. Expedience has been raised to the level of principle in this town and, if the Q Poll is any indication, these shifts are likely to roil New York's political landscape for many months to come.
"In 2002, a prominent New Yorker’s blood was boiling over an attempt in the City Council to fiddle with the city’s term limits law. It was the voters who had imposed those limits in two separate referendums a few years earlier, this man said. “I would oppose any change in the law that a legislative body tries to make,” he said. Three years later, another effort was under way in the Council to monkey with the law, this time to extend the limit to three terms from two — to 12 years from 8. The prominent New Yorker’s blood was still up.
“This is an outrage,” he said in a radio interview. The people had spoken, he said. He added: “There’s no organization that I know that would put somebody in charge for a long period of time. You always want turnover and change. Eight years is great. You learn for four years. You can do for four years.”
That, as they say, was then, and this is now-so the man in the mirror has altered his principle in the name of pragmatism. Ah pragmatism, thy name is Mike Bloomberg; who now argues that the fact have changed because of the country's economic crisis-never mind that this whole soap opera began long before the current market meltdown reared its ugly head.
But, as Haberman aptly informs us, it was the term limits law that bequeathed to us the little cuddly billionaire who now is saying that current events makes him indispensable. Are argument all along has been that the current fiscal mess militates against a third Bloomberg term much more so than it argues for it; our belief here is that we need a government innovator and not this raise taxes/slash services paint by the numbers pedestrian.
Which brings us to the other billionaire, Mr. Ron Lauder. Frankly we're somewhat concerned about the man's mental stability since his shifting positions on the term issue raises some real competency questions. As City Room blog observes: "After threatening to fight Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to seek a third term, then agreeing to sit on the sidelines, then waffling, then backing down again, Ronald S. Lauder is tossing a new — and potentially serious — hurdle into the mayor’s path (at the same time that another billionaire, Tom Golisano, is pledging all-out opposition to the plan). In an interview, Mr. Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics heir, said he strongly opposed allowing members of the City Council now serving their first term to remain in office for three terms.“I think it’s disingenuous for anyone to promise them a third term,” Mr. Lauder said by telephone on Monday night."
It all gets us to longing for the days of Martin Luther's, Here I Stand. Expedience has been raised to the level of principle in this town and, if the Q Poll is any indication, these shifts are likely to roil New York's political landscape for many months to come.
Referendum Phobia
As this morning's Q Poll underscores (via Liz), Mayor Mike has a good reason to stay away from a referendum on his wish to keep ahold of the reins of power. The folks, and even many who like the mayor, feel that the idea of changing term limits should be put to a vote: "Today's Q poll finds New York City voters are tilting against the idea of extending term limits so the mayor and two-thirds of Council members can seek re-election in 2009...Generally speaking, voters said they support term limits (62-29) and oppose extending the current eight-year limit to 12 years (36-56). When asked specifically whether they would support extending term limits so Bloomberg can run again, 51 percent said they oppose the idea, 45 percent said they favor it and 3 percent didn't know or had no opinion. By an 89-7 percent margin, voters said they wanted the term limits question to be settled by another referendum, not by the City Council."
So its not just a few malcontents, is it Mike? "The problem is that if this goes to a referendum, Bloomberg would probably lose - at least according to the Q poll's numbers (52-41)." All of which exacerbates the problem of doing this legislatively, particularly for those council members who have larger political ambitions. As Liz points out: "In today's poll, voters also said they oppose (60 - 31) extending term limits so their local City Council members can serve for more years."
And this is also becoming a real bone of contention in the black community-Calling Al Sharpton, "Where Are You?" Tom White, et al, beware: "The mayor's biggest dearth of support is among black voters, who oppose changing term limits 35-62. His strongest supporters are members of the last political party to which he belonged - the GOP. Republicans favor the mayor's term limits extension effort, 54-44."
So its not just a few malcontents, is it Mike? "The problem is that if this goes to a referendum, Bloomberg would probably lose - at least according to the Q poll's numbers (52-41)." All of which exacerbates the problem of doing this legislatively, particularly for those council members who have larger political ambitions. As Liz points out: "In today's poll, voters also said they oppose (60 - 31) extending term limits so their local City Council members can serve for more years."
And this is also becoming a real bone of contention in the black community-Calling Al Sharpton, "Where Are You?" Tom White, et al, beware: "The mayor's biggest dearth of support is among black voters, who oppose changing term limits 35-62. His strongest supporters are members of the last political party to which he belonged - the GOP. Republicans favor the mayor's term limits extension effort, 54-44."
Searching for Inedible Heroes
Just when you might have thought that the editorial hyperbole might have reached its fashionable limits on term limits, along comes the NY Daily News looking for heroes on the city council; talk about looking for love in all the wrong places! Here's what the News is seeking: "The City Council will soon have the opportunity - perhaps Thursday - to demonstrate that it has at last come of age as New York's local legislature...For the good of 8 million citizens - including 4 million registered voters - a majority of the members must enable New Yorkers to have full choices on the 2009 mayoral ballot. The Council must amend the term limits law to permit Mayor Bloomberg to run for a third time."
As the sportscaster Dick Engberg might say, "Oh my!" We never thought that NYC could be confused with the old home, home on the range, but leave it to the Daily News-at least when it comes to Mike Bloomberg-to be heard singing, "Where seldom there's heard a discouraging word..." So it really comes as no shock to find that the News believes that heroism is involved with extending the Imperial reign of Mike I.
And the News cites the testimony of mogul Dick Parson about hard times ahead to reinforce the essentialness of the mayor:
"As the city enters uniquely bad economic times thanks to the Wall Street meltdown, voters deserve the chance to go with Bloomberg for four more years - if they so choose. Time Warner Chairman Richard Parsons, who has been involved with civic affairs for more than 35 years, succinctly described the coming troubles when he testified last week in favor of extending term limits to three terms from two. "It would be hard to overstate the potential of the economic crisis on New York City," he said. "It will make the 1970s fiscal crisis look like a day at the beach." The era was hell - and the city did not recover for the better part of three decades. Even the most vital services - police, subways, sanitation, schools - spiraled downward."
And as the News should remember the city's fiscal crisis was exacerbated by the fact that its leaders tried to tax their way out of trouble. And what do the mayor and the speaker want to do? Why raise taxes in order to "preserve vital services."
Still, this is all becoming more interesting as we await the possible council vote on Thursday; with first term members looking for guarantees that their limited colleagues won't be getting the gold mine while they get the shaft. And this gets more complicated all the time, as unions and billionaires combine in unlikely alliances. Here's today's NY Times: "Meanwhile, the cosmetics heir Ronald S. Lauder, whose support Mr. Bloomberg has carefully cultivated, signaled in an interview that he would vigorously oppose allowing council members now serving their first term to remain in office for three terms. It was his finances and advocacy that led to the establishment of term limits, in 1993 and 1996 referendums. Mr. Lauder’s position, and the implied threat behind it, could make it harder for the Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, to round up enough votes to change the law."
If all of the remaining undecided first termers say No, then the votes aren't there to pass this bill. The smart money's still on the mayor and the speaker, but the search for heroes needs to be called off; it's no longer a rescue mission, its now only about the recovery of the bodies.
As the sportscaster Dick Engberg might say, "Oh my!" We never thought that NYC could be confused with the old home, home on the range, but leave it to the Daily News-at least when it comes to Mike Bloomberg-to be heard singing, "Where seldom there's heard a discouraging word..." So it really comes as no shock to find that the News believes that heroism is involved with extending the Imperial reign of Mike I.
And the News cites the testimony of mogul Dick Parson about hard times ahead to reinforce the essentialness of the mayor:
"As the city enters uniquely bad economic times thanks to the Wall Street meltdown, voters deserve the chance to go with Bloomberg for four more years - if they so choose. Time Warner Chairman Richard Parsons, who has been involved with civic affairs for more than 35 years, succinctly described the coming troubles when he testified last week in favor of extending term limits to three terms from two. "It would be hard to overstate the potential of the economic crisis on New York City," he said. "It will make the 1970s fiscal crisis look like a day at the beach." The era was hell - and the city did not recover for the better part of three decades. Even the most vital services - police, subways, sanitation, schools - spiraled downward."
And as the News should remember the city's fiscal crisis was exacerbated by the fact that its leaders tried to tax their way out of trouble. And what do the mayor and the speaker want to do? Why raise taxes in order to "preserve vital services."
Still, this is all becoming more interesting as we await the possible council vote on Thursday; with first term members looking for guarantees that their limited colleagues won't be getting the gold mine while they get the shaft. And this gets more complicated all the time, as unions and billionaires combine in unlikely alliances. Here's today's NY Times: "Meanwhile, the cosmetics heir Ronald S. Lauder, whose support Mr. Bloomberg has carefully cultivated, signaled in an interview that he would vigorously oppose allowing council members now serving their first term to remain in office for three terms. It was his finances and advocacy that led to the establishment of term limits, in 1993 and 1996 referendums. Mr. Lauder’s position, and the implied threat behind it, could make it harder for the Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, to round up enough votes to change the law."
If all of the remaining undecided first termers say No, then the votes aren't there to pass this bill. The smart money's still on the mayor and the speaker, but the search for heroes needs to be called off; it's no longer a rescue mission, its now only about the recovery of the bodies.
Absentminded
If what Woody Allen has said is true, and 90% of success in life is simply showing up, then we got big problems in our city schools; you know, the ones that have been showing spectacular progress according to the Bloomberg manufactured rose colored glasses. Here's this morning's account from the NY Times (citing a New School report) of rampant absenteeism:
"More than 90,000 of New York City’s elementary school students — roughly 20 percent — missed at least a month of classes during the last school year, with attendance problems most acute in central Brooklyn, Harlem and the South Bronx, according to a report scheduled for release on Tuesday. Chronic absenteeism in elementary schools is disproportionately a problem in poor and minority communities and it immediately puts students behind their middle-class peers,” concludes the report, by the Center for New York City Affairs at the New School. “The academic pressures build over time and build quickly."
And the situation's even worse in the upper grades: "The situation was worse in higher grades — 40 percent of high school students and 24 percent of middle school students were absent for at least a month — but the report focuses on elementary schools because absenteeism among young students is less widely discussed even though it is believed to worsen over time and lead to dropouts."
And wouldn't you know that when the schools are graded in the bogus accounting system that the Kleinemen have set up, absenteeism only accounts for 5% of the grade; the chancellor apparently only looks like Woody Allen but has eschewed his acuity about the importance of showing up.
So we have this anomaly. Our schools are showing great improvement-except for the fact that large swaths of the kids are chronically absent: "Examining detailed attendance reports for the city’s nearly 1,500 public schools, the report found that in 124 elementary schools, 98 middle schools and 41 schools serving kindergarten through eighth grade, at least 30 percent of the students were chronically absent, defined as missing 20 days of the 185-day school year. (The report did not provide the number of high schools with such absentee rates.) Makes you wonder about the veracity of those test scores, doesn't it?
And, of course, absenteeism is most severe in those areas where school performance is worse: "Indeed, absenteeism varies widely across the city. In Bayside, Queens, a middle-class neighborhood with many single-family homes, about 5 percent of students in kindergarten through fifth grade were chronically absent, compared with 30 percent of those in the Morrisania section of the Bronx, where there are several public housing projects."
Apparently, not everyone has gotten the education message-and that includes the editorial cheer leading squad that has been doing flips for a third term for Mayor Mike. Maybe they could answer why, with a school budget that has increased 79%, school performance remains flat and so many of the school children aren't bothering to attend.
"More than 90,000 of New York City’s elementary school students — roughly 20 percent — missed at least a month of classes during the last school year, with attendance problems most acute in central Brooklyn, Harlem and the South Bronx, according to a report scheduled for release on Tuesday. Chronic absenteeism in elementary schools is disproportionately a problem in poor and minority communities and it immediately puts students behind their middle-class peers,” concludes the report, by the Center for New York City Affairs at the New School. “The academic pressures build over time and build quickly."
And the situation's even worse in the upper grades: "The situation was worse in higher grades — 40 percent of high school students and 24 percent of middle school students were absent for at least a month — but the report focuses on elementary schools because absenteeism among young students is less widely discussed even though it is believed to worsen over time and lead to dropouts."
And wouldn't you know that when the schools are graded in the bogus accounting system that the Kleinemen have set up, absenteeism only accounts for 5% of the grade; the chancellor apparently only looks like Woody Allen but has eschewed his acuity about the importance of showing up.
So we have this anomaly. Our schools are showing great improvement-except for the fact that large swaths of the kids are chronically absent: "Examining detailed attendance reports for the city’s nearly 1,500 public schools, the report found that in 124 elementary schools, 98 middle schools and 41 schools serving kindergarten through eighth grade, at least 30 percent of the students were chronically absent, defined as missing 20 days of the 185-day school year. (The report did not provide the number of high schools with such absentee rates.) Makes you wonder about the veracity of those test scores, doesn't it?
And, of course, absenteeism is most severe in those areas where school performance is worse: "Indeed, absenteeism varies widely across the city. In Bayside, Queens, a middle-class neighborhood with many single-family homes, about 5 percent of students in kindergarten through fifth grade were chronically absent, compared with 30 percent of those in the Morrisania section of the Bronx, where there are several public housing projects."
Apparently, not everyone has gotten the education message-and that includes the editorial cheer leading squad that has been doing flips for a third term for Mayor Mike. Maybe they could answer why, with a school budget that has increased 79%, school performance remains flat and so many of the school children aren't bothering to attend.
Keeping Up Appearances
The City Room blog is reporting that Mayor Bloomberg is denying that he's done anything untoward in pressuring not-for-profits to come out and show the flag for Himself: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg today strongly defended his administration’s tactics in assembling support among nonprofit groups for legislation that would allow the mayor to seek a third term in office."
This is in keeping with the over all pretense of the man and his minions that his governance sails above all of the grubbier political precincts; nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the levels of coercion/persuasion here are unmatched-much as is the Bloomberg bankroll.
Still, Mayor Mike continues to elevate political disingenuousness to an art form: “We’re out there promoting and trying to rally people to support the administration’s position,” Mr. Bloomberg said, speaking with reporters following a groundbreaking ceremony for a new building at Kaufman Astoria Studios in Queens. “That’s what we’re supposed to do,” he said. “We do it appropriately. I don’t think we’ve come anywhere near crossing the line. I understand why they might say things they don’t really believe. But that’s up to them.”
As we've said before, this is all simply a crock-and if there was a RICO investigation with discovery there wouldn't be enough hand cuffs to go around. The reality here is that the comingling of private and public money-in both a carrot and stick fashion-creates an unprecedented level of influence-making the mayor's defense down right comical : “We’ve been very careful to not do that,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “Do we try to get people to come and testify? Absolutely. That’s what we’re always supposed to do, and we do it exactly the way the Conflicts of Interest Board said is appropriate.”
Citing your own in-house COIB as your best defense is, well, no real defense at all; and the mayor's claim that the one hearing was sufficient is in keeping with his smokeless-filled backroom dealing. He's apparently forgetting-and confident that there will be a hundred million ways to encourage voter amnesia-what he himself has said about the end run of the referendum process.
Liz B has the latest ad from extension opponents. Here are words to live-or to die-by: "The public wants term limits, and while...it might be that the City Council has the right to override them, deliberately saying to the public, 'We don't care what you think,'...I would use the word: Disgraceful."
But remember, Bloomberg also told council members to not sweat a yes vote because the folks who vote have a short memory; it all devolves from the perspective of someone who knows how easy it is to buy an election. Hopefully, this time the past will not be prologue.
This is in keeping with the over all pretense of the man and his minions that his governance sails above all of the grubbier political precincts; nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the levels of coercion/persuasion here are unmatched-much as is the Bloomberg bankroll.
Still, Mayor Mike continues to elevate political disingenuousness to an art form: “We’re out there promoting and trying to rally people to support the administration’s position,” Mr. Bloomberg said, speaking with reporters following a groundbreaking ceremony for a new building at Kaufman Astoria Studios in Queens. “That’s what we’re supposed to do,” he said. “We do it appropriately. I don’t think we’ve come anywhere near crossing the line. I understand why they might say things they don’t really believe. But that’s up to them.”
As we've said before, this is all simply a crock-and if there was a RICO investigation with discovery there wouldn't be enough hand cuffs to go around. The reality here is that the comingling of private and public money-in both a carrot and stick fashion-creates an unprecedented level of influence-making the mayor's defense down right comical : “We’ve been very careful to not do that,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “Do we try to get people to come and testify? Absolutely. That’s what we’re always supposed to do, and we do it exactly the way the Conflicts of Interest Board said is appropriate.”
Citing your own in-house COIB as your best defense is, well, no real defense at all; and the mayor's claim that the one hearing was sufficient is in keeping with his smokeless-filled backroom dealing. He's apparently forgetting-and confident that there will be a hundred million ways to encourage voter amnesia-what he himself has said about the end run of the referendum process.
Liz B has the latest ad from extension opponents. Here are words to live-or to die-by: "The public wants term limits, and while...it might be that the City Council has the right to override them, deliberately saying to the public, 'We don't care what you think,'...I would use the word: Disgraceful."
But remember, Bloomberg also told council members to not sweat a yes vote because the folks who vote have a short memory; it all devolves from the perspective of someone who knows how easy it is to buy an election. Hopefully, this time the past will not be prologue.
Monday, October 20, 2008
State of the Union
Yesterday, according to City Room, a number of municipal unions came out in support of our billionaire mayor-reinforcing the old bedfellows saw about politics. One union, the Uniformed Sanitationmen's Association, particularly caught our eye: "Mr. Nespoli, President, Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association, was not shy about the role of self-interest in the term limits debate. The current law, restricting legislators to eight years in office, is detrimental to unions, he suggested..."
Indeed it is; and we would say that the mayor's cozy relationship with the garbage collectors has been detrimental to the public's interest. Think of how much money the tax payers could be saving if the garbage collection routes were put out to bid-and competition created heretofore unrealized savings.
Here's the City Journal's original take on the reinvention concept put forward by Osborne and Gaebler some 15 years ago: "The authors maintain that the realization of this ambitious goal is uncontroversial and within grasp. The central problem of governments today, they write, is “not what they do, but how they operate.” Debates about “what government should do, and for whom” are “secondary today.”
As it should also be today-but we still haven't weaned ourselves from the top heavy, bureaucratic approach, and embraced the O&G concept of steering rather than rowing: "The class of managerial reinventions with the best potential for more than marginal benefits is privatization. Broadly defined, privatization is the deliberate shift of a wide range of public functions and activities from public to private hands. “Government should steer, not row, the boat” is the privatization movement’s rallying cry, echoed by Osborne and Gaebler."
The benefits devolve from the level of competition: "Osborne and Gaebler provide a reasoned, balanced discussion of contracting out. Although this form of privatization has few strong opponents (public employee unions aside), there are plenty of skeptics doubtful about the scope and magnitude of its potential benefits. The authors note that the potential of contracting out derives not from any inherent superiority of private over public production, but from the power of competitive markets. The benefits, therefore, diminish with diminished competition."
Which brings us to garbage collection. Certainly an innovative and self-funded billionaire with no political ties or obligations could have gone in this privatizing direction; especially after 9/11. Bloomberg, however, didn't have the imagination, and was surrounded by a bunch of old style, big government types who had a trained incapacity to respond in anything but a knee jerk fashion. As a result, we're left with the old and tired service cuts/tax increase playbook.
So the support that the mayor sought and received yesterday from the unions was certainly was bought and paid for-with the public's hard earned tax dollars. What's disquieting, is the silence from the editorialists who are always inveighing against the power of municipal labor. The editorial chorus has laryngitis when it comes to Brother Michael.
Indeed it is; and we would say that the mayor's cozy relationship with the garbage collectors has been detrimental to the public's interest. Think of how much money the tax payers could be saving if the garbage collection routes were put out to bid-and competition created heretofore unrealized savings.
Here's the City Journal's original take on the reinvention concept put forward by Osborne and Gaebler some 15 years ago: "The authors maintain that the realization of this ambitious goal is uncontroversial and within grasp. The central problem of governments today, they write, is “not what they do, but how they operate.” Debates about “what government should do, and for whom” are “secondary today.”
As it should also be today-but we still haven't weaned ourselves from the top heavy, bureaucratic approach, and embraced the O&G concept of steering rather than rowing: "The class of managerial reinventions with the best potential for more than marginal benefits is privatization. Broadly defined, privatization is the deliberate shift of a wide range of public functions and activities from public to private hands. “Government should steer, not row, the boat” is the privatization movement’s rallying cry, echoed by Osborne and Gaebler."
The benefits devolve from the level of competition: "Osborne and Gaebler provide a reasoned, balanced discussion of contracting out. Although this form of privatization has few strong opponents (public employee unions aside), there are plenty of skeptics doubtful about the scope and magnitude of its potential benefits. The authors note that the potential of contracting out derives not from any inherent superiority of private over public production, but from the power of competitive markets. The benefits, therefore, diminish with diminished competition."
Which brings us to garbage collection. Certainly an innovative and self-funded billionaire with no political ties or obligations could have gone in this privatizing direction; especially after 9/11. Bloomberg, however, didn't have the imagination, and was surrounded by a bunch of old style, big government types who had a trained incapacity to respond in anything but a knee jerk fashion. As a result, we're left with the old and tired service cuts/tax increase playbook.
So the support that the mayor sought and received yesterday from the unions was certainly was bought and paid for-with the public's hard earned tax dollars. What's disquieting, is the silence from the editorialists who are always inveighing against the power of municipal labor. The editorial chorus has laryngitis when it comes to Brother Michael.
The Man Behind the Curtain
The reification of the Bloomberg administration may be coming to an end, but the deification that's been integral to the process has created a difficult task for the current group of demystifiers. Take the idea that Mike Bloomberg's financial expertise helped to get the city back on its footing after the debacle of 9/11. The truth is somewhat less than the legend,
Some of this is underscored by E. J. McMahon in this morning's NY Post. McMahon, in his discussion of city tax policy, details how raising taxes during an economic downturn can lead to disaster-exactly what has happened for so much of New York's recent history: "In times of fiscal stress over the last four decades, city leaders repeatedly have resorted to raising income taxes - almost always with bad results. A whopping 75 percent increase in the income tax, enacted under then-Mayor John Lindsay when the economy began to sink in the early 1970s, failed to balance the budget and contributed to a fiscal death spiral that culminated in New York's near bankruptcy in 1975."
Raising taxes, of course, is exactly what the mayor and Speaker Quinn have been preparing us for. But, you ask, didn't the mayor and council raise taxes in 2002 and help get us through the crisis? The truth is less than the tale that has been spun by the mayor-$80 million spent to disinform in the last election cycle: "When a recession, the 9/11 attacks and a bear market on Wall Street combined to blow a huge hole in the city's financial plan early in Mayor Bloomberg's tenure, he responded by raising the income tax (as well as property and sales taxes) yet again. This time, however, Gotham got lucky: Bloomberg's tax hikes took effect the same day as President George W. Bush's much larger cuts in federal income taxes, which helped to ignite a strong Wall Street recovery."
What this meant was a windfall from Wall Street revenues, a cash influx that masked the real harm the hikes did to the local economy-particularly retailers who have reeled from the huge property tax hike. And what did Mayor Mike do to make government smaller and less efficient? Well, as hard as it may sound, this task appears to have been above the mayor's $1 a year pay grade.
The reality here is that the mayor is a political parvenu; one who is surrounded by deadwood that hasn't had an innovative idea since the Koch administration. And to make matters worse, Bloomberg's junior partner in government lacks any real understanding of these issues and is philosophically challenged to tackle the task of governing during a fiscal meltdown.
What's the speaker's solution? Here's McMahon's take on the mistaken path she's looking to take us on:
"New York City government has barely begun to bring its spending into line with post-meltdown reality - and Council Speaker Christine Quinn is already saying "we'll need to look at personal income-tax changes," among "other ideas," for closing budget gaps that are likely to swell beyond $8 billion over the next two years. If the best Quinn and the council can come up with is the paltry $210 million in potential cuts she cited in her Citizens Budget Commission speech last week, they need to explore a lot of other ideas. But an income-tax increase is the very last thing they should be thinking about at the moment."
Particularly since the likelihood of an Obama administration would probably mean that the tax payers that the city will target will be facing a double dose of abuse. You think Wall Street's having a hard time now, just what until Obama raises the capital gains tax. All of which will leave the city in quite a pickle; a challenge that the current mayor has already demonstrated an inability to address with any creativity.
As McMahon points out, Bloomberg's initial response to the critics of his tax policy was famous, and could well spell disaster if the mayor's able to buy his way into a third term: "In the past, Bloomberg has suggested that high taxes are less of a hindrance to economic development in New York than in other cities. New York, he says, "isn't Wal-Mart . . . It's a high-end product, maybe even a luxury product." The mayor's luxury-product analogy is actually an even stronger argument for tax restraint in troubled times. Staring down the barrel of a severe recession, employers and investors alike will now be thinking much harder about "luxury" purchases they once considered essential."
All of this means that we are in for a potential rude awakening-sort of like the kind the Dorothy experienced when the curtain was stripped aside and the Wizard of Oz was exposed as just a sad little man. Mike Bloomberg is not the mayor New York needs for the troubled times ahead. We need an innovator and a communicator in order to tackle the huge tax and governance issues we're going to be facing for the next few years. Nothing in the past seven years is any indication that Bloomberg is up to this kind of a challenge.
Some of this is underscored by E. J. McMahon in this morning's NY Post. McMahon, in his discussion of city tax policy, details how raising taxes during an economic downturn can lead to disaster-exactly what has happened for so much of New York's recent history: "In times of fiscal stress over the last four decades, city leaders repeatedly have resorted to raising income taxes - almost always with bad results. A whopping 75 percent increase in the income tax, enacted under then-Mayor John Lindsay when the economy began to sink in the early 1970s, failed to balance the budget and contributed to a fiscal death spiral that culminated in New York's near bankruptcy in 1975."
Raising taxes, of course, is exactly what the mayor and Speaker Quinn have been preparing us for. But, you ask, didn't the mayor and council raise taxes in 2002 and help get us through the crisis? The truth is less than the tale that has been spun by the mayor-$80 million spent to disinform in the last election cycle: "When a recession, the 9/11 attacks and a bear market on Wall Street combined to blow a huge hole in the city's financial plan early in Mayor Bloomberg's tenure, he responded by raising the income tax (as well as property and sales taxes) yet again. This time, however, Gotham got lucky: Bloomberg's tax hikes took effect the same day as President George W. Bush's much larger cuts in federal income taxes, which helped to ignite a strong Wall Street recovery."
What this meant was a windfall from Wall Street revenues, a cash influx that masked the real harm the hikes did to the local economy-particularly retailers who have reeled from the huge property tax hike. And what did Mayor Mike do to make government smaller and less efficient? Well, as hard as it may sound, this task appears to have been above the mayor's $1 a year pay grade.
The reality here is that the mayor is a political parvenu; one who is surrounded by deadwood that hasn't had an innovative idea since the Koch administration. And to make matters worse, Bloomberg's junior partner in government lacks any real understanding of these issues and is philosophically challenged to tackle the task of governing during a fiscal meltdown.
What's the speaker's solution? Here's McMahon's take on the mistaken path she's looking to take us on:
"New York City government has barely begun to bring its spending into line with post-meltdown reality - and Council Speaker Christine Quinn is already saying "we'll need to look at personal income-tax changes," among "other ideas," for closing budget gaps that are likely to swell beyond $8 billion over the next two years. If the best Quinn and the council can come up with is the paltry $210 million in potential cuts she cited in her Citizens Budget Commission speech last week, they need to explore a lot of other ideas. But an income-tax increase is the very last thing they should be thinking about at the moment."
Particularly since the likelihood of an Obama administration would probably mean that the tax payers that the city will target will be facing a double dose of abuse. You think Wall Street's having a hard time now, just what until Obama raises the capital gains tax. All of which will leave the city in quite a pickle; a challenge that the current mayor has already demonstrated an inability to address with any creativity.
As McMahon points out, Bloomberg's initial response to the critics of his tax policy was famous, and could well spell disaster if the mayor's able to buy his way into a third term: "In the past, Bloomberg has suggested that high taxes are less of a hindrance to economic development in New York than in other cities. New York, he says, "isn't Wal-Mart . . . It's a high-end product, maybe even a luxury product." The mayor's luxury-product analogy is actually an even stronger argument for tax restraint in troubled times. Staring down the barrel of a severe recession, employers and investors alike will now be thinking much harder about "luxury" purchases they once considered essential."
All of this means that we are in for a potential rude awakening-sort of like the kind the Dorothy experienced when the curtain was stripped aside and the Wizard of Oz was exposed as just a sad little man. Mike Bloomberg is not the mayor New York needs for the troubled times ahead. We need an innovator and a communicator in order to tackle the huge tax and governance issues we're going to be facing for the next few years. Nothing in the past seven years is any indication that Bloomberg is up to this kind of a challenge.
Coalition of the Willing
"Follow the money," is usually a reliable axiom when you try to unravel any fraudulent or corrupt activity. It's also a good maxim to follow in analyzing political activities, and the resultant policy making that follows. That's why there's always such scrutiny of lobbyists and political donors-with observers scrutinizing relationships for the inevitable quid pro quo. And so it is with the mayor and his effort to overstay his term mandated welcome.
When it comes to Mike Bloomberg, however, a much greater degree of sophistication is needed-and some would say a forensic accountant-to unravel the impact of money on, not only how the term limits debate resolves itself at the city council, but on how the mayor governs and the manner in which his mayoralty is evaluated.
For Mike Bloomberg is not an ordinary elected official, and his vast fortune introduces an entirely different political calculus into the evaluation process; one that is so different that it confuses many observers, weighed down as they are by traditional categories of analysis that are inapplicable to the billionaire mayor. As a result we get the stale observation that Bloomberg isn't beholden to the "special interests."
Now we have gone to great lengths to debunk this pointless observation, here, here, here, here, and here; but Fred Siegal's remark in the Times, that we site in an earlier post, is extremely relevant: “The traditional politicians are bought by special interest groups, but Bloomberg buys special interest groups,” he said." The mayor has reversed the traditional flow of money-but it only means that the task of following it needs to be reversed.
An issue that gets a follow up scrutiny in this morning's NY Times; with numerous elected officials harshly criticizing the mayor's tactics: "Several of New York City’s top political figures on Sunday denounced Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration in unusually harsh terms for asking nonprofit groups to support legislation that would allow Mr. Bloomberg to seek a third term in office."
As usual, the Bloomberg administration remains tone deaf, even while groups that have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from private mayoral funds speak out without letting the folks know that their on the dole: "But none of the leaders disclosed that their groups received money from Mr. Bloomberg. (For example, Harlem Children’s Zone, which provides services for children and families, has accepted more than $500,000 from Mr. Bloomberg since he was elected, and receives millions in city funds.) Jason Post, a spokesman for the mayor, said, “We are building support for our bill, like we do for any other bill the administration introduces, but we are doing it appropriately.”
Which brings us to the Bloomberg Coalition of the Willing that we commented on earlier. Adam Lisberg of the NY Daily News does a good job in his Sunday column of doing the forensic barium enema, underscoring the public funding side of the lobbying effort (The Times piece yesterday hit the private side; but the blurring really makes it hard to distinguish one side from the other): "Mayor Bloomberg never showed up at hearings on whether he can run for a third term, but dozens of people waited hours to praise him anyway - many of them spurred by the best supporters money could buy. It wasn't Bloomberg's money, though. It was yours."
Lisberg goes on to document some of the old fashioned ways in which the mayor garners support-he buys it: "There were aides from the mayor's Community Assistance Unit, who rounded up pro-Bloomberg speakers from the community and religious and civic groups they work with all day long - many of which thrive on city grants. There were the dozens of "Ready, Willing and Able" guys from the Doe Fund, which gets funding from the city - and used its vans to bring people to the hearing."
All of which underscores just how, on the one hand, the mayor acts as simply another politician, while, on the other, cultivating a vastly contradictory image of the "above politics" statesman, whose only real concern is the common good. This was revealed clearly last spring after the city council slush fund scandal was itself followed by revelations that the mayor had his own earmarks that were used for political logrolling.
The NY Post revisited this in yesterday's paper: "Mayor Bloomberg showered cash on key City Council members with the power to kill a term-limits extension bill in the last year. Members of the council's Government Operations Committee have received millions from Hizzoner's slush fund, a once-secret pot of taxpayer money the mayor doles out to favored lawmakers for their pet causes. All the members are Democrats who will decide whether the change in term limits - which the mayor needs in order to run for a third term - goes before the council for a full vote."
So what we have with Bloomberg is the unprecedented comingling of the power of incumbency with that of his great fortune-and his willingness to unabashedly use this lethal one two punch to stand the concept of democratic governance on its head; and this is exactly what we can see here in NYC, if we're only willing to look closely at how the mayor operates.
When Murray Edelman wrote his classic, The Symbolic Uses of Politics, he pointed out that there were two levels of politics-the symbolic and the tangible. When it comes to Bloomberg, the symbolic revolves around the manufactured image of the mayor as a wealthy benevolent; so unencumbered by special interests that he's able to put the good of the people above the grubby interests of the self serving.
However, in reality and on the tangible side, we can see how the mayor in his active policy making aggrandizes the wealthy real estate and financial communities. He does so precisely because he sees their goals as, not only his own, but coterminous as well with his conception of the common good. Their is the sharing of a common world view, one that colors how the mayor approaches policy decisions.
The deconstruction of Mike Bloomberg has just begun, and is long overdo. As the process continues to unfold, it may be useful to remember Machiavelli's observation: "For the great majority of mankind are satisfied by appearance, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are." Machiavelli, it is useful to remember, wrote The Prince as a primer for the people; so they would be disabused from confusing appearance with reality. How appropriate-is it not?- to apply his principles, adopted for the Italian city-states, to the understanding of our own municipal Prince.
When it comes to Mike Bloomberg, however, a much greater degree of sophistication is needed-and some would say a forensic accountant-to unravel the impact of money on, not only how the term limits debate resolves itself at the city council, but on how the mayor governs and the manner in which his mayoralty is evaluated.
For Mike Bloomberg is not an ordinary elected official, and his vast fortune introduces an entirely different political calculus into the evaluation process; one that is so different that it confuses many observers, weighed down as they are by traditional categories of analysis that are inapplicable to the billionaire mayor. As a result we get the stale observation that Bloomberg isn't beholden to the "special interests."
Now we have gone to great lengths to debunk this pointless observation, here, here, here, here, and here; but Fred Siegal's remark in the Times, that we site in an earlier post, is extremely relevant: “The traditional politicians are bought by special interest groups, but Bloomberg buys special interest groups,” he said." The mayor has reversed the traditional flow of money-but it only means that the task of following it needs to be reversed.
An issue that gets a follow up scrutiny in this morning's NY Times; with numerous elected officials harshly criticizing the mayor's tactics: "Several of New York City’s top political figures on Sunday denounced Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration in unusually harsh terms for asking nonprofit groups to support legislation that would allow Mr. Bloomberg to seek a third term in office."
As usual, the Bloomberg administration remains tone deaf, even while groups that have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from private mayoral funds speak out without letting the folks know that their on the dole: "But none of the leaders disclosed that their groups received money from Mr. Bloomberg. (For example, Harlem Children’s Zone, which provides services for children and families, has accepted more than $500,000 from Mr. Bloomberg since he was elected, and receives millions in city funds.) Jason Post, a spokesman for the mayor, said, “We are building support for our bill, like we do for any other bill the administration introduces, but we are doing it appropriately.”
Which brings us to the Bloomberg Coalition of the Willing that we commented on earlier. Adam Lisberg of the NY Daily News does a good job in his Sunday column of doing the forensic barium enema, underscoring the public funding side of the lobbying effort (The Times piece yesterday hit the private side; but the blurring really makes it hard to distinguish one side from the other): "Mayor Bloomberg never showed up at hearings on whether he can run for a third term, but dozens of people waited hours to praise him anyway - many of them spurred by the best supporters money could buy. It wasn't Bloomberg's money, though. It was yours."
Lisberg goes on to document some of the old fashioned ways in which the mayor garners support-he buys it: "There were aides from the mayor's Community Assistance Unit, who rounded up pro-Bloomberg speakers from the community and religious and civic groups they work with all day long - many of which thrive on city grants. There were the dozens of "Ready, Willing and Able" guys from the Doe Fund, which gets funding from the city - and used its vans to bring people to the hearing."
All of which underscores just how, on the one hand, the mayor acts as simply another politician, while, on the other, cultivating a vastly contradictory image of the "above politics" statesman, whose only real concern is the common good. This was revealed clearly last spring after the city council slush fund scandal was itself followed by revelations that the mayor had his own earmarks that were used for political logrolling.
The NY Post revisited this in yesterday's paper: "Mayor Bloomberg showered cash on key City Council members with the power to kill a term-limits extension bill in the last year. Members of the council's Government Operations Committee have received millions from Hizzoner's slush fund, a once-secret pot of taxpayer money the mayor doles out to favored lawmakers for their pet causes. All the members are Democrats who will decide whether the change in term limits - which the mayor needs in order to run for a third term - goes before the council for a full vote."
So what we have with Bloomberg is the unprecedented comingling of the power of incumbency with that of his great fortune-and his willingness to unabashedly use this lethal one two punch to stand the concept of democratic governance on its head; and this is exactly what we can see here in NYC, if we're only willing to look closely at how the mayor operates.
When Murray Edelman wrote his classic, The Symbolic Uses of Politics, he pointed out that there were two levels of politics-the symbolic and the tangible. When it comes to Bloomberg, the symbolic revolves around the manufactured image of the mayor as a wealthy benevolent; so unencumbered by special interests that he's able to put the good of the people above the grubby interests of the self serving.
However, in reality and on the tangible side, we can see how the mayor in his active policy making aggrandizes the wealthy real estate and financial communities. He does so precisely because he sees their goals as, not only his own, but coterminous as well with his conception of the common good. Their is the sharing of a common world view, one that colors how the mayor approaches policy decisions.
The deconstruction of Mike Bloomberg has just begun, and is long overdo. As the process continues to unfold, it may be useful to remember Machiavelli's observation: "For the great majority of mankind are satisfied by appearance, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are." Machiavelli, it is useful to remember, wrote The Prince as a primer for the people; so they would be disabused from confusing appearance with reality. How appropriate-is it not?- to apply his principles, adopted for the Italian city-states, to the understanding of our own municipal Prince.
Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places
The NY Times did a reprise on the Hiram Monseratte not-for-profit story, and we're not sure why it deserved a second look. Frankly, there's really nothing new here; but if the Times really wants to have a more meaty story it should follow up on this aspect of the Hiram tale:
"In May, as part of a separate review, private auditors hired by the city’s Department of Youth and Community Development began examining how Libre spent grant money the agency gave it. The money had been directed to the group through Council earmarks secured by Mr. Monserrate. Based on the audit findings, the agency will now seek to recover Libre’s grant money, according to Ryan Dodge, an agency spokesman. He declined to say how that could be done with the group shut down. The audits were released by the city in response to a Freedom of Information request filed by The New York Times."
Well now, isn't this interesting? The vaunted and efficient Bloomberg administration, the one that New York desperately needs to be continued in office past its allotted time, can't seem to keep its money straight; in fact, the entire council slush fund scandal is really a scandal that belongs at the foot of the executive branch that never performed any adequate due diligence over any of these funds.
It's no wonder that the mayor rallied around the speaker last spring-it was sheer self interest and self preservation at work. Let's call this a joint venture. As the Times points out: "Mr. Monserrate, who is now running unopposed for the State Senate, referred questions about the accounting to his chief of staff, Julissa Ferreras, who was Libre’s chairwoman during the period examined by the audits.... He said he did not understand how the group got the money in the first place if it did not submit paperwork and receipts to the Youth and Community Development Department. “How would the agency pay out on any contract without paperwork being submitted?” he said. “That doesn’t sound right to me.”
And the Times ends with the following about the exploits of the Libre group: "Libre also received money through the Department for the Aging, again at the direction of Mr. Monserrate. In all, the councilman has allocated more than $420,000 to the group for operating expenses since 2004. Christopher Miller, a spokesman for the Department for the Aging, said the agency had not audited Libre. But given the findings by its sister agency, he said, it was reviewing its options."
When are we going to hear the editorial how long on the mayor's inefficiency; when we look at the auditing failures, and add them to the mayor's own slush fund activities around term limits, it's one hell of a commentary on all of the good government that's supposedly going on in this sainted administration.
"In May, as part of a separate review, private auditors hired by the city’s Department of Youth and Community Development began examining how Libre spent grant money the agency gave it. The money had been directed to the group through Council earmarks secured by Mr. Monserrate. Based on the audit findings, the agency will now seek to recover Libre’s grant money, according to Ryan Dodge, an agency spokesman. He declined to say how that could be done with the group shut down. The audits were released by the city in response to a Freedom of Information request filed by The New York Times."
Well now, isn't this interesting? The vaunted and efficient Bloomberg administration, the one that New York desperately needs to be continued in office past its allotted time, can't seem to keep its money straight; in fact, the entire council slush fund scandal is really a scandal that belongs at the foot of the executive branch that never performed any adequate due diligence over any of these funds.
It's no wonder that the mayor rallied around the speaker last spring-it was sheer self interest and self preservation at work. Let's call this a joint venture. As the Times points out: "Mr. Monserrate, who is now running unopposed for the State Senate, referred questions about the accounting to his chief of staff, Julissa Ferreras, who was Libre’s chairwoman during the period examined by the audits.... He said he did not understand how the group got the money in the first place if it did not submit paperwork and receipts to the Youth and Community Development Department. “How would the agency pay out on any contract without paperwork being submitted?” he said. “That doesn’t sound right to me.”
And the Times ends with the following about the exploits of the Libre group: "Libre also received money through the Department for the Aging, again at the direction of Mr. Monserrate. In all, the councilman has allocated more than $420,000 to the group for operating expenses since 2004. Christopher Miller, a spokesman for the Department for the Aging, said the agency had not audited Libre. But given the findings by its sister agency, he said, it was reviewing its options."
When are we going to hear the editorial how long on the mayor's inefficiency; when we look at the auditing failures, and add them to the mayor's own slush fund activities around term limits, it's one hell of a commentary on all of the good government that's supposedly going on in this sainted administration.
Against Our Will
The NY 1/Baruch College poll released last week tells us pretty clearly that New Yorkers don't approve of the mayor's city council sleight-of-hand when it comes to term limits. As the college press release tells us: "New York City voters overwhelmingly want the people in a referendum – not the City Council -- to decide whether term limits should be changed. Fully three-quarters (75%) of New York registered voters in a poll conducted for NY1 News by Baruch Survey Research from October 11-15 say the voters should be the deciders."
So much for the mayor's stale spin that it's only a few loudmouths who are opposed to his imperial rein. As the NY Times pointed out: "Still, the opposition Mr. Bloomberg has encountered over the bill has been more intense than anticipated. Despite the intense efforts of his staff to turn out a favorable crowd, a solid majority of the nearly 250 who testified during the two days said they opposed it, according to a tally by The New York Times."
This was captured by the intensity of some of the elected officials who came out and excoriated the mayor and the council. As the NY Daily News reported on Saturday: "Referring to Bloomberg as the infamous "Wizard of Oz," state Sen. Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn) warned the lawmakers, "You've got to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Don't be the puppet, please."
Not to be outdone, potential mayoral contenders also weighed in: "The two men who hope to succeed Bloomberg next year - Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Queens/Brooklyn) and City Controller William Thompson - weren't any kinder. Thompson said the Bloomberg-crafted bill "shatters the bonds of trust that are the essence of good government." Weiner similarly chimed in, "If you take away the citizens' right to make these decisions, you're undermining the very foundation on which all of you sit."
What is clear is that the monied class is all on the same page-supporting one of their own as indispensable; it makes you wonder. As the NY Post reported: "While the elected officials fought, Richard Parsons, chairman of Time Warner, issued a stark warning that now isn't the time to let term limits force out Mayor Bloomberg. "It would be hard to overstate the potential of the economic crisis on New York City," Parsons said. "It will make the 1970s fiscal crisis look like a day at the beach...[Bloomberg] led the city back from 9/11 and revitalized our communities while delivering more services to the New Yorkers who need it most. In times like these, there's no substitute for leadership that's been tested."
This country has upheld its presidential term limited mandates in times of the most severe crisis; and NYC survived its most vicious attack, and made a smooth transition to new leadership without any calamity befalling us. The fact that his own classmates see him as a savior is instructive, underscoring the incestuous, interest based nature, of the mayor's support.
But the Bloomberg mayoralty has been seriously flawed; even though the awareness of these flaws has been cleverly coated by some heavy media make up. The uppercrust amen choir tells us at once very little; and, at the same time, says it all.
So much for the mayor's stale spin that it's only a few loudmouths who are opposed to his imperial rein. As the NY Times pointed out: "Still, the opposition Mr. Bloomberg has encountered over the bill has been more intense than anticipated. Despite the intense efforts of his staff to turn out a favorable crowd, a solid majority of the nearly 250 who testified during the two days said they opposed it, according to a tally by The New York Times."
This was captured by the intensity of some of the elected officials who came out and excoriated the mayor and the council. As the NY Daily News reported on Saturday: "Referring to Bloomberg as the infamous "Wizard of Oz," state Sen. Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn) warned the lawmakers, "You've got to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Don't be the puppet, please."
Not to be outdone, potential mayoral contenders also weighed in: "The two men who hope to succeed Bloomberg next year - Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Queens/Brooklyn) and City Controller William Thompson - weren't any kinder. Thompson said the Bloomberg-crafted bill "shatters the bonds of trust that are the essence of good government." Weiner similarly chimed in, "If you take away the citizens' right to make these decisions, you're undermining the very foundation on which all of you sit."
What is clear is that the monied class is all on the same page-supporting one of their own as indispensable; it makes you wonder. As the NY Post reported: "While the elected officials fought, Richard Parsons, chairman of Time Warner, issued a stark warning that now isn't the time to let term limits force out Mayor Bloomberg. "It would be hard to overstate the potential of the economic crisis on New York City," Parsons said. "It will make the 1970s fiscal crisis look like a day at the beach...[Bloomberg] led the city back from 9/11 and revitalized our communities while delivering more services to the New Yorkers who need it most. In times like these, there's no substitute for leadership that's been tested."
This country has upheld its presidential term limited mandates in times of the most severe crisis; and NYC survived its most vicious attack, and made a smooth transition to new leadership without any calamity befalling us. The fact that his own classmates see him as a savior is instructive, underscoring the incestuous, interest based nature, of the mayor's support.
But the Bloomberg mayoralty has been seriously flawed; even though the awareness of these flaws has been cleverly coated by some heavy media make up. The uppercrust amen choir tells us at once very little; and, at the same time, says it all.
Unfunny Money
The NY Times published an important article on Saturday that focused on Mayor Mike's Bloomberg's use of both public and private money to gin up support for his continuance in office against the public's wishes: "Michael R. Bloomberg, who says he strictly separates his philanthropy from his job as mayor of New York, is pressing many of the community, arts and neighborhood groups that rely on his private donations to make the case for his third term, according to interviews with those involved in the effort."
What we're seeing is not only an extraordinary abuse of power, it is also a blatant example of the corrosive use of money to game the democratic process. Fred Siegel captures this: "Fred Siegel, a professor of history at Cooper Union who has studied New York City politics for decades, said Mr. Bloomberg had cynically “reversed the flow of money” in politics to build the illusion, if not the reality, of widespread support. “The traditional politicians are bought by special interest groups, but Bloomberg buys special interest groups,” he said."
And of course he does so on behalf of the most special of interests-his own political power. So when we ridiculed the mayor's astro turf display at last week's term limits hearings, we really were only touching the surface of how Mike Bloomberg corrupts the local political process.
In fact, Bloomberg's angling for another term, and utilizing the influence of his vast fortune, is a perfect expression of his padrone mentality. Here's how it works: "Officials from five groups that have received significant charitable contributions from the mayor testified on behalf of his bill — the Doe Fund, the Harlem Children’s Zone, the Public Art Fund, the Alliance of Resident Theaters and the St. Nicholas Neighborhood Preservation Corporation. In addition, other recipients of his philanthropic funds, including Safe Space, a charity that works to keep children out of foster care, and Jazz at Lincoln Center, have been lobbying council members behind the scenes."
So we get the display of all of the groups on the pad showing up to boost the mayor's effort, while failing to disclose their subject status-claiming all the while that they would have been glad to regardless; sure they would: "Officials from other groups also said they would have backed Mr. Bloomberg’s plan whether or not he had given them money or solicited their support. Susan K. Freedman, who heads the Public Art Fund, which has received more than $500,000 from Mr. Bloomberg, testified for his bill and praised his record of promoting projects like Olafur Eliasson’s “Waterfalls,” the East River cascades that were dismantled this week. “The mayor believes in what I believe in,” she said."
This is one vast display of the old adage that the customer is always right; and the mayor adds to the corrupt farrago by co-mingling public funds in the carrot and stick lobbying effort. Our old advisor gets it just right: "Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College, said it was inappropriate for the mayor to be asking the groups that are so dependent on his good graces to take a position on his legislation. “It’s distasteful. And what’s distasteful about it is leaning on weak people — people who are vulnerable,” Mr. Sherrill said. “The problem is in the implicit threat that if you don’t help, we’re going to remember.”
It's time for the NY Times to stand up for its own principles. After having for years inveighed against money corrupting the political process, the paper is now faced, right in its own back yard, with the most blatant example of its abuse; and the paper's reporting, which has been excellent, needs to continue to document just how Mike Bloomberg uses his great wealth in his own aggrandizement. Unless, of course, the Times believes that the interest of this slick self promoter was coterminous with that of the public.
What we're seeing is not only an extraordinary abuse of power, it is also a blatant example of the corrosive use of money to game the democratic process. Fred Siegel captures this: "Fred Siegel, a professor of history at Cooper Union who has studied New York City politics for decades, said Mr. Bloomberg had cynically “reversed the flow of money” in politics to build the illusion, if not the reality, of widespread support. “The traditional politicians are bought by special interest groups, but Bloomberg buys special interest groups,” he said."
And of course he does so on behalf of the most special of interests-his own political power. So when we ridiculed the mayor's astro turf display at last week's term limits hearings, we really were only touching the surface of how Mike Bloomberg corrupts the local political process.
In fact, Bloomberg's angling for another term, and utilizing the influence of his vast fortune, is a perfect expression of his padrone mentality. Here's how it works: "Officials from five groups that have received significant charitable contributions from the mayor testified on behalf of his bill — the Doe Fund, the Harlem Children’s Zone, the Public Art Fund, the Alliance of Resident Theaters and the St. Nicholas Neighborhood Preservation Corporation. In addition, other recipients of his philanthropic funds, including Safe Space, a charity that works to keep children out of foster care, and Jazz at Lincoln Center, have been lobbying council members behind the scenes."
So we get the display of all of the groups on the pad showing up to boost the mayor's effort, while failing to disclose their subject status-claiming all the while that they would have been glad to regardless; sure they would: "Officials from other groups also said they would have backed Mr. Bloomberg’s plan whether or not he had given them money or solicited their support. Susan K. Freedman, who heads the Public Art Fund, which has received more than $500,000 from Mr. Bloomberg, testified for his bill and praised his record of promoting projects like Olafur Eliasson’s “Waterfalls,” the East River cascades that were dismantled this week. “The mayor believes in what I believe in,” she said."
This is one vast display of the old adage that the customer is always right; and the mayor adds to the corrupt farrago by co-mingling public funds in the carrot and stick lobbying effort. Our old advisor gets it just right: "Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College, said it was inappropriate for the mayor to be asking the groups that are so dependent on his good graces to take a position on his legislation. “It’s distasteful. And what’s distasteful about it is leaning on weak people — people who are vulnerable,” Mr. Sherrill said. “The problem is in the implicit threat that if you don’t help, we’re going to remember.”
It's time for the NY Times to stand up for its own principles. After having for years inveighed against money corrupting the political process, the paper is now faced, right in its own back yard, with the most blatant example of its abuse; and the paper's reporting, which has been excellent, needs to continue to document just how Mike Bloomberg uses his great wealth in his own aggrandizement. Unless, of course, the Times believes that the interest of this slick self promoter was coterminous with that of the public.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Columny Against Anti-Democratic Coup
Clyde Haberman continues his pointed critique of the "backroom deal" between the mayor and the speaker to usurp the will of the voters: "This week, Ms. Quinn made it clear that she would be Mr. Bloomberg’s chief enabler in the Council to push through a voter-dodging bill that would stretch the limit to three terms. The bill goes by the nondescript title of Proposed Intro No. 845-A. You may reasonably think of it as the Incumbency Protection Act of 2008."
But, as Haberman reminds us, "Both the mayor and the speaker bristle at suggestions that theirs is “a backroom deal.” They may be right. Who knows what room the deal was made in? But they definitely have, shall we say, an understanding." Our view is that the backroom nature of the deal is so transparent that it might have been negotiated in plain sight; reminding us of Theodore Lowi's aphorism: "The law in all of its majesty, punishes the thief who steals the goose from off of the common, but lets the greater felon loose, who steals the common from the goose."
And it helps to make haste when you're absconding with the folks most precious possession-their democratic voice: "Typically on so highly sensitive an issue, with nothing less than the democratic process on the line, many hearings are held, often with at least one in every borough. But this is a rush job. The full Council may vote on the matter next week. The bill is moving like an express train. It might as well be called the Bloomberg Unlimited."
Haberman continues in rare form-a unique kind of high ironic outrage. Here he wryly observes just how disingenuous the self referential Bloomberg is: "Then on Wednesday, having rejected holding a third voter referendum on New York’s electoral process, Mr. Bloomberg flew to Los Angeles to support a referendum that would change how Californians elect their public officials. He was not amused when someone pointed out the contrast. Chalk it off to a sudden bout of irony deficiency anemia."
Continuing in this vein, he observes that the mayor's partnership with the speaker has lead him to see things about his junior partner that no one else has yet been able to discern-true love, in this case onanism, is truly blinding: "In lavishly praising Ms. Quinn, Mr. Bloomberg used some intriguing language on Monday. Were she not in government, he said, she “would have enormous opportunities in the private sector as well as the public sector.” Until the billionaire businessman-turned-politician uttered those words, no one had talked about Ms. Quinn in any kind of role beyond government service."
In our view, this lavishness has an ulterior motive that hasn't been mentioned: it signals to the speaker that, should she happen to fall because of her slavish devotion to the cause, there will be a place for her in the Bloomberg empire-a variant of the Lauder detente.
In the end, Haberman underscores just how this exercise in the ox goring of the folks is anti-democratic: "Oh, yes, we haven’t forgotten the civics quiz. Here’s another hint: Ten months ago, Mr. Chávez of Venezuela held a referendum on his attempt to increase his considerable power by, among other things, ending term limits. He lost. In the last few days, a few critics of Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn have cited Venezuela’s experience. Generally speaking, any day when New York’s leaders are compared unfavorably with Hugo Chávez is probably not a good day."
But, as Haberman reminds us, "Both the mayor and the speaker bristle at suggestions that theirs is “a backroom deal.” They may be right. Who knows what room the deal was made in? But they definitely have, shall we say, an understanding." Our view is that the backroom nature of the deal is so transparent that it might have been negotiated in plain sight; reminding us of Theodore Lowi's aphorism: "The law in all of its majesty, punishes the thief who steals the goose from off of the common, but lets the greater felon loose, who steals the common from the goose."
And it helps to make haste when you're absconding with the folks most precious possession-their democratic voice: "Typically on so highly sensitive an issue, with nothing less than the democratic process on the line, many hearings are held, often with at least one in every borough. But this is a rush job. The full Council may vote on the matter next week. The bill is moving like an express train. It might as well be called the Bloomberg Unlimited."
Haberman continues in rare form-a unique kind of high ironic outrage. Here he wryly observes just how disingenuous the self referential Bloomberg is: "Then on Wednesday, having rejected holding a third voter referendum on New York’s electoral process, Mr. Bloomberg flew to Los Angeles to support a referendum that would change how Californians elect their public officials. He was not amused when someone pointed out the contrast. Chalk it off to a sudden bout of irony deficiency anemia."
Continuing in this vein, he observes that the mayor's partnership with the speaker has lead him to see things about his junior partner that no one else has yet been able to discern-true love, in this case onanism, is truly blinding: "In lavishly praising Ms. Quinn, Mr. Bloomberg used some intriguing language on Monday. Were she not in government, he said, she “would have enormous opportunities in the private sector as well as the public sector.” Until the billionaire businessman-turned-politician uttered those words, no one had talked about Ms. Quinn in any kind of role beyond government service."
In our view, this lavishness has an ulterior motive that hasn't been mentioned: it signals to the speaker that, should she happen to fall because of her slavish devotion to the cause, there will be a place for her in the Bloomberg empire-a variant of the Lauder detente.
In the end, Haberman underscores just how this exercise in the ox goring of the folks is anti-democratic: "Oh, yes, we haven’t forgotten the civics quiz. Here’s another hint: Ten months ago, Mr. Chávez of Venezuela held a referendum on his attempt to increase his considerable power by, among other things, ending term limits. He lost. In the last few days, a few critics of Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn have cited Venezuela’s experience. Generally speaking, any day when New York’s leaders are compared unfavorably with Hugo Chávez is probably not a good day."
Astro-turfing with the Eternal Mayor
As Liz B points out, the mayor has begun to utilize his resources in a stealth campaign to create the impression that his end run of the electorate has strong support-particularly in the minority community (we're guessing that if you call the National Action Network and ask for Al Sharpton, you'll be told that he can't be disturbed because, "He's in negotiations"): "There's an unusual degree of secrecy being employed by people showing up at City Hall to work on behalf of, or show their support for, Mayor Bloomberg's term limits bill...At today's Council hearing on term limits legislation, a number of people showed up with signs that indicate they support Bloomberg's theory that changing term limits will give voters more choices at the polls in 2009.
They profess to be "Democrats for Choices," but they have steadfastly refused to tell reporters their names and also won't say if they were paid to show up at City Hall."
And Liz links to the Politicker that makes the following observation: "Almost all of the crowd appears to be with the same pro-legislation group, holding what looked like professionally printed signs with slogans like "Democrats for Choices" and "Elections Are The Real Term Limits" and "If We Can't Choose We Lose." No one in the group would identify themselves, name the group or, for that matter, speak to me."
A real grass roots group, one whose members won't talk to the press, unlike any such group that we've ever known; usually, the task of organization involve controlling the message from community folks eager to get their aggrieved message out to whoever will listen. This is another example of the dishonesty of the mayor-and the way in which he uses his wealth to subvert genuine democratic practices.
In fact, if you examine the congestion pricing campaign, you'll see just how the mayor's money was used to gin up support for the tax; groups that had previously been as poor as church mice, all of a sudden were transformed into advertising engines with hundreds of thousands to spend on television pitches. The same is true for the issue of school governance, where the foundation grant is being utilized as a weapon-with the stick of withholding monies is wielded deftly by the mayor's minions. For all of those-calling the NY Times editorial board-who have inveighed against the corrosive power of money, there is no more abusive example than the mayoralty of Michael Bloomberg; all in the service, Stalin-like, of creating an image of the benevolent father.
The mayor is so totally self absorbed that he really sees himself as the embodiment of the popular will-now where have we seen that before? As the NY Daily News tells us, "At a Times Square appearance this afternoon, Bloomberg insisted most New Yorkers support his plan for changing limits now without a public vote, saying a city charter review commission could revisit it in 2010. "The opposition we're seeing is a handful of people who are very strident and are working very hard. They write 1,000 letters to one City Council person, and then the City Council person says, oh, everybody is against it," Bloomberg said. "The public is in favor of doing it this time, and then having a referendum down the road."
Kinda like "L'Etat C'est Moi," isn't it? We get a bit of the flavor here of the imperial Bloomberg disingenuousness; acting as if the enticed crowd is simply part of a spontaneous out pouring of love and affection for, well, you know who:
"Asked at his Q-and-A with reporters earlier today about whether his administration stacked today's Council term limits hearing - perhaps even going so far as to pay people to show up - Mayor Bloomberg said: "I can tell you the people I met on the subway on the way up here certainly weren’t paid - at least not by me. I assume they all work for a living but in that context. " "Look, we’re out there trying to campaign. We've got to get as many people to come and testify. Both sides of any of these controversial things. When you have a hearing, you try to get people to come." I will say, I've made calls to people and asked them to come and testify and every single one of them said, 'I’d be thrilled to come,' because people want to continue, I think, the job that the City Council's been doing and the job that the other end of City Hall (has) been doing and they don’t want a change at this point in time." "We’re going through some very difficult times and it's not the time for a learning curve."
They profess to be "Democrats for Choices," but they have steadfastly refused to tell reporters their names and also won't say if they were paid to show up at City Hall."
And Liz links to the Politicker that makes the following observation: "Almost all of the crowd appears to be with the same pro-legislation group, holding what looked like professionally printed signs with slogans like "Democrats for Choices" and "Elections Are The Real Term Limits" and "If We Can't Choose We Lose." No one in the group would identify themselves, name the group or, for that matter, speak to me."
A real grass roots group, one whose members won't talk to the press, unlike any such group that we've ever known; usually, the task of organization involve controlling the message from community folks eager to get their aggrieved message out to whoever will listen. This is another example of the dishonesty of the mayor-and the way in which he uses his wealth to subvert genuine democratic practices.
In fact, if you examine the congestion pricing campaign, you'll see just how the mayor's money was used to gin up support for the tax; groups that had previously been as poor as church mice, all of a sudden were transformed into advertising engines with hundreds of thousands to spend on television pitches. The same is true for the issue of school governance, where the foundation grant is being utilized as a weapon-with the stick of withholding monies is wielded deftly by the mayor's minions. For all of those-calling the NY Times editorial board-who have inveighed against the corrosive power of money, there is no more abusive example than the mayoralty of Michael Bloomberg; all in the service, Stalin-like, of creating an image of the benevolent father.
The mayor is so totally self absorbed that he really sees himself as the embodiment of the popular will-now where have we seen that before? As the NY Daily News tells us, "At a Times Square appearance this afternoon, Bloomberg insisted most New Yorkers support his plan for changing limits now without a public vote, saying a city charter review commission could revisit it in 2010. "The opposition we're seeing is a handful of people who are very strident and are working very hard. They write 1,000 letters to one City Council person, and then the City Council person says, oh, everybody is against it," Bloomberg said. "The public is in favor of doing it this time, and then having a referendum down the road."
Kinda like "L'Etat C'est Moi," isn't it? We get a bit of the flavor here of the imperial Bloomberg disingenuousness; acting as if the enticed crowd is simply part of a spontaneous out pouring of love and affection for, well, you know who:
"Asked at his Q-and-A with reporters earlier today about whether his administration stacked today's Council term limits hearing - perhaps even going so far as to pay people to show up - Mayor Bloomberg said: "I can tell you the people I met on the subway on the way up here certainly weren’t paid - at least not by me. I assume they all work for a living but in that context. " "Look, we’re out there trying to campaign. We've got to get as many people to come and testify. Both sides of any of these controversial things. When you have a hearing, you try to get people to come." I will say, I've made calls to people and asked them to come and testify and every single one of them said, 'I’d be thrilled to come,' because people want to continue, I think, the job that the City Council's been doing and the job that the other end of City Hall (has) been doing and they don’t want a change at this point in time." "We’re going through some very difficult times and it's not the time for a learning curve."
Oh please! The mayoral money machine is open for business; and let's remember that Mike Bloomberg came into government at the time of city's worst crisis-something that the current economic meltdown can't really be compared to. In spite of the fact that 9/11 was "not time for a learning curve," the city survived this rich novice-and will survive whoever succeeds him.
Let's hope that this crass display of self service will be the beginning of the deconstruction of Mike Bloomberg as a benevolent and effective leader. If you look closely there's not all that much there there.
Golisano's Jerry McGuire Moment
As the NY Times' City Room blog is reporting, billionaire Tom Golisano may be about to see the mayor, and raise him a few million: "With his deep pockets, broad popularity and finely tuned political operation, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg once hoped that by the end of the week, he would be signing a City Council-approved bill allowing him to run for a third term. Not so fast, says a fellow billionaire turned politico. Tom Golisano, the wealthy Rochester businessman and philanthropist, will campaign against Mr. Bloomberg’s bid for a third term in office, Mr. Golisano’s advisers said on Thursday, a move certain to upend the unfolding battle over extending New York City’s two-term limit."
Or, as Marvin Gaye might have warbled: "I've been really tryin', baby, Tryin' to hold back this feelin' for so long, And if you feel like I feel, baby, Then come on, oh, come on, Whoo, let's get it on, Ah, babe, let's get it on." And the Golisano cash might have the impact of emboldening opponents who have, heretofore, been intimidated by the mayor's fat wallet: "Aides to Mr. Golisano suggested that his latest political foray would not lack for financing, either. “I think you’ll see him participating in a substantial way,” said Steve Pigeon, who is Mr. Golisano’s top political adviser and runs Responsible New York."
The key here is to prolong the debate so that the Golisano money can fund the kind of real grass roots effort that will make extension supporting council members the cynosure of public ire. As the NY Daily News points out: "The Rochester magnate's entry into the city debate was welcome news to opponents of Bloomberg's plan, who say extending term limits should be put to voters in a referendum, since the existing two-term limit was twice approved by voters in the 1990s. "It's a very important moment, because he's someone who's really been a strong voice for reform and is unafraid to act and will make sure that our message gets out," said Councilman Bill DeBlasio (D-Brooklyn). "He wants to get the message out to the people."
And Golisano, unlike the self serving mayor, rightly sees term limits as an integral part of any government reform agenda: "Aides to Mr. Golisano suggested that his latest political foray would not lack for financing, either. “I think you’ll see him participating in a substantial way,” said Steve Pigeon, who is Mr. Golisano’s top political adviser and runs Responsible New York."
Or, as Marvin Gaye might have warbled: "I've been really tryin', baby, Tryin' to hold back this feelin' for so long, And if you feel like I feel, baby, Then come on, oh, come on, Whoo, let's get it on, Ah, babe, let's get it on." And the Golisano cash might have the impact of emboldening opponents who have, heretofore, been intimidated by the mayor's fat wallet: "Aides to Mr. Golisano suggested that his latest political foray would not lack for financing, either. “I think you’ll see him participating in a substantial way,” said Steve Pigeon, who is Mr. Golisano’s top political adviser and runs Responsible New York."
The key here is to prolong the debate so that the Golisano money can fund the kind of real grass roots effort that will make extension supporting council members the cynosure of public ire. As the NY Daily News points out: "The Rochester magnate's entry into the city debate was welcome news to opponents of Bloomberg's plan, who say extending term limits should be put to voters in a referendum, since the existing two-term limit was twice approved by voters in the 1990s. "It's a very important moment, because he's someone who's really been a strong voice for reform and is unafraid to act and will make sure that our message gets out," said Councilman Bill DeBlasio (D-Brooklyn). "He wants to get the message out to the people."
And Golisano, unlike the self serving mayor, rightly sees term limits as an integral part of any government reform agenda: "Aides to Mr. Golisano suggested that his latest political foray would not lack for financing, either. “I think you’ll see him participating in a substantial way,” said Steve Pigeon, who is Mr. Golisano’s top political adviser and runs Responsible New York."
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Daily News Term Limits Kettle
The old saying about the pot calling the kettle black applies in spades to the editorialists at the NY Daily News. In their editorial this morning, the paper lashes out at council hypocrites for opposing the mayor's initiative while, at the same time, refusing to rule out taking advantage of the term extension for themselves: "We came by this insight into the Council's shameful posturing by posing a simple question to as many of the 19 announced "no" votes as had the fortitude to return phone calls. Seeing as how they have vowed to uphold term limits as a matter of principle, have they ruled out going for third terms themselves if the Council passes the bill over their opposition? Only three barred the action. To their credit, Queens Democrats Tony Avella, Eric Gioia and John Liu said they won't seek reelection, no matter how the Council votes."
Putting aside for the moment whether this kind of maneuvering is hypocritical, after all there's a lot of self interest to go around in this debate, isn't it quite shameless for the News to be blowing the whistle? The thought of Mike Bloomberg getting a third term got the News integrity knickers all in a knot; with the paper totally reversing its previous opposition to term limits extension.
Not to mention that the mayor himself went from "disgusting" to heroic-at least in his own mind-on the issue when he reversed himself. Which brings us to the other council members that the News leaves out of the discussion-those that are voting on their own extension, using flowery phrases like "giving the people more choice," while depriving them of their original chice to enact the limits in the first place.
What would be a fascinating thought experiment here-an idea that we got from an item in this morning's Crain's Insider-is, what would the council do if they were only voting on the mayor's extension and not their own? As Crain's points out (subscription), the vote on their own limits removal may be illegal: "The City Council’s bid to vote itself another term could be on shaky legal ground. The state’s Municipal Home Rule Law requires a referendum to change the composition of a legislative body, says attorney Larry Laufer of Genova Burns & Vernoia. The clause didn’t come up in the council’s 2003 tweak of term limits but did spur the 1996 referendum for a third term. Laufer says the clause could lead the courts to reject an extension for the council but uphold one for the mayor, comptroller, public advocate and borough presidents."
Let's get that ruling quickly; we just can't see the council getting a minion for the mayor's extension if it didn't include one for themselves. But what this means is that this issue is not going away with the council's expected approval-and now Senator Clinton has weighed in with her own skepticism: "It is disturbing that voters voted twice, so I think that the City Council and the mayor have to first go through the hearings they're holding and try to figure out what they will do. They have the legal authority to make the change that they're considering, but I really am going to watch from the sidelines now because this is a very intense, local debate and the people of New York City should be heard. They should have every opportunity to express themselves and that's what I hope happens."
And maybe the UFT as well? As the Daily News reports: "The United Federation of Teachers yesterday approved a resolution to put term limits changes up to voters. Here, from Gotham Schools, is part of the text of the union's position: "Resolved, that at this moment of economic crisis, UFT affirms its fundamental belief in the importance of respecting the democratic will of the people, and calls for the submission of any change in the term limits law to popular referendum."
Can you just see the storm clouds brewing here? Today's City Council hearing is just the beginning-this one's far from over.
Putting aside for the moment whether this kind of maneuvering is hypocritical, after all there's a lot of self interest to go around in this debate, isn't it quite shameless for the News to be blowing the whistle? The thought of Mike Bloomberg getting a third term got the News integrity knickers all in a knot; with the paper totally reversing its previous opposition to term limits extension.
Not to mention that the mayor himself went from "disgusting" to heroic-at least in his own mind-on the issue when he reversed himself. Which brings us to the other council members that the News leaves out of the discussion-those that are voting on their own extension, using flowery phrases like "giving the people more choice," while depriving them of their original chice to enact the limits in the first place.
What would be a fascinating thought experiment here-an idea that we got from an item in this morning's Crain's Insider-is, what would the council do if they were only voting on the mayor's extension and not their own? As Crain's points out (subscription), the vote on their own limits removal may be illegal: "The City Council’s bid to vote itself another term could be on shaky legal ground. The state’s Municipal Home Rule Law requires a referendum to change the composition of a legislative body, says attorney Larry Laufer of Genova Burns & Vernoia. The clause didn’t come up in the council’s 2003 tweak of term limits but did spur the 1996 referendum for a third term. Laufer says the clause could lead the courts to reject an extension for the council but uphold one for the mayor, comptroller, public advocate and borough presidents."
Let's get that ruling quickly; we just can't see the council getting a minion for the mayor's extension if it didn't include one for themselves. But what this means is that this issue is not going away with the council's expected approval-and now Senator Clinton has weighed in with her own skepticism: "It is disturbing that voters voted twice, so I think that the City Council and the mayor have to first go through the hearings they're holding and try to figure out what they will do. They have the legal authority to make the change that they're considering, but I really am going to watch from the sidelines now because this is a very intense, local debate and the people of New York City should be heard. They should have every opportunity to express themselves and that's what I hope happens."
And maybe the UFT as well? As the Daily News reports: "The United Federation of Teachers yesterday approved a resolution to put term limits changes up to voters. Here, from Gotham Schools, is part of the text of the union's position: "Resolved, that at this moment of economic crisis, UFT affirms its fundamental belief in the importance of respecting the democratic will of the people, and calls for the submission of any change in the term limits law to popular referendum."
Can you just see the storm clouds brewing here? Today's City Council hearing is just the beginning-this one's far from over.
Bloomberg's California Scheming: Do What I Say...
Let's face it, Mayor Bloomberg is so enamored of his own self deceptive image that he's unable to see hypocrisy when it stares him right back in the face in the mirror. As the NY Times reports, the mayor is in California to support a nonpartisan ballot initiative that would allow non politicians, rather than the usual political suspects, to carve out legislative districts. The goal is to reduce the power of incumbency-what has become, in essence, self-perpetuation.
Mr. Tone Deaf, however, doesn't see just how hypocritical this promotion of good government reform is when, at the same time, he's looking to deep six a voter-driven term limits law: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg visited California on Wednesday to stump for a measure that would prevent legislators there from redrawing their district maps, a practice that he contends is a self-serving way for lawmakers to keep themselves in office. Back in New York City, where Mr. Bloomberg is stumping for a measure that would allow him to keep his job as mayor for a third term, some saw a touch of irony."
So it appears that the mayor is for good government as long as it doesn't effect his own self interest: "Some of the mayor’s critics said that his support of Proposition 11 — which he has backed with $250,000 of his own money — is starkly at odds with his plan to revise the term limits law in New York, which now bars him from seeking re-election to a third consecutive term. The California redistricting measure, these opponents say, is aimed at making it harder for incumbents to coast to re-election; Mr. Bloomberg’s term limits measure would make it possible to do just that."
All of this has the mayor-echoing the Grouchism of "who're going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"-tripping over his own words: "Mr. Bloomberg, asked about what some saw as dueling positions on different sides of the continent, said that “putting everything before the public in a fair way is democracy, it is democratic governance.”Asked if his support of the California law undercuts his campaign to change term limits in New York, he said: “It is good governance to change term limits from two terms to three terms.”
Logic right out the window; Bloomberg, spending his own money to let the people decide in California, is doing everything he can, aided and abetted by his legislative co-conspirators, to not put his term limits exorcism directly to a vote. "Putting everything before the public," apparently is only a good idea if it applies to Californians, not New Yorkers; and changing of term limits in NYC, something that the mayor could have easily done here-and paid for the effort with his own money, making him a real democratic hero-is "good governance."
Guess why? Because it allows Mike to run again and spend record amounts to flood the voters with his own jaundiced view of mayoral greatness. Here's Bloomberg on Prop 11 in California, playing Lou Costello to Schwarznegger's Bud Abbot: “It’s no surprise many legislators are against Proposition 11 — they’re afraid of facing a real opponent,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “They’re afraid of the voters.”
Read the following juxtaposed quotes from Bill de Blasio and Mike Blooomberg, and see if you can understand the logical consistency of the mayor's two disparite views: "“We have extraordinary news today that Michael Bloomberg does in fact support a referendum, but in California, not New York,” said Councilman Bill de Blasio of Brooklyn. “We’ve now gotten a new definition of irony and hypocrisy,” he added. Mr. Bloomberg, asked about what some saw as dueling positions on different sides of the continent, said that “putting everything before the public in a fair way is democracy, it is democratic governance.”
And Liz B captures more of this high colonic hilarity, citing de Blasio on the mayor's selective democratic impulses: "This is proof, de Blasio said, that the mayor "understands that legislators should not act in their own self-interest" - except when it comes to voting themselves the opportunity to seek another term, as long as he can, too."
The mayor's butler, doing his best to explain away the irony, tells the Times: "Kevin Sheekey, New York City’s deputy mayor for government affairs, who was with Mr. Bloomberg in California, said, “It is a gross mischaracterization to suggest that an effort to prevent politicians from redistricting their districts to make them safe for themselves has anything to do with the debate back in New York, which has to do with empowering voters to make decisions.”
As if the rem limits referendum wasn't designed for the expressed purpose of reducing the power of incumbency. In fact, redistricting reform and term limits-along with the concept of referendums itself-are flip sides of the same good government coin; only in Mike Bloomberg's solipsistic universe could the California posturing not be seen as incompatible with his efforts to legislate an additional term for himself.
Mr. Tone Deaf, however, doesn't see just how hypocritical this promotion of good government reform is when, at the same time, he's looking to deep six a voter-driven term limits law: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg visited California on Wednesday to stump for a measure that would prevent legislators there from redrawing their district maps, a practice that he contends is a self-serving way for lawmakers to keep themselves in office. Back in New York City, where Mr. Bloomberg is stumping for a measure that would allow him to keep his job as mayor for a third term, some saw a touch of irony."
So it appears that the mayor is for good government as long as it doesn't effect his own self interest: "Some of the mayor’s critics said that his support of Proposition 11 — which he has backed with $250,000 of his own money — is starkly at odds with his plan to revise the term limits law in New York, which now bars him from seeking re-election to a third consecutive term. The California redistricting measure, these opponents say, is aimed at making it harder for incumbents to coast to re-election; Mr. Bloomberg’s term limits measure would make it possible to do just that."
All of this has the mayor-echoing the Grouchism of "who're going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"-tripping over his own words: "Mr. Bloomberg, asked about what some saw as dueling positions on different sides of the continent, said that “putting everything before the public in a fair way is democracy, it is democratic governance.”Asked if his support of the California law undercuts his campaign to change term limits in New York, he said: “It is good governance to change term limits from two terms to three terms.”
Logic right out the window; Bloomberg, spending his own money to let the people decide in California, is doing everything he can, aided and abetted by his legislative co-conspirators, to not put his term limits exorcism directly to a vote. "Putting everything before the public," apparently is only a good idea if it applies to Californians, not New Yorkers; and changing of term limits in NYC, something that the mayor could have easily done here-and paid for the effort with his own money, making him a real democratic hero-is "good governance."
Guess why? Because it allows Mike to run again and spend record amounts to flood the voters with his own jaundiced view of mayoral greatness. Here's Bloomberg on Prop 11 in California, playing Lou Costello to Schwarznegger's Bud Abbot: “It’s no surprise many legislators are against Proposition 11 — they’re afraid of facing a real opponent,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “They’re afraid of the voters.”
Read the following juxtaposed quotes from Bill de Blasio and Mike Blooomberg, and see if you can understand the logical consistency of the mayor's two disparite views: "“We have extraordinary news today that Michael Bloomberg does in fact support a referendum, but in California, not New York,” said Councilman Bill de Blasio of Brooklyn. “We’ve now gotten a new definition of irony and hypocrisy,” he added. Mr. Bloomberg, asked about what some saw as dueling positions on different sides of the continent, said that “putting everything before the public in a fair way is democracy, it is democratic governance.”
And Liz B captures more of this high colonic hilarity, citing de Blasio on the mayor's selective democratic impulses: "This is proof, de Blasio said, that the mayor "understands that legislators should not act in their own self-interest" - except when it comes to voting themselves the opportunity to seek another term, as long as he can, too."
The mayor's butler, doing his best to explain away the irony, tells the Times: "Kevin Sheekey, New York City’s deputy mayor for government affairs, who was with Mr. Bloomberg in California, said, “It is a gross mischaracterization to suggest that an effort to prevent politicians from redistricting their districts to make them safe for themselves has anything to do with the debate back in New York, which has to do with empowering voters to make decisions.”
As if the rem limits referendum wasn't designed for the expressed purpose of reducing the power of incumbency. In fact, redistricting reform and term limits-along with the concept of referendums itself-are flip sides of the same good government coin; only in Mike Bloomberg's solipsistic universe could the California posturing not be seen as incompatible with his efforts to legislate an additional term for himself.
Wither Willets?
In this week's NY Observer, Eliot Brown takes a look at the Willets Point showdown at the City Council-the first hearing is tomorrow: "With less than five weeks until the Council must vote on the Bloomberg administration’s Willets Point plan, administration officials are going retail to win support, rushing to sway council members through individual meetings and to mitigate concerns about housing and the use of eminent domain...The rush comes as council members and others involved in the process say that the fate of the Willets Point proposal is marked by far more uncertainty than almost any other rezoning plan that has made it to this late stage of the city’s seven-month approval process in recent years."
In the past seven years only one land use item supported by the mayor has failed, at least in some form, to pass the council-and that involved the Alliance's opposition to a BJ's at Brush Avenue in the Bronx. Willets, however, is such a complex deal that it could topple from its sheer weight-and the current economic climate isn't helping the administration push this up the legislative hill.
Of course, the really big obstacle is the fiesty Queens councilman, Hiram Monseratte, whose opposition has spurred a majority of his colleagues to join with him in opposing the plan: "At the center of all of the efforts is Mr. Monserrate, the former Marine whose vote is likely to sway a significant portion—if not a majority—of the Council, as legislators typically defer to the local member. Without his support, the city would surely face a steep uphill climb to gain approval. In recent months, Mr. Monserrate has staked out strong positions critical of the current plan that would be difficult to backtrack on without appearing hypocritical, proclaiming strong opposition to the widespread use of eminent domain and saying that the amount of affordable housing needs to be “dramatically higher” than the 20 percent already committed by the city."
The plan, in all likelihood, would have been a slam dunk with Hiram's support-although the eminent domain issue is not insignificant here: "The prospect of widespread eminent domain has caused significant consternation on the Council, as many members say its use is becoming far too common. “I think eminent domain has factored into this far more prominently,” said Councilman John Liu, comparing the Willets Point plan with other controversial projects that have come before the Council."
So all of this will come to ahead on the 18th of November-enmeshed no doubt in the aftermath of the term limits debate. It's hard to see just what kind of deal the administration could craft to garner council acceptance; but it's wise to remember that not all of the council members are as stalwart as Monseratte when prognosticating the outcome of all this.
In the past seven years only one land use item supported by the mayor has failed, at least in some form, to pass the council-and that involved the Alliance's opposition to a BJ's at Brush Avenue in the Bronx. Willets, however, is such a complex deal that it could topple from its sheer weight-and the current economic climate isn't helping the administration push this up the legislative hill.
Of course, the really big obstacle is the fiesty Queens councilman, Hiram Monseratte, whose opposition has spurred a majority of his colleagues to join with him in opposing the plan: "At the center of all of the efforts is Mr. Monserrate, the former Marine whose vote is likely to sway a significant portion—if not a majority—of the Council, as legislators typically defer to the local member. Without his support, the city would surely face a steep uphill climb to gain approval. In recent months, Mr. Monserrate has staked out strong positions critical of the current plan that would be difficult to backtrack on without appearing hypocritical, proclaiming strong opposition to the widespread use of eminent domain and saying that the amount of affordable housing needs to be “dramatically higher” than the 20 percent already committed by the city."
The plan, in all likelihood, would have been a slam dunk with Hiram's support-although the eminent domain issue is not insignificant here: "The prospect of widespread eminent domain has caused significant consternation on the Council, as many members say its use is becoming far too common. “I think eminent domain has factored into this far more prominently,” said Councilman John Liu, comparing the Willets Point plan with other controversial projects that have come before the Council."
So all of this will come to ahead on the 18th of November-enmeshed no doubt in the aftermath of the term limits debate. It's hard to see just what kind of deal the administration could craft to garner council acceptance; but it's wise to remember that not all of the council members are as stalwart as Monseratte when prognosticating the outcome of all this.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Understanding Proper Quinntax
We read with some interest, the accounts of Speaker Quinn's talk before the Citizen's Budget Commission; particularly the juxtaposition of tax increases with the cutting government waste. First the tax issue: "New York draws about one-fifth of its revenue from Wall Street, and with the economy in crisis, the city is bracing for tough times ahead. On Sept. 23, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said that his administration is considering imposing a 7 percent tax increase on homeowners in January...In remarks on Wednesday to the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonprofit civic association, the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, said that there’s another idea percolating in the hallways of City Hall: increasing the personal income tax."
Well now, we do live in the most taxed environment in probably the entire country, so why's the speaker looking to raise revenue through this manner? The answer lies in the fact that she is a creature of government, with little understanding of the interplay of taxes and local business productivity; she's concerned with her revenue, but not those of the city's hard working small businesses and tax payers: "According to Ms. Quinn, the property tax increase — which would essentially eliminate a popular 7 percent tax cut already included in this year’s budget and set to be rolled back in July, anyway — would generate $2 billion in revenue in fiscal 2011. Raising the income tax, she said, is one of the things the city could do to close the remaining $3.2 billion gap.
Quinn does, however, look at the expense side of the ledger, and this does provide some interesting thoughts: "But unlike the mayor, who ordered across-the-board cuts, she favors a more discriminate approach, with some agencies, perhaps, cutting more than others. She offered suggestions, like reducing the number of Human Resources Agency staff members assigned to a unit that reviews match eligibility to public assistance to the actual number of people who apply for assistance. (The speaker said that this unit has the same number of workers that it did in 1998, when the city’s welfare rolls were at their highest.) Doing so could save the city more than $10 million annually, she said."
Not such bad thinking, but where was she (and the mayor) for the past three years? We have no doubt that when it comes to greater government efficiency there are many more examples than just the ones that the speaker has cited. This is a process, though, that should have begun in the flush times; and would have if we had a mayor who understood government and the need to make it more efficient. Isn't this a task, one that would reduce the local tax burden and increase economic development at all levels (and not just for the rich developers), that has greater importance than a football stadium on the West Side?
So, by all means, sell ad space on the city's garbage trucks, but the larger rubbish removal task lies with cleaning out the deadwood in local government-something that a government novice like Bloomberg (encumbered by a John Lindsay-like philosophy) never knew enough to initiate.
Well now, we do live in the most taxed environment in probably the entire country, so why's the speaker looking to raise revenue through this manner? The answer lies in the fact that she is a creature of government, with little understanding of the interplay of taxes and local business productivity; she's concerned with her revenue, but not those of the city's hard working small businesses and tax payers: "According to Ms. Quinn, the property tax increase — which would essentially eliminate a popular 7 percent tax cut already included in this year’s budget and set to be rolled back in July, anyway — would generate $2 billion in revenue in fiscal 2011. Raising the income tax, she said, is one of the things the city could do to close the remaining $3.2 billion gap.
Quinn does, however, look at the expense side of the ledger, and this does provide some interesting thoughts: "But unlike the mayor, who ordered across-the-board cuts, she favors a more discriminate approach, with some agencies, perhaps, cutting more than others. She offered suggestions, like reducing the number of Human Resources Agency staff members assigned to a unit that reviews match eligibility to public assistance to the actual number of people who apply for assistance. (The speaker said that this unit has the same number of workers that it did in 1998, when the city’s welfare rolls were at their highest.) Doing so could save the city more than $10 million annually, she said."
Not such bad thinking, but where was she (and the mayor) for the past three years? We have no doubt that when it comes to greater government efficiency there are many more examples than just the ones that the speaker has cited. This is a process, though, that should have begun in the flush times; and would have if we had a mayor who understood government and the need to make it more efficient. Isn't this a task, one that would reduce the local tax burden and increase economic development at all levels (and not just for the rich developers), that has greater importance than a football stadium on the West Side?
So, by all means, sell ad space on the city's garbage trucks, but the larger rubbish removal task lies with cleaning out the deadwood in local government-something that a government novice like Bloomberg (encumbered by a John Lindsay-like philosophy) never knew enough to initiate.
Teach-In on Term Limits
According to Liz B, the UFT may be about to enter the term limits debate-and that may impact some of the council members who remain undecided: "The executive board of the powerful teachers union, which had not joined the Working Families Party fight against the term limits extension bill, met tonight and unanimously passed a resolution calling for any changes to limits to be done through a public referendum."
As the post goes on to point out, this imminent union move spells a break between the powerful labor organization and Speaker Quinn: "It also comes in the wake of Council Speaker Christine Quinn's decision to support Bloomberg's bid to change term limits via legislation and signals a break between Quinn and the teachers union, which supported her for speaker." Other members on the fence are watching what the UFT does.
The UFT, of course, is getting ready to do battle with the mayor on school governance: "This is somewhat of a departure for the union, which opposed term limits during both of the 1990s referendums. And it comes at a time when the UFT is gearing up for a battle with the Bloomberg administration over the renegotiation of mayoral control of the public schools." Get ready for a brutal battle-one that will coincide with the anticipated legal wrangling after the expected council approval of the mayor's extension bill.
The union's stand could also unleash more anti-extension forces from their reticence-and it may also lead to a full blown campaign to go after incumbent council members who vote in favor of self perpetuation-as Crain's Insider (subscription) begins to evaluate: "Opponents of a term limits extension are opening new fronts. Activists aim to sway City Council members by threatening to challenge them in 2009. “There’s a growing group of candidates who are going to run against incumbents if they vote with the mayor on term limits,” one opponent says. In Queens, Lynn Nunes would challenge Councilman Tom White and Daniel Dromm would take on Councilwoman Helen Sears. Joanne Simon could give David Yassky a primary in Brooklyn."
All of which makes for an unprecedented city election cycle, one that we haven't seen the likes of in over fifty years. There will be any number of unintended consequences from all of this-and we can't wait to see just how all of this eventually will play out.
As the post goes on to point out, this imminent union move spells a break between the powerful labor organization and Speaker Quinn: "It also comes in the wake of Council Speaker Christine Quinn's decision to support Bloomberg's bid to change term limits via legislation and signals a break between Quinn and the teachers union, which supported her for speaker." Other members on the fence are watching what the UFT does.
The UFT, of course, is getting ready to do battle with the mayor on school governance: "This is somewhat of a departure for the union, which opposed term limits during both of the 1990s referendums. And it comes at a time when the UFT is gearing up for a battle with the Bloomberg administration over the renegotiation of mayoral control of the public schools." Get ready for a brutal battle-one that will coincide with the anticipated legal wrangling after the expected council approval of the mayor's extension bill.
The union's stand could also unleash more anti-extension forces from their reticence-and it may also lead to a full blown campaign to go after incumbent council members who vote in favor of self perpetuation-as Crain's Insider (subscription) begins to evaluate: "Opponents of a term limits extension are opening new fronts. Activists aim to sway City Council members by threatening to challenge them in 2009. “There’s a growing group of candidates who are going to run against incumbents if they vote with the mayor on term limits,” one opponent says. In Queens, Lynn Nunes would challenge Councilman Tom White and Daniel Dromm would take on Councilwoman Helen Sears. Joanne Simon could give David Yassky a primary in Brooklyn."
All of which makes for an unprecedented city election cycle, one that we haven't seen the likes of in over fifty years. There will be any number of unintended consequences from all of this-and we can't wait to see just how all of this eventually will play out.
Bristling in a Bloomberg Combover
Liz B has the following exchange between Mayor Mike and the DN's Frank Lombardi on the horsetrading and implicit threats being leveled before the city council votes on the mayor's term limits bill; and the intrepid Room 9 reporter goes a long way towards exposing the mayor's attempt to portray himself as apolitical:
"Lombardi: “Well, I’m sorry Mr. Mayor, but there’s some level of threat in this conduct...”
-
Bloomberg: "I don't know any."
-
Lombardi: "...For instance one councilmember said he was told by the speaker’s office they’ll remember how he voted when it comes time to restructure the Council.”
-
To which the mayor responds in non sequitor, Professor Irwin Corey fashion; or maybe it's Phineas T. Bluster-like:
"Bloomberg: "You have a responsibility to decide, to tell people, the public, how people vote. That’s why we have a democracy where you vote in public to do exactly what you are saying. I’m glad to know that it’s working. People should be on the line and say explicitly what they’re in favor of and what they didn’t. I still fail to see what your problem is.”
Anyone understand this obfuscation? But Bloomberg goes on to accuse Lombardi of trying to criminalize the speaker's actions-distracting attention away from the unseemly collusion between both ends of city hall:
- Lombardi: "There’s a carrot and a stick method to get people to do what you want them to do. You know that’s going on."
-
Bloomberg: "Let us know and you can write it out, whenever you have a question, I’d be glad to answer."
-
Lombardi: "I've asked my question Mr. Mayor, you seem to..."
-
Bloomberg: "As far as I know, our end of City Hall has no ability to do it, and Number 2, we don’t work that way. And I can tell you that Christine Quinn is as good a public servant, as honest as anybody I’ve ever worked with, and if you want to accuse her of doing something dishonest I think...”
-
Lombardi: "No, Mr. Mayor, I’m not saying dishonest, that’s your words."
Wow. This mayor really has his elitist slip showing, doesn't he? We think this has the potential to get even worse-Mike Bloomberg's not used to being challenged, preferring to hand out Papal Bulls to his subjects. It appears that the journey under to get under his thin skin is a short trip indeed. And the strong arming that is taking place at the city council, if it becomes fully known, will add to the climate change.
As the NY Post reports this morning, the speaker is working hard to pass the mayor's bill; with Finance Chair Weprin apparently being threatened with the loss of his post: "Sources said Councilman David Weprin (D-Queens) could be stripped of his post as chairman of the Finance Committee for speaking out against legislation engineered by Mayor Bloomberg and Quinn to allow officials to serve a third term."
If true, we wonder where the Queens Democratic County leadership will stand, since Weprin's ascension is as a result of its support of the speaker. Still, it's liable to get even more ugly as the debate intensifies-and as Congressman Weiner ramps up his populist opposition in preparation for a Bloomberg challenge. As reporters like Lombardi report a "testy" mayor and an arm twisting speaker, and as the public begins to realize what's transpired, we may even eventually see Bloomberg bristling passed the graveyard.
"Lombardi: “Well, I’m sorry Mr. Mayor, but there’s some level of threat in this conduct...”
-
Bloomberg: "I don't know any."
-
Lombardi: "...For instance one councilmember said he was told by the speaker’s office they’ll remember how he voted when it comes time to restructure the Council.”
-
To which the mayor responds in non sequitor, Professor Irwin Corey fashion; or maybe it's Phineas T. Bluster-like:
"Bloomberg: "You have a responsibility to decide, to tell people, the public, how people vote. That’s why we have a democracy where you vote in public to do exactly what you are saying. I’m glad to know that it’s working. People should be on the line and say explicitly what they’re in favor of and what they didn’t. I still fail to see what your problem is.”
Anyone understand this obfuscation? But Bloomberg goes on to accuse Lombardi of trying to criminalize the speaker's actions-distracting attention away from the unseemly collusion between both ends of city hall:
- Lombardi: "There’s a carrot and a stick method to get people to do what you want them to do. You know that’s going on."
-
Bloomberg: "Let us know and you can write it out, whenever you have a question, I’d be glad to answer."
-
Lombardi: "I've asked my question Mr. Mayor, you seem to..."
-
Bloomberg: "As far as I know, our end of City Hall has no ability to do it, and Number 2, we don’t work that way. And I can tell you that Christine Quinn is as good a public servant, as honest as anybody I’ve ever worked with, and if you want to accuse her of doing something dishonest I think...”
-
Lombardi: "No, Mr. Mayor, I’m not saying dishonest, that’s your words."
Wow. This mayor really has his elitist slip showing, doesn't he? We think this has the potential to get even worse-Mike Bloomberg's not used to being challenged, preferring to hand out Papal Bulls to his subjects. It appears that the journey under to get under his thin skin is a short trip indeed. And the strong arming that is taking place at the city council, if it becomes fully known, will add to the climate change.
As the NY Post reports this morning, the speaker is working hard to pass the mayor's bill; with Finance Chair Weprin apparently being threatened with the loss of his post: "Sources said Councilman David Weprin (D-Queens) could be stripped of his post as chairman of the Finance Committee for speaking out against legislation engineered by Mayor Bloomberg and Quinn to allow officials to serve a third term."
If true, we wonder where the Queens Democratic County leadership will stand, since Weprin's ascension is as a result of its support of the speaker. Still, it's liable to get even more ugly as the debate intensifies-and as Congressman Weiner ramps up his populist opposition in preparation for a Bloomberg challenge. As reporters like Lombardi report a "testy" mayor and an arm twisting speaker, and as the public begins to realize what's transpired, we may even eventually see Bloomberg bristling passed the graveyard.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Taking the Bark Out of Dogmatic
Mayor Mike has now become a champion of flexibility-at least when it comes to principles. Echoing Ralph Waldo Emerson-and speaking of his own and Speaker Quinn's about face on the issue of term limits-Bloomberg apparently believes; "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." As NY Newsday tells us this morning: "I'm pleased [Council Speaker] Christine Quinn is supporting this," Bloomberg said yesterday, a day after Quinn said she supported extending term limits from eight years to 12, reversing a position she had less than a year ago.
"She's changed her mind and there's nothing wrong with changing your mind when facts change," he added. "As a matter of fact, people that don't change their mind when the facts change are so dogmatic, they're not very practical or effective."
But have the facts really changed? Only if you believe that the economic meltdown was the precipitating cause of the mayor's reversal-something that's hard to credit given the months of preparation that Bloomberg Inc. spent paving the way for his October surprise. If you have real principles, however; and it's hard to see just what these would be with the nimble tycoon, they aren't jettisoned for what amounts to little more than naked ambition and ego-no matter how the mayor mangles the efforts at selfless palaver.
In this, Bloomberg is more Groucho Marx than Emerson, especially when it comes to upholding principles, for it was Groucho who said: “Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.” And the fabled comedian, taking a page out of the Machiavellian handbook, also said something that is emblematic of the mayor and the speaker:“The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.”
Still, in spite of just how much all of this makes for good theater, we do believe that the mayor's left the speaker with little room to maneuver. As we told the Crain's Insider (subscription): “The speaker’s in a no-win situation,” lobbyist Richard Lipsky says. “She’s damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. In that situation, you do what causes the least harm to yourself.” As Crain's point out, absent her decision, Quinn faced a mutiny, making her choice just a slight bit more optional than Sophie's.
So, as the NY Post writes this morning, Quinn has hitched her political wagon to the mayor-but, lacking his resources, she's much more vulnerable to the backdraft. If she becomes the victim of voter anger, she'll always have this: "Chris Quinn, if she wasn't in government, would have enormous opportunities in the private sector as well as the public sector," Bloomberg said...."I just want, for the sake of the city, particularly during tough times, that we'll have Chris Quinn leading the City Council," the mayor said."
"She's changed her mind and there's nothing wrong with changing your mind when facts change," he added. "As a matter of fact, people that don't change their mind when the facts change are so dogmatic, they're not very practical or effective."
But have the facts really changed? Only if you believe that the economic meltdown was the precipitating cause of the mayor's reversal-something that's hard to credit given the months of preparation that Bloomberg Inc. spent paving the way for his October surprise. If you have real principles, however; and it's hard to see just what these would be with the nimble tycoon, they aren't jettisoned for what amounts to little more than naked ambition and ego-no matter how the mayor mangles the efforts at selfless palaver.
In this, Bloomberg is more Groucho Marx than Emerson, especially when it comes to upholding principles, for it was Groucho who said: “Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.” And the fabled comedian, taking a page out of the Machiavellian handbook, also said something that is emblematic of the mayor and the speaker:“The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.”
Still, in spite of just how much all of this makes for good theater, we do believe that the mayor's left the speaker with little room to maneuver. As we told the Crain's Insider (subscription): “The speaker’s in a no-win situation,” lobbyist Richard Lipsky says. “She’s damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. In that situation, you do what causes the least harm to yourself.” As Crain's point out, absent her decision, Quinn faced a mutiny, making her choice just a slight bit more optional than Sophie's.
So, as the NY Post writes this morning, Quinn has hitched her political wagon to the mayor-but, lacking his resources, she's much more vulnerable to the backdraft. If she becomes the victim of voter anger, she'll always have this: "Chris Quinn, if she wasn't in government, would have enormous opportunities in the private sector as well as the public sector," Bloomberg said...."I just want, for the sake of the city, particularly during tough times, that we'll have Chris Quinn leading the City Council," the mayor said."
The Two Levels of Politics
From Machiavelli to Carl Schmitt and Murray Edelman, political theorists have been pointing out that politics exists on two levels: one dramatically and emotionally public; and the other transactional, calculating and far from public view. And, it is often the case, that while the public gets an emotional payoff from its "involvement" in the political process, others get real tangible benefits.
So it is with Mike Bloomberg's great deception; the attempt to extend his term, not for any personal benefit but for, what else, the greater good of the public. Extrapolating from this disingenuous premise, Bloomberg continues to mislead about the intense personal interest he has in his own maintenance of power. Sara Kugler's analysis is right on:
"Since Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he wanted a third term in City Hall, the billionaire businessman has sought to portray himself as having no role in the fight to change the term-limits law _ but that isn't exactly the case. Bloomberg and his aides have in fact been engaged in an organized outreach campaign with influential New Yorkers, hoping to win their support for the effort to change the law and give officeholders the option of a third term. It began weeks ago, but Bloomberg has consistently gone out of his way to downplay his involvement. "I don't think this is something the mayor should be involved in," he said last week."
It's kinda like when he wouldn't respond to the question about what party's ticket he would run on-"This isn't the time for politics," he dead panned. Increasingly, however, his self serving, and overtly political power play is becoming hard to camouflage. The following pablum increasingly has folks blanching: "The following day, as opposition began to take shape and organize, Bloomberg again cast himself as an outsider too busy with managing the city to engage in political battles, despite having single-handily started the fight himself. He said he had duties that are "a lot more important than term limits that I've got to worry about today," like a firefighter memorial service and meetings about the city budget."
As the battle heats up, and the focus is on Mike the Egotist, we'll see just how well his thin skin holds up to the public scorning. But the one guy who could really light a match to all of this-the Reverend Al Sharpton-is uncharacteristically quiet; we sense a negotiation here-and given Al's avarice and the mayor's wealth, we see an emerging Master Card moment: tangible politics at its most lucrative.
So it is with Mike Bloomberg's great deception; the attempt to extend his term, not for any personal benefit but for, what else, the greater good of the public. Extrapolating from this disingenuous premise, Bloomberg continues to mislead about the intense personal interest he has in his own maintenance of power. Sara Kugler's analysis is right on:
"Since Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he wanted a third term in City Hall, the billionaire businessman has sought to portray himself as having no role in the fight to change the term-limits law _ but that isn't exactly the case. Bloomberg and his aides have in fact been engaged in an organized outreach campaign with influential New Yorkers, hoping to win their support for the effort to change the law and give officeholders the option of a third term. It began weeks ago, but Bloomberg has consistently gone out of his way to downplay his involvement. "I don't think this is something the mayor should be involved in," he said last week."
It's kinda like when he wouldn't respond to the question about what party's ticket he would run on-"This isn't the time for politics," he dead panned. Increasingly, however, his self serving, and overtly political power play is becoming hard to camouflage. The following pablum increasingly has folks blanching: "The following day, as opposition began to take shape and organize, Bloomberg again cast himself as an outsider too busy with managing the city to engage in political battles, despite having single-handily started the fight himself. He said he had duties that are "a lot more important than term limits that I've got to worry about today," like a firefighter memorial service and meetings about the city budget."
As the battle heats up, and the focus is on Mike the Egotist, we'll see just how well his thin skin holds up to the public scorning. But the one guy who could really light a match to all of this-the Reverend Al Sharpton-is uncharacteristically quiet; we sense a negotiation here-and given Al's avarice and the mayor's wealth, we see an emerging Master Card moment: tangible politics at its most lucrative.
Affordable Housing and Columbia
In yesterday's NY Daily News, the paper detailed just how the fiscal meltdown may impact Bloomberg's affordable housing goals: "Mayor Bloomberg's campaign to build 165,000 units of desperately needed affordable housing appears to be running into the same economic maelstrom that brought down Wall Street. A $240 million fund that was a key element of the mayor's housing plan relies on some of the country's most troubled banks and securities firms, records show. The New York City Acquisition Fund's partners include Washington Mutual, Wachovia and Fannie Mae, strongly suggesting it may become a casualty of the still-evolving credit meltdown."
Which gets us to thinking about Columbia's expansion, the one that failed to include any housing, affordable or otherwise, in its West Harlem land grab. As we have commented, property owner Nick Sprayregen, whose land is in the way of the university bulldozer, has proposed a land that would allow him to remain in the area and build housing on the east side of Broadway, across from his current location.
What's real opportune her, is that, given Columbia's immense endowment, the project wouldn't need to tap into any of the current affordable housing monies; assuming that the university could be persuaded to make the swap and pony up in the name of the community that it says it supports, and really wants to be a part of. We're quite sure that this would get the full support of all of the elected officials, and we will help advance this so that we can get a win-win in West Harlem.
Which gets us to thinking about Columbia's expansion, the one that failed to include any housing, affordable or otherwise, in its West Harlem land grab. As we have commented, property owner Nick Sprayregen, whose land is in the way of the university bulldozer, has proposed a land that would allow him to remain in the area and build housing on the east side of Broadway, across from his current location.
What's real opportune her, is that, given Columbia's immense endowment, the project wouldn't need to tap into any of the current affordable housing monies; assuming that the university could be persuaded to make the swap and pony up in the name of the community that it says it supports, and really wants to be a part of. We're quite sure that this would get the full support of all of the elected officials, and we will help advance this so that we can get a win-win in West Harlem.
Quinn for Deputy Mayor
Yesterday's Page 6 item in the NY Post did create a stir, didn't it? Even the mayor was forced to comment on the rumor, cleverly labeled a Quinn pro quo, that Speaker Quinn would resign to become one of his deputy mayors: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn's support for a term-limit extension for Mayor Bloomberg comes at a price, according to City Hall insiders. They say that Quinn , who has lost the confidence of her colleagues, will not be re-elected speaker. Rather than go back to being an ordinary council member and have to give up her big staff and SUV, Quinn will leave the council and become a deputy mayor under Bloomberg."
Liz B got the mayor's reaction-and the effusiveness would prompt some snide "go get a room," comments from the Bloomberg/Quinn detractors who have chaffed under the coalition government-with Quinn as the decidedly junior partner; and given the closeness of the relationship it's assured, should the arrangement actually occur, that the transition would be a seamless one. Here's the mayor on his putative dance partner: "I think Christine Quinn, if she wasn't in government, would have enormous opportunities in the private sector as well as the public sector," Bloomberg said before stepping off for the annual Columbus Day parade. "She's shown that she is smart and she's got a good feel for people. She's pulled people together rather than pulling them apart."
Whew! We're puzzled, however, that so many good folks aren't as enamored with the speaker as Mayor Mike is; perhaps it's an old variant of whose ox is being gored-and whose is being barbecued for dinner. We did notice that, at least so far, no one other than the mayor has weighed in on the gossip. We do believe that the vote in favor of extension would be a lot larger if Quinn made a public announcement that it was her intention to leave for the other side of city hall.
We're really not convinced, though, that Quinn is quite ready to leave-and the Crain's story this week lays out the case: "Some observers, however, say Ms. Quinn has played her cards well. Criticism of the extension has focused almost entirely on the mayor, probably by design. Mr. Bloomberg can better withstand it because he enjoys high approval ratings, is widely seen as uniquely qualified to lead the city during a financial crisis and can overwhelm any resistance with a $100 million re-election campaign."
One thing's for sure, the end game here for all involved is uncertain. For those who thinks she's dead woman walking, this Crain's observation is worth taking into consideration: "Ms. Quinn needs only to win re-election in her West Side council district, then persuade a majority of the 51 council members to return her as speaker. The latter isn't a given, some members say, as her closeness with the mayor has weakened the council as an institution. But many would back Ms. Quinn if she can give them the third term they so desperately want."
Incumbency is a powerful thing, and the old saw about the devil you know is applicable here. Would anyone want to bet on the independence and courage of her opponents on the council?
Liz B got the mayor's reaction-and the effusiveness would prompt some snide "go get a room," comments from the Bloomberg/Quinn detractors who have chaffed under the coalition government-with Quinn as the decidedly junior partner; and given the closeness of the relationship it's assured, should the arrangement actually occur, that the transition would be a seamless one. Here's the mayor on his putative dance partner: "I think Christine Quinn, if she wasn't in government, would have enormous opportunities in the private sector as well as the public sector," Bloomberg said before stepping off for the annual Columbus Day parade. "She's shown that she is smart and she's got a good feel for people. She's pulled people together rather than pulling them apart."
Whew! We're puzzled, however, that so many good folks aren't as enamored with the speaker as Mayor Mike is; perhaps it's an old variant of whose ox is being gored-and whose is being barbecued for dinner. We did notice that, at least so far, no one other than the mayor has weighed in on the gossip. We do believe that the vote in favor of extension would be a lot larger if Quinn made a public announcement that it was her intention to leave for the other side of city hall.
We're really not convinced, though, that Quinn is quite ready to leave-and the Crain's story this week lays out the case: "Some observers, however, say Ms. Quinn has played her cards well. Criticism of the extension has focused almost entirely on the mayor, probably by design. Mr. Bloomberg can better withstand it because he enjoys high approval ratings, is widely seen as uniquely qualified to lead the city during a financial crisis and can overwhelm any resistance with a $100 million re-election campaign."
One thing's for sure, the end game here for all involved is uncertain. For those who thinks she's dead woman walking, this Crain's observation is worth taking into consideration: "Ms. Quinn needs only to win re-election in her West Side council district, then persuade a majority of the 51 council members to return her as speaker. The latter isn't a given, some members say, as her closeness with the mayor has weakened the council as an institution. But many would back Ms. Quinn if she can give them the third term they so desperately want."
Incumbency is a powerful thing, and the old saw about the devil you know is applicable here. Would anyone want to bet on the independence and courage of her opponents on the council?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Christening a Farce
As we have been saying-and yes it does feel ad nauseum, doesn't it?-the term limits deal fluctuates between tragedy and farce; the tragic aspect is that it reveals Mayor Mike as just another pol clinging to power with all of the usual thinly disguised public interest rationales. The farce involves the hapless Ron Lauder. Our old friend Bob Laird captures this in an Op-ed piece in this morning's NY Daily News:
"What is baffling is that if you really believe in term limits but also want Bloomberg to remain in City Hall during these tough economic times, you have an irreconcilable dilemma. Those two positions cannot logically co-exist. That is precisely the fix that Ronald Lauder, the father of term limits, has found himself in. He wants to keep his baby, but he also wants to keep Bloomberg. So first he was with the mayor, then against him, and now he is in the awkward position of saying he'll accept the termination of the law only if he can serve as chairman of a Charter Revision Commission that will reinstate it."
The farce here is the fact that term limits, if you really believe in the principle, is not something that can be set aside for an exception-no matter how good that exception may appear to be:
"This is a farce worthy of the Marx Brothers. If term limits are right in principle, then they are always right and should never be suspended. We don't pick and choose with other laws, deciding to set them aside when someone we admire is involved, then reinvoking them for everyone else. The argument for doing such a dipsy-doodle with term limits is that this is a one-time incident necessitated by the fact that Bloomberg is a keeper. Never again, say the proponents. But how do they know that? Suppose 12 years or 20 years or at some other time in the future there is another acclaimed mayor who is reaching the end of his or her second term. Will term limits be set aside yet again amid assurances that this time we really, really mean it and we won't ever do this again? That's addict talk."
All of which makes this whole episode really a black comedy-with politicians on both sides of the debate struggling to clothe their arguments in the rented garments of the general good. To wit Chris Quinn, gambling with her future, and making the following statement: "In difficult times, I believe voters should have the choice to keep current leadership. If voters are not happy with any of us, they have the right to vote us out of office next November"... One of the reasons she came out in support yesterday, she said, was "to demonstrate leadership on issues that are truly controversial where you can't find consensus."
And a gamble it is, since neither she and the council maintain anywhere near the public approbation enjoyed by the mayor. Liz Benjamin captures Quinn's roll of the dice: "Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn have finally consummated their political marriage of convenience. He needs her to realize his dream of extending term limits legislatively and seeking reelection next year. She wants to be mayor, but needs time to rebuild her reputation after the slush fund scandal - and protection in the event of a City Council leadership coup."
The path ahead is fraught with many potential dangers because, as the NY Times points out this morning: "Two weeks ago, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg boasted to his aides that he would easily win passage of a measure to give himself the chance to run for a third term. But now, facing an unanticipated backlash against a plan that was hatched with a handful of fellow billionaires and business moguls, the mayor is having to work much harder to assemble the support he needs to extend his stay in office."
And as this drags out into the courts, the dangers will escalate as reputations get put to the test; the power grab being a new and different lens with which to evaluate the actions of our elected officials: "The campaign, which has drawn sharp rebukes from a collection of grass-roots groups, has reinforced Mr. Bloomberg’s image as a sometimes imperious leader who may be in sync with a world of business executives but less attuned to the attitudes of ordinary New Yorkers."
Mike Bloomberg has never really been challenged; and it will be interesting to see how he reacts if real mass opposition galvanizes against the royal putsch. Up until now he's been able to skillfully camouflage what we believe is his essential nature of arrogant entitlement. Chris Quinn is an invaluable ally in the mayor's effort to avoid becoming the cynosure of the opposition's wrath.
But, as the next two weeks unfold, this may become more complicated for both the mayor and the speaker. To paraphrase Karl Marx's comments on the philosopher Proudhon, the mayor, in linking himself with Quinn, seeks synthesis, but may only achieve composite error-only time will tell here.
"What is baffling is that if you really believe in term limits but also want Bloomberg to remain in City Hall during these tough economic times, you have an irreconcilable dilemma. Those two positions cannot logically co-exist. That is precisely the fix that Ronald Lauder, the father of term limits, has found himself in. He wants to keep his baby, but he also wants to keep Bloomberg. So first he was with the mayor, then against him, and now he is in the awkward position of saying he'll accept the termination of the law only if he can serve as chairman of a Charter Revision Commission that will reinstate it."
The farce here is the fact that term limits, if you really believe in the principle, is not something that can be set aside for an exception-no matter how good that exception may appear to be:
"This is a farce worthy of the Marx Brothers. If term limits are right in principle, then they are always right and should never be suspended. We don't pick and choose with other laws, deciding to set them aside when someone we admire is involved, then reinvoking them for everyone else. The argument for doing such a dipsy-doodle with term limits is that this is a one-time incident necessitated by the fact that Bloomberg is a keeper. Never again, say the proponents. But how do they know that? Suppose 12 years or 20 years or at some other time in the future there is another acclaimed mayor who is reaching the end of his or her second term. Will term limits be set aside yet again amid assurances that this time we really, really mean it and we won't ever do this again? That's addict talk."
All of which makes this whole episode really a black comedy-with politicians on both sides of the debate struggling to clothe their arguments in the rented garments of the general good. To wit Chris Quinn, gambling with her future, and making the following statement: "In difficult times, I believe voters should have the choice to keep current leadership. If voters are not happy with any of us, they have the right to vote us out of office next November"... One of the reasons she came out in support yesterday, she said, was "to demonstrate leadership on issues that are truly controversial where you can't find consensus."
And a gamble it is, since neither she and the council maintain anywhere near the public approbation enjoyed by the mayor. Liz Benjamin captures Quinn's roll of the dice: "Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn have finally consummated their political marriage of convenience. He needs her to realize his dream of extending term limits legislatively and seeking reelection next year. She wants to be mayor, but needs time to rebuild her reputation after the slush fund scandal - and protection in the event of a City Council leadership coup."
The path ahead is fraught with many potential dangers because, as the NY Times points out this morning: "Two weeks ago, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg boasted to his aides that he would easily win passage of a measure to give himself the chance to run for a third term. But now, facing an unanticipated backlash against a plan that was hatched with a handful of fellow billionaires and business moguls, the mayor is having to work much harder to assemble the support he needs to extend his stay in office."
And as this drags out into the courts, the dangers will escalate as reputations get put to the test; the power grab being a new and different lens with which to evaluate the actions of our elected officials: "The campaign, which has drawn sharp rebukes from a collection of grass-roots groups, has reinforced Mr. Bloomberg’s image as a sometimes imperious leader who may be in sync with a world of business executives but less attuned to the attitudes of ordinary New Yorkers."
Mike Bloomberg has never really been challenged; and it will be interesting to see how he reacts if real mass opposition galvanizes against the royal putsch. Up until now he's been able to skillfully camouflage what we believe is his essential nature of arrogant entitlement. Chris Quinn is an invaluable ally in the mayor's effort to avoid becoming the cynosure of the opposition's wrath.
But, as the next two weeks unfold, this may become more complicated for both the mayor and the speaker. To paraphrase Karl Marx's comments on the philosopher Proudhon, the mayor, in linking himself with Quinn, seeks synthesis, but may only achieve composite error-only time will tell here.
Double Dealing
We have been hammering away on the Bloomberg/Lauder term limits deal-and now Common Cause and NYPIRG have filed a formal complaint on the Plutocratic Anschluss. Leave it to mayor's chief editorial toady to give us this take on the power grabbing boardroom arrangement: "The Bloomberg charge, filed by NYPIRG and Common Cause, is that he made a deal with Ron Lauder, the father of term limits, under which Lauder would support Bloomberg's run for a third term in exchange for Lauder getting a spot on a Charter Revision Commission that would give the voters yet another say on term limits in 2010. Yeah, it's a deal - and a smart one. The voters would get full choice both on their mayoral candidates and on how best to shape term limits. What's unethical about that? Nothing. In fact, it's in the best interests of all."
Apparently, it all depends on whose ox is being gored; since the News' allegiance to any previously stated principles has long given way to a drooling sycophancy. The choice that the Bloomberg deal gives to the voters is one that they've already weighed in on. Or is this simply a variant of the old saw that the folks need to keep on voting until they get it right?
It's the complement to the Bloomberg view that the deal allows for greater competition-something, he alleges, that his opponents are afraid of. In yesterday's News E. L. Doctoroff makes this persuasive point about competition: "Of course there will be a campaign and presumably the voters will then decide if Bloomberg should be elected for a third term. On the other hand, no one who runs against him will have $80 million of discretionary income to run with."
This disparity doesn't bother the plutocrats-they're used to this birth rite advantage. We'd be somewhat more sanguine about the completion angle if all would agree to a spending cap; let Bloomberg compete in 2009, as a two term incumbent, with a spending cap; along with a series of debates that will give the voters as much information as possible. To complete the fairness doctrine here, let's insure that the term limits question is up for a vote simultaneously-so New Yorkers are completely aware just how the mayor dealt his way onto the ballot.
Apparently, it all depends on whose ox is being gored; since the News' allegiance to any previously stated principles has long given way to a drooling sycophancy. The choice that the Bloomberg deal gives to the voters is one that they've already weighed in on. Or is this simply a variant of the old saw that the folks need to keep on voting until they get it right?
It's the complement to the Bloomberg view that the deal allows for greater competition-something, he alleges, that his opponents are afraid of. In yesterday's News E. L. Doctoroff makes this persuasive point about competition: "Of course there will be a campaign and presumably the voters will then decide if Bloomberg should be elected for a third term. On the other hand, no one who runs against him will have $80 million of discretionary income to run with."
This disparity doesn't bother the plutocrats-they're used to this birth rite advantage. We'd be somewhat more sanguine about the completion angle if all would agree to a spending cap; let Bloomberg compete in 2009, as a two term incumbent, with a spending cap; along with a series of debates that will give the voters as much information as possible. To complete the fairness doctrine here, let's insure that the term limits question is up for a vote simultaneously-so New Yorkers are completely aware just how the mayor dealt his way onto the ballot.
A Blooming Idiot
Our former mayor, the garrulous Ed Koch, is given a chance to wax silly in yesterday's NY Post. In reading the Koch tribute to Mayor Mike, you'd think that the ex-mayor had a hidden paternity that he's kept from us all these years: "Over the past 6½ years, Bloomberg has redefined the role of a big-city mayor. New York mayors have often been larger than life, but none has combined such broad-based business acumen with true political independence. These qualities helped him lead the city back from the dark months that followed 9/11. Back then, as many of us remember, we heard doomsday predictions that jobs and businesses would flee. It didn't happen! That was Mike Bloomberg."
This is all a bit much-threatening to give hyperbole an even worse reputation: "Record budget deficits became record budget surpluses. That was Mike Bloomberg. Crime dropped to historic lows - and race relations improved. That was Mike Bloomberg. The schools - so long plagued by dysfunction and patronage - made amazing progress. That was Mike Bloomberg."
Where to begin? Koch has long ago lost all resemblance of any real acumen-lost in the bitter disregard of the important role that Bloomberg's predecessor played in the city's resurgence-a bitterness that doesn't allow him to credit Rudy on crime, a Herculean feat that allowed Bloomberg to simply paint by the numbers. Same for race relations-because, after all of the hard work and confrontations had ended, Mike Bloomberg simply had to lower his voice and manage the results of Giuliani's efforts; on welfare reform as well as crime.
But what about the budget surplus? Koch doesn't mention the record setting-and small business killing-tax increases; nor does he address, for how can he with his trained liberal incapacity, the failure of Bloomberg to tackle the hard job of making government less mammoth and more efficient. His panegyric to mayoral control of the schools is risable-a product of believing, as he recently said, that the NY Times is the paper of record.
So it appears that our entire permanent government-the power elite of real estate and publishing billionaires, along with a slavish and self serving political class, are lined up to superimpose their own interest-and supposed wisdom-over that of their inferiors, the shlubs that make up the great democratic unwashed. Koch's discussion of a legislative over ride is emblematic of this: "Voters adopted term limits in 1993 and re-affirmed them in 1996. Should this stop the City Council from extending term limits from two terms to three, which the City Charter gives it the legal authority to do? I don't believe so. Therefore, why not hold a referendum in a special election in February?...It makes sense on paper, but it would be no more representative of the public than allowing the council to decide the issue itself."
Save all of the democratic theory about direct versus representative democracy. This is a specific issue where the voters, in rather large majorities, got a chance to let the pols know exactly where they stand. For Ed Koch to say that a council vote is no less democratic on term limits is indicative of a tired mind that has long ago lost it's sharpness. To answer the age old Koch question, "How'm I doing?"-Not very well it seems.
This is all a bit much-threatening to give hyperbole an even worse reputation: "Record budget deficits became record budget surpluses. That was Mike Bloomberg. Crime dropped to historic lows - and race relations improved. That was Mike Bloomberg. The schools - so long plagued by dysfunction and patronage - made amazing progress. That was Mike Bloomberg."
Where to begin? Koch has long ago lost all resemblance of any real acumen-lost in the bitter disregard of the important role that Bloomberg's predecessor played in the city's resurgence-a bitterness that doesn't allow him to credit Rudy on crime, a Herculean feat that allowed Bloomberg to simply paint by the numbers. Same for race relations-because, after all of the hard work and confrontations had ended, Mike Bloomberg simply had to lower his voice and manage the results of Giuliani's efforts; on welfare reform as well as crime.
But what about the budget surplus? Koch doesn't mention the record setting-and small business killing-tax increases; nor does he address, for how can he with his trained liberal incapacity, the failure of Bloomberg to tackle the hard job of making government less mammoth and more efficient. His panegyric to mayoral control of the schools is risable-a product of believing, as he recently said, that the NY Times is the paper of record.
So it appears that our entire permanent government-the power elite of real estate and publishing billionaires, along with a slavish and self serving political class, are lined up to superimpose their own interest-and supposed wisdom-over that of their inferiors, the shlubs that make up the great democratic unwashed. Koch's discussion of a legislative over ride is emblematic of this: "Voters adopted term limits in 1993 and re-affirmed them in 1996. Should this stop the City Council from extending term limits from two terms to three, which the City Charter gives it the legal authority to do? I don't believe so. Therefore, why not hold a referendum in a special election in February?...It makes sense on paper, but it would be no more representative of the public than allowing the council to decide the issue itself."
Save all of the democratic theory about direct versus representative democracy. This is a specific issue where the voters, in rather large majorities, got a chance to let the pols know exactly where they stand. For Ed Koch to say that a council vote is no less democratic on term limits is indicative of a tired mind that has long ago lost it's sharpness. To answer the age old Koch question, "How'm I doing?"-Not very well it seems.
Mayoral Control Freak
The NY Post had an interesting article last week on how the DOE is dealing with its budget cutting mandate: "The Department of Education is nickel-and-diming the parent councils that represent each school district in the name of system-wide budget cuts, angry council reps told The Post." When asked to trim, it's done at the expense of parents, and not the centralized apparatus that Juan Gonzales criticized the other week.
As one parent volunteer told the Post: "It's just indicative of the way they run the ship - with extremely low regard for parents," said Christopher Spinelli, president of the District 22 Community Education Council in Brooklyn. He was among several school-council members who asked why big-ticket items - like the $1.3 million paid to the consulting firm KPMG last year to oversee council elections that drew fewer than 3,400 votes citywide - were often immune to budget cuts."
The more we find out about this educational white elephant, the more we realize that the Bloomberg/Klein regime needs an extreme makeover. Opacity and managerial hubris characterizes the Tweed enterprise-with a somnambulist legislature acting as a co-conspirator preventing the public from being adequately informed about just how their kids are educated and their money's being spent.
As one parent volunteer told the Post: "It's just indicative of the way they run the ship - with extremely low regard for parents," said Christopher Spinelli, president of the District 22 Community Education Council in Brooklyn. He was among several school-council members who asked why big-ticket items - like the $1.3 million paid to the consulting firm KPMG last year to oversee council elections that drew fewer than 3,400 votes citywide - were often immune to budget cuts."
The more we find out about this educational white elephant, the more we realize that the Bloomberg/Klein regime needs an extreme makeover. Opacity and managerial hubris characterizes the Tweed enterprise-with a somnambulist legislature acting as a co-conspirator preventing the public from being adequately informed about just how their kids are educated and their money's being spent.
Sequined Term Limits
In what comes as no shock to the political world, the NY Daily News reported yesterday, that council speaker Christine Quinn plans to support the Bloomberg extension bill: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is ready to back Mayor Bloomberg's call to extend term limits, putting her own mayoral dreams on hold to help keep him in power for another four years. "She will cite the economy as her reason," an insider told the Daily News, referring to the announcement she plans to make Sunday in City Hall."
No ad libbing from the speaker; the scripted narrative remains intact. So now the world's worst kept secret's out in the open, and the only mystery left is the margin of victory-because if you ask the condemned to take the place of a governor with the power of commutation, it's not hard to predict what the reults will be. As the News points out: "Said consultant George Arzt: "They wouldn't be putting it up for a vote unless they knew they had the votes."
To put it another way, no one expected that a speaker, who has been characterized as an appendage of the mayor, would all of a sudden act independently: "Quinn's assent was widely anticipated as her staff has worked with the mayor's team behind the scenes to win Council support for the change. Public hearings are scheduled for Thursday and Friday, and the measure could be voted into law Oct. 23. "This is straight out of the Bloomberg administration playbook," said Councilman John Liu (D-Queens), one of many Council members and other opponents who believe any change to term limits should be made by New York voters, not by the Council."
So, as we have speculated, it appears that the entire issue will finally be decided by the courts; and while the council has the presumptive power to change the charter, there are a number of potential intervening legal issues that could derail this automat power grab. What's indisputably, is that this will roil city politics for the forseeable future.
No ad libbing from the speaker; the scripted narrative remains intact. So now the world's worst kept secret's out in the open, and the only mystery left is the margin of victory-because if you ask the condemned to take the place of a governor with the power of commutation, it's not hard to predict what the reults will be. As the News points out: "Said consultant George Arzt: "They wouldn't be putting it up for a vote unless they knew they had the votes."
To put it another way, no one expected that a speaker, who has been characterized as an appendage of the mayor, would all of a sudden act independently: "Quinn's assent was widely anticipated as her staff has worked with the mayor's team behind the scenes to win Council support for the change. Public hearings are scheduled for Thursday and Friday, and the measure could be voted into law Oct. 23. "This is straight out of the Bloomberg administration playbook," said Councilman John Liu (D-Queens), one of many Council members and other opponents who believe any change to term limits should be made by New York voters, not by the Council."
So, as we have speculated, it appears that the entire issue will finally be decided by the courts; and while the council has the presumptive power to change the charter, there are a number of potential intervening legal issues that could derail this automat power grab. What's indisputably, is that this will roil city politics for the forseeable future.
Clause for Dismissal
The NY Daily News reported Saturday on the amending of the original Bloomberg term limits bill-the News calls it the "Lauder" clause, a revision that states clearly that a 2010: "Call it a cosmetic change. A last-minute clause has been inserted into a controversial bill to extend term limits to quiet the concerns of billionaire Ronald Lauder. The mayor's proposed law, introduced Tuesday, was amended to say that if the majority of voters in a 2010 referendum prefer it, the law will automatically revert to two terms, according to a revised bill obtained by the Daily News."
So Lauded needed to see it in black and white-so he can see that the deal he srtuck is more than just words; or, shall we say, he reads it and we weep: "Several officials said the new clause was unnecessary because a subsequent referendum would take precedent. It was included expressly as an additional "black-and-white" pacifier for Lauder, they maintained."
The whole thing has a truly bad odor-and the council's lame excuse is risable: "Jamie McShane, a spokesman for Council Speaker Christine Quinn, insisted the modification is merely intended to make clear that "this legislation would be superceded by a revision to the Charter." Oh, you mean just like the original referendum was superceded by this council putsch?
This entire episode is likely to contribute significantly to our over all cynicism about government; and to force a full re-evaluation of the Bloomberg mythology-the one that tried to portray him as a selfless, above special interest, only concerned with the common good executive. The true picture's just a bit less flattering.
The final word here, underscoring the selfish posturing, belongs to State Senator Eric Adams, who told a news conference last week: “The walls of City Hall are filled with the marks from the fingernails of officials who had to leave here by almost being dragged out,” he said. “This is the biggest scam I’ve seen in my life,” he said. Then he turned to Mr. Bloomberg’s desire to seek a third term...“Power is intoxicating,” Mr. Adams said. “And he’s drunk with power. He needs to go to AA after this is over.”
So Lauded needed to see it in black and white-so he can see that the deal he srtuck is more than just words; or, shall we say, he reads it and we weep: "Several officials said the new clause was unnecessary because a subsequent referendum would take precedent. It was included expressly as an additional "black-and-white" pacifier for Lauder, they maintained."
The whole thing has a truly bad odor-and the council's lame excuse is risable: "Jamie McShane, a spokesman for Council Speaker Christine Quinn, insisted the modification is merely intended to make clear that "this legislation would be superceded by a revision to the Charter." Oh, you mean just like the original referendum was superceded by this council putsch?
This entire episode is likely to contribute significantly to our over all cynicism about government; and to force a full re-evaluation of the Bloomberg mythology-the one that tried to portray him as a selfless, above special interest, only concerned with the common good executive. The true picture's just a bit less flattering.
The final word here, underscoring the selfish posturing, belongs to State Senator Eric Adams, who told a news conference last week: “The walls of City Hall are filled with the marks from the fingernails of officials who had to leave here by almost being dragged out,” he said. “This is the biggest scam I’ve seen in my life,” he said. Then he turned to Mr. Bloomberg’s desire to seek a third term...“Power is intoxicating,” Mr. Adams said. “And he’s drunk with power. He needs to go to AA after this is over.”
Friday, October 10, 2008
Mayoral Solipsism
On this morning's John Gambling show, Mayor Mike made the following observation, separating what he calls "good competition," from "bad competition." "Two remarks stood out from Michael Bloomberg’s weekly interview with radio host John Gambling this morning. One explains why critics are opposing his run for a third term, and the other explains why he didn’t run for president. They both boil down to competition and fear of losing -- essentially, a political version of the free-market, rather than moral, argument."
Essentially, good competition is the kind where the mayor and his money are in the proverbial cat bird's seat-favored to win against underfunded opposition. But it most certainly isn't about giving the voters more choices-the one form of Bloomberg philanthropy that New Yorkers have already rejected.
This is one of the points that Steve Malanga makes in the City Journal-the often difficult to discern difference between public and private (read: selfish) interest: "...that it’s often difficult to recognize the difference between self-interest and public interest in the words and deeds of our officials. Far too often, voters discover, policies promoted as serving the public good turn out mainly to benefit those who proposed them."
It's why Machiavelli wrote The Prince, a primer for the people to disabuse them of the belief that rulers governed in their interest as a result of divine right. Lord Bloomberg and his courtiers would have us believe that the extension is only on behalf of the General Good-a fiction that, we believe, most New Yorkers will see for what it is: self service.
As Malanga writes, citing the disillusionment expressed by Councilman John Liu: "Supporters of the mayor, including those who think the city can’t do without him in tough times, ought to ask themselves a question: Why should anyone be surprised that voters have become so suspicious and skeptical of public officials, if even those in government are struck by the transparent cynicism of the term-limits debate?" Mike Bloomberg exposes himself for what we always knew him to be: just another politician.
Essentially, good competition is the kind where the mayor and his money are in the proverbial cat bird's seat-favored to win against underfunded opposition. But it most certainly isn't about giving the voters more choices-the one form of Bloomberg philanthropy that New Yorkers have already rejected.
This is one of the points that Steve Malanga makes in the City Journal-the often difficult to discern difference between public and private (read: selfish) interest: "...that it’s often difficult to recognize the difference between self-interest and public interest in the words and deeds of our officials. Far too often, voters discover, policies promoted as serving the public good turn out mainly to benefit those who proposed them."
It's why Machiavelli wrote The Prince, a primer for the people to disabuse them of the belief that rulers governed in their interest as a result of divine right. Lord Bloomberg and his courtiers would have us believe that the extension is only on behalf of the General Good-a fiction that, we believe, most New Yorkers will see for what it is: self service.
As Malanga writes, citing the disillusionment expressed by Councilman John Liu: "Supporters of the mayor, including those who think the city can’t do without him in tough times, ought to ask themselves a question: Why should anyone be surprised that voters have become so suspicious and skeptical of public officials, if even those in government are struck by the transparent cynicism of the term-limits debate?" Mike Bloomberg exposes himself for what we always knew him to be: just another politician.
Newsday Challenges Pravda
Ever since the mayor unveiled his third term plan, the editorial chorus has been remarkable, well, Pravda like-with all three local papers supporting the mayor in the shrillest, fear mongering, falsetto tones. Now, however, another saner editorial voice (via Liz) on the matter comes from Newsday: "If the situation were any other - if there were no law limiting a mayor to two terms - we would likely want to see him serve again. In fact, this page has a long history of opposing term limits on principle. But we object to the process here. In seeking to force through a shot at another four years in office, Bloomberg is showing his autocratic side - and it is not at all flattering."
And as Newsday tells it, it appears that Jack Newfield's old book has become prophetic-City for Sale: "As opposition to a third term mounts, Bloomberg - imperiously and very publicly - has sought support from cosmetics heir and term-limit champion Ron Lauder. Because Lauder bankrolled the 1990s term-limit votes, he now has the right to undo them? These are rich men toying with the purchase of the public will. Never has the city seemed so nakedly for sale."
And Bloomberg's Post doesn't see any personal gain here? Newday gets the final word: "It's been said before that we are a country of laws, not men. It's time to stand down, Mr. Mayor
And as Newsday tells it, it appears that Jack Newfield's old book has become prophetic-City for Sale: "As opposition to a third term mounts, Bloomberg - imperiously and very publicly - has sought support from cosmetics heir and term-limit champion Ron Lauder. Because Lauder bankrolled the 1990s term-limit votes, he now has the right to undo them? These are rich men toying with the purchase of the public will. Never has the city seemed so nakedly for sale."
And Bloomberg's Post doesn't see any personal gain here? Newday gets the final word: "It's been said before that we are a country of laws, not men. It's time to stand down, Mr. Mayor
Dumb as a Post
In a follow up to our previous post on mayoral spokesman Post, dealing with the Lauder deal, the NY Daily News has a fuller quote from the clueless minion: "A spokesman for the mayor, Jason Post, said "there is no conflict whatsoever" and argued the law is designed to prevent politicians from using their positions for financial or personal gain. "This is purely a publicity stunt by people who are distorting the intent of the conflicts law because they disagree with the mayor on a matter of public policy," Post said."
This is what we would term institutionalized arrogance-even the mayor's staff is delusional; believing that the mayor's not running for a third term because of any selfish motive whatsoever. Someone must have really spiked the Kool Aide down at City Hall.
This is what we would term institutionalized arrogance-even the mayor's staff is delusional; believing that the mayor's not running for a third term because of any selfish motive whatsoever. Someone must have really spiked the Kool Aide down at City Hall.
No Limit to His Entitlement
As the NY Times is reporting today, the mayor-whose unlimited wealth, unlike the fortunes of us mortals, is unfazed by the economic meltdown-is not planning to limit his campaign spending to any arbitrary campaign finance guideline: "Even as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and his advisers await a City Council vote on a measure that would allow him to seek a third term, they are mapping out an aggressive re-election strategy that involves spending $80 million or more, according to people involved in the discussions." Droit de seigneur, indeed!
Of the estimated expenditure-and the number could reach $100 million-at least twenty would be spent in negative attacks against Congressman Anthony Weiner, the expected candidate who anonymous Bloomberg operatives feel lacks executive experience-probably in direct proportion to the mayor's lack of humility: "Mr. Bloomberg’s advisers say that they have turned their attention increasingly in recent weeks to Mr. Weiner as a likely opponent. And they are clearly relishing the prospect of a matchup against someone Mr. Bloomberg is said to dislike, and who Bloomberg supporters say has no executive experience."
But why so much if Mike Bloomberg's so popular, and has an exemplary eight year record? "But his advisers, in interviews this week, said the mayor had no intention of limiting his spending. Indeed, they said he would spend whatever was necessary to proclaim his credentials and experience — especially in a time of financial unrest — and undo any damage his reputation suffered as a result of undoing the term limits restrictions."
This entire Times piece is a plant, part of the Bloomberg PR juggernaut that is designed to intimidate, and create a Bush-like shock and awe. It is another variant of the hubris we spoke about, and in a more just world would be a feature of the mayor's inevitable self destruction. Let's see if the idea, "no justice, no peace," comes to fruition in the weeks and months ahead.
Of the estimated expenditure-and the number could reach $100 million-at least twenty would be spent in negative attacks against Congressman Anthony Weiner, the expected candidate who anonymous Bloomberg operatives feel lacks executive experience-probably in direct proportion to the mayor's lack of humility: "Mr. Bloomberg’s advisers say that they have turned their attention increasingly in recent weeks to Mr. Weiner as a likely opponent. And they are clearly relishing the prospect of a matchup against someone Mr. Bloomberg is said to dislike, and who Bloomberg supporters say has no executive experience."
But why so much if Mike Bloomberg's so popular, and has an exemplary eight year record? "But his advisers, in interviews this week, said the mayor had no intention of limiting his spending. Indeed, they said he would spend whatever was necessary to proclaim his credentials and experience — especially in a time of financial unrest — and undo any damage his reputation suffered as a result of undoing the term limits restrictions."
This entire Times piece is a plant, part of the Bloomberg PR juggernaut that is designed to intimidate, and create a Bush-like shock and awe. It is another variant of the hubris we spoke about, and in a more just world would be a feature of the mayor's inevitable self destruction. Let's see if the idea, "no justice, no peace," comes to fruition in the weeks and months ahead.
Developing Third Term Problems
Eliot Brown in the Observer muses on the impact a third Bloomberg term would have on development; and he sees a rough road ahead: "If history is a guide and the economic downturn a substantial one, a third and final Bloomberg term could be a time when some projects unravel, and others are unable to advance with money tight in both the private and public sectors."
The pitfalls here do, of course make it attractive to lobbyists who are drawn to both sides of Bloomberg-driven projects that often proceed with little regard for community impact. As Crain's Insider wrote (subscription required) yesterday: "A third term for Mayor Bloomberg would mean new opportunities for lobbyists and consultants, says one veteran of the field. Bloomberg could make a second push for congestion pricing, setting off advocacy campaigns on both sides of the issue. “He pushes megaprojects without engaging the community, thus requiring proponents to do much work and allowing openings to develop homegrown opposition,” the source says."
New projects are particularly vulnerable: "As for development projects still seeking approval or those that need additional funding, the road could indeed be a rocky one, as city revenues over the next four years would take a major hit from a wounded financial sector."
What makes things even more problematic is the way in which our Chief Accountant has loaded the city government with debt obligations: "Fred Siegel, a professor at Cooper Union and frequent critic of the Bloomberg administration, pointed the finger at Mr. Bloomberg for letting spending swell in recent years, particularly on contracts with unions. “The thing that people have missed is, Bloomberg has dramatically increased the city’s overhead through these labor contracts,” he said. “The budget shrinks and they keep growing.”
So whether its Willets Point, Coney Island or perhaps Seward Park, the next four years are going to be a challenge-and should the mayor bogart a third term it's unlikely that he will be operating with anywhere near the goodwill he's had in his first two terms; the long knives will be out, and Bloomberg's diplomatic and political skills, highly over rated to begin with, will be stretched to their limits.
The pitfalls here do, of course make it attractive to lobbyists who are drawn to both sides of Bloomberg-driven projects that often proceed with little regard for community impact. As Crain's Insider wrote (subscription required) yesterday: "A third term for Mayor Bloomberg would mean new opportunities for lobbyists and consultants, says one veteran of the field. Bloomberg could make a second push for congestion pricing, setting off advocacy campaigns on both sides of the issue. “He pushes megaprojects without engaging the community, thus requiring proponents to do much work and allowing openings to develop homegrown opposition,” the source says."
New projects are particularly vulnerable: "As for development projects still seeking approval or those that need additional funding, the road could indeed be a rocky one, as city revenues over the next four years would take a major hit from a wounded financial sector."
What makes things even more problematic is the way in which our Chief Accountant has loaded the city government with debt obligations: "Fred Siegel, a professor at Cooper Union and frequent critic of the Bloomberg administration, pointed the finger at Mr. Bloomberg for letting spending swell in recent years, particularly on contracts with unions. “The thing that people have missed is, Bloomberg has dramatically increased the city’s overhead through these labor contracts,” he said. “The budget shrinks and they keep growing.”
So whether its Willets Point, Coney Island or perhaps Seward Park, the next four years are going to be a challenge-and should the mayor bogart a third term it's unlikely that he will be operating with anywhere near the goodwill he's had in his first two terms; the long knives will be out, and Bloomberg's diplomatic and political skills, highly over rated to begin with, will be stretched to their limits.
A Corrupt Bargain
As the Daily Politics blog reported yesterday, Common Cause and NYPIRG have filed an official complaint with the city's COIB as a result of the deal made between billionaires Bloomberg and Lauder:
"Government watchdog groups have filed an ethics complaint against Mayor Bloomberg, charging that hizzoner violated conflict-of-interest rules in cutting his term-limits deal with fellow billionaire Ron Lauder. Common Cause and the New York Public Interest Research Group, in a joint letter to the Conflict of Interests Board, say Bloomberg stepped over the line in offering to appoint Lauder to a Charter revision commission in exchange for not opposing the mayor's plan to seek a third term."We believe that Mayor Bloomberg has used his position in a prohibited manner to obtain personal advantage in a quid pro quo deal with Ronald Lauder," wrote Common Cause's Susan Lerner and NYPIRG's Gene Russianoff."
However, this conflict, one that we first commented on a few days ago, should not be sent to a toothless Bloomberg-controlled entity, but to the US Attorney's office where the criminal nature of the arrangement can be investigated. It should be pointed out, that the mayor needs to be held to the same standards that all office holders must adhere to; and when he doesn't our laws should apply equally regardless of the net worth of the elected official.
In fact, as the mayor should know, the COIB has already ruled that being part of a commission is a thing of value as far as the city's conflict of interest law is concerned. The fact that the deal was done in plain sight doesn't exculpate Mike Bloomberg-who, more than anyone, should have been keenly aware of his own board's views.
Here's the relevant passage of the letter sent tothe COIB:
"Under section 2604(b)(2) of the City Charter the Mayor cannot “use or attempt to use his or her position as a public servant to obtain any financial gain, contract, license, privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant …” Mayor Bloomberg has introduced legislation in the City Council - Intro 845 - that would permanently extend the current two-term limit to three terms. It is the subject of great public controversy, with many groups urging a special election as a fairer way to consider a change in term limits. The two-term limit provisions were placed into the City Charter by a public vote in 1993 and reaffirmed in 1996. We believe that Mayor Bloomberg has used his position in a prohibited manner to obtain personal advantage in a quid pro quo deal with Ronald Lauder."
The mayor's response? Here's from today's NY Times: "Jason Post, a spokesman for the mayor, said there was no conflict of interest. “This is purely a publicity stunt by people who are distorting the intent of the conflicts law because they disagree with the mayor on a matter of public policy.” He added: “It’s the first of what will likely be many headline-seeking activities to prevent the City Council from exercising its authority to change a local law.”
What's the nature of the distortion? What doesn't Mr. Post understand about the term "private or personal advantage"? This is the essence of the problem-hubris, generated by great wealth and the concomitant belief that the normal rules only apply to others. Or maybe it's just ignorance, a manifestation of the old cliche, "as dumb as a post."
The law is clear, as clear as the fact that Bloomberg flouted it with impunity. As our former mayor once said: "One city, one standard."
"Government watchdog groups have filed an ethics complaint against Mayor Bloomberg, charging that hizzoner violated conflict-of-interest rules in cutting his term-limits deal with fellow billionaire Ron Lauder. Common Cause and the New York Public Interest Research Group, in a joint letter to the Conflict of Interests Board, say Bloomberg stepped over the line in offering to appoint Lauder to a Charter revision commission in exchange for not opposing the mayor's plan to seek a third term."We believe that Mayor Bloomberg has used his position in a prohibited manner to obtain personal advantage in a quid pro quo deal with Ronald Lauder," wrote Common Cause's Susan Lerner and NYPIRG's Gene Russianoff."
However, this conflict, one that we first commented on a few days ago, should not be sent to a toothless Bloomberg-controlled entity, but to the US Attorney's office where the criminal nature of the arrangement can be investigated. It should be pointed out, that the mayor needs to be held to the same standards that all office holders must adhere to; and when he doesn't our laws should apply equally regardless of the net worth of the elected official.
In fact, as the mayor should know, the COIB has already ruled that being part of a commission is a thing of value as far as the city's conflict of interest law is concerned. The fact that the deal was done in plain sight doesn't exculpate Mike Bloomberg-who, more than anyone, should have been keenly aware of his own board's views.
Here's the relevant passage of the letter sent tothe COIB:
"Under section 2604(b)(2) of the City Charter the Mayor cannot “use or attempt to use his or her position as a public servant to obtain any financial gain, contract, license, privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant …” Mayor Bloomberg has introduced legislation in the City Council - Intro 845 - that would permanently extend the current two-term limit to three terms. It is the subject of great public controversy, with many groups urging a special election as a fairer way to consider a change in term limits. The two-term limit provisions were placed into the City Charter by a public vote in 1993 and reaffirmed in 1996. We believe that Mayor Bloomberg has used his position in a prohibited manner to obtain personal advantage in a quid pro quo deal with Ronald Lauder."
The mayor's response? Here's from today's NY Times: "Jason Post, a spokesman for the mayor, said there was no conflict of interest. “This is purely a publicity stunt by people who are distorting the intent of the conflicts law because they disagree with the mayor on a matter of public policy.” He added: “It’s the first of what will likely be many headline-seeking activities to prevent the City Council from exercising its authority to change a local law.”
What's the nature of the distortion? What doesn't Mr. Post understand about the term "private or personal advantage"? This is the essence of the problem-hubris, generated by great wealth and the concomitant belief that the normal rules only apply to others. Or maybe it's just ignorance, a manifestation of the old cliche, "as dumb as a post."
The law is clear, as clear as the fact that Bloomberg flouted it with impunity. As our former mayor once said: "One city, one standard."
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Money Laudering
We now become painfully aware that Ron Lauder's support for term limits was based on the belief that ordinary elected officials need to be constrained-but not billionaire philanthropists who devote themselves to public service. As City Room reported yesterday: "Citing a “financial emergency,” Ronald S. Lauder, the cosmetics heir who twice financed referendums setting a limit of two terms for city elected officials, said Wednesday afternoon that he would “reluctantly” support a plan by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to extend the maximum number of terms to three."
First the good news: New Yorkers no longer need to take Ron Lauder seriously, if they ever did-clearly, he's a man who's allegiance is ruled by expedience; and class is thicker than principles in the rarefied clubby atmosphere that the Bloombergs and Lauders are known to frequent. In the process, Bloomberg gets turned into a real life Wimpy ("I'd gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today"), with Lauder as his foolish looking stooge-2010 indeed!
It's also good from the stand point of getting all of the billionaires lined up on one side-after all, the vision of Lauder as a populist was jarring to the eye. There could be no clearer recognition of the special interest nature of this power grab than the fact that the chorus sings with such an upper class accent.
The bad news? The opposition, while it gains greater authenticity without Lauder-addition by subtraction in this case-loses the resources that a Lauder would lend to the effort to defeat the mayor's scheme. Here's hoping that the power of the people will be an adequate substitute-but, just in case, Bill de Blasio is going billionaire shopping to try to off set the Lauder loss: "With cosmetics mogul Ron Lauder wavering on whether he wants to continue in his role as chief term limits champion, Councilman Bill de Blasio, who has been rallying the pro-referendum crowd, is on the hunt for another billionaire to bankroll the cause...Which explains why de Blasio is winging his way to Rochester, where he is scheduled to meet at 4 p.m. this afternoon with none other than Tom Golisano, according to several people familiar with the plan."
On the grass roots front (via Liz), the WFP is doing its oversight job with a web site dedicated to shedding light on the actions of each council member. We're in for some brawl on this-a fight that we believe will extend beyond any council vote on the mayor's vanity bill.
First the good news: New Yorkers no longer need to take Ron Lauder seriously, if they ever did-clearly, he's a man who's allegiance is ruled by expedience; and class is thicker than principles in the rarefied clubby atmosphere that the Bloombergs and Lauders are known to frequent. In the process, Bloomberg gets turned into a real life Wimpy ("I'd gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today"), with Lauder as his foolish looking stooge-2010 indeed!
It's also good from the stand point of getting all of the billionaires lined up on one side-after all, the vision of Lauder as a populist was jarring to the eye. There could be no clearer recognition of the special interest nature of this power grab than the fact that the chorus sings with such an upper class accent.
The bad news? The opposition, while it gains greater authenticity without Lauder-addition by subtraction in this case-loses the resources that a Lauder would lend to the effort to defeat the mayor's scheme. Here's hoping that the power of the people will be an adequate substitute-but, just in case, Bill de Blasio is going billionaire shopping to try to off set the Lauder loss: "With cosmetics mogul Ron Lauder wavering on whether he wants to continue in his role as chief term limits champion, Councilman Bill de Blasio, who has been rallying the pro-referendum crowd, is on the hunt for another billionaire to bankroll the cause...Which explains why de Blasio is winging his way to Rochester, where he is scheduled to meet at 4 p.m. this afternoon with none other than Tom Golisano, according to several people familiar with the plan."
On the grass roots front (via Liz), the WFP is doing its oversight job with a web site dedicated to shedding light on the actions of each council member. We're in for some brawl on this-a fight that we believe will extend beyond any council vote on the mayor's vanity bill.
Getting Randy
In yesterday's NY Times, former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro laid out the case against the "harm" caused by the mayor's effort to self aggrandize-and also outlined the legal challenge if the council decides to enact Mayor Mike's legislation into law: "From an ethical perspective, the mayor is setting a troubling precedent for our democracy. But he is also setting himself up for more practical challenges. As someone who has spent time in city government, led two charter revision commissions and litigated against efforts to loosen term limits, I believe there are significant legal issues that could derail the mayor’s effort altogether."
Such as? Mastro makes the legal argument against self aggrandizement: "Moreover, it would be a conflict of interest under local law for council members to vote themselves the opportunity to serve an additional term in office. The charter could not be clearer in barring such self-dealing: “No public servant shall use ... his or her position as a public servant to obtain any ... private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant.” And any violation of that prohibition exposes the public official to fines and potential criminal sanctions."
Adding to this legal smell test violation, is the backroom deal the mayor tried to orchestrate with term limits proponent Ron Lauder in order to get the fellow billionaire to back off; in all, the public interest is taking quite a beating. There's also the Voting Rights Act question that Corporation Counsel Cardozo-threatening to tarnish his family legacy-actually brings up as a rationale against a spring referendum: "In addition, such a change in our electoral process could prompt federal Voting Rights Act review, first by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and then by the federal courts. Why? Because such a change has the potential to undercut minority representation: there are now more members of minority groups serving on the council than there were before term limits were instituted."
With an African American Comptroller waiting in the wings to run for mayor, and a Hispanic borough president looking to run for the vacant comptroller's seat, this is a compelling issue. Mastro finally offers the mayor this sound advice, advice that the ego less Bloomberg is unlikely to follow, so concerned he is with the welfare of the public: "No matter what one’s view of term limits, process matters. For the mayor, there’s still time to get this right: convene a charter revision commission now, submit this question to the voters in a special election and trust them to decide."
Such as? Mastro makes the legal argument against self aggrandizement: "Moreover, it would be a conflict of interest under local law for council members to vote themselves the opportunity to serve an additional term in office. The charter could not be clearer in barring such self-dealing: “No public servant shall use ... his or her position as a public servant to obtain any ... private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant.” And any violation of that prohibition exposes the public official to fines and potential criminal sanctions."
Adding to this legal smell test violation, is the backroom deal the mayor tried to orchestrate with term limits proponent Ron Lauder in order to get the fellow billionaire to back off; in all, the public interest is taking quite a beating. There's also the Voting Rights Act question that Corporation Counsel Cardozo-threatening to tarnish his family legacy-actually brings up as a rationale against a spring referendum: "In addition, such a change in our electoral process could prompt federal Voting Rights Act review, first by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and then by the federal courts. Why? Because such a change has the potential to undercut minority representation: there are now more members of minority groups serving on the council than there were before term limits were instituted."
With an African American Comptroller waiting in the wings to run for mayor, and a Hispanic borough president looking to run for the vacant comptroller's seat, this is a compelling issue. Mastro finally offers the mayor this sound advice, advice that the ego less Bloomberg is unlikely to follow, so concerned he is with the welfare of the public: "No matter what one’s view of term limits, process matters. For the mayor, there’s still time to get this right: convene a charter revision commission now, submit this question to the voters in a special election and trust them to decide."
Sharpton and Weingarten: Perfect Together?
We went to another press conference yesterday where Richard Emery, father of the lawsuit that eliminated the old Board of Estimate, excoriated Mayor Bloomberg and the city council for their efforts to self perpetuate. Emery told the press that, "While the city council has the presumptive right to change the charter, there were enough intervening legal variables to mount a challenge to the methodology-especially in the context of the self serving nature of the effort."
That being said, there are two actors in this drama who've yet to be fully heard from-the Reverand Al Sharpton and UFT head Randi Weingarten. Arguably, these two could, if they threw themselves wholeheartedly into the effort, really shape the outcome of the debate. As the City Room blog reported, Sharpton may be ready to commit: "The Rev. Al Sharpton has been largely silent about the prospect of extending term limits by a vote of the City Council. But Mr. Sharpton said Wednesday morning that he was leaning against the legislation proposed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg that would allow the mayor and city officials to run for a third term."
As Sharpton told the Times' Jonathan Hicks: “I’m leaning toward those who advocate in favor of making changes in the law through a referendum. But I haven’t come to any final determination yet.” Clearly, the Sharpton involvement would raise the profile on this issue-while at the same time underscoring the Voting Rights Act aspect of a potential legal challenge.
And it would counteract the Bloomberg monetary offensive in the pews of some of the area's Black churches: "In fact, a group of a dozen or so black ministers, in a letter to the Council on Tuesday, voiced their support for the extension of term limits. The most prominent was the Rev. A. R. Bernard Sr., the pastor of the huge Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, who endorsed Mr. Bloomberg in 2001 and 2005 and served on his mayoral transition team after his election." Hallelujah! And pass the plate.
On the union side, Ms. Weingarten would be a potential deal breaker. As the Times reported: " The Working Families Party began on Tuesday the labor community’s first major offensive against Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to change term limit laws through legislation that would extend to three, from two, the number of terms the city’s elected officials can stay in office.The party — which is backed by some of the city’s most powerful unions, like the United Federation of Teachers and 1199 S.E.I.U., the largest health care worker group in the state — has a simple objective: Let the mayor know that there are many people out there who are very unhappy about his course of action."
Weingarten's active participation may become the Archimedian point for a divided labor movement; her swinging into action along with Rev Al would make a formidable one-two punch. Clearly, this isn't yet a fait accompli, and the rumblings continue to grow.
That being said, there are two actors in this drama who've yet to be fully heard from-the Reverand Al Sharpton and UFT head Randi Weingarten. Arguably, these two could, if they threw themselves wholeheartedly into the effort, really shape the outcome of the debate. As the City Room blog reported, Sharpton may be ready to commit: "The Rev. Al Sharpton has been largely silent about the prospect of extending term limits by a vote of the City Council. But Mr. Sharpton said Wednesday morning that he was leaning against the legislation proposed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg that would allow the mayor and city officials to run for a third term."
As Sharpton told the Times' Jonathan Hicks: “I’m leaning toward those who advocate in favor of making changes in the law through a referendum. But I haven’t come to any final determination yet.” Clearly, the Sharpton involvement would raise the profile on this issue-while at the same time underscoring the Voting Rights Act aspect of a potential legal challenge.
And it would counteract the Bloomberg monetary offensive in the pews of some of the area's Black churches: "In fact, a group of a dozen or so black ministers, in a letter to the Council on Tuesday, voiced their support for the extension of term limits. The most prominent was the Rev. A. R. Bernard Sr., the pastor of the huge Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, who endorsed Mr. Bloomberg in 2001 and 2005 and served on his mayoral transition team after his election." Hallelujah! And pass the plate.
On the union side, Ms. Weingarten would be a potential deal breaker. As the Times reported: " The Working Families Party began on Tuesday the labor community’s first major offensive against Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to change term limit laws through legislation that would extend to three, from two, the number of terms the city’s elected officials can stay in office.The party — which is backed by some of the city’s most powerful unions, like the United Federation of Teachers and 1199 S.E.I.U., the largest health care worker group in the state — has a simple objective: Let the mayor know that there are many people out there who are very unhappy about his course of action."
Weingarten's active participation may become the Archimedian point for a divided labor movement; her swinging into action along with Rev Al would make a formidable one-two punch. Clearly, this isn't yet a fait accompli, and the rumblings continue to grow.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Unsafe at Any Speed
What's the rush? It appears that the mayor's trying to set a new land speed record to get his power grab ratified by the city council. According to the NY Post: "Whatever Ronald Lauder does, Mayor Bloomberg plans to rush through a bill this month to permanently amend term limits, sources said yesterday. "They're really fast-tracking it because of the mounting opposition," said one insider."
Ah, yes, the annoying Mr. Lauder. What will the eccentric term limit advocate do? That's the question on the minds of both fans and foes of the extension: "Lauder, a billionaire cosmetics heir, launched the drive for term limits in New York City in 1993. He has been backtracking on a deal - first reported last week by The Post - to support the 12-year change as long a referendum is held to restore term limits to eight years in 2010. "It's something we both agreed to and I think it will work out fine and I'll talk to Ron when I get back [today]," Bloomberg said yesterday in London. But another source said, "I don't think the mayor's chat with Lauder is going anywhere. [Lauder will] probably run a campaign against it."
There's that agreement again ("It's something we both agreed to..."); an illegal inducement if we've ever seen one. But it all could be moot if Lauder goes ahead-and by doing so gives cover to all of the timid ones who hate what the mayor's doing, but are afraid to say so. Calling Randi Weingarten.
Ah, yes, the annoying Mr. Lauder. What will the eccentric term limit advocate do? That's the question on the minds of both fans and foes of the extension: "Lauder, a billionaire cosmetics heir, launched the drive for term limits in New York City in 1993. He has been backtracking on a deal - first reported last week by The Post - to support the 12-year change as long a referendum is held to restore term limits to eight years in 2010. "It's something we both agreed to and I think it will work out fine and I'll talk to Ron when I get back [today]," Bloomberg said yesterday in London. But another source said, "I don't think the mayor's chat with Lauder is going anywhere. [Lauder will] probably run a campaign against it."
There's that agreement again ("It's something we both agreed to..."); an illegal inducement if we've ever seen one. But it all could be moot if Lauder goes ahead-and by doing so gives cover to all of the timid ones who hate what the mayor's doing, but are afraid to say so. Calling Randi Weingarten.
East Harlem on Our Mind
The East Harlem development planned for 125th-127th Streets on Second Avenue got the green light yesterday down at the City Council. It is, however, no means certain that the project will get built-given the state of the over all economy, and the slipping fortunes of the chosen developer. As the Real Estate blog of the Observer points out: "Developer General Growth--which is a leader on a team that includes Archstone-Smith, the Richman Group, Monadnock Construction, the Carey Group, Hope Community and El Barrio's Operation Fightback--faces financial troubles nationally. Federal regulators named General Growth as one of nearly 1,000 stocks banned from short selling last month, as the company has investors concerned about its outstanding debt."
The developer, however, remains optimistic. As the NY Times tells us: "Al Neely, the managing partner of the development team, said that the group saw a great opportunity in East Harlem. “The phased project, with a coordinated mix of uses, is planned to build off of the strength of the area,” he said. “We have a lot of hard work before us, and at the time the project is ready to move into construction we are confident economic conditions will be optimal.”
Let's not forget, and both the Observer and the Times don't, that the city still has to buy out or evict the property owners who are reluctant to go along with its scheme: "The project is to be built on mostly city-owned lots (the city says it controls 82 percent of the site), though the Bloomberg administration is attempting to acquire the remaining parcels." Keep in mind, that years after the Kelo case was decided in Connecticut, the property seized by the city of New London remains vacant.
Given the economic situation, and the eminent domain battle, this is far from a done deal. Which brings us to the potential for placing a supermarket on the site. Keep in mind that the thought never crossed EDC's mind, until it was brought up by the UFCW's Local 1500. The space for a market is there. As the Observer reminds us: "The numbers released by the city did not address a signature element of the site, the retail and entertainment space. Before the last-minute public selection of General Growth, the city called for about 470,000 square feet of entertainment and retail space in the project, according to figures in a report from the Manhattan Borough President's Office."
All that remains to be seen, is if the city has the will to insure that East Harlem gets the additional supermarket that it needs. More prodding is definitely needed if the local council member's optimism is to be realized: "This is really an exciting moment for East Harlem in particular and also for the city of New York," said Councilwoman Melissa Mark Viverito, who represents the district. "We're talking about living-wage jobs for the neighborhood with benefits and possibly union jobs as well."
The developer, however, remains optimistic. As the NY Times tells us: "Al Neely, the managing partner of the development team, said that the group saw a great opportunity in East Harlem. “The phased project, with a coordinated mix of uses, is planned to build off of the strength of the area,” he said. “We have a lot of hard work before us, and at the time the project is ready to move into construction we are confident economic conditions will be optimal.”
Let's not forget, and both the Observer and the Times don't, that the city still has to buy out or evict the property owners who are reluctant to go along with its scheme: "The project is to be built on mostly city-owned lots (the city says it controls 82 percent of the site), though the Bloomberg administration is attempting to acquire the remaining parcels." Keep in mind, that years after the Kelo case was decided in Connecticut, the property seized by the city of New London remains vacant.
Given the economic situation, and the eminent domain battle, this is far from a done deal. Which brings us to the potential for placing a supermarket on the site. Keep in mind that the thought never crossed EDC's mind, until it was brought up by the UFCW's Local 1500. The space for a market is there. As the Observer reminds us: "The numbers released by the city did not address a signature element of the site, the retail and entertainment space. Before the last-minute public selection of General Growth, the city called for about 470,000 square feet of entertainment and retail space in the project, according to figures in a report from the Manhattan Borough President's Office."
All that remains to be seen, is if the city has the will to insure that East Harlem gets the additional supermarket that it needs. More prodding is definitely needed if the local council member's optimism is to be realized: "This is really an exciting moment for East Harlem in particular and also for the city of New York," said Councilwoman Melissa Mark Viverito, who represents the district. "We're talking about living-wage jobs for the neighborhood with benefits and possibly union jobs as well."
Tweedle Dumb
In this morning's NY Daily News, Juan Gonzales highlights the out-of-control growth down at the city's DOE. It appears that the number of jobs and the salaries commensurate with those jobs are rising at a much faster rate than the school kids test scores: "Many teachers and parents want to know why Schools Chancellor Joel Klein keeps padding his central office payroll with high-paid bureaucrats when the school system faces $185 million in new budget cuts.
The head count at the Department of Education's Tweed Courthouse headquarters has increased by nearly 400 between October 2004 and last April - a jump of more than 18% in less than four years, the agency's budget documents show."
What's important here, is just how much this bureaucratization is inconsistent with a robust school governance-in fact, it hearkens back to the misrule characteristic of 110 Livingston Street. As Gonzales points out, the ledger of job titles reads like it was taken whole from the observations of Orwell in 1984:
"Among the new Tweed openings - some of them with Orwellian titles - found on the DOE Web site this week (along with their potential top salary), were:
- Knowledge Management Domain Leader for Leadership & Organizational Management ($170,000).
- Knowledge Management Domain Leader for Mathematics and Science ($170,000).
- Senior Achievement Facilitator ($170,000).
- Director of School Quality ($170,000).
- Executive Director, Office of Arts and Special Projects ($188,000).
Who says public schools don't pay?"
One of the biggest criticisms of the entire Tweed operation, seen most recently in the Gotbaum report, is the lack of transparency; so it's a bit amusing to find just where the biggest job gains have been found: "The biggest number of new openings was in the Office of Accountability. That's the department that supervises all the new testing and school assessment programs that have become the hallmark of Bloomberg's educational reform program."
Following Machiavelli's maxim that it's better to appear good than to be good, the Tweeders, gearing up for a massive PR campaign to maintain mayoral control of the schools, are concentrating on recruiting an army of spinners to sell a gullible public on the system's great accomplishments.
Making matters worse, given the fact that parents have been complaining about the lack of access, is where jobs have been lost: "DOE spokesman David Cantor denied there's been a runaway growth in total administrative jobs. He confirmed that there had been large increases in the account
The head count at the Department of Education's Tweed Courthouse headquarters has increased by nearly 400 between October 2004 and last April - a jump of more than 18% in less than four years, the agency's budget documents show."
What's important here, is just how much this bureaucratization is inconsistent with a robust school governance-in fact, it hearkens back to the misrule characteristic of 110 Livingston Street. As Gonzales points out, the ledger of job titles reads like it was taken whole from the observations of Orwell in 1984:
"Among the new Tweed openings - some of them with Orwellian titles - found on the DOE Web site this week (along with their potential top salary), were:
- Knowledge Management Domain Leader for Leadership & Organizational Management ($170,000).
- Knowledge Management Domain Leader for Mathematics and Science ($170,000).
- Senior Achievement Facilitator ($170,000).
- Director of School Quality ($170,000).
- Executive Director, Office of Arts and Special Projects ($188,000).
Who says public schools don't pay?"
One of the biggest criticisms of the entire Tweed operation, seen most recently in the Gotbaum report, is the lack of transparency; so it's a bit amusing to find just where the biggest job gains have been found: "The biggest number of new openings was in the Office of Accountability. That's the department that supervises all the new testing and school assessment programs that have become the hallmark of Bloomberg's educational reform program."
Following Machiavelli's maxim that it's better to appear good than to be good, the Tweeders, gearing up for a massive PR campaign to maintain mayoral control of the schools, are concentrating on recruiting an army of spinners to sell a gullible public on the system's great accomplishments.
Making matters worse, given the fact that parents have been complaining about the lack of access, is where jobs have been lost: "DOE spokesman David Cantor denied there's been a runaway growth in total administrative jobs. He confirmed that there had been large increases in the account