Miseducating

The NY Daily News' Juan Gonzales takes a look at the Harlem charter school work of former councilwoman Eva Moskowitz-and focuses more on what she's getting paid than on what the schools under her command are actually doing for the students: "Eva Moskowitz, the former City Council member who founded a small chain of nonprofit charter schools, is a passionate and abrasive champion of the charter school movement. She's also making a bundle."

Our response? A qualified, "good for her." The qualification, of course, devolves from an evaluation of the schools that Moskowitz is being paid to guide to better performance. Way towards the end of the article Gonzales tells us: "Parents from Moskowitz's schools vehemently defend the Harlem Success Academy and say their kids are making phenomenal progress. That could very well be true, but the DOE has not posted independent test results for any of the Moskowitz schools."

If true, Moskowitz may be underpaid. Thousands of school personnel have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars over the past couple of decades to basically leave students unprepared to compete in the larger society; so if Moskowitz has found a way to buck this lamentable trend, pay the woman! And while you're at it, find ten more like her. Juan should have spent more time evaluating the schools under Moskowitz's control, instead of being snarky about her compensation.

We have remained complacent for years while public money has been squandered miseducating local school children; and our only response has been to demand that more money be thrown at the problem. The choice that Moskowitz provides is an essential antidote to our addiction to the public education money pit. Just as the parents and children from the Harlem Success Academy.

Mayoral Incoherence

You'd think that with all of his money Mike Bloomberg could afford to buy a set of coherent principles. Instead, we get to witness the spectacle of the mayor speaking incoherently out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to the concept of partisanship in political life. Liz Benjamin brilliantly exposed this "Who's On First" routine yesterday: "Mayor Bloomberg really gave his bipartisan muscle a workout today as he strove to explain to reporters how he is a big fan of the two-party system and also a supporter of both Barack Obama AND John McCain."

If you find it hard to grasp where Bloomberg is coming from on this issue, you are definitely not alone; and to hear him discuss party politics brings back echoes of the eloquence of George Bush: "Asked to clarify reports that he told the GOP county chairs he supported John McCain for president, Bloomberg replied:

"I didn’t say that all. I’ve never said who I voted for. I did vote for one of the major candidates. I have to work for everybody in this city and work with whoever got elected - in this case, President Obama, who I did say yesterday I thought had the potential to be a very good president."
"I think everybody on both sides of the aisles should hope that he is. We need a good president. This country is facing some very serious problems. I did say that John McCain is a friend of mine. He campaigned for me in 2001 and I’ve always respected him. He and his family are the quintessential American family...But I certainly did not say who I supported, nor will I."

Of course, to come right out and say that you voted for McCain wouldn't be politically expedient; except when speaking in private to the chairs of the Republican Party. Which is why we get the mayor acting as if he wanted to replace Lou Costello in that famous rhetorically contorted comedy routine: "On the subject of whether he believes Rudy Giuliani would make a better governor than David Paterson - another claim the GOP county chairs say he made during yesterday's meeting - the mayor said he doesn't think "you can do those kinds of comparison" because the 2010 race is "way down the road." "Right now, I'm supporting David Paterson," Bloomberg said. "I’m going to do everything I can to help David Paterson be the best governor that we have ever had, and I hope that he will be. And if you don’t think that he should be the best governor than I think there is something really wrong. We need a really good governor and David Paterson has been standing up and making the tough decisions."

Somehow we don't think that's just how Bloomberg framed the governor's race when talking in private to the likes of Phil Ragusa, do you? And when it comes to his rather famous-and ill informed-view of the role of political parties, Mike's backpedaling furiously as his political context shifts: "He said he has "always been in favor of having two parties so that there is healthy dialogue and everyone gets representation." (This is a bit of a departure for a man who is one the record as calling political parties "a swamp of dysfunction")."

Which is precisely why we labeled Bloomberg, "The Great Impostor." He'll play whatever political role that expediency requires-anticipating that he can overwhelm the voters' clarity of perception with an avalanche of expensive disinformation. In this, PT Barnum's observation comes to mind: “you never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Benjamin ends her post with the following flourish: "Bloomberg then recalled that Rudy Giuliani had crossed party lines in 1994 to endorse then-Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo for re-election when he ran against then-GOP Sen. George Pataki - a move that led ex-Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno to call Giuliani "Judas" and for which some Republicans still haven't forgiven the former mayor. Kind of an odd thing to bring up when you're trying to convince the Republicans to let you run on their ballot line."

This should act as a potent reminder to those Republican chairs who are asking Mike Bloomberg to once again hold the political football so that the party can kick a winning field goal. If you go ahead along this path, our advice is don't be mad when you find yourselves flat on your backs-complaining about the lack of Republican jobs and principles in the third term of a dissembler who can only be counted on for one thing: a failure to keep his word.

Crying in Their Beer, er, Wine

The "Retail Alliance," the group advocating on behalf of the liquor store monopoly came to Albany yesterday with its Chicken Little act: "If the legislation passes, roughly 1,000 liquor stores will close, causing between 4,000 and 5,000 jobs to be lost, predicted Jeff Saunders, president of state Retail Alliance. "We feel that if one bottle of wine is sold in a supermarket, that's one bottle that comes from our stores," Saunders said. "At a time when the unemployment is at the highest rate ever in the history, why would anyone want to do anything to add to those numbers? We don't know."

This is all just sheer hogwash. The monopolists are claiming that this is all a verifiable zero-sum game, when the facts on the ground in all other states demonstrates the exact opposite-and if the only way to protect these stores is to maintain an anti-consumer monopoly, than there's something drastically wrong with this industry.

But it beggars the imagination to see how anyone could predict a loss of 5,000 jobs if the wine measure goes through. If a supermarket sells wine, the employment in that outlet will-along with its sales-increase; and if the liquor retail niche will lose 40% of its stores because of competition, what does that really say about them?

And what to make of this? "But representatives from the wine industry and state law enforcement officials are concerned about the social and financial repercussions of the legislation.
They warned that shoppers would buy wine in supermarkets where it is cheaper than in liquor stores, and it wouldn't necessarily be New York wines."

So the monopoly admits that there is a cost to the consumer inherent in its perpetuation. Not the greatest rallying cry, is it? We can just see the sign now: "Support liquor stores if you want higher wine prices." Legislators should see through all of this self serving hyperbole and pass the pro-consumer measure that gives people real choice, while helping the state in its hour of budgetary need.

Bubbleheads at the Times

The NY Times endorsed the expansion of the state's bottle bill today; and, in what we have come to expect from the out of touch editorial board, failed to address any of the concerns expressed by beleaguered food retailers in New York City: "Only rarely does one solution solve a lot of problems. One that does — or at least could — is New York’s Bigger Better Bottle Bill...The bill would reduce litter in rivers and on highways, encourage recycling, save on natural resources and help replenish environmental programs whose budgets have been cut during the economic downturn."

So apparently the move over to Eight Avenue hasn't improved the perspective of these ivory tower elitists; and we're waiting for the first Times editorial to address the fact that the city is hemorrhaging supermarkets and bodegas-depleting neighborhoods of sorely needed food outlets. We can't understand why they remain so out of touch; after all, their own David Gonzales laid out the severity of the problem in the paper last year.

In that piece, Gonzales pointed out: "A continuing decline in the number of neighborhood supermarkets has made it harder for millions of New Yorkers to find fresh and affordable food within walking distance of their homes, according to a recent city study. The dearth of nearby supermarkets is most severe in minority and poor neighborhoods already beset by obesity, diabetes and heart disease."

A large part of the underlying cause of this decline is the cost of doing business here in the city; and the bottle bill is one of the most costly of the regulations foisted on supermarkets in NYC-where space constraints make it difficult for stores to generate robust profits. None of this has penetrated the editorial miasma at the Times.

The paper even endorses the taking of the unredeemed deposits, saying that; "Right now, when consumers pay a nickel per bottle upfront and then fail to redeem that bottle, the forgone nickel goes to the beverage industry. The stores obviously deserve a reasonable handling fee, but the beverage companies, which have powerful friends in Albany, deserve less than the windfall they are getting now."

Well, the stores may deserve a higher handling fee, but that fee-and is increase, of course-will be passed on to the already strapped consumers. And, if the nickels are taken by the state, an even greater cost increase will be passed on; and the nickels will prove to be an undependable revenue stream for any environmental purpose. And where does the Times stand on the soda tax? How much is the Times willing to have the consumers of New York absorb just to satisfy its ideological penchants?

The bottle bill acts as a duplication of effort-competing with the city's costly curbside program for the same material. The containers-garbage that generates rodents and insects-doesn't belong in the city's food stores. Increasing the number of eligible containers only exacerbates the problem. At a time when the city needs to protect and nurture its supermarkets, following the NY Times is a recipe for disaster.

The Great Imposter

Adam Lisberg asked a great question yesterday: "After Michael Bloomberg's meeting today with Republican leaders, Adam Lisberg of the Daily News asked the mayor's spokesman if the mayor "is still a liberal, and if not, when did that change." Howard Wolfson, the spokesman, smiled and laughed. Lisberg persisted. "It’s a serious question," he said. "Well, look," said Wolfson. "I think people can judge for themselves what the mayor’s ideology is.”

Judging the mayor's ideology isn't any easy task because, just like Tom Lehrer's Werner von Braun, he's a man whose allegiance is, "ruled by expedience." Yesterday the mayor met behind closed doors with the five leaders of the city's Republican Party to try to demonstrate just why he would make a good GOP standard bearer. What he demonstrated to us, however, was that he should be playing the Tony Curtis role of Fred Demara in the remake of the Great Impostor.

Some of this contortionist act is captured by the NY Times report this morning-and from some of the comments it appears that Bloomberg has a long way to go before these folks buy into his Act III. Still, the need for Mike Bloomberg to beg has its piquant aspect: "For 90 minutes on Wednesday, during a lively, at times tense closed-door meeting in Manhattan, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg pleaded his case, trying to persuade five Republican chairmen to let him run on their party’s ballot line this fall.The scene seemed riddled with contradictions: a mayor who had ditched the Republican Party and stressed his disdain for party politics, beseeching the Republican Party to embrace him."

And malleable Mike seems to have made a valiant effort at accommodation. As one off the record commenter told the Times: "He kind of sounded like a Republican,” said one party chairman who participated in the meeting at the Manhattan Republican headquarters on the Upper East Side. The reality, however, is that he’s not — a fact that still gnaws at the five chairmen, who have spent years trying to build their party into a force in a city where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly five to one."

Expedience disctates, however, that he appear to be as Republican as he possibly can-and Mike Bloomberg is nothing if not someone who will go to great lengths to avoid being seem as unseemly: "Despite ample prodding, Mr. Bloomberg did not apologize on Wednesday for his decision to leave the Republican Party in 2007, three participants in the meeting said, speaking anonymously because the meeting was considered confidential. Indeed, asked if he had any regrets over the last four years, Mr. Bloomberg answered with a firm “no.” Instead, the mayor took pains to sketch out common ground between his administration and the Republican Party, from a school system that is more accountable under his watch to much-praised antiterrorism measures that have kept the city safe since the attack of Sept. 11."

But on some of the core Reublican issues there could be little common ground; because when it comes to taxes and governance style Mike remains as liberal-and as clueless-as he was since the first day he came into office: "When asked to justify policies that ran afoul of Republican orthodoxy — like raising property taxes and increasing government spending — Mr. Bloomberg responded that leadership required tough, even unpopular decisions. At one point, he described his efforts to avoid installing tolls on the East River bridges in New York City to bail out the financially troubled Metropolitan Transportation Authority — an idea that was an anathema to Republicans. He told the chairman that he had instead proposed a “revenue generating alternative.” “You mean, congestion pricing,” one chairman interrupted, evoking another fee, on cars traveling in Midtown, that had inflamed the Republican Party."

Bloomberg's apparent response here is instructive-because it reveals the extent to which is thinking fails to transcend some very narrowly conventional liberal parameters: "Mr. Bloomberg shot back. “You can’t just be against everything,” he said, according to participants. “You have to propose new solutions.” As if the mayor's faux campaign against asthma, or global warming-whatever-was a compelling municipal need and not simply a conjured political gimmick in his quixotic independent run for the presidency.

So what we're left with here is a man on the make-and when you have billions to spend the success of the courtship ritual should be a foregone conclusion; read Marx's essay on the power of money in a bourgeois society. Still, the Republicans remain coy, and the question that remains is; will they love him in November as they did in May?

Terminated?

According to the NY Times, there is momentum gathering in Albany to pass legislation to rescind the term limits extension that Mike Bloomberg purchased last fall from the city council: "In what would be a rebuke to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, legislative committees in the State Senate and Assembly are poised to approve a bill that would effectively undo the law that allows the mayor to run for a third term this fall."

Passage in committee. however, doesn't insure that the full legislature would be able to pass the measure into law: "While the speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, and the Senate majority leader, Malcolm A. Smith, have both said they would allow the bills to advance through the legislative process, it is not clear if a broader appetite exists to take the issue on. Approval in the Senate will prove particularly difficult because Republicans, who occupy 30 of the 62 seats, have solidly backed the mayor in the past. "

In essence, the senate Dems would need to be able to muster a complete party line vote for this bill to be enacted-because if only one senator from the majority held out-and the Republicans voted as a block-the bill would stall. And the governor would have to sign the bill. Still, the idea of making Bloomberg sweat does have its appeal, no?

Which, apparently is what is happening locally; as the city's Republicans-less amenable to to the mayor's monetary blandishments this time around-are poised to met with Mike today. We can hear Lesley Gore singing in the background: "Worried that Mr. Bloomberg is trying to “rent” the ballot without adhering to the party’s principles, Phil Ragusa, the Queens chairman, said he would ask the mayor to register as a Republican — right then and there. Mr. Ragusa said he even planned to bring the registration forms — and a pen — to the meeting, to be held at Manhattan Republican headquarters on East 83rd Street. “If the guy wants to be a Republican, he should register as a Republican,” Mr. Ragusa said. “It’s as simple as that.”

That's unlikely to happen; and Bloomberg, normally a buyer, is probably looking for an expensive rental this time around: "Matthew Mahoney, a Republican aide on the Bloomberg campaign, said the mayor would not change his party affiliation to Republican." Not to worry, however, the mayor in reality has rented us all out.

In what will likely be his most expensive effort ever, Mike Bloomberg will shuck and jive to the tune of $100 million to tell New Yorkers to simply, "Get Over It." And for that kind of money there will likely be enough of the gullible to allow him to serve for another term. But, Miguelito, be careful what you wish for; the third time will not be a charm. The last four years will see the long knives definitely out for someone for whom charm has always been in short supply.

Not Feesable

As if the soda tax isn't bad enough, the governor also wants to raise the tobacco registration fees for all retailers across the state-a hike that would hurt all of the city's bodegas and newsstands already reeling because of the economic downturn. As this report indicates, " There are staggering tax and fee increases for New York convenience stores in Governor David Paterson's proposed 2009-2010 state budget released Monday, said James Calvin, president of the New York Association of Convenience Stores (NYACS). "In trying to balance the budget amidst multi billion-dollar deficits, the administration seeks to tax, re-tax and up-tax everything we sell, transforming our stores into nothing more than tax collection vehicles for the state," he said."

What this means, is that the average bodega in New York Cit that grosses under one million dollars a year will see its license fee rise from $100 to $1,000-a 900% increase. Keep in mind that tobacco sales at these outlets have plummeted because of the confiscatory taxes at all levels of government-with the losses at the local level at more than $250 million a year-a 60% drop in sales! And the city will also have a commensurate increase in its fee as well.

The New York Association of Convenience Stores (NYACS) has taken the lead on the counterattack, and in a brief for legislators points out the following:

"Registration fees should reflect the State’s administrative costs, not business volume, and certainly not sales of products unrelated to the license. Such fees should not be designed to punish the licensee for selling a legal product in accordance with regulations governing such commerce. These obscene increases would come at a time when our cigarette sales have dropped 65% or more over the past eight years, mainly due to the epidemic of cigarette tax evasion sanctioned by the State of New York. Essentially, the administration wants to charge us 900% to 4,900% more for the privilege of selling one-third as many cigarettes as we would be selling if they were enforcing the Tax Law equitably."

At a time when the state and city have still failed to properly interdict the illegal black market sales-particularly from Indian retailers-it is unconscionable to punish the law abiders even further; as if these fees in an economic recession were ever justifiable. The reality is that the city's 13,000 bodegas are hurting badly-with many on the verge of bankruptcy. To propose such a fee hike now means that the governor is simply out of touch with the very same streets that he grew up in-and the retailers who insure that neighborhoods remain vibrant and stable.

Mike Lurches Left-and Right

In yesterday's NY Post, Jacob Gershman commented on the incoherence of Mike Bloomberg's political efforts to find a political home for the upcoming mayoral election that he himself engineered. The article's subhead was: "HOW MAYOR LOST HIS PRINCIPLES ." The only problem with this analysis? It assumes facts not in evidence; principles never owned can never be lost.

The real story here is that Mike Bloomberg has always been lurching both left and right-and in a manner that suggests that he needs to take a political breathalyzer test; as he staggers to walk any principally consistent philosophical line. He came into office without any real concept of governing-aside from the apparent belief, unlike Reagan for sure, that the government was here to help us-and that Mike Bloomberg was just the man to see to it that the folks were properly cared for.

As a result, there hasn't been a single thing that the mayor has done, to either make the government more efficient in its delivery of services, or to rein in its size and scope. What Mike Bloomberg has consistently done is to promote his own political interests; and as those interests have altered, he has zigged and zagged accordingly-so all that is left is pure distilled ambition: "A little more than a year ago, Mayor Bloomberg starred on the covers of Time and Newsweek, poised to lead an independent movement to the White House. Now, he's fighting off comparisons to Venezuelan strongman Hugo "El Loco" Chavez and finds himself groveling to a fellow some call a cult leader."

As Gershman points out, the mayor's independent march to the White House stands revealed as little more than a "marketing tool." As does his so called principled stand for clean air that was conjured up in the last few years, it seems to us, out of thin air-with no philosophical antecedent to indicate that this was ever a motivating principle of the man. After all, the mayor who claimed he was out to become the scourge of asthma, had helped to midwife the sale of the Bronx Terminal Market to a close friend of Deputy Mayor Doctoroff in order to, we kid you not, build an auto dependent mall on-of all things-the patch of the South Bronx known as "asthma alley."

In all of this independence posturing about post partisanship what was lost was the fact that, for Mike Bloomberg, post partisan had absolutely nothing to do with any philosophical principle-it was, much as the Chavez phenomenon, simply another method for self-promotion; which is why Bloomberg is looking to purchase a political line now-any line will do, thank you very much: "Problem is, Bloomberg has treated political parties and ideology the way some atheists treat religion - convenient for weddings and funerals, but otherwise expendable. He's assuming that he'll be able to smooth over awkward contradictions with enough money, as he always has before."

And money remains the underlying factor of this entire St. Vitus Dance. After all, who but billionaire Bloomberg could have transformed charitable giving into a steroid version of street money? And what we got was the most corrupted system imaginable: "After touring the country decrying the political party system as undemocratic, the mayor toppled voter-approved term limits without a referendum. And (as historian Fred Siegel noted) he did it by warning City Council members that he would no longer shower "anonymous" donations on their favorite nonprofits."

So now Mike Bloomberg has his check book out and is ready to buy the support he needs to win once again in November. And we actually find ourselves rooting for his success in the most perverse manner. With the city's economy cratering, and taxes and fees on the rise, we are entering the kind of political environment where suffering will inevitably intensify. It is the kind of backdrop likely to expose the Myth of Mike-leaving his legacy both tattered and revealed: "But along with his poll numbers and the city's economy, the mayor's stature is shrinking. His mockery of the political process is wearing thin among voters who were more tolerant during the good times. A Democratic lawmaker framed it like this: "The man thinks he can buy anything, and to large degree he's been right. He's not a Democrat or a Republican. He's a rich guy. That's his party."

Rich he may be; but Mike Bloomberg will not leave us with a rich governing legacy. He stands exposed as another parvenu who knew the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

There Goes the Neighborhood?

Just as we have been reflecting on the rapid decline of Main Street economies all over the city, comes the news that Wal-Mart may be interested in a location on Union Square. As the Villager reports: "Electronics retailer Circuit City, which filed for bankruptcy late last year, will shutter its location on 14th St. at Fourth Ave. at the end of next month as part of plan to auction off all its properties and leases nationwide. A sales associate at the store said that Walmart was interested in the space, which is owned by developer The Related Companies, although a New York-based spokesperson for Walmart said the big-box chain currently has no announced projects in the city."

Frankly, we can't see the Walmonster in this cramped location-and it would certainly be breaking the mold for the retail giant to go into this kind of urban spot without any parking. Still, we did get a kick out of some of the comments posted in New York Magazine about the potential entry. As one pointed out: "If this happens, then it would be the end of NYC forever. And don't say it couldn't happen. Circuit City shares the building with Virgin megastore, which will also be closing in a year -- making a Wal-Mart box store very possible. Union square is already too crowded, what with the NYU students, street vendors and tourists clogging it. Bring back the junkies, I say."

For our part, we believe that if Wal-Mart does make the move, it will; be to the kind of large location-with parking-that would give the store the opportunity to draw folks easily from a wide geographic area. But then again, they've already tried that here, here, and here, without much success; so maybe they will opt for the cramped Union Square spot as a last resort. It is, after all, as-of-right.

Pain Street Economics

Congressman Anthony Weiner has shed some light on a problem that we've been highlighting for many months-neighborhood stores are in deep trouble. As City Room first reported: "Wall Street’s woes, complete with bankers toting boxes out of their old offices, are well known and even well televised. But away from the spotlight, more insidious departures are under way in Queens and other boroughs. A census by Representative Anthony D. Weiner shows a troubling list of avenues in Queens with a growing number of empty storefronts.According to the survey of 1,730 stores in Queens, 211 are closed or about to close. In all, 12 percent of what Mr. Weiner calls “community stores” are vacant in Queens, twice the rate of a year ago."

And things will probably get worse as some of the high rent paying chain stores that replaced many small retailers go into bankruptcy and close their doors-like Circuit City has done; leaving more commercial strip vacancies. This trend, also highlighted by the disappearance of local supermarkets, has been exacerbated by the recession-but let's be clear, it didn't start with it.

Government policy-particularly the Bloomberg tax attack on commercial real estate, and his regulatory onslaught on local retailers-has made doing business in the neighborhood difficult. And this difficulty, in turn was itself exacerbated by the invasion of chain drug stores and banks that spiked local rents beyond the reach of independent, Mom and Pop, store owners.

So what does the fiscal maven do in response? Mike Bloomberg comes up with some kind of government entrepreneur program that appears to be directed at laid off Wall Streeters. What we certainly don't need is any government program to jump start the local economy. What we need is for the mayor to dramatically lower tax rates for store owners-and even offer small business tax incentives for hiring local folks.

Some of this we laid out in our critique of the draft supermarket initiative; lower the cost of doing business is the key to spurring small business growth. Or, alternatively devising policy initiatives-like allowing food stores to sell wine-that will advance the profitability of local retail outlets.

But even Congressman Weiner doesn't get this-his philosophy in this regard acts as an impediment to clear thinking: "Mr. Weiner said New York City has more than 200,000 small businesses, 96 percent of which have fewer than 50 employees. These businesses employ two-thirds of the workers in private-sector jobs. Mr. Weiner said the $787 billion stimulus package signed this week by President Obama would help businesses in Queens get back on their feet. The plan includes $750 million to improve existing Small Business Administration loan programs and to create new loans. Another $375 million is available to eliminate or reduce government fines and fees for borrowers and lenders with existing S.B.A. loans."

Loan programs are okay, but they aren't the key to true economic stimulation-only ancillary to a real growth policy that lowers tax and regulatory burdens. The stimulus money should have been directed to lowering tax rates for small businesses-bypassing bureaucratic red tape and government boondoggles. So, hats off to Weiner for highlighting the problem; but now we need an appropriate response so that the backbone of the local economy can recover and help the city in its time of need.

Mike's No Homey

Mike Bloomberg's reputation for being tone deaf and out of touch with the concerns of average New Yorkers was reinforced the other day when he met with a group of strapped homeowners. According to the NY Daily News: "Mayor Bloomberg is running for reelection as the only man who can save the city, but a roomful of worried New Yorkers at a recent Brooklyn forum weren't convinced. They were homeowners worried about losing their homes, taxpayers who can't pay their taxes and hardworking people who can't find work. But, when they asked the mayor for help, he cracked jokes, talked golf and offered vague platitudes."

This is the ultimate "mind over matter mayor;" he doesn't mind, and the you don't matter: "In response to complaints about the Housing Authority not providing a plumber, Sylvia Whiteside, president of the residents association at the Bay View Houses, was told: "Two things: One, we will try to fix that," Bloomberg replied. "And then I'm going to tell you my plumber joke. I have a great plumber joke."

To us, there hasn't been much to laugh about in the rein of Bloomberg-and his toppling of the term limits barrier for his own self perpetuation was only funny if you consider that the joke's on us. And certainly the idea of Mike Bloomberg's indispensability is hilarious when you think about how the mayor has padded the city payroll while raising taxes and fees on the very homeowners who he's now trying his stand up act on.

And the crowd felt the same way: "The joke drew polite laughter from the 200 people crammed into Temple Shaare Emeth for the Friends United Block Association meeting, but Bloomberg's aides admitted afterward his carefree attitude seemed out of touch. At another point, he asked how many in the audience were golfers, drawing quizzical stares. "Less jokes, more compassion would be much better," one of his advisers said the next day. The overwhelmingly minority crowd repeatedly asked how they could pay their rising taxes and water bills, save their homes from foreclosure or find a job."

What the meeting really underscored was the fact that the mayor is ill-equipped to lead us in this time of trouble-combining cluelessness with a tone deaf callousness to the peoples' suffering: "A man whose father had had two heart attacks and couldn't pay his mortgage was referred to a commissioner who suggested job retraining. A woman whose husband had lost his job and couldn't pay the mortgage was referred to the city's foreclosure-prevention clinic. Less than nine months before the election, some New Yorkers thought Bloomberg had crossed the line from tough talking to tone-deaf. "I don't think he was really serious," said senior citizen Dorothy Meade, who said she voted for Bloomberg four years ago. "I did. And I won't do it again."

Mike Bloomberg is really wealthy; and will spend tens of millions to suggest that he is indispensable. But when seen in a clear light-and up front and personal-his
vaunted indispensability is revealed for what it is: simply a power grab by another politician who doesn't want to leave the limelight when his time is up.

Mayor Disdains Driving a Hugo

As Clyde Haberman writes today in the NY Times, Mike Bloomberg and the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez do have something in common-even though Chavez clings to the trappings of democracy with greater assiduousness than the imperial mayor does: "In our city, the political leadership does not return to the voters on a matter already decided by plebiscite — like limiting elected officials to two consecutive terms. In our city, the leadership acts on its own, as the mayor and a slender majority of the City Council did to give themselves a chance to hold onto power for a third consecutive term. They simply overrode the results of two referendums and reworked the rules to their advantage."

Chavez, however, appears to have a greater sensibility for appearances than Blomberg and his court retinue at the city council does: "The man who went back to the people was President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. Though widely reviled in this country as a despot and even a buffoon, Mr. Chávez did something that New York’s mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, would not bring himself to do."

Bloomberg, for his part bristles at the comparison: "The mayor was asked the other day if Venezuela’s experience gave him second thoughts about how he went about changing the city’s term limits law. The question made Mr. Bloomberg cross. Peevishness at news conferences is often his default position these days. “What on earth do we have to do with Hugo Chávez?” he snapped."

The peevishness in this case is apropos because the torch of dictatorial buffoonery has been definitively passed-one of the few things that Mike Bloomberg didn't have to buy prior to the city council vote; or in the upcoming election cycle. And the final say on this is still awaiting the actions of the Justice Department: "Perhaps the most intriguing test of the revised law lies with the Justice Department. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it must give its blessing to election-law changes, to make sure that no harm comes to racial and ethnic minorities." And, of course, the mayor's usurped third term run will likely Trump-as in tens of millions of campaign cash-the efforts of an African-American to win the mayoralty.

And Haberman underscores our comments about the mayor's new found partisan political ardor-angling it would seem for the kind of marriage of convenience that many folks in his class have been known to tolerate as understandable monetary arrangements: "He had thumbed his nose at all political parties, pronouncing himself far too lofty for such riffraff. That was before he decided to run for a third term. Now he needs them — some of them, anyway — to get a decent spot on the November ballot."

Will the Republicans take the money and let Bloomberg run? As Haberman says, it comes down to pride-or perhaps political belief-or money. People are betting that Mike Bloomberg, having purchased everything else, will be able to drag the less than grand old party into that final altar-ing experience. Hopefully not; nothing would be more deserving than Bloomberg-on the Bloomberg Forever Party-running for the term altered term on Line H.

Supermarket Retention and Public Policy Equity

New York City is facing a supermarket crisis, as published reports indicate that one third of the city’s larger food stores have disappeared in the past few years. This is a dangerous trend on a number of different levels, and if the trend isn’t reversed there will be some serious economic as well as health repercussions that will have to be addressed.

The Bloomberg administration, in recognition of this crisis-and with some prompting from UFCW Local 1500, as well as the RWDSU- is looking to develop a policy to promote the building of supermarkets in undeserved areas; and they've come up with a number of intriguing ideas that are currently being circulated with the industry-and with the supermarket unions that have been pushing the city to intervene to strengthen local markets presence.

We welcome the attention since we have been the most consistent voice on this issue-and have hectored the city to get moving on the development of a coherent policy of, that not only encourages the building of new supermarket, but also addresses the retention of supermarkets that are now servicing the neighborhoods of the city under a set of challenging conditions.

The city's draft plan only addresses the new construction side of the equation-offering a set of zoning and tax incentives that are worthy of consideration. One missing ingredient here, however, is the absence of an land acquisition policy for supermarkets looking to build on city-owned property. This is a significant lacuna, since acquisition costs are a key variable that gets in the way of new supermarkets in undeserved areas.

The reality is, that the ideal protocol for local supermarket development can be devised when the project involves publicly owned land. Too often with the current administration, city owned property has been put out to bid with little or no thought given to whether the publicly sponsored development could be utilized for the siting of a new supermarket.

Instead of proceeding in this manner, what the city needs to do is to set aside city owned property for conveyance to a local joint venture; at a nominal cost in order to insure that the ultimate supermarket end use can be affordable for both a supermarket operator, as well as the community that would avail itself of the groceries sold at the new market.

Once the conveyance is arranged-and the transfer of ownership could be either through a direct sale for a small consideration, or through a long term ground lease of, let’s say, 50 years; also at nominal cost, the LDC would create a partnership with an entity that would provide it with the real estate and financial expertise to properly manage the joint venture-the new entity would also monitor all land use issues, and environmental issues of the development.

That being said, even if this policy were to be developed-and Williamsburg, East New York, the Lower East Side and East Harlem all have areas where this protocol could be put to good use-it leaves the issue of retention unaddressed; because the most serious aspect of the supermarket crisis is the loss of existing markets because of high rents, taxes and unnecessary regulatory burdens.

In addition, the public subsidizing of new markets raises equity issues if the new markets are introduced into areas where existing supermarkets have been struggling for many years with no (positive) government intervention whatsoever. The new subsidized markets would create an unlevel playing field-and may exacerbate the survival difficulties that are being experienced by the local markets.

In some ways this conundrum is somewhat similar to what is facing the Obama mortgage bailout policy-where folks who have struggled while playing by the rules are going to be passed over for others who haven't. So, if a truly equitable and successful supermarket policy is to be developed the retention side of the equation.

So before, or at very least coterminous with, devising a growth strategy, the city must develop a retention plan. What would such a plan look like? In the first place it would look to create a real estate tax abatement program that would treat neighborhood markets as a public health facility. By doing so-and the abatement must be significant-the city is acknowledging that these retail outlets are essential city services and need to be subsidized so that they can profitably remain in the city’s most underserved neighborhoods.

Secondly, the city needs to devise a program that will relieve these markets of some of the burdens of high cost energy and garbage disposal. Perhaps energy providers can be given tax credits for lowering electric rates to its supermarket customers. In addition, the city needs to devise a commercial waste disposer pilot program for supermarkets-an initiative that will lower market disposal costs by up to 90%.

And one last point; if a new supermarket is promoted and subsidized in an underserved area, there needs to be an expressed mitigation strategy for supermarkets doing business in the trade area, markets that are paying the full complement of taxes and fees. This mitigation should go beyond the suggestions already made, and should be expressly designed to level the competitive playing field.

But let's give credit here where it is due-the administration and the unions have stimulated an important discussion of a crucial public policy issue. Now the policy needs to be fleshed out in more detail-and the possible unintended negative repercussions need to be ameliorated before the final policy is unveiled. We look forward to the continued negotiation, and are hopeful that good policy can be devised before scores of more markets disappear.

Bloomberg's Line Dance

The era of post-partisanship has ended-at least it has for Mike Bloomberg, whose third term bid has left him bereft of a political perch from which to run from. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has denounced political parties as a “swamp of dysfunction,” has bankrolled a campaign to eliminate them from the New York City elections and has dismissively cast off his own party affiliations like ill-fitting garments. (Democrat? Been there. Republican? Done that.) But now, in what may rank as the most humbling experience of his mayoralty, Mr. Bloomberg is pleading with those same scorned parties to put his name on their ballot lines this fall, dispatching aides to apologize for past offenses and arguing that he cannot win re-election without their support."

What are his chances? In our view, putting aside our deepest hopes and wishes, the cash nexus will once again rule; put simply, Bloomberg may have to pay a little more than he wanted to, but pay he will-and with enough money being offered across the table there will be a buyer eventually. But it certainly is fun, at least for now, watching the mayor flounder.

The fun devolves from the way in which Bloomberg must reverse course into a tawdry partisanship that he claimed he was much better than: "The fierce resistance from parties that embraced Mr. Bloomberg in 2001 and 2005 highlights the unexpected pitfalls of his efforts to operate above politics. After hopscotching the globe during his second term, expounding on topics like international health and climate change, he is now left to explain why, for example, he never thanked some local party officials who gathered signatures for his last campaign."

Of the three parties that are truly in the mix-Republicans, Working Families, and Independence-it is the Republicans that are the most aggrieved: "He has so much disdain for political parties and now, all of a sudden, he needs us,” said Phil Ragusa, the chairman of the Queens Republican Party, which is still fuming over the mayor’s decision to bolt from the party in 2007 to become an independent (after he ran for mayor as a Republican — twice.)"

And his governing philosophy hasn't endeared the mayor to the rank-and-file Republican voter: "At the same time, Mr. Bloomberg’s June 2007 announcement that he would leave the Republican Party and become an independent as he mulled a presidential run infuriated Republicans. They were already unhappy that he had appointed so few Republicans to prominent jobs in his administration, and his policy proposals, including proposing a congestion pricing fee and raising property taxes, did not help. “He’s taken what we care about for granted,” said Jay Savino, the chairman of the Bronx Republican organization."

As far as the Working Families Party-positioned on the left side of the political continuum-the mayor is like Lucy; he's gotta lot of 'splaining to do: the term limits debacle was, after all, their baby: "When the mayor’s presidential plans fizzled early last year and he pushed through an extension of the city’s term limits laws, he managed to alienate the Working Families Party. Dan Cantor, the party’s executive director, said it was “unlikely” that the mayor would appear on the Working Families ballot this fall. “It’s like a shot from the half court line in basketball,” he added. “They sometimes go in, but it’s not exactly a high-percentage shot.”

Which leaves the wacky NYC edition of the Independence Party-who the mayor abandoned when he sided with the state party in an internal dispute; since, as the NY Post reports, there's little chance Mike gets to run as a Democrat with the Bronx and Brooklyn firmly in the Thompson camp: "But a series of court cases left the city’s party leaders in power — and livid with Mr. Bloomberg. In interviews, at least three of the Independence Party’s five county leaders expressed objections to nominating the mayor, even as they praised his record in office.
“He regarded us as a group of people he needed, could use, and then he could walk away from,” Mr. Newman said."

So Mike Bloomberg is left to beg; and our only advice here is, if you're going to make a deal, make sure its both a good one, and that all of the money is fronted-because Bloomberg's word is simply no good, and his loyalty to any principal is as evanescent as his outsized ego and mercurial self interest. As Daddy told us, in any business deal make sure you get at least a dollar up front; because that's the only dollar you can ever be sure of.

This advice goes double for any political deal with Mike Bloomberg. And while Marty Golden, the recipient of much from the mayor's campaign giving, is counseling Republicans-in Howie Mandell fashion-to take the deal, Phil Ragusa is holding out; and making a lot of sense in the process: "State Senator Martin J. Golden, a Brooklyn Republican, predicted that Republican Party leaders will come around. “At the end of the day, there is nobody who can do more for the Republican Party and the city than Mike Bloomberg,” he said. Mr. Ragusa, the Queens County Republican leader, is not convinced. Since Mr. Bloomberg has shown no allegiance to the party, “we have zero going in. So if we have zero going out, we haven’t lost anything.”

Fatuous Thinking

Just as another Q-Poll comes out to demonstrate that most New Yorker think that a soda tax is a bad idea, one of the country's premier busybodies shoots off an Op-Ed in the NY Daily News, calling on the governor to hang tough on the unpopular tax: "Last week, Gov. Paterson said his soda tax - which would put an 18% tax on soda and other sugary drinks containing less than 70% fruit juice - was in danger of officially going flat. He should find a way to rescue the idea, and quick. The tax is one of the very smartest ways to fight the obesity epidemic confronting the state and country."

Brownell's Rudd Center on Food Policy at Yale, is in the forefront of hectoring Americans to eat in ways that it feels they should; and we have little problem with hectoring-something that we resemble, as they say. Our problem comes from the belief that government, in the absence of smart choices being made by the folks, should start to dictate the way people behave. And make no mistake about it, taxation is nothing if it isn't the most coercive of government policies.

In our view, the ability of the folks to make free choices, along with the ability of the hectorers to educate them in the direction they feel best, is the most important feature of a free society. The problem that the Brownells' face, is the intractability of some of these people; and therefore the need to force them into making better choices-they see skinny sheep as the goal of public policy.

Here's her view of our dietary disaster: "It gets worse. Rigorous scientific studies have shown that consumption of sugared beverages is associated with poor diet, increased rates of obesity and an increased risk of diabetes. In studies where the same people are followed over time, and other studies where people are assigned randomly to reduce sugared beverage consumption, diets improve and subjects lose weight."

So you see, soda drinking is one facet of-"associated" is the clever correlative-of poor diet; meaning that those with the poor habits drink soda to excess-along with over-eating almost everything else. Getting them to reduce soda drinking is a good thing-but education and choice should transcend public coercion.

And just you watch how this slippery slope operates, if and when the Feds take over the health care system. Brownell and her cohort of liberal fascists will be stepping over themselves in the effort to remake the behavioral patterns of low income Americans in particular-just as the well meaning eugenicists tried to do at the turn of the last century.

So, as we sit here drinking our Diet Pepsi-the chemicals are just as bad Brownell will say next-we just know that the impulse to enforce healthy behavior is very much alive and well; and the comments of CS Lewis in this regard-cited in the last post we did on menu labeling is worth repeating as the last word: “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Floundering at the Top

The latest Q-Poll is abysmal news for the battered governor of New York; and is not good news for those of us who want to see the state weather the fiscal crisis through strong political leadership. As the NY Post reports: "Gov. Paterson was on the ropes yesterday after a stunning new poll showed Attorney General Andrew Cuomo clobbering him by 32 points in a primary match up. Cuomo - who sources say is eyeing a run for governor - defeats fellow Democrat Paterson by 55-23 percent, the Quinnipiac University survey found."

These numbers reflect the public's reaction to Paterson's dithering around the choice of a senate replacement for Hillary Clinton; but also his rather lackluster, and uneven performance stewarding the state during the budget crisis. And, given the attacks on his budget choices, it doesn't appear likely that things will improve: "And his administration and campaign staff have been derided as rudderless - while he has little but bad budget news to deliver in coming months."

And all Cuomo has to do is wait in the wings; because if the governor continues to flounder-and the flap over the pay raises for his staff only makes him more vulnerable-the party may simply ask him to leave: "The appropriate thing for Andrew Cuomo to be doing is to run for re-election," said Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf, who added that Paterson's poll numbers suggest down-ballot Democratic seats - such as the state Senate majority, the state comptroller and new members of Congress - could be at risk. "The Democrats very well at this point may ask the governor not to run," Sheinkopf said. "The governor's got to save himself."

The worst bit of poll news is Paterson's hypothetical match up with Rudy Giuliani: "Against potential GOP challenger Rudy Giuliani, Paterson - who governs a state with a strong majority of Democrat-registered voters - runs even at 43 percent, the survey shows. But Cuomo thumps Giuliani by 51-37 percent, the poll shows." These numbers will invoke the Ted Mack Amateur Hour response-a hook for performers who the audience disapproves of.

Healthy Skepticism

The Appellate Court has upheld the city's restaurant menu labelling experiment-demonstrating to us that just because something may be legal, doesn't make it smart. As the NY Times reports: "In a victory for New York City’s campaign against obesity, a federal appellate court on Tuesday rejected the New York State Restaurant Association’s challenge to the city’s 2007 regulation requiring most major fast-food and chain restaurants to prominently display calorie information on their menus."

What is clear to us is that this fight against obesity is a chimera, and the menu labelling will do more to threaten the health of local fast food outlets than it will help reduce obesity-no matter how much the city's health commissioner brays to the contrary: "This is good news for everyone,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “Nearly all chain restaurants are now complying with the law. Consumers are learning more about the food before they order, and the market for healthier alternatives is growing. We applaud the court for its decision, and we thank the restaurant industry for living by the rules.”

There is still no evidence proffered by these social science illiterates that the posting will be put to good use by those folks who are most in need of reducing their caloric intake-since the DOH had no data to demonstrate that it would; but, hey, why not experiment by increasing the regulatory burdens on local restaurants with mandates that tell owners how to conduct their business?

And there's a reason why the FDA exempted restaurants from labeling that was required for packaged manufactured food: "The three judges found that Congress intended to exempt restaurant food from the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 and left the question of whether to require the posting of information like calorie counts to state and local governments." But the calorie rule for packaged goods had gone through a rigorous due diligence before the FDA had instituted the rule.

The city never even bothered-so certain are the health ideologues that their quixotic ventures are for the public good. Which is similar to Frieden's "site them and they will come" philosophy behind his produce peddling initiative; an abysmal failure that failed to get more than 8 peddlers out into the streets this summer. People don't act the way he wants them to; can mandates be far behind?

This is all part of the Nanny state creeping fascism that reminds us of the observation of CS Lewis about the danger of creeping totalitarianism: “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

The Days of Whine and Poses

Crain's carried an interesting piece on the battle over selling wine in supermarkets last week in their on line edition. It appears that the liquor stores, upset over the potential loss of their monopoly, have resorted to strong arm tactics-threatening wineries that support the measure with a blacklist.

As Crains reports: "Scott Osborn, the proprietor of Fox Run Vineyards in the Finger Lakes region, is shocked at the vitriol that has been hurled against him and his staff since he testified two weeks ago in favor of legislation that would allow grocery stores to sell wine in New York.
Sure, it was a bold move to go up against his liquor store vendors. They are a powerful lobby that has held sway over Albany lawmakers on the issue of expanding the sale of wine to outlets like Whole Foods or 7-Eleven. He just didn't expect the phone calls and e-mails from liquor store owners threatening to remove his wine from their shelves and destroy his business. “I'm shocked at how vicious they were,” says Mr. Osborn."

Now, if the accusation is true, it would mean that a group of unrelated retailers were acting in concert to restrain trade-a clear violation, it seems to us, of the federal anti-trust laws. And AG Cuomo has been asked to investigate: "The fight has become personal. Mr. Osborn recalls one especially nasty e-mail: “Thanks for trying to put me out of business,” it said. “I used to like pushing your wines but now just looking at them makes me want to puke. I'll never sell any of your wines ever again!” Another winemaker, Doug Miles of Miles Wine Cellars in the Finger Lakes region, was told that his products would be “blacklisted.” Both vineyards are suffering. Mr. Miles says his sales to liquor stores have declined 70% this month after a gain in January. Similarly, Fox Run's sales are declining in February. Now, the office of state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is reviewing the issue, a spokesman says."

Nice! Not satisfied with a state sponsored monopoly, these liquor stores have formed a bizarrely named, "The Last Store on Main St.," coalition to combat the evils of competition: "It has been a long-simmering issue in New York, one of only 15 states that prohibit wine sales in supermarkets. But grocery stores have never managed to get the matter into the governor's budget, though it is still early in the legislative process."

All of this simmering controversy will undoubtedly come to a head next week in Albany-when dueling pressers are held and throngs of folks on both sides will invade the capitol to make their case. Count on the Alliance and its allies to be there in support of the real main street coalition; and not the manufactured, one industry, version set up to scare and mislead.

Not Appearing Good

When you're crying poverty and calling on all New Yorkers to sacrifice, it isn't good politics to be handing out raises while doing your exhortation. But that's exactly the wrong road taken by Governor Paterson-as the NY Post reports: " Gov. Paterson yesterday was blasted by public-employee unions, legislative Republicans and even fellow Democrats for granting sky-high pay hikes to his key staffers at a time when he's asking 130,000 state workers to give up their 3 percent raises."

We should be living in a climate of austerity-and perceptions do matter when you're looking to cut back on the pay and benefits of state workers: "This will demoralize our members even further," said Stephen Madarasz, a spokesman for the Civil Service Employees Association, which represents 70,000 state workers. "Frankly, it doesn't come as a great surprise to us because we've been very disappointed in the way the governor has been handling the fiscal crisis from the start."

All of these missteps only acts as blood in the water for those who want to raise taxes on-not millionaires-but on all of those folks earning more than $250,000 a year. In a companion story the Post tells us: "A day after Gov. Paterson hinted at plans to soak the rich, a Brooklyn assemblyman announced legislation yesterday to enact the $6 billion tax-hike plan backed by public-employee unions. Democrat Darryl Towns' bill would enact the Working Families Party's "Fare Share Tax Reform" plan, raising income taxes on taxpayers who make more than $250,000 a year and giving New York the nation's highest top tax rate. The bill is identical to legislation already introduced by state Sen. Eric Schneiderman (D-Manhattan), providing it crucial two-house support days after Paterson warned the wealthy they would "share in the sacrifice" during budget talks."

As the Post headline indicates this is, "fair shearing," and is designed to insure that the revenue for the state bloat will continue to flow-until we reach the California state of mind, where 20,000 layoffs are on the table because there aren't enough taxes possible to keep the state from going bankrupt: "California lawmakers were told to bring their toothbrushes and prepare for a long day Tuesday, with the goal of passing a budget as the state faces a $42 billion deficit and 20,000 layoff notices were set to go out to state workers Tuesday."

What we desperately are in need of is leadership-but it appears that New York is basically rudderless-as Liz Benjamin pointed out yesterday, with even the governor's political operation in disarray: "Democrats have been surprised by Paterson's lack of political smarts. One observer noted that the governor seemed to be caught off-guard by the explosive TV ad campaign by health care workers union 1199 SEIU and the Greater New York Hospital Association that attacked him for his proposed Medicaid spending cuts. The administration had at least a week's advance notice of the ads, a source said, but took no action. "There has been a shocking lack of political skills from him and anyone around him," the source said. "There are a lot of people with senior adviser labels acting like senior advisers, but there's no structure."

All of which leaves Andrew Cuomo waiting in the wings-unwilling to aggressively step on stage while the governor is in the middle of his slapstick routine. Why should he? In these circumstances, all he has to do is wait for the draft; an ill wind as far as David Paterson is concerned.

Collusion With Columbia

As we have been reporting for the past two years, Columbia University and New York State have colluded to violate the basic property rights of storage king Nick Sparyaregen; and the collusion exposes the lack of fairness that's involved in the entire eminent domain process in New York. As Damon Root writes in the NY Post today: "Collusion between Columbia University and the Empire State Development Corp. over using the ESDC's powers of eminent domain to acquire land for the school seems to violate both the letter and spirit of the law."

The entire concept of "blight" is called into question by the use of a consultant that was on the university's payroll while, at the same time, reaping millions from the state's tax payers: "In 2006, the ESDC hired the planning firm Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. (AKRF) to perform an "impartial" neighborhood blight study. Yet the firm was already on Columbia's payroll and actively working on the school's controversial Manhattanville plan. According to billing records Sprayregen obtained through the state Freedom of Information Law, as many as six AKRF employees worked on both the blight study and the redevelopment project - by definition, a conflict of interest."

So, surprise, surprise, what do you think these colluders discovered? Right, horrible blight: "For starters, AKRF failed to mention that Columbia already owns 76 percent of the neighborhood - and was thus directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of alleged blight that it now seeks to exploit, from overflowing basement trash heaps to major roof and skylight leaks. Numerous tenants have now reported that the university refused to perform basic and necessary repairs - thereby both pushing tenants out of Columbia-owned buildings and manufacturing the ugly conditions that later advanced the school's real-estate interests."

Now that the university and the city own around 91% of the entire proposed development parcel, you'd think that the university could either proceed without the use of eminent domain-or make Sprayregen a great offer to leaver. Neither of these options is, however, being pursued; since Columbia's pursuit of lebensraum is designed to achieve total victory-and the removal of any vestigial "blight" that they don't own and control.

Let's hope that the courts see otherwise-and that they put the brakes on the conspiracy that's afoot in this development scheme. The use of eminent domain is bad enough without the collusion of state officials who rig the process even further against property owners.

More Bottling Up

There was one outlet we missed in our review of the coverage of the bottle bill and soda tax last Thursday-and the Epoch Times ran a nice photo story on the presser, marred only be misidentifying yours truly as Nelson Eusebio: "Supermarket and bodega owners, green grocers, bottlers, and others gathered on the steps of City Hall Thursday to protest plans for the expansion of the Bottle Bill. According to the press release issued by organizers, whatever the environmental benefits that may come from this expansion plan, they won’t mitigate the severe harm that will be done to inner city stores that have no room to store containers currently covered under existing law."

Also, Gotham Gazette ran a nice summary of the controversy surrounding the expansion-with a vignette of the indefatigable Laura Haight doing her usual show and tell in Albany; with an emphasis on the litter reduction aspects of the expanded bill. But, as the web site points out, there is still no clear signal that the expansion will win the support of a majority in the state senate: "But Albany is still Albany and things still come down to three men in a room. “As long-time advocates know, support from [Senate] Majority Leader Malcolm Smith will be a clearer indication of how high a priority this issue will be given,” wrote Joshua Klainberg on the League of Conservation Voters blog. And Smith is “uncommitted” to the bill. His lack of support for it may well be why the bill was not included as expected in the deficit reduction package agreed on by the state last week."

What's really funny in all this, though, is the claim that the Empire State Beer Distributors have been supporting expansion since 1983; and the website links a letter written-by none other than Richard Lipsky-to the NY Times in 1990! But, when reading the letter, the contents have nothing to do with expanding the existing law-a position that was never taken when we directed the Association for the better part of a decade

The GG also reports on our mobilization as well: "That is likely good news to a coalition of food retailers who planned a rally on the steps of City Hall today in protest of an expansion of the bill (and the “obesity tax”). “The bottle law,” the coalition’s press release argued, “acts just like an unfunded mandate, with retailers bearing the cost of redemption at great expense — restricting their ability to grow employment and prosper.”

Clearly, the battle ahead will be both intense and unpredictable. In our view, however, it will take place after the budget is put to bed-and as a stand alone measure to be decided on its own merits.

Soda Tax: Slip Sliding Away

Reacting to the idea's unpopularity, as well as to the aggressive lobbying of the food and beverage industry, the governor appears to have thrown in the towel on the soda tax. As the NY Times reported Saturday: "Barely into the thick of budget negotiations with the Legislature, Gov. David A. Paterson is already backing off one of his signature revenue-raising proposals: taxing soda."

But here's where it gets a bit quirky; since the governor explains that the proposal wasn't really a serious revenue enhancing measure-just an educational concept designed to get the folks to think: "The tax on soda was really a public policy argument,” the governor said. “In other words, it’s not something that we necessarily thought we would get. But we just wanted the population to know some issues about childhood obesity.”

Nice argument after the fa(c)t-or, after it was clear that no one was buying this lame idea: "Opponents of the soda tax — which Mr. Paterson and his aides preferred to call a tax on obesity, which afflicts a quarter of New Yorkers — said they were glad that Mr. Paterson appeared to be abandoning it. “The governor is responding to the obvious hue and cry, not only from the food and beverage industry people, but from the general public, who have shown in poll after poll that this is not an idea that they feel is worth embracing,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the beverage industry."

Indeed, we have shown that the tax would be, not only heavily regressive-taxing the poor who tend to drink more sodas than lattes-but would also hurt small bottlers and bodega owners: "Our businesses - small businesses - can't afford that tax," Ramon Murphy, president of the Bodega Association of the United States, told a rally of grocery owners and workers."

Still, the governor is doing on this issue what is becoming a pattern; saying one thing to one audience, and then backtracking to another-often through a spokesperson. As the Times points out: "In a statement on Friday, the governor’s spokeswoman, Risa B. Heller, said that Mr. Paterson’s remarks to the students, which were first reported by The Associated Press, had been misconstrued. “The governor stands firmly behind his soda tax proposal,” Ms. Heller said. “He acknowledged that this wasn’t a popular proposal and made an observation about the Legislature’s actions and explained the underlying policy rationale. By no means was he stepping away from it.”


But, who knows? After all, the aforementioned Heller was shown the door at probably just about the time she was speaking on the governor's behalf, As the Post tells us: "Paterson, who has been slammed in the media in the wake of the Caroline Kennedy smearing by a source close to him, told associates he had no confidence in Heller."

Our feeling is that Paterson sees the handwriting on the wall-and is now moving on to battles he's more likely to win-with spokespersons who can better interpret what he says and actually means. The soda tax is a distraction; and the need for major structural change in the state's budget remains. We'll give Malcolm Smith the last word here: “We have to make structural changes in New York’s budget to avoid future budget gaps as large as what we are facing now,” Mr. Smith said. “To do that, we have to find a way to reduce spending.”

Bottle Bill and Soda Tax Protest

The protest by supermarket owners and bodegueros-joined by Hispanic owned soda company executives-went off well at city hall yesterday. As El Diario reports: "Una coalición de bodegueros, propietarios de supermercados, trabajadores y embotelladoras hispanas de bebidas gaseosas, se congregó ayer en las escalinatas de la Alcaldía para protestar por la pretendida extensión de la ley estatal que agregaría un impuesto adicional de 18% a las sodas y dos centavos adicionales al depósito por envase."

And the leaders of the two trade associations came out strongly against both the tax and the expansion of the bottle bill. Here's Nelson Eusebio of the National Supermarket Association: "En la alcaldía, el ambiente era ayer de rechazo. “Simplemente no podemos permitirnos más regulaciones con recortes o impuestos”, dijo Nelson Eusebio, de la Asociación Nacional de Supermercados."

The Bodega Association also weiged in, worrying about the ability of small stores to survive and continue to empoloy their workers: "Ramón Murphy, de la Asociación de Bodegueros de EE.UU., indicó que Nueva York ha vivido de los pequeños negocios y son los que están soportando los empleos. “Si nos obligan a cerrar, la ciudad será una crisis total”, aseveró."

The soda execs were equally emphatic about the ill advised timing of the proposals-in the middle of an economic crisis: "Por su parte, Luis Jardines, de la distribuidora de Inca Kola, dijo que “es triste que, en estos momentos críticos, en que cada día se pierden miles de empleos, se quiera poner un impuesto adicional a un producto que consume el pueblo”.

So, with the budget crisis heading into the home stretch, the coalition will now take its case directly to the legislature in Albany. And the messsage is clear: keep these job killing measures away from the stores and businesses that help the low income and immigrant communities surviving during these tough times.

And the message is beginning to resonate, at least on the soda tax. As the NY Post reports: "Gov. Paterson has admitted that one of his most talked-about tax proposals - an obesity tax on sugary drinks - is fizzling. While meeting with college students to discuss his budget, the governor said they shouldn't worry about the tax because the Legislature won't go for it. Dubbed "the fat tax," the idea has been the topic of articles, editorials, polls, and radio and TV commentaries." If so, this is good news-with one bad idea down, and one to go.

New Update

The NY Daily News ran a nice photo-story on the press onference: "Bottle Bill? Can It! Bodega Owners Blast Plan as a Fat Tax Burden."But for some reason, the paper never posted it on line-at least we couldn't find it. (Here it is-finally!)Still, Adam Lisberg's story was right on point; with store owners railing against both the bottle bill as well as the "fat tax."

Nelson Eusebio's quote is the money one: "The governor doesn't have enough money because we're chasing small business out of the city of New York..." Eusebio also pointed out that New York has lost 100 NSA member supermarkets in the last four years.

Hats off to Councilman Martinez, as well; Martinez told the Daily News the following: "Still, City Councilman Miguel Martinez (D-Manhattan) said the cost of Paterson's plan would be borne by small businesses and average New Yorkers - not the financial companies and high-fliers who brought down the economy in the first place. "What you see here is what New York City is all about," Martinez said, gesturing to the store workers and bodega owners behind him. "These are not the individuals who are laying off. ... The ones that are laying off, that are getting all the stimulus package, are the big corporations."

BJs Sitting Pretty?

The Observer's Real Estate blog is reporting that Joe Sitt is gearing up for a big box battle on the two sites he owns in Brooklyn: "Declining to comment further on Coney, Mr. Sitt was somewhat more forthcoming when it came to his planned developments for Red Hook and Shore Parkway in southern Brooklyn. While he hasn’t released many details about the two developments, it is expected both will be big-box retail, assuming he can get the city (which doesn’t seem to be all that happy with him these days on account of a perceived intransigence at Coney) to go along with needed zoning changes. While the city wasn't too keen on an earlier Red Hook plan that included residential, Mr. Sitt seemed more optimistic about his current plan for the former Revere Sugar Factory."

As we have commented before, Sitt has plans to build two BJs Warehouse Clubs on these locations-and the animosity between Sitt and the mayor's folks is nothing compared to the fight he'll have on his hand with the city council if he tries to site the box stores-Sitt's optimism notwithstanding: “We’ve got the capital for both these projects,” he said. “As soon as we finish formulating our plans, which we have not yet but we’re in the middle of it, then we’ll go knock on doors in terms of the city and trying to work with them in terms of the zoning parameters and what tenants we think we’ll be able to get at that time. “The bottom line is they are projects that have financing, and as soon as we go to government, if we get buy-in from government, overnight, we could be creating jobs for the city,” he said."

Creating jobs, in this case is sheer myth-the box stores act as cannibals for the existing supermarkets and neighborhood commercial strip. If the mayor and the speaker are truly serious about nurturing supermarket growth, and protecting the existing food outlets, than the box store concept will be the last thing that they will support. And the speaker's expressed concern for small business; with the proposal for things such as, "developing focused neighborhood marketing campaigns to help small businesses," then she can't-at the same time-promote neighborhood killing box stores.

Quinn: New Small Business Commissioner?

It was fitting yesterday that on the morning of Speaker Quinn's State of the City speech-a speech that purported to develop some kind of small business agenda-Crain's Insider printed the following item:

"The city’s recently completed report on commercial food-waste disposals predicts that their legalization would require billions of dollars in sewage-system upgrades. Supporters of the disposals are dismayed, but they had expected the study to reflect the long-standing opposition of the Department of Environmental Protection. They say the agency had similar concerns 20 years ago about residential disposals before they were legalized. The report found that 10 other big cities allow, encourage or require food businesses to use disposals."

The back story here is that the Alliance had helped to promote a pilot program for the use of commercial food waste disposers-Intro 133. The bill, sponsored by Health Chair Joel Rivera, had garnered 33 council supporters when, in a last minute deal with the mayor, Quinn sandbagged the legislation in favor of the above mentioned pilot program; a study that we predicted would result in the dismissal of the entire concept.

So the Speaker-now posturing as a some kind of small business champion-used her influence to kill a measure that would have reduced disposal costs for the city's supermarkets, green grocers, and restaurants by up to 90%! What Quinn now proposes-when seen in contrast to concrete practical and ameliorative measures-is simply empty rhetoric; a Marie Antoinette parody that amounts to: "Let them eat my words."

What do the city's small businesses have to look forward to in the Quinn Plan? Here's the City Room take: "Ms. Quinn’s other proposals included a hodgepodge of suggestions...Streamlining the permit and licensing process for small businesses...Waiving for 12 months permit and license fees...Developing focused neighborhood marketing campaigns to help small businesses...Creating a pilot program to require city agencies to review the effects of new regulations affecting small businesses...Creating a one-time amnesty program for those with outstanding violations to pay portions of fines."

We really like the neighborhood marketing plan-where public money will be used to tell local retailers how to better market their wares in neighborhoods that they do business in. But really, isn't this pretty thin gruel? Nowhere does the speaker acknowledge that it is the high cost of doing business-the taxes and regulations Quinn supports-that is threatening the survival of many small retailers.

We certainly didn't see her come out for the Robert Jackson sponsored Small Business Protection Act, something that would offer retailers tangible relief from the bane of arbitrary eviction. And her regulatory relief is comical-along the lines of pay the dumb fine now and we'll graciously amnesty the penalties. Nothing on the order of rolling back the Quinn supported commercial real estate tax that effectively raised every retailer's rent by 20% in 2003. Nothing about streamlining the municipal code so that the anachronistic ordinances, those whose only vestigial function is to raise revenue, are eliminated. Or, more simply, nothing proposing that the first fine for any retailer act a a warning; allowing the city to function as an educator rather than a punisher of small business.

Instead we get the Machiavellian appearing to be good-all the while she uses her bully pulpit to go after the wealth providers in the city; exacting more tribute for the Leviathan that has nurtured her entire career. Our take on the Quinn speech is that it is an improvement over last year only to the extent that she didn't pay someone $12,000 to write it.

Government In Competence

If patriotism is sometimes the last refuge of scoundrels, than tax hiking is certainly the last refuge of the ideologically brain dead. With massive state and city budgets-and hundreds of questionable programs and service redundancies-it takes a real lack of imagination and political will to call for higher taxes as a response to the current budget crisis. Enter Chris Quinn.

In her today's State of the City speech, the council speaker will call for a raising of the city's income tax: "In another one of her rare breaks with Mayor Bloomberg, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is poised to propose a three-tiered tax increase on New Yorkers earning more than $300,000 a year while also eliminating the PIT for low and moderate-income households. Quinn will unveil what her office is calling a "forward-thinking" and "progressive" plan at her annual State of the City address tomorrow."

Forward thinking, as in back to 1974 forward. Quinn, who has never held a real private sector job, and has certainly never run a business, is apparently blind to the fact that the city is poised to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs-and its small businesses in the neighborhoods are going into bankruptcy at a record pace. Cutting taxes and regulations-something that would ameliorate the economic climate for these entrepreneurs-is apparently regressive.

Here's a preview of her outlook: "We’re not afraid to ask those who’ve gotten the most from New York City, to give a little back when times get tough. And for New Yorkers on the other end of the spectrum, we need to offer some relief." The idea is based on a simple principle. Those hit hardest by the economic crunch deserve some assistance. And those of us doing better should be doing more to help."

This is certainly a strange formulation-those who have, "gotten the most from the city." As if it were, "the city," that somehow bequeathed largess to these few fortunate folks, and now is asking that they recognize their favored status by giving a little back to the unfavored. All of this, of course, is blind, class-based policy; one that fails to recognize just how much the entrepreneurial class, especially its immigrants, has contributed to the city through ingenuity and hard work. People like Pablo Guzman who employs six workers in his Harlem bodega, and who just may now be required, in Quinn's world, to give more help to others.

All of this overlooks the fact that these are the folks who have been giving back the most-as income tax revenue is already skewed, heavily dependent on these fortunate few; and using Bernie Madoff is as invidious as it gets: "Right now, New York City taxes everyone making above $90,000 the same. It’s shameful - Bernie Madoff pays the exact same tax rate as a public school principal," Quinn will say in tomorrow's speech (according to excerpts provided by her office). "That’s not sharing the burden. It’s a slap in the face."

But the speaker's mindset is mirrored by that of the assembly speaker-and it reflects a genuine refusal to acknowledge the correlation between economic stagnation, attendant job loss, and higher taxes-whether personal or otherwise; and this outlook apparently doesn't appreciate how important an entrepreneurial class is to the economy, since it is so eager to show it the door.

Which is why we pay tribute today to both Malcolm Smith and Andrew Cuomo-two elected officials who are mindful of the role of taxes and incompetent government. Smith, for his part, is holding his own against the "unfair share" tax philosophy. As the NY Post reports: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver found himself up against a surprise adversary yesterday when the new state Senate Democratic leader publicly challenged his claim that an income-tax hike would not force wealthy taxpayers from the state. Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith of Queens said a millionaire's tax had "the potential of driving some people back into a shelter" because the rich could move more easily."

And, as the Post reminds us, the Wall Street engine isn't any longer the engine that could-so that comparisons to post 9/11 are erroneous: "There's no evidence that income-tax hikes drive people out of the state, Silver declared, defending his cherished "millionaire's tax." In fact, he continued, the last time the state tried it - a temporary hike in 2003 - the economy boomed.
Well, sure. The 9/11 attacks had grievously - albeit temporarily - damaged New York's economy. And the '03 tax hike Silver extolls was tiny compared to what's now on the table - so Wall Street was back in business in no time. Thus New York still had a functioning financial sector to keep high-income-earners tethered despite the higher rates. That asset is gone now - as even Silver's own budget analysis acknowledges."

Which brings us to Andrew Cuomo. The AG set out an interesting concept yesterday at a Citizens Budget Commission pow wow-making government more efficient and competent: "In this time of crisis, Cuomo said, New York needs a government that can "actually perform and perform quickly." He reminded the well-heeled, civic-minded crowd that the state used to be seen as a model of progressive, competent and forward-thinking government rather than being known, rather infamously, for being home to the nation's most dysfunctional Legislature."

And when we are finding out that Senate Republicans have been squirreling away millions in partisan patronage gigs-wasteful spending that few were even aware of-we know instinctively that we've just hit the tip of the ice berg. But where is our city Cuomo? No one we have seen in this election year-from the mayor on down-has even talked about reducing the size of municipal government in the name of incompetence. Instead we get the fair share concept that always ends up meaning that the government gets to abscond with more of your money because; What could be fairer than that?

Save Our Stores

The real Main Street Coalition will be at City Hall today to protest the job killing taxes and regulations being proposed by Governor Paterson; the expansion of the bottle bill and the imposition of a soda tax will be in the store owners' sights. As NY1 reported yesterday (and check out the nice video): "Shops and markets across the city are getting squeezed by the economic downturn. But business owners say they are about to get hit even harder, this time by Governor David Paterson. "There is a crisis going on. We are losing supermarkets. We are losing a way of life," said Nelson Eusebio, Executive Director, National Supermarket Association."

Our city food stores are being squeezed out by high rents and city-imposed taxes-so for the bodegas, it feels as if the governor is piling on: "They are taking aim at Paterson's call to tax sugary drinks and broaden the state's bottle bill, so that stores would be required to accept empty water and juice bottles for recycling. Bodega owners say they'll lose money on the deal which will also cost consumers more."They try to add now water and juices. We can't collect money on that stuff because the problem is, we don't have the space for that," said Pedro Guzman, a store owner."


And that's why our coalition of food stores-bodegas, supermarkets and green grocers-will be down at city hall today: "On Thursday, a coalition of business groups, grocery store owners, and others will officially launch a new group -- New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes. They're asking visitors to their website to sign a petition opposing the so-called tax on sugary drinks."Can you imagine when you are going to buy a soda for $2 and then you are going to have to pay $2.50, that means you cannot buy a butter roll. You cannot buy a coffee, you cannot buy nothing if you buy one bottle," said Ramon Murphy, President, Bodega Association of the United States."

What's even more poignant is that fact that the bodega owner who NY1 interviewed is right in the heart of the governor's neighborhood-where Mr. Guzman has invested over $250,000 renovating his store, not only for himself but for his six employees and the neighborhood they serve; but all of this hard work is oblivious to the governor: "We believe that the measures included in the governor's budget will make New York a healthier state with a stronger environment, and that they will not have a major impact on the fiscal operations of the beverage industry," said Matt Anderson, a spokesperson for the state's Division of the Budget."

Notice that the governor's folks have little grasp of the economic impact on retailers. Which is why the groups will be at city hall today. Albany needs to know that the retail environment in the city is fragile; and new taxes and regulations in the middle of this severe recession is job killing and unwise. Here is the full press release for today's event.

Press Release

Press Conference on Expanded Bottle Bill and Small Business Protection

Where: City Hall Steps

When: February, 12, 2009

Time: 11:00 AM

On Thursday, February, 12, 2009, there will be a press conference held on the steps of City Hall to protest the expansion of the state’s bottle bill. The opposition will include a broad-based coalition of supermarket and bodega owners, green grocers, Hispanic-owned bottling companies, small business groups, community organizations and labor.
Some of the groups that are scheduled to appear are: The National Supermarket Association; The Bodega Association of the US; The New York Association of Convenience Stores; The Small Business Congress; The Korean-American Small Business Service Center; The United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1500; The Retail, Wholesale Department Store Union; Good-O Beverage; Top Pop Beverage; Inca Kola; and Teamsters, Local 812

The press conference will focus on the crisis in neighborhood retailing-and the government’s failure to provide relief; instead, how it’s imposition of new regulations and taxes is making the plight of local businesses that much worse

All of the opposition agrees that the expansion of the bottle law-and the imposition of a so-called obesity tax- during the middle of the country’s worst recession in over fifty years would have disastrous consequences for neighborhood businesses that are already suffering-with foreclosures, evictions and bankruptcies devastating local retailers all over the city and state. (http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2008/02/our-disappearing-supermarkets.html); (http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/01/bodegas-begone.html); http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2008/12/soda-tax-lacks-fizz.html)

Put simply, local stores need to be nurtured with pro-growth policies that include lower tax rates, affordable rents, and fewer regulations. The bottle law, however, acts just like an unfunded mandate, with retailers bearing the cost of redemption at great expense-restricting their ability to grow employment and prosper. And the soda tax will simply burden low income shoppers, reducing the available purchasing power at a time of decreasing family incomes.

As Nelson Eusebio from the National Supermarket points out; “We simply can’t afford any more crippling government regulations and taxes. Our stores are finding it difficult enough to survive without the government adding to the cost of doing business.”

Whatever the environmental benefits that may accrue from the expansion of the current law; they don’t mitigate the severe harm that will be done to inner city stores that have no room to store containers currently covered under existing law. And these retailers certainly can’t handle an almost doubling of the containers eligible for redemption, not when they lose money on each container redeemed. (http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/02/bodegas-to-extinction.html)

In addition, the government’s proposed taking of the unredeemed deposit nickels will put small bottlers at risk for going out of business. As Good-O president Martin Salo says: “The unredeemed deposits are helping small companies like ours stay in business servicing the low income areas of the city. Taking these nickels, and imposing a soda tax on top, would be the death knell of Good-O and all of the other small bottlers.”

The disappearance of local supermarkets and bodegas has had a devastating impact on the workforce. Thousands of neighborhood jobs have been lost-many of them unionized workers with good benefits and a family living wage. NYC is slated to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs during the current downturn. By adding regulatory burdens and more taxes, additional jobs will be lost and the vitality of local communities will be badly hurt in the process.

Scheduled Appearances: Business

(1) Nelson Eusebio- National Supermarket Association;
(2) Ramon Murphy-Bodega Association of the United States;
(3) Jim Calvin-New York Association of Convenience Stores;
(4) Sung Soo Kim-Korean-American Small Business Service Center;
(5) Rev Carmen Hernandez-NYC LGBT Chamber of Commerce;
(6) Alfredo Placeras-New York Hispanic Chambers of Commerce;
(7) Julio Coen-Inca Kola;
(8) Marlen Lugones-Top Pop;
(9) Martin Salo-Good-O Beverage.

Labor

(1) Jane Thompson-RWDSU;
(2) John O’Neil-Teamsters Local 812;
(3) Aly Wady-UFCW Local 1500;


Contact: Dr. Richard Lipsky (914-572-2865)
See also: http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/02/crisis-of-bodegueros.html

Supermarket Crisis

As liquor stores continue to complain about the threat posed by opening up the wine market to other retail outlets-conjuring visions of shuttered stores on main street-we continue to receive new evidence that local supermarkets are in dire need of government help. As the NY Times reported last week, Manhattan Borough President Stringer is calling for a tax incentive program to bring more markets into underserved areas: "In a report to be released on Saturday, he is calling for the city to make healthy food more widely available by giving farmers’ markets and supermarkets tax and zoning incentives..."

Stringer wants to create "food enterprise zones," where tax and zoning would be used to preserve local food stores and, hopefully, incentivize the building of new supermarkets. In our view, it's about time that some elected official in the city came up with at least some plan-the mayor's only achievement has been to huff and puff; except when the health commissioner is devising cockamamie schemes to push more peddlers into low income areas.

Still, we have a companion idea that should be developed along side any incentive program: roll back taxes on local stores and cut back on their regulatory burden. This means, right off the bat, that the state should avoid the expansion of a bottle bill that increases the costs for city stores. In addition, by lifting the ban on the sale of wine, the state would help local supermarkets be more profitable, without any special tax incentives needed.

If, as the city and the state have argued, local supermarkets are a key to public health, than making them more profitable so that they can stay in inner city neighborhoods, should be seen as a tad more important than insuring an everlasting liquor store monopoly. If there is to be a "last store standing" on main street, it should be the one selling healthy food; not the one whose only product is wine and distilled spirits.

A Wining and Entitled Monopoly

The effort to maintain the state's liquor monopoly continues, not only unabated, but arrogantly entitled as well. As Newsday reported yesterday, local liquor stores have begun an intimidation campaign against Long Island wineries: "As liquor-store owners and distributors push hard against a proposal that would allow wine to be sold in grocery and other stores, backers of the plan say intimidation of winery owners has become a tactic in their arsenal...Throughout Long Island's wine region, reports that liquor-store owners have been besieging wineries with phone calls urging support have been widespread. Individual winery owners have been reluctant to label the calls intimidation, but one observer sees it differently."

As the head of the LI Farm Bureau tells the paper: "The liquor-store owners are threatening to not do business with wineries if they say they are neutral on the issue," said Joseph Gergela, executive director of the Long Island Farm Bureau, which supports the wine-in-groceries plan. He said his counterpart at the New York Farm Bureau last week had discussions with state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office to charge that liquor-store owners "are going too far with the threatening." The attorney general's office did not return calls."

This is what is known as good old fashion restraint of trade-with a group of separate businesses acting in concert to protect their state controlled market share: "Representatives of local liquor stores either deny or downplay the threats. "As a coalition, we don't talk like that," said Jeff Saunders, who heads the Last Store on Main Street group and owns McCabe's Wine and Spirits in Manhattan. But whether individual stores are telling winery owners they could be dropped if they support the plan is another matter. "We say, 'It's up to you if you want to sell them or not,'" Saunders said. "Understand that emotions are running very high because there's a chance someone's going to take some food from our families' mouths."

Just because a proposed law may be a threat is no excuse for a disparate group of store owners to threaten other businesses in order to protect a monopoly; but the behavior is part of a pattern. Just try to open up a liquor store in a neighborhood-and watch as exisitng store owners and the SLA conspire to prevent the granting of that new license in the name of a "saturated" market.

And it is this behavior that the AG should investigate; after all, with only 2500 liquor stores in the entire state, New York ranks 46 out of 48 states in the number of stores per 100,000 (over 21) potential customers. And if the competition threatens some retailers who aren't used to competition, why should anyone give a hoot? Not to worry-these stores will be easily replaced by more enterprising main street retailers.

A Pre-1974 Mentality

The Working Families Party, and its political allies, is out to bankrupt New York State, drive small business and the middle class out, and reduce all employment growth to a public sector that simply won't be able to maintain it as the state's private sector shrinks into the ether. As the NY Times reports: "A plan to raise income taxes on wealthy New Yorkers is gaining momentum in the State Legislature as lawmakers continue to grapple with the state’s gaping budget deficit. A group of Senate Democrats plans to introduce a bill on Tuesday that would impose an income tax of 10.3 percent on the highest-earning New Yorkers, a rise of 3.45 percentage points, and increase taxes on all households that earn more than $250,000 a year."

This proposal-one that we predicted would soon eclipse the so-called millionaire threshold-comes at a time when the middle class is fleeing and small business job creation is threatened by the high cost of doing business in the state; just as the Center for an Urban Future has cogently underscored.

Here's Fred Siegel's cogent analysis of the CUF report: "The fledgling tech firms left for the same reason middle-class New Yorkers are leaving: The costs of living and working in New York were far too high. The combined city and state tax of 17.6 percent on corporate profits is the nation's highest, while start-ups are hit by the city's highest-in-America's 10.5 percent income tax, plus Gotham's nearly unique 4 percent unincorporated-business tax."

But it gets worse: " It is the high cost of maintaining New York's vast public payroll (and benefits, which since 2000 grew twice as fast as those in the private sector) that makes the city so expensive. In other words, the public-sector middle class is increasingly chasing its own tail - even as the costs of government drive away private-sector jobs. The costs of paying for public-sector compensation come back to haunt the city in the form of higher sales, property and income taxes - which were unaffordable even before the crash."

The same situation holds true for the state-and the proposed personal income tax hike will only make a bad situation that much worse; something that Bill Hammond points out this morning in the NY Daily News. Hammond demonstrates that it makes little sense for the state to absorb the federal stimulus dollars in order to avoid cutting the bloat that is a direct drag on economic growth: "The likelihood that Albany will soon be deluged with federal stimulus money has big-spending interest groups licking their chops.The House and Senate haven't even agreed on the final package yet, and already the teachers union and the health care industry are dickering over how to divvy up the billions."

These are the same interests behind the "Fair Share Tax Reform" bill that is circualting in the state senate. So not only do these folks want to abscond with the federal stimulus money; they also want to raise job killing taxes at the same time: a double whammy for the private sector at a time when most of the so-called wealthy (two family wage earners making $250,000/year are not either uncommon or wealthy in New York) are trying to figure out how to recoup their 30-40 percent losses in their retirement funds.

As Hammond tells us: "Gov. Paterson should tell all of them to get in line - behind the taxpayers.
New Yorkers already pay the highest state and local taxes in the country, thanks to runaway spending on schools and health care. That tax burden would get even heavier under Paterson's doom-and-gloom budget, which included $4 billion in new or higher levies on everything from movie tickets and sugary soda to health insurance and utility bills."

This is the challenge facing Governor Paterson: "Now that Washington is coming through with emergency aid, however, the picture changes completely. State government is expected to receive $17 billion or more over the next two years, some of which is specifically earmarked for closing deficits.That's not quite enough to make next year's $13 billion deficit go away completely. But it's more than enough to wipe out Paterson's proposed tax hikes.To his credit, the governor has pledged that minimizing the pain for taxpayers will be his first priority."

This doesn't stop the WFP and friends-folks who have yet to present one concept of how the public sector is going to be made more cost effective in these tough times; talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg: "Our state is like an overweight guy who's under doctor's orders to slim down. Just when it looked like the collapsed economy would force a long-overdue weight-loss regimen, Washington pulls up with a truckload of cannoli. For the long-term health of the state, Albany lawmakers must resist the temptation to go on another spending binge.They must remember that New York's spending was already too high to be affordable before the economy crashed. Now, Wall Street is a shadow of its former go-go self, and likely to stay that way for years. New York "needs to fit itself into a smaller envelope," says Elizabeth Lynam of the Citizens Budget Commission."

So we find ourselves right back in a pre-1974 mentality; with public sector, free enterprise hostile forces, looking to maintain the former while sticking a dagger into the latter. The WFP's Bill Cantor gives the Times the following revealing quote: “No one likes to pay taxes, but this is the group that is able to bear a little bit more of the burden,” said Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party, which has been aggressively lobbying for the tax increase. “It’s common sense and its morally just.”

"Morally just!" Who's he kidding? Cantor's just shilling for those whose livelihoods depend on private sector largess-and is doing so with little or no historical memory. After all, it was the belief that New York could continually operate a quasi-socialist government in the midst of a capitalist economy that lead to the city's bankruptcy in the 1970s. Now, however, history's repeating itself with the new formulation of the Gerald Ford line: "Cantor to New York-Drop Dead!"

Immigrant Business, the Middle Class and New York City

Jonathan Bowles, of the Center for an Urban Future has written some challenging stuff on the exodus of the middle class from NYC. As City Room reports: "A new report by the Center for an Urban Future raises profound questions about the future of the middle class in New York City. The problems the report raises are well-known: a sharp increase in the cost of living, along with a reduction in the kinds of jobs that once propelled people from the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder into the realm of economic stability."

Not the kind of report that the Bloomberg Windbag Machine is likely to trumpet if it gets the chance to run for the purchased third term: "Indeed, in 2006, New York City had a higher rate of domestic out-migration than struggling upstate cities like Buffalo, Ithaca, Rochester and Syracuse. The report also noted that several key demographics — college graduates, families with school-age children, successful immigrants, municipal workers and members of the large black middle class population in eastern Queens — have seemed especially likely to leave."

Ouch! But the report has a number of potential remedies; and one in particular caught our eye: "...diversifying the economy to produce more equitable jobs..." This suggestion is mindful of some of the observations that Bowles has made on immigrant business-and its crucial importance to the city's economic growth; something that the Bloombergistas have ignored for seven years.

In 2007, testifying before the City Council's Small Business and Immigration Committees, Bowles observed: "In February of this year, the Center published a comprehensive report which concluded that immigrant entrepreneurs have become an increasingly powerful economic engine for New York City. Our report, titled A World of Opportunity, documents that foreign-born entrepreneurs are starting a greater share of new businesses than native-born residents, stimulating growth in sectors from food manufacturing to health care, creating loads of new jobs and transforming once-sleepy neighborhoods into thriving commercial centers. The report, which I authored, also went into great detail about the multitude of challenges
facing immigrant entrepreneurs."

And what exactly has the city done to nurture this phenomenon? Bowles responds as follows: "
It’s apparent from our study that immigrant entrepreneurs are already having a
remarkable impact on New York’s economy. But all of this has occurred with virtually no support from city policymakers and despite the fact that immigrant entrepreneurs often face enormous obstacles in starting and growing businesses here. With just a little support, this could be a much more potent source of future growth."

Exactly as we have pointed out; the city's immigrant entrepreneurs have successfully persevered against an indifferent and often hostile city government; one that is more concerned with the big real estate developers than in the tens of thousands of enterprising small businesses that are vital to New York's future: "Immigrant entrepreneurs clearly aren’t going to replace Wall Street. But given that foreign-born residents now make up 37 percent of the city’s population, have accounted for pretty much all of the city’s population growth over the past 25 years and generally tend to be highly entrepreneurial, we had reason to believe that immigrant entrepreneurs could be an even more important economic generator in the years ahead."

The Bowles report was written two years ago, before the city and country were thrust into this horrendous recession. So, given the importance of the immigrant entrepreneur, and given the seriousness of the economic crisis; what has Mike Bloomberg proposed to do that would nurture these enterprising folks? A small business loan program is, well, represenatative of Bloomberg's smallness of outlook-but what to expect of a wrecking crew that evicted the minority wholesalers from the Bronx Terminal Market to make way for a suburban mall; and has little pity for all of those small businesses in the path of city-sponsored eminent domain projects in West Harlem and Willets Point.

The city needs to get a grasp of this immigrant phenomenon-and has Mike Bloomberg weighed in yet on the crisis of the bodegas? Here's Bowles' suggestion: "Going forward, elected officials and local economic development officials—not only those at city agencies, but also leaders of chambers of commerce, neighborhood-based nonprofits that work with small businesses and financial institutions—will need to take a much closer look at this part of our economy."

The likelihood that Mike Bloomberg will do any of this-or that he should be entrusted to do it-is about as probable as seeing the mayor chowing down at a soup kitchen because he can't afford his next meal. Put simply, he has been the most anti-small business mayor in our memory; and, given the importance of small and immigrant business to the city's future, deserves to be replaced on the basis of this issue alone.

Tear It Down!

The ongoing controversy over the construction and deconstruction of the Yankee Stadium and surrounding neighborhood continues-with Bronxites wondering why the old stadium is still standing and the promised parkland is as yet unavailable to this asthma-ridden community. The Norwood News leads the charge:

"The list of injustices emanating from the deals surrounding the construction of the new Yankee stadium is long and depressing. But the greatest civic offense is the theft of invaluable public green space and the broken promises to provide replacement parkland to the community in a timely fashion...perhaps the grandest monument to the city’s unforgivable heist of green space in a community struggling with asthma and other public health problems, is the old Yankee Stadium, which still stands despite city promises it would be razed to make way for new baseball fields, so local kids can start running the bases again."

It seems, hold your hats, that the old ball park needed to stay because the Yankees needed the office space! The Norwood folks, citing the Times' Harvey Araton, ridicule this: "The city says the Yankees needed their old offices while constructing the new stadium. Araton, a New York Times sports columnist, points out that it’s somehow acceptable that kids all over the city can learn in trailers hogging schoolyards in perpetuity. But the Yanks can’t spend a few months in similar quarters? And the city says tearing down the old Yankee Stadium “requires a complicated public procurement process.” So, how is it that the city had no problem getting a wrecking ball at Shea Stadium in October?"

Mike Bloomberg, you last remember him as the caped crusader for clean air, has a lot to answer for on this-but so do Bronx pols who have gotten lockjaw after ceding their responsibiliities to the Yankees with no oversight: "We have one more question: Why is it that only reporters are making noise about this? Is there not one elected official who considers this important enough to at least issue a press release, especially since every elected official save one supported the project? Our fax machine hums with elected officials’ press releases on issues they have little if any control over, but when it comes to a situation where taking a stand might accomplish something? Nada."

The Bronx is ill served by its local and city wide officials on this bad deal, Certainly the new Yankee Stadium could have gotten built, and local residents could have also received equal value for the parkland that was stolen. Instead we saw the denuding of the community's green space and the accompanying frenzy by the city's lead economic agency to score a luxury box at the new ball park. What a disgrace on Mike Bloomberg and the local electeds!

Bodega Revenue Up In Smoke: Bring in the Wine!

As the NY Post reported yesterday, the cost of a pack of cigarettes is going to hit $10 bucks-as a result of the tax hikes at all levels of government: "With a new 62 cent federal tax on cigarettes added this week with the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program law, the new price of a pack of cigarettes will soar past $10 in Manhattan. The NYC price is higher than anywhere in the country and more than twice the national average. And beginning April 1, two-thirds of that cost will be made up of city, state and federal taxes."

What the Post doesn't report, however, is what these taxes mean for local stores-particularly the bodegas that are threatened with extinction. Since 2202, when the city raised the cigarette tax by a whopping 1800%, bodegas and other small stores have lost close to 60% of their tobacco sales-an incredible $250 million a year; and tobacco, for better or worse has been a cash crop for the bodegueros.

So in the midst of a major recession, and in a city with a tax happy mayor, is it any wonder that the bodega owners are looking for some protection against arbitrary eviction? And is it any further wonder that the Bodega Association has come out strongly in support of wine sales in food stores?

The addition of wine would give the bodegueros another important profit center that would greatly increase their ability to not only survive, but also prosper. We have read that the liquor stores have started a coalition called, “Last Store Standing on Main Street,” to protect their state-sponsored monopoly. If this wasn’t so sad, it would be funny; because if nothing is done to help the bodegueros-and the supermercados that are also threatened-than the liquor stores may end up actually being the only stores left in our neighborhoods that aren’t big corporate chains.

The fact is that there is enough business for all of the small stores to share; since studies have shown that, when states increase the number of wine outlets, a greater amount of the product is actually sold-which is great for all of the struggling New York State wine growers as well.

New York City food stores are becoming an endangered species-with rents, taxes and regulations pushing many of them either out of business; or, as with independent supermarkets, to other less costly locations. The addition of wine won’t solve all of their problems, but it would be a great boost to all of the city’s neighborhood economies.

Taxing Stimulation

There is a broad-based labor effort to raise taxes on New Yorkers-at just the time when billions of dollars of stimulus money is expected to come into the state for the expressed purpose of allowing states and localities to avoid economy crushing levies. As the NY Post reports: "Efforts to raise income taxes risk prolonging the state's economic slump by permanently driving a generation of laid-off bankers, traders and other top earners out of the state, say some economists and tax experts."

Right now all we can see in the federal pork-a-thon stimulus package is money for education and health care, et al; but very little that will cut tax rates and stimulate business growth-particularly in New York. And certainly there's nada for the struggling small businesses that are being forced out in droves from the city's shopping strips.

Instead we get ad hominen attacks on the governor for not embracing the personal income tax hike: "Little more than a month into his first legislative session, Gov. Paterson has come under a ferocious attack from organized labor - earlier, bigger and more personal than those that buckled his predecessors. Enraged at Paterson's refusal to discuss an income-tax hike as an alternative to $9.5 billion in budget cuts, unions have opened both barrels on their longtime ally."

Paterson for his part appears shell shocked-with his office in disarray, and seemingly both unwilling and unable to counterattack: "The Paterson administration is slipping ever deeper into petty internal politics, Capitol insiders say, pushing the governor's worried fellow Democratic elected officials into self-preservation mode. Instead of undertaking what observers believe is a much-needed overhaul of his executive staff, Gov. Paterson is standing by as the infighting builds."

But let's be clear here; the so-called millionaire's tax is just a start-because even if it passes, the tax will fall far short of generating the needed cash to close a $13 billion budget gap. The NY Post's editorial captures this slippery slope: "The numbers don't lie: State budgeteers say that the number of millionaires statewide has dropped 18 percent since 2007, while their combined gross income has fallen by some $60 billion. Thus, while the millionaire's tax Silver pushed through the Assembly last year might have been expected to raise $2.6 billion a year, he's now speaking of revenues that may not hit $1.5 billion. That's still almost $12 billion short."

So, we can expect the threshold to move downward: "So: How deeply would an income tax need to reach to get the job done? Well, a temporary income-tax boost back in 2003 (when the state's finances were far less dire) hit New Yorkers making as little as $100,000 a year. And Silver's union friends are already hard at work dragging the tax debate in precisely that direction."

What a mess! State government is bloated and it needs to be seriously trimmed; instead we get the public employees spending millions to protect their turf at tax payer expense without any countervailing response from the state's chief executive, It's not good enough to talk semi-tough, but then allow yourself to get slapped around by what really is your overpaid staff. This seems like the worst of both world's; and a recipe for disaster-both for Paterson as well as the state's beleaguered businesses.

Dancing in the Streets

Mike Bloomberg has never been known for being funny-at least not intentionally so. His Friday statements on mayoral control of the schools, however, put him in with some of the best stand up comedians of our time. As Daily Politics reported: "As the Assembly Democrats prepare to grill Schools Chancellor Joel Klein this morning on reauthorization of mayoral control of the city education system, Mayor Bloomberg is warning of dire consequences if that power is not returned to him...'My assumption is there will be a bill called mayoral control passed by the Legislature," the mayor continued. "I think that the, if they didn't do that, I think that there'd be riots in the streets, given what's the improvement. I mean, parents have choices. For the first time we're funding all the schools equally.'"

Laugh out loud! This guy's so narcissistic that he has really started to believe his own BS-and since his DOE is basically engaged in self reporting (akin to a take home test that you mark yourself), we are given the mayor's own version of mirror, mirror, on the wall. The response of one commenter to the post really underscores the fatuousness of the mayor's remarks:

"Bloomberg cannot substantiate his statements with honestly reported data.The only independent check on student achievement in New York City shows a completely different picture. The results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress administered by the US Department of Education, considered the gold standard in testing, show that student achievement in New York City has stagnated since 2003 with virtually no improvements for Black, Hispanic and low income students."

This is along the lines of what Andy Wolf has reported:

"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."

But count on the disinformation being a central feature of the Bloomberg air war come November. Unfortunately for him, however, the renewal of control is up to the state legislature-and there are many problems there. As City Room reported:

"On his radio program on Friday morning, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg suggested that if the State Legislature does not renew the 2002 law that gave him control over New York City schools there would be “riots in the street.” But hours later, as the Assembly Education Committee opened its second public hearing over the law’s renewal, most of the angry shouting was aimed at Mr. Bloomberg’s schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein. The eight Assembly members gathered in a crowded hearing room across from City Hall could hardly contain their frustration over Mr. Bloomberg’s seven-year reign over the schools as Mr. Klein testified for more than two hours."

This is what we meant by the Chico Marx nature of the mayor's defense-the obviating of fact-based analysis for multi-million dollar spinning by the Bloomberg machine. State assembly members, however, are a bit closer to the reality of the schools: "They remarked dozens of times that they felt as if parents did not have enough input, and said that even elected officials like themselves often found it impossible to get answers to basic questions about the school system." Not when the information flow is tightly controlled; and doctored before released.

And leave it to Assemblyman O'Donnel to capture the essence of the Bloomberg chicanery. Here's his response to Chancellor Klein's observation that accountability comes from voting the mayor in-or out: "Mr. O’Donnell, clearly unsatisfied with the answer, responded: “It seems that the only way is to replace the person that you report to,” referring to Mayor Bloomberg, who has promised to spend millions of his own money to win a third term. “That seems to be the only way that there is a way for parents to actually hold you accountable.” Then, Mr. O’Donnell, who could be described as a portly fellow, said: “That may or may not happen. With $100 million I could probably convince the city that I was thin.”

The NY Post also captures some of this inanity-particularly his bizarre claims about public disorder: "Bloomberg's bizarre comment only serves to underscore how completely out of touch he is with what public-school parents face every day," said Patrick Sullivan, one of 13 school policy board members whose appointments are at the heart of the mayoral-control debate."

In a media driven world, where one guy can spend tens of millions of dollars more than all of his opponents combined-even when adding all three elections together-than the notion of accountability has been rendered meaningless. The only thing that the legislature needs to do here, is to make sure that mayoral control is given the kind of hair shirt that will drive Bloomberg bonkers should he buy himself a third term. If, somehow, that fails to materialize, we'll be dancing in the streets.

Bodegas to Extinction?

El Diario has a front page story-and a companion column by Gerson Borrero-on the plight and threatened extinction of the city's 16,00 bodegas. 61% of these small stores, according to a study done by the US Latin Chamber of Commerce, are threatened with closure during the current recession: "Dueños de pequeños negocios luchan para sobrevivir en tiempo de crisis." (bodegueros struggling to stay open),

And, as Borrero points out, while all of the big firms are being bailed out: "Ni un centavo para ellos." (Not a penny for them) What we need from Albany, City Hall and Washington, is a bailout plan for the city's small retailers-rocked by high costs and decreasing customer incomes. Instead we get a mayor with caviar nights and champagne dreams; and an Albany government looking to raise taxes and costly regulations (expanding the bottle bill).

Asleep at the Switch

As if we needed to be told-the NY Daily News unveils the fact that the cost of living in NYC is very high; who would have thought? As the News tells us: "More than $2,000 a month for day care. Some of the highest phone bills in the country. Jam-packed, 50-plus-minute commutes to work. You knew it was tough to live in New York City — but this tough?"

And on top of this, we find that joblessness is about to set a record: "New York City's economic decline is likely in its early stages - and the unemployment rate may reach 10.5 percent, a level not seen since the mid-1970s administration of Mayor Abraham Beame, a new report says."

What needs to be understood here, is that, while some of these costs are tangential to government and its structure, others are directly related-since mayor after mayor has added to the public tax roles and raised taxes with little thought to their impact on the lives of average New Yorkers and the city's small retailers; none more so than Mike Bloomberg.

Bloomberg squandered the boom time cash influx by failing to rein in government spending; and even now, he's more concerned about keeping the public payroll at its current high levels than in reducing costs for New Yorkers. As the NY Post opines: "Indeed, another report - released this week by the Center for an Urban Future - cites an accelerating exodus of middle-class New Yorkers. Notably, it points to a lack of well-paying jobs and high local taxes, among other things, as driving forces."

So where was Mike Bloomberg when the exodus began-shortly after he raised the real estate tax by 20% in 2002? Perhaps he was in his Bermuda residence, or jet setting to some exotic destination in his private jet. Doesn't really matter; to us, he was simply asleep at the switch.

Flying First Crass

So now, thanks to the NY Times, we find out just what it means to travel on the Bloomberg express-far from the lowly sights and sounds of recession struggling New Yorkers. Working for the Bloomberg campaign is a first class upgrade: "Aides to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg hopscotch around the world on two Falcon 900 private jets, where wine and sushi are served. They stay at the Four Seasons in London (about $400 a night), the Intercontinental in Paris ($320) and the King David in Jerusalem ($345). Room service? The mayor pays for it all. Even the laundry."

All of this is integral to the buying of New York-a phenomenon that encompasses spending tens of millions of dollars to-in Chico Marx fashion-convince the voters that the past seven years was nothing like their lying eyes might have thought they had seen; or what misleading reporters might have erroneously told them.

It also includes the co-optation of think tanks, environmental groups and the editorial boards of the daily papers; so much so, that any real countervailing system of checks on mayoral behavior is effectively denuded of real impact. The end result is the creation of an echo chamber that has the power to filter out discordant noise that might question the putative achievement of the royal liege.

This is all then gilded by the campaign-an exercise in excess at all levels: "The billionaire mayor is turning heads these days with the hiring of high-profile operatives for his re-election campaign, including several who had previously worked for his rivals in the race. And as he seeks to entice talent to come aboard the campaign, and possibly to a third term in City Hall, Mr. Bloomberg wields a powerful tool: the perks of inhabiting his world."

And what a world it is. Bloomberg's former campaign manager, Bill Cunningham, had his children's college education covered by the bonuses that Mogul Mike shelled out after two lavishly successful campaign: "The expansive spending infuses the campaign — the mayor plans to spend $80 million on his re-election this year — but also shapes the lives of aides who follow Mr. Bloomberg to City Hall. In interviews, more than a dozen current or former aides and advisers to the mayor described their work for him as a transformative experience that catapulted them into new social and economic spheres, in some cases permanently."

What all of this means is that the Bloomberg fortune is, as far as campaign finance laws and conflict of interest statutes are concerned, so unique to normal politics that there aren't any laws that could possibly address just how untoward-and tawdry-this entire phenomenon is. After all, is it really card cheating to buy the casino?

The open question is; in the midst of a recession, when average New Yorkers are losing their jobs and unemployment is likely to rise above 10% in the city, will this jet-setting lavishness be jarring enough to prompt a majority voters to simply say, enough? And, of course, the corollary question; will the opposition even have enough scratch to point all of this out?

In 1968, Joe McGinnes wrote a seminal book on the selling of the president-how the Nixon campaign used the techniques of Madison Avenue to convince Americans to make Tricky Dick our president. In the context of the Bloomberg excess-in both governing as well as in campaigning-the McGinness book is a quaint tale indeed. In the process, however, our city's democracy has been auctioned to the highest bidder ever seen.

Divine Right

The more Mike Bloomberg is challenged, the more obvious his regal arrogance becomes-as Daily Politics and City Room both underscore. The testiness devolves from the temerity of anyone-even reporters who are assigned to cover the mayor-to challenge his royal prerogatives.

As Liz reports, Bloomberg defended his right to, basically unlimited spending, with the following revealing comments: "Asked this morning why he won't agree to a self-imposed spending cap for his bid for a third term, given that his Democratic opponents will be forced by the public financing program to limit their expenditures, Mayor Bloomberg replied:

"I have no idea what they're doing. They have to decide what they're going to do and I'll decide what I'm going to do. I might also point out it is very difficult to get a message out to the public about what we have done and what we believe."

"Sometimes, there's going to be shock at this, but sometimes some reporters don't accurately describe what we have done, are doing or will do, and so we have to find another venue."

Oh, so now we have a seven year incumbent mayor, someone who told New Yorkers that he wouldn't spend in 2005 what he spent to "introduce himself" in 2005 (circ. $80 million), saying that he needs to spend comparable obscene amounts of money a third time. Why? Because of a negligent and nefarious press corps. This would be laugh out loud funny, if it wasn't so outrageous.

Given this level of guile, we now believe that Mike Bloomberg is the one who can navigate the city through this dire fiscal crisis; and can do so, simply by selling the Brooklyn Bridge to gullible buyers-over, and over again. This is clearly someone who believes that every one is, not only for sale, but also fully malleable if enough "education money" is allocated for their edification.

Bloomberg even has the unmitigated gall to posture that this is only virtue in action; falsely arguing that his self financing is simply a righteous refusal to take public dollars. As City Room outlines: "A few minutes later, another reporter, from NY1 News, asked essentially the same question, reworded slightly" To which the mayor replied: "And I will self-finance. There is no reason for me to take public money. I don’t need the public money, and I think it would be an outrage if I took it. Period. End of story."

What classic misdirection; as if spending over $160 million on three elections-two where Bloomberg's the incumbent-wasn't an even greater "outrage." The arrogance is breathtaking, and we're hoping that the press starts to really go after all of the pretense and hypocrisy of this monarchical pretender.

City for Sale

City for Sale, the original expose done by Jack Newfield and Wayne Barret, was a tale of municipal corruption during the Koch years-with vivid descriptions of how the public interest was subverted by self serving needs and individual greed. The tome-a call for good government-is now being re-written by Mike Bloomberg, who is using his great fortune to transform good government groups into his own cats paw. In the process, the whole concept of good government is threatened with a loss of meaning.

Some of this we laid out yesterday in our critique of the virtual subornation of the Drum Major Institute and its outspoken leader, Andrea Batista Schlesinger. The DMI describes itself as a think tank that champions what it sees as middle class needs; something that, arguably, the current plutocrat in chief has ignored. The hiring of Schlesinger is a bit too much for NY Daily News columnist Errol Louis.

In his column this morning, Louis lays out his case: "Checks and balances, the pride and genius of American political culture, are out of whack in New York these days. Our system assumes City Hall will be analyzed, challenged and checked by robust political competition, fearlessly independent civic advocacy groups and a free press." All of the usual checks, however, are gone-replaced by those issued by Mike Bloomberg.

As Louis points out: "But Bloomberg's brand of checkbook politics is rewriting the rules...What bothers me is that leaders of supposedly independent, community-oriented organizations are running for the Bloomberg gravy train.The latest case in point, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, was executive director of the Drum Major Institute, a nonprofit policy and advocacy group formerly run by Fernando Ferrer, Bloomberg's Democratic rival in 2005. Four years ago, DMI supplied the data, analysis and intellectual basis for Ferrer's campaign, which challenged Bloomberg's attention to middle-class neighborhoods and concerns. Don't expect that to happen this year."

Louis goes on to observe how certain non profits received phone calls from the mayor. What happens here, is that even when some of these groups don't show up, they have been bought out of the political process-their voices silenced by cash donations. In the most egregious cases, groups appeared to testify-reading from the mayor's script.

At a time when charitable donations are disappearing in the aftermath of fiscal meltdown, one person remains standing-or giving in this case. As has been reported, Bloomberg gave out around $235 million last year. A Bloomberg donation, or simply the hope of one, is a powerful potential subornation of many so-called-but cash strapped-good government groups.

And we saw this dynamic in action during the congestion tax controversy; where previously tapped our enviros where suddenly launching ad campaigns costing high six figures. In fact, the pro-tax forces out spent the opposition on the order of 20-1! Newfield and Barrett's Meade Esposito citation is applicable here: "Today's reformer is tomorrow's hack."

But instead of bribery from well healed private sector interests to the so-called public servants, we have a unique reversal; with good government groups shedding any pretense of independence and becoming lap dogs for the interest of of one rich man-someone who believes that his own aggrandizement serves every one else's needs as well, thank you very much! So untoward is this process, that the entire concept of campaign finance has been transvaluated-rendering its original formulation obsolete and meaningless.

Will any of this matters? Will the NY Times, that champion of campaign reform, weigh in? Hardly likely, when the paper itself is drowning in red ink and taking loans from what seems like Mexico's version of Tony Soprano.

So, as Louis writes, it takes groups like Furee to remind us what independence looks like-and the only hope for democracy in this town is that others will see likewise: "The splendid, disorderly demonstration by 100 protesters who interrupted a recent speech by Mayor Bloomberg to an upscale crowd was a welcome sign that our town remains a home for free minds and independent voices. "This is what democracy looks like!" chanted members of Families United for Racial and Economic Equality, or FUREE, a grass-roots advocacy organization. Eight ended up behind bars. It was a timely reminder to Bloomberg that a significant number of people feel shut out of public decision-making in this election year. They not only want to discuss the city's substantive problems, they recognize that the normal channels for public debate have been silenced, compromised or bought off."

This is what the upcoming election cycle is all about. With Bloomberg LLP laying off 100 workers-and Bloomberg for mayor hiring a similar cohort of sycophants and retainers-we are entering an era that is the harbinger of the death of democracy; a death lead by the Kevorkian of mayors-someone who feels that the city is for sale, and that he's buying.

No Deposits, No Return

The Politicker has weighed in on the removal of the bottle bill from the deficit reduction package: "Conspicuously absent from the deficit reduction package done yesterday: a proposed expansion of the bottle deposits. What once seemed like a done deal, a popular fix to a revenue problem, is headed for a dog fight in the State Senate. Majority Leader Malcolm Smith said he remains "uncommitted" on the bill, let) alone making it a legislative priority."

And the web site also gives us credit in this outcome: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who opposes the bottle bill, claimed the omission from the deficit reduction plan as a victory. Lipsky is close to State Senator Carl Kruger, who now chairs the finance committee, and walked away from me saying he had nothing to do with the bill when I asked him about it the other day."

It is becoming apparent that ethnic considerations may also play a role in the ultimate disposition of the deposit issue: "Opposition to the bill is now being couched along ethnic lines, and it is expected that several Hispanic lawmakers - two of whom, State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. and State Senator Pedro Espada Jr., stood with Kruger in the struggle over senate leadership -- will come out against it."

Whatever the outcome, however, the "done deal" aspect of all this has certainly come apart at the seems-and the dog fight in the senate is almost inevitable since the Majority Leader has remained lukewarm to the measure. The opponents are definitely engaged on this, and we plan to make this a senator by senator battle on the bill's danger to neighborhood business.

Bottle Bill Bottled Up

As the Crain's Insider is reporting this morning, the efforts of the Paterson administration to include the "Bigger, Better, Bottle Bill" in its budget reduction package is kaput-thanks to the efforts of the industry/labor coalition:

"The bottle bill was pulled from the deficit reduction package agreed to yesterday by Gov. Paterson and Assembly and Senate leaders, in part because the bill would not have produced any revenue for this fiscal year. The bottle bill, which would expand nickel deposits to noncarbonated-beverage bottles and promote recycling, will be part of the governor’s proposal to close fiscal 2010’s deficit of $13 billion. Even worse for environmentalists, $175 million will be taken from the state’s Environmental Protection Fund to close the gap. The governor wanted to take only $50 million."

This does not mean, however, that the measure is dead for the year; since it will likely re-emerge in the ongoing budget discussions that will begin to surface as we approach the April 1st deadline. Still, the maneuver by Judy Enck in the governor's office to slip this through, was countered by the opposition-and the opponents of the expansion, particularly independent supermarkets, bodegas and green grocers that the Alliance advocates for, will continue to raise their objections.

Next week, the opposition will gather at city hall to express its concerns that the expansion of the container redemption measure will add to the burdens of local stores-at a time when these stores are struggling to survive. As Ramon Murphy, head of the Bodega Association, said in El Diario yesterday: "In addition, there should be a freeze on any new regulations that inhibit the ability of smaller retailers to make a profit. Chief among these is the proposal to expand the state’s bottle law to include water and juice containers. The compliance with the current bottle law’s mandates is too costly as it is; but adding more containers in the current economic climate is just wrong."

Down by the Levy

It begins to look more and more as if the budget process is being orchestrated by Assembly Speaker Silver-and his call for a so-called millionaire's tax: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver yesterday issued his strongest call for a massive tax hike on the wealthy to help close the state's $13 billion budget gap. "Is it fair to ask the people who make more to pay a little bit more in this time of crisis?" Silver wondered rhetorically. "We've done it before. There hasn't been a catastrophe. It is certainly a viable option that has to be considered as we go forward for the next budget."

Of course, we could also ask, is it fair for New Yorkers-of what ever stripe-to be paying more taxes at the same time that they labor under the highest tax umbrella in the nation? And is is fair to be making these suggestions soon after speaking to public sector workers who have not been asked to sacrifice at all? As the Post tells us: "Silver made his remarks after two appearances before public-employee unions in which he called for "shared sacrifice" from the rich to prevent deep cuts to education and other state services."

And what about those "deep cuts" in education? Will they be devastating for the children; or more so for the educational bureaucracy that has failed to deliver the quality services that all of the already ample funding has promised? And where is the fiscally responsible governor in all of this?

This is the question raised by the NY Post this morning: "Gov. Paterson and the Legislature were on track to raid every piggybank in New York last night, seeking to scare up $1.6 billion to balance Albany's books for the current year - but with scant regard for the $14 billion in red ink that must be sponged up for the fiscal year that starts April 1." Not a good sign of fiscal sobriety.

And the Post goes on to point out: "The governor's original 2009-2010 budget plan actually called for an overall, inflation-adjusted spending increase - to be paid for with $4.6 billion in taxes and fees, the largest tax hike in state history. This left the field clear for legislative leaders and their affiliated interest groups to prepare the way for a massive income-tax hike, on top of the imposts already budgeted by the governor."

Meanwhile, other states are taking a more sensible, small business friendly approach: "But there's still time to cut judiciously and save core government services without raising taxes and killing jobs. Other states are doing it: The Wall Street Journal noted Monday that several governors are pursuing tax cuts and other incentives to lure investment, tax revenue and jobs to their states. Minnesota is looking to freeze government wages and deeply cut spending. That will help it cut business taxes in half - and exempt small businesses from capital-gains taxes.
Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter wants to double business tax credits - while also chopping spending."

In New York? Here raising taxes and keeping government bloated is business as usual. The governor, hearing Cuomo's footsteps, should be asking; For whom does this bell toll? For as John Donne has written: "Perchance, he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him."

The Death of Good Government Revealed

The word that came down yesterday that Andrea Batista Schlesinger had been tabbed to work on the Bloomberg campaign, came as no surprise to us; our only response is: What took so long? Now you might remember that we had speculated, back during the congestion tax controversy, that ABS and her Drum Majorettes had to be on the Bloomberg payroll-so ardent were these folks in the pursuit of the mayor's commuter tax concept. Schlesinger, for her part, brayed her independence to one and all.

And, you know what? We actually almost believed her-she and the mayor did seem to have a genuine love affair; and one that wasn't-or isn't-governed by any cash nexus. In fact, the two of them are so committed to higher taxes that we have no doubt the relationship will be productive-just not for the city's tax payers. Yet, on closer inspection, this just might be a case of both love and money.

Here's how the DMI views Schlesinger's campaign role: "Bloomberg campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson confirmed Batista Schlesinger's hiring, which was announced to DMI board members yesterday via an email sent by Board Secretary Deborah Sagner...

"I am writing to you with exciting, but challenging news for DMI. Andrea has been offered a position with the Bloomberg for Mayor campaign," Sanger wrote. "She has been asked to develop and coordinate "big ideas," policy and strategy for the campaign."

"Her principal charge is to help develop ideas and rationale for a bold and progressive third term for the mayor and to make these ideas politically resonant. She will work with the campaign gurus to translate these ideas for the electorate and will represent the mayor before different groups throughout the city. She will report directly to the campaign manager."

Translation-higher taxes and more business bankruptcies. As the NY Daily News reports this morning: "Bloomberg campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said Batista Schlesinger will serve as a policy adviser, calling her "one of the leading progressive policy thinkers in the nation, and someone who is committed, like the mayor, to making this city work for all New Yorkers." Just not for its small businesses and homeowners who fall outside of ABS' middle class rubric.

And yet in the process, the DMI sounds, well, really old pol about all of this-unconcerned about any commitment to real principles: "Proximity to the mayor, who is likely but not guaranteed to be the next mayor, is a good thing for DMI no matter what our personal view of his administration. Developing relationships with people in power is a must for DMI to accomplish its goal of advancing a progressive policy agenda."

Not to worry, though; Bloomberg and ABS will have a virtual philosophical love-in, with any critique of his tax and spend profligacy a real long shot. But there's one little nugget in the DMI press release, an acknowledgement that raise questions anew about the untoward DMI-Bloomberg partnership: "Another benefit to DMI would be Andrea's strengthened connection to the Bloomberg Foundation and other funders who care about the future of NYC."

Well, well, well. A strengthened relationship strongly implies the existence of prior one; confirmation of our suspicion that during the congestion tax fight the DMI was just another wholly owned subsidiary of Mike Bloomberg. And now that down payment culminates in the direct purchase of Ms. Schlesinger-totally belying all of her previous protestations of virtue.

In Mike Bloomberg's New York, good government is a luxury item that only he can afford to buy; and all that is left to observe is rank hypocrisy. Here's the DMI's attempt at humour-proclaiming virtue while clothed in the garb of Client #9: "Such relationships, however, do not mean that anyone is above critique. DMI always holds elected officials to account and will do so to Bloomberg if he wins. Organizations are empowered when their ED's are viewed as 'players'."

Here lies the corpse of good government in New York. On a day when the, "paying taxes is the highest form of patriotism crowd," watches another presidential nominee fall on his failure to pay tax sword, it is only fitting that a self-described "truth to power" pretender gets co-opted by a sniff of political power; purveyed masterfully by the embodiment, and chief executive of special interests.

Back to the Future?

In this morning's NY Daily News, the paper compares the current fiscal crisis to the mega-meltdown in 1975-and discovers that we're doing things differently, and in some ways better: "The city's brush with bankruptcy in 1975 gave future mayors a playbook for dealing with this crisis - and it's one Mayor Bloomberg appears to be following, doing things like paying down debt, putting money aside in flush times and trying to keep spending in check."

But the News fails to highlight the ways in which the mayor is, in some significant ways, following in the footsteps of Abe Beame and company. Put simply, the mayor's expansive view of the role of municipal government was the very philosophy that got New York into so much trouble-trying to implement, in Ken Auletta's prescient view, a quasi-socialism in the city.

So, while the mayor's now talking like a tough guy, he hasn't governed like one; and it sure doesn't make up for seven years of spending and general profligacy-taxing small businesses and homeowners while expanding the city payroll. Bloomberg's surely no fiscal guardian angel, and a more heady successor is badly needed.

A Sick Poke in the Eye

The health care conglomerate of New York State is shamelessly trying to tar the governor-and frighten all of us with bogus claims of impending health care doom; all so the hospitals and its union can pick the tax payers' pockets with impunity, As the NY Post reports this morning: "A hospital trade group and a health-care union yesterday released a bizarre new attack ad - using a sightless man wearing sunglasses to slam legally blind Gov. Paterson for budget cuts."

Now it's one thing to poke fun at Paterson-as SNL did over the weekend, for his stumbling on the Kennedy fiasco; but it's quite something different when the biggest tax sponge in the state mocks the governor's disability in order to feed its bottomless money pit: "To some observers, the blind man's role in the statewide attack ad against Paterson's plan to cut health care by $3.5 billion seems too personal by even Albany's standards for no-holds-barred budget battles."

But Bill Hammond really underscores the shamelessness of this hospital/labor attempt to avoid any fiscal responsibility: "Year after year, the governor tries to rein in skyrocketing Medicaid costs that threaten to break the bank. Year after year, hospitals and nursing homes fight back with scare tactics, claiming that even modest cuts will cause patients across New York to suffer. Year after year, the Legislature caves to the pressure - and then the cycle starts over."

So what's the governor trying to do here, close scores of hospitals and threaten the health of thousands of New Yorkers? Well, not really: "It takes a lot of chutzpah to spend millions of dollars on a slick ad campaign complaining about how hard up for money you are. It takes even more to imply that Paterson, who is legally blind, is betraying the disabled. But what's really shameless is trying to blame Paterson for the industry's own management failures. The guy in the wheelchair - along with every other New Yorker - has every reason to be outraged at the bloated, inefficient, top-heavy condition of New York's health care system. But he's sending his accusatory question in the wrong direction. It's not Paterson's fault if the industry can't make ends meet when New York's incredibly generous Medicaid program annually spends $2,283 per patient, more than double the national average of $1,026."

And, of course, this unholy alliance, when it's not attacking the governor, is busy scheming on how to get the legislature to tax us even further into fiscal hell in order to feed their own addiction to poor management: 'If anything, Paterson went too easy. He didn't actually cut the Medicaid budget, just slowed the growth. Nor did he reduce benefits for the poor and disabled or change eligibility standards. He simply asked caregivers to accept marginally lower fees. The proposed cuts would reduce the revenues of hospitals and nursing homes by about 1% or 2%, according to Health Commission Dr. Richard Daines. And what does the Paterson administration get for this minimal fiscal responsibility? Cries of bloody murder."

The conspirators, however, have a different view of all this, of course. As the Post points out: "GNYHA President Kenneth Raske said that the group launched the campaign against Paterson, a former ally, with "a heavy heart" and that the attacks were not intended to be personal. "We have our back against the wall in this process," Raske said. "We have institutions that are right now hemorrhaging. Some are on the borderline of closure. This is the last thing that us and the union want to do."

All of this is simply an attempt to roll the governor who, unlike his predecessor, isn't the kind of guy to fight back in any bare knuckles way. Still, if he can't stand up to the special interests, then all of his recent welcomed fiscal sobriety will be seen as so much hot air. This challenge is a lot more significant than the senate selection that the governor fumbled. This time, it's our money that he's playing with.

Crisis of the Bodegueros

In this morning's El Diario Ramon Murphy, the head of the Bodega Association of the United States, writes an Op-Ed on the crisis facing bodega owners in New York City. As he tells us, thousands of these vital neighborhood stores are being forced into bankruptcy-depriving neighborhoods of vital services, and thousands of local jobs. In fact, bodega owners will be holding a press conference on the Small Business Preservation Act, a rent arbitration bill sponsored by Councilman Jackson, today at 11:00 AM in Washington Heights.

In the piece, he calls on our elected officials to include the bodegueros in the president's stimulus package-with an emergency fund to help prevent store closings. Murphy also asks that our state officials to stop further burdensome regulations like the expansion of the bottle bill, regs that add costs and weaken the profitability of these vital small retailers. Here's a full translation of the cry for help:

"Bodegas in New York City are in a state of crisis-with hundreds of stores forced into bankruptcy; or evicted from their locations because of exorbitant rent increases. We are, of course, in the middle of one of the worst recessions this country has seen in over twenty five years. That being said, a great deal of the plight of the bodegas can be directly attributed to the actions of government.

Bodegas, as all of the city’s neighborhood retailers, have an extremely high cost of doing business. Many of these costs are derived from high taxes and too many burdensome and costly regulations-the well publicized “ticket blitzes” that come down hard on smaller retailers. Just a few short years ago, Mayor Bloomberg hit the stores with a one-two punch: a 20% increase in the commercial real estate tax that was passed on to the stores in the form of a rent increase; and a cigarette tax that, while raising the levy from .08 cents to $1.5, effectively removed over $250 million a year from the retailers to the black market.

Now, however, the crisis on Wall Street is also a crisis on Main Street. Stores are closing and jobs are being lost. If government doesn’t act to reverse this trend, the city’s neighborhood shopping areas will resemble ghost towns; and public safety, as well as a rich community life, will be lost. What can be done to help the stores survive?

The first thing that should be done is for a portion of the federal stimulus package to be directed into a foreclosure and emergency small business loan fund to prevent the closing of so many of the city’s distressed stores. Next, the city should put a moratorium on fines and violations; substituting a warning for any first offense.

In addition, there should be a freeze on any new regulations that inhibit the ability of smaller retailers to make a profit. Chief among these is the proposal to expand the state’s bottle law to include water and juice containers. The compliance with the current bottle law’s mandates is too costly as it is; but adding more containers in the current economic climate is just wrong.
Lastly, the city should roll back its commercial real estate tax to pre-2002 levels; while simultaneously passing the Small Business Preservation Act that protects the bodegas against arbitrary evictions.

The bodegas are closing, and we need all levels of government to acknowledge their importance, and come together to help with their survival. This request isn’t a purely selfish one. The growth and prosperity of the bodegas is linked closely to that of the city itself. It’s time for action."

The Wages of Sins of Commission

Leave it to Nicole Gelinas to slice and dice Mike Bloomberg's faux tough guy persona. Writing this morning in the NY Post, Gelinas deconstructs the mayor's doomsday budget and finds a lot of posturing from someone who has been derelict for the better part of seven years: "With Wall Street self-destroyed, New York must get used to a vastly different future. Yet Bloomberg made only modest overtures toward acknowledging that things likely have changed forever."

And, as we have also pointed out, the private sector-businesses and tax payers-have been asked to make much greater sacrifices than the Bloomberg-bloated public sector: "Yes, he brought up the specter of municipal bankruptcy unless the city makes huge changes - but he's still asking for far greater sacrifice from the public and the ailing private sector than from the outsized public sector."

And there's a real simple reason for this mess-a Laurel and Hardy approach to governance that lacked any sensitivity to the impact of taxes and government growth on the vitality of the city's non Wall Street businesses. And grow city government did: "The deficit is so big because New York's spending growth since 2001 was simply unsustainable." How much so?

Take a look at the numbers and you'll see that the Bloombergistas have been spending money like drunken stockbrokers-and now we're tapped out: "From 2002 to today, city spending rose nearly 29 percent after inflation. All that kept us from drowning was an even more reckless Wall Street, whose tax revenues (temporarily) let the city indulge in booming Medicaid outlays and ever-costlier benefits for city workers. Now tax revenues are dropping at just as torrid a pace. They're on track to drop 13.5 percent between last year and the next fiscal year, which starts in July. Personal-income taxes will fall by 35 percent. Since 1971, when the city started keeping good records, New York has never seen a drop-off like this one. The money is gone."

The reason that we're in this situation goes straight to the mayor's inabilities-a complete lack of knowledge of government when he arrived, compounded by a personal philosophy that saw government expansion as good for its citizens. In effect, his nanny-like policies for calorie posting and trans fat elimination-and here comes the salt attack-are emblematic of his positive view of an interventionist government. For Mike Bloomberg, more and bigger government is better, because it has a bigger and better chance to intervene to help the folks.

This warped world view-as bankrupt as the Wall Street firms that Bloomberg identifies with-has had a withering effect on the city's small businesses and homeowners; and his budget continues to reflect this: "Second, there's Bloomberg's proposal to hike sales taxes by nearly $1 billion. This hike would push the rate up to where it was after the tech bubble burst. But that hike was proposed as temporary; this one isn't. Ending the tax exemption for clothes, as the mayor also proposes, would kill already suffering retailers...It's telling, anyway, that the mayor wants retailers to give back nearly twice as much as he's asking from his union workforce."

This all goes back to Mike Bloomberg's trained incapacities-calling NYC a, "luxury product," when the folks complained about the rising taxes and regulations. And now, instead of insisting that the bailout money be used for avoiding tax increases in the city and state, he's planning on taking the money for public sector purposes; and paving the way for the further erosion and deterioration of a local economy that will not be able to depend on Wall Street cash for the foreseeable future.

This approach is a recipe for a municipal calamity; and Gelinas gets the last word: "Finally, there's his inexplicable expectation of a huge improvement in the budget in just 16 months. Starting then, the mayor expects 8.4 percent growth in existing tax revenue, driven by a 20.1 percent gain from the personal-income tax...It's impossible to predict where the local economy will go. But the simple fact is that it's just as likely that today's drop in tax receipts is a return to normal - that revenues will never bounce back to the insane growth seen from the Wall Street bubble. So it would be safer to assume nothing. That, and not counting on a permanent sales-tax hike, would make the deficit balloon to nearly $7 billion by then, instead of $3.2 billion. Such numbers would make it harder for labor, the City Council (and everyone else, too) to dodge real reforms."

The Bloom Is Off The Pose

Michael Goodwin nails down some of the disconcerting policy thinking that's coming out of City Hall these days. He's particularly concerned that Mike Bloomberg, with his tax hikes and fees, is working at cross purposes with the president who's intent on providing middle class tax cuts: "It's the "best of times" if you're in the middle class President Obama is targeting for help. It's the "worst of times" if you're in the middle class Mayor Bloomberg is targeting for tax hikes and layoffs. If that sounds like incoherence, you get my point. Our federal and local governments continue to work at cross purposes when it comes to lifting the economy and helping ordinary Americans. The only thing they're stimulating is confusion."

But what's even more of a concern to us, is the posturing and posing from the world's smartest businessman. Adam Lisberg captures the flim flammery in yesterday's NY Daily News: "The bigger irony, though, is that the budget he presented isn't as tough as he tried to make it seem.
For one thing, it's a little higher than last year, even as tax revenues plunge. The total budget is almost $1.3 billion less than last year, but with state and federal supplements stripped away, city spending rises $123 million from the year before. Bloomberg called that basically flat. If that's true, though, why did he make such a big deal about some tiny but painful cuts - like that $5.1 million for the homeless - that got a page to themselves in his budget book?"

Why, indeed? The reason lies with the fact that Bloomberg is simply posturing-at the same time he's using smoke and mirrors to cover up seven years of payroll padding and tax hiking: "They were the kind of items designed to make hardworking, taxpaying New Yorkers squeal: Save $3.4 million by letting some low-risk prisoners out of jail early. Save $3.3 million by cutting ambulance runs. Raise $16.8 million from higher parking meter rates. Raise $84 million by taxing plastic bags. Finding money to stifle some of those minor squeals should be easy enough, and proposing them in the first place makes Bloomberg look like a man unafraid to make the most difficult choices."

It's all a fraud, of course; designed to misdirect the folks away from the epiphany that deconstructs the idea that Mogul Mike is our fiscal saviour: "No one seems happier bearing bad news than Bloomberg. He started out as a businessman looking for money, not a politician looking for praise - and his time in office has convinced him that New Yorkers love a mayor who doesn't sugarcoat his medicine."

And Bloomberg does this vinegar coating in order to create a tough guy image, one that belies the reality that a great deal of the fiscal mess we're in is caused by the city's chief executive; someone who failed to scale back government in the boom times, even while he was increasing the tax burden on home owners and small businesses. As we have said, the chickens have come home to roost-but it's the tax payers who are the pigeons in all of this.

Bloomberg's Park Mugging

We have commented repeatedly about the city's bad deal on the construction of the new Yankee Stadium-with a particular emphasis on the outrage over the despoliation of the neighborhood parkland. Now, the NY Post weighs in; castigating Bloomberg for misfeasance in the matter:

"Don't blame the Yankees for City Hall's inability to build a park on time. The new Yankee Stadium will open in three short months - but it may be another two years before all eight promised city parks near the new ballfield open. Moreover, the Independent Budget Office says the cost of the new parks will be at least $195 million - $79 million over budget and counting. There's really no excuse for it."

Now this is the managerial maven Mike Bloomberg we're talking about-ruling over an economic development team more concerned with scoring a luxury box that in insuring that a community would have access to its parks on time. And this is on top of the fact that the parks in question are inferior substitutes for the original greenery.

The city for its part, is taking this all in with a lackadaisical attitude: "In any event, there's no reason the full renovation should be two years late. But the Parks Department ho-hummed the IBO report: "It's consistent with what we've been saying all along," a spokeswoman said. With that attitude, the parks won't be done until a third Yankee Stadium is built another century from now."

Now this scandal isn't the fault of Mike Bloomberg alone; Adolfo Carrion, Maria Baez and Maria Carmen Arroyo deserve the infamy as well. They set the table for the Yankee largess-and didn't give a tinker's damn about the neighborhoods they're supposed to represent. Councilwoman Helen Foster was the only elected to stand up-along with CB #4; whose members were sacked as a reward.

It's one thing to shill for every mega-project that comes down the pike. It's quite another, to allow the surrounding communities to suck hind teat when the bulldozers are done with their decimation. This is, however, a significant part of Mike Bloomberg's legacy.

Doom and Gloomberg

We watched the mayor's budget presentation last week, and were amused by his discussion of the sales tax versus the income tax-waxing knowledgably about the difference between regressive taxes and more progressive ones. In a nutshell, he opted for a sales tax hike-definitely regressive-because, apparently, he was going to give Albany the honors on the income tax hike; something he obviously expects.

To us, this is all about the chickens coming home to roost-a mayor who, when flush with Wall Street cash, hired more public employees and expanded government. Now, however, he's forced to resort to dire measures-threatening police and fire reductions-all because of his seven years of misfeasance. Yet, he wants us to see him as the tough leader, willing to make the tough decisions.

This, as the NY Post editorialized on Saturday, is sheer nonsense. Bloomberg's toughness, apparently doesn't apply to the city's workforce: "Mayor Bloomberg sent out an odd message yesterday as he presented his budget plans: City employees are . . . special - and must be cushioned from the economic blows now wreaking havoc with most everyone else's lives. Hizzoner didn't use those exact words, of course. But his $63 billion tax-and-spend plan for the coming fiscal year goes out of its way not to ask major sacrifices of municipal employees."

But the same isn't true for New York's tax payers and neighborhood retailers. As the Post observed: "His $58.8 billion spending plan for 2010 also calls for boosting the sales tax from 8.375 to 8.625 percent, reinstituting the tax on all clothing purchases and piggybacking on Albany's plan to expand the sales tax to iPod downloads, theaters, cable-TV bills and other services. If approved by the City Council and the state - and approval is by no means certain - the sales-tax hike would raise $894 million."

The mayor, however, doesn't stop there. As the NY Times has indicated: "The increase in the New York City sales tax that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg proposed on Friday may tack no more than a quarter onto a $100 dinner tab. But it is just the latest addition to a long list of proposed tax, fee and transit fare increases that the city and state governments have sprung on New Yorkers in the past few months. While any of those proposed increases might seem insignificant alone, added together they could take a serious bite out of the average taxpayer’s earnings."

And what does Bloomberg think the impact of his taxes and fees will be? In an economic environment where, according to the Small Business Congress, almost 7,000 store owners are facing evictions, this budget is more than just tone deaf to the city's struggling businesses. It is an invitation to a shopping exodus-with the malls of Bergen County waiting with open arms.

And just to add injury to insult to injury, Bloomberg wants to raise $84 million by taxing plastic bags and even more money by hiking the parking meter rates. As the Post tells us: "Also on the table: a 5-cent tax on plastic bags to bring in $84 million and an increase in parking-meter rates..." Still another knife in the back to struggling stores.

In this context, all of the discussion over what kind of taxes to increase is quite Kafkaesque-all of these taxes are bad for the city's economy, And we agree with Steve Kagann, who told the Times: "Raising any taxes, he says, would hurt the economy, blaming steady tax increases during the 1970s for exacerbating the loss of jobs in New York State. “To raise taxes at this time, during a recession, guarantees that jobs are going to be lost in greater numbers than they would under normal circumstances,” Mr. Kagann said."

All of which underscores just how much of a disaster the Bloomberg tenure has been. Having no real understanding of government when he entered, and burdened with a troglodyte liberal philosophy that was imbued with a counterproductive ethic of "helping," he failed to approach governing with any of his supposed business acumen.

The result, as the Times points out, is the following: "It is far from clear whether all, or any, of the proposed increases will be enacted. But the depth of the fiscal crises facing Albany, City Hall and the transportation authority has left elected officials with two main choices: slash spending or raise taxes. Increasingly, it appears that they will have to do both."

This is the Mike Bloomberg legacy: lost opportunities covered up by Bloombucks spinning. Will the people begin to see through the Myth of Mike? Let's hope so.