We guess that we need to give some kind of a shout out to Crain's Insider's Erik Engquist who elevated us-over a cast of hundreds-as one of the biggest losers in the recently concluded budget battle: "Supermarkets: They struck out on their top two issues, the bottle bill and wine sales. Supermarkets didn’t want the hassle of taking back empty water bottles, and they desperately wanted to sell wine. Lobbyist Richard Lipsky suffered both defeats, and the additional blow of having the wine bill killed in part by his ally, Sen. Carl Kruger, D-Brooklyn."
Now over the past twenty five years we have been in the forefront of many battles, and as a result, a certain amount of notoriety gets attached; so much so, that at times we get undeserved credit for victories that we played a minor role in. Similarly, we often shoulder the blame for defeats that-as with the victories-were team efforts. On balance, however, this stuff all evens out. Or, as one wag once put it: "I'd rather have flunked my Wasserman test, then never to have loved at all."
Others are stepping up in response to the legislative assault on the food and beverage industry-not chagrined, but angry. Also in Crain's: "No one is more incensed at how the state budget unfolded than the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500, which was “treated with a lack of respect,” says organizer Pat Purcell. He blasts Sen. Daniel Squadron, D-Brooklyn, for supporting the bottle bill before anyone read it and slams the governor’s top environmental adviser, Judith Enck, for calling UFCW “tools of the supermarket industry.” Says Purcell, “We may not win everything, but at least represent us. Don’t ignore us. Don’t be condescending. Don’t seek money from us with one hand and stick your finger in your ear with the other.” The union will respond with a public campaign titled “We Matter.”
So, as we said, this is always a team issue-but anyone who puts themselves out in front will have to develop a thick skin. And as far as the wine issue goes, it ain't over yet-but that's for another post.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Bottle Bill Protest Today
There will be a bottle bill protest at an independent supermarket located in the Bronx today. The protest is being led by Nelson Eusebio, Chairman of New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes, New York tax payers, and small business owners. The purpose of the protest is to highlight just how the expanded bottle law is a massive hidden tax on New York's consumers.
WHERE: C Town Supermarket: 1750 University Avenue Bronx, NY (near 176th and University Ave).
WHEN: Tuesday, March 31st at 12:00 PM
WHY: The expanded bottle bill is not about cans, it’s about cash; it’s aggressive tax policy disguised as environmental progress. DO NOT BE FOOLED. If passed, this unfair, misguided and hidden tax could:
1. Eliminate thousands of New York jobs;
2. Further hamper New York businesses;
3. Further damage New York’s already fragile economy;
4. Place an additional burden on the backs of hard working – and disproportionately lower and middle income – New Yorkers;
5. Mean the triumph of back-room, closed-door policy-making…and will signal the death of “transparency” in state government;
6. Represent a confiscatory state-money grab of over $100 million each year;
7. Make a mockery of “representative” Government.
This could be just the beginning of protests that might roil the structure of state government in the weeks and months ahead; perhaps even heeding Greg David's call to arms: "Any effort to change this state of affairs will have to be organized and financed by business. This is not so easy. Business groups are divided by geography: upstate, suburban and New York City. Industry groups are primarily concerned with their own parochial issues...Twice in the 1990s, which seems like the distant past, business leaders did mobilize against incumbents. In 1993, fearing the city was in grave danger under David Dinkins, executives opened their wallets for Rudy Giuliani. The next year, many did so again for George Pataki, despite the clear likelihood that Mario Cuomo would penalize them if he won reelection. In both elections, the challenger decided to run and then business decided to back the insurgent."
So, is this a similar situation? Hard to say if we're there yet; but just the thought-to borrow from the puerile Chris Matthews-sends a thrill up our leg.
WHERE: C Town Supermarket: 1750 University Avenue Bronx, NY (near 176th and University Ave).
WHEN: Tuesday, March 31st at 12:00 PM
WHY: The expanded bottle bill is not about cans, it’s about cash; it’s aggressive tax policy disguised as environmental progress. DO NOT BE FOOLED. If passed, this unfair, misguided and hidden tax could:
1. Eliminate thousands of New York jobs;
2. Further hamper New York businesses;
3. Further damage New York’s already fragile economy;
4. Place an additional burden on the backs of hard working – and disproportionately lower and middle income – New Yorkers;
5. Mean the triumph of back-room, closed-door policy-making…and will signal the death of “transparency” in state government;
6. Represent a confiscatory state-money grab of over $100 million each year;
7. Make a mockery of “representative” Government.
This could be just the beginning of protests that might roil the structure of state government in the weeks and months ahead; perhaps even heeding Greg David's call to arms: "Any effort to change this state of affairs will have to be organized and financed by business. This is not so easy. Business groups are divided by geography: upstate, suburban and New York City. Industry groups are primarily concerned with their own parochial issues...Twice in the 1990s, which seems like the distant past, business leaders did mobilize against incumbents. In 1993, fearing the city was in grave danger under David Dinkins, executives opened their wallets for Rudy Giuliani. The next year, many did so again for George Pataki, despite the clear likelihood that Mario Cuomo would penalize them if he won reelection. In both elections, the challenger decided to run and then business decided to back the insurgent."
So, is this a similar situation? Hard to say if we're there yet; but just the thought-to borrow from the puerile Chris Matthews-sends a thrill up our leg.
Hello, He Must Be Going
The concluded budget process has turned David Paterson into Captain Spaulding, whose famous phrase was, "Hello, I must be going." As the NY Post's Jacob Gershman observes: "Paterson confirmed the fear that he's the nation's weakest governor, sealing his fate as a lame duck. It'll be up to New York's next chief executive to rescue the state from bankruptcy."
At the same time, as we have also pointed out elsewhere, this budget fiasco-with an additional $8 billion in new spending while NY business craters-opens the door wide for a challenge to Democratic hegemony: "No one will remember that he got an on-time budget or the minor victories buried in the bonanza of outlays (such as a long-overdue adjustment to hospital Medicaid reimbursements). The big story is that Paterson let lawmakers bury their heads in the sand and produce a budget that fiscal analysts are calling a "recession-proof porkfest." "We're going to run against Paterson," says a Republican source. "People will blame the governor, his party and those who do his bidding."
But it's the entire party-not to mention the state's fiscal good health-that will be threatened: "The long-term shakeout has the potential to elevate a moderate Democrat to the front of next year's governor's-race pack, stir a leadership rebellion in the Legislature and give Republicans a new lease on life."
So while it is clear, as the NY Times points out, that Shelly Silver basically slapped the other two leaders silly, it might also be true that the victory he achieved was a Pyrrhic one: "At the same time, the state’s main financial engine, Wall Street, is undergoing a profound transformation and unlikely to soon produce the tax revenues of its heyday. Some wonder if an Albany led mainly by Mr. Silver will be willing to confront that reality."
Clearly, however, Paterson was out of his depth-bending and breaking on all of the faux fiscal discipline he had articulated in the run up to the budget process, As the Times underscored in another news analysis: "But as outside analysts began poring over hundreds of pages of the budget, they said they saw little evidence of stern spending discipline, even in the face of a major recession. In closing a budget deficit that in the end surpassed $17 billion, lawmakers relied on billions of dollars in new taxes and fees, some of which may not even raise as much revenue as hoped if the economy continues to worsen. And like every Albany budget, whether in good years or bad, this one includes $170 million worth of what critics call pork-barrel spending for lawmakers’ pet projects."
So while we have complained about the poor decision making in our own little world of food and drink, it is the entire state that has been ill served by the leadership in Albany. All that's left is the voter blow back-and the WFP's short term triumph may well be short lived, as tax payers begin to realize how privileged and wealthy they really are when their payment due notices come in.
At the same time, as we have also pointed out elsewhere, this budget fiasco-with an additional $8 billion in new spending while NY business craters-opens the door wide for a challenge to Democratic hegemony: "No one will remember that he got an on-time budget or the minor victories buried in the bonanza of outlays (such as a long-overdue adjustment to hospital Medicaid reimbursements). The big story is that Paterson let lawmakers bury their heads in the sand and produce a budget that fiscal analysts are calling a "recession-proof porkfest." "We're going to run against Paterson," says a Republican source. "People will blame the governor, his party and those who do his bidding."
But it's the entire party-not to mention the state's fiscal good health-that will be threatened: "The long-term shakeout has the potential to elevate a moderate Democrat to the front of next year's governor's-race pack, stir a leadership rebellion in the Legislature and give Republicans a new lease on life."
So while it is clear, as the NY Times points out, that Shelly Silver basically slapped the other two leaders silly, it might also be true that the victory he achieved was a Pyrrhic one: "At the same time, the state’s main financial engine, Wall Street, is undergoing a profound transformation and unlikely to soon produce the tax revenues of its heyday. Some wonder if an Albany led mainly by Mr. Silver will be willing to confront that reality."
Clearly, however, Paterson was out of his depth-bending and breaking on all of the faux fiscal discipline he had articulated in the run up to the budget process, As the Times underscored in another news analysis: "But as outside analysts began poring over hundreds of pages of the budget, they said they saw little evidence of stern spending discipline, even in the face of a major recession. In closing a budget deficit that in the end surpassed $17 billion, lawmakers relied on billions of dollars in new taxes and fees, some of which may not even raise as much revenue as hoped if the economy continues to worsen. And like every Albany budget, whether in good years or bad, this one includes $170 million worth of what critics call pork-barrel spending for lawmakers’ pet projects."
So while we have complained about the poor decision making in our own little world of food and drink, it is the entire state that has been ill served by the leadership in Albany. All that's left is the voter blow back-and the WFP's short term triumph may well be short lived, as tax payers begin to realize how privileged and wealthy they really are when their payment due notices come in.
Albany to Business: "Hit the Road Jack!"
As Crain's has reported, the just concluded state budget basically poleaxes New York business: "The business community is bitterly disappointed with the state budget agreement reached Sunday in Albany, especially $7 billion in new taxes and fees. Many of the new revenues will make it more expensive to do business here, according to Ken Pokalsky, senior director of government affairs for the Business Council of New York State."
Make no mistake about it; this is a full, all out offensive against the private sector-with the governor in a foetal position, much like a man looking to avoid the physical effects of the worst possible kind of beating. A beating, is quite clear, expertly administered by that Albany black belt-Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.
It's almost impossible to see any sunlight in all of this: "The new budget raises the cost of health care, energy and taxes, which are the areas where businesses most need relief, he said. “On all three of those top issues, this budget makes the state less competitive,” Mr. Pokalsky said from his Albany office. “It’s hard to find the positives.”
And what's beneath all of the "shared sacrifice" rhetoric? The reality that government continues to balloon while the private sector prepares for a new version of planned shrinkage: "Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, which represents many large corporations, said, “The problem is that the state is spending more than the tax base can support.”
And not only that; as we take a look at our little piece of the poisoned pie-the state's food and beverage industries under the new expanded bottle law regime. We haven't even begun to add up the costs of the new regs; but consider the following:
(1)Mandatory RVM’s - Dealers who are part of a chain of 10 or more units who have between 40,000 and 60,000 square feet must install and maintain at least three (3) reverse vending machines, between 60,000 and 85,000 square feet must install and maintain four (4) reverse vending machines and dealers who have over 85,000 square feet must install and maintain eight (8) reverse vending machines. This provision becomes effective March 1, 2010;
(2)Handling Fee – The handling fee is increased from 2¢ to 3.5¢. This provision is effective April 1, 2009;
(3)Collection Materials – The bill provides that it will be the responsibility of the deposit initiator or distributor to provide the dealer or redemption center with a sufficient number of bags, cartons or other containers, at no cost, for the packing and handling and pick-up of empty containers that are not redeemed through reverse vending machines. Additionally, a distributor or deposit initiator may not require a dealer to load their own bags, cartons or containers onto the distributor’s vehicles;
(4)State Seizing Unclaimed Nickels – Deposits must be placed in an interest bearing segregated account for New York State. Each deposit initiator shall file a quarterly report with the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance. The state will seize 80% of the balance of the account at the close of each quarter. Where a deposit initiator pays out more nickels than they collect, they may apply for a refund from the state, but there is no guarantee that reimbursement will be paid;
(5)Registered Labels – Beginning June 1, 2009, each deposit initiator must register the container label of any beverage offered for sale in the state.
Examine each of the above regulations and you'll find an increased cost of distribution embedded like rusty spike-a harbinger of higher prices, reduced sales and less productivity; not to mention potential bankruptcies for small, ethnic bottlers.
And, as Crain's underscores, the lawmakers eschewed the one positive, revenue generating proposal that was before them: "Ironically, legislators junked the one proposed revenue enhancer that many in the business world wanted: A fee that beer-selling stores could pay for the right to sell wine. Instead, liquor stores will maintain their monopoly on wine sales."
It all makes for a rather grim prospect for job growth in one of the highest taxed, and over regulated, states in the entire country. Who knows, perhaps we can all go to work at the plethora of new redemption centers that NYPIRG envisions will flourish-claimed under the pretense of job creation-with the extra penny and a half handling fee for deposit containers?
Make no mistake about it; this is a full, all out offensive against the private sector-with the governor in a foetal position, much like a man looking to avoid the physical effects of the worst possible kind of beating. A beating, is quite clear, expertly administered by that Albany black belt-Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.
It's almost impossible to see any sunlight in all of this: "The new budget raises the cost of health care, energy and taxes, which are the areas where businesses most need relief, he said. “On all three of those top issues, this budget makes the state less competitive,” Mr. Pokalsky said from his Albany office. “It’s hard to find the positives.”
And what's beneath all of the "shared sacrifice" rhetoric? The reality that government continues to balloon while the private sector prepares for a new version of planned shrinkage: "Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, which represents many large corporations, said, “The problem is that the state is spending more than the tax base can support.”
And not only that; as we take a look at our little piece of the poisoned pie-the state's food and beverage industries under the new expanded bottle law regime. We haven't even begun to add up the costs of the new regs; but consider the following:
(1)Mandatory RVM’s - Dealers who are part of a chain of 10 or more units who have between 40,000 and 60,000 square feet must install and maintain at least three (3) reverse vending machines, between 60,000 and 85,000 square feet must install and maintain four (4) reverse vending machines and dealers who have over 85,000 square feet must install and maintain eight (8) reverse vending machines. This provision becomes effective March 1, 2010;
(2)Handling Fee – The handling fee is increased from 2¢ to 3.5¢. This provision is effective April 1, 2009;
(3)Collection Materials – The bill provides that it will be the responsibility of the deposit initiator or distributor to provide the dealer or redemption center with a sufficient number of bags, cartons or other containers, at no cost, for the packing and handling and pick-up of empty containers that are not redeemed through reverse vending machines. Additionally, a distributor or deposit initiator may not require a dealer to load their own bags, cartons or containers onto the distributor’s vehicles;
(4)State Seizing Unclaimed Nickels – Deposits must be placed in an interest bearing segregated account for New York State. Each deposit initiator shall file a quarterly report with the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance. The state will seize 80% of the balance of the account at the close of each quarter. Where a deposit initiator pays out more nickels than they collect, they may apply for a refund from the state, but there is no guarantee that reimbursement will be paid;
(5)Registered Labels – Beginning June 1, 2009, each deposit initiator must register the container label of any beverage offered for sale in the state.
Examine each of the above regulations and you'll find an increased cost of distribution embedded like rusty spike-a harbinger of higher prices, reduced sales and less productivity; not to mention potential bankruptcies for small, ethnic bottlers.
And, as Crain's underscores, the lawmakers eschewed the one positive, revenue generating proposal that was before them: "Ironically, legislators junked the one proposed revenue enhancer that many in the business world wanted: A fee that beer-selling stores could pay for the right to sell wine. Instead, liquor stores will maintain their monopoly on wine sales."
It all makes for a rather grim prospect for job growth in one of the highest taxed, and over regulated, states in the entire country. Who knows, perhaps we can all go to work at the plethora of new redemption centers that NYPIRG envisions will flourish-claimed under the pretense of job creation-with the extra penny and a half handling fee for deposit containers?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Wine Could Still Ferment
While it is clear that, at least as it currently stands, wine is not included in the budget resolution, there is still a possibility that it will be resurrected since the state's revenue continues to free fall. As Newsday points out: "Supporters of the proposal said the decision will cost New Yorkers millions of dollars in added revenue that would have been generated by licensing and other fees. "The money that this could generate is the equivalent of retaining 4,000 state employees that now could be laid off," said David Vermillion, spokesman for a coalition supporting the change."
And as the red ink continues to mount, it is likely that the legislature will have to return in June to make adjustments to make up for the growing deficit; and by that point the $140 million of wine fees is going to get better looking by the hour. As Daily Politics points out: "The governor wouldn't rule out the possibility that this budget will have to be revisited as the state's fiscal outlook worsens - and he expects revenues to drop by at least another $2 billion to $3 billion. But he also said that has been "anticipated" in the financial plan."
Right, but Paterson's no Carly Simon; and the governor's touting of anticipation falls far short in our view-although her song's lyrics have a curious resonance for our governor and his disastrous budget: "
We can never know about the days to come
But we think about them anyway, yay
And I wonder if I'm really with you now
Or just chasin' after some finer day
Anticipation, anticipation
Is makin' me late
Is keepin' me waitin'
So, as the budget gap grows-and more stimulus is needed-we may yet recapture the Days of Wine and Roses; unless Speaker Silver remains adamant in his protection of the 80 year old state sponsored monopoly. Soon, we could be starting to hear Yogi Berra's old refrain: "It's never over, till it's over."
And as the red ink continues to mount, it is likely that the legislature will have to return in June to make adjustments to make up for the growing deficit; and by that point the $140 million of wine fees is going to get better looking by the hour. As Daily Politics points out: "The governor wouldn't rule out the possibility that this budget will have to be revisited as the state's fiscal outlook worsens - and he expects revenues to drop by at least another $2 billion to $3 billion. But he also said that has been "anticipated" in the financial plan."
Right, but Paterson's no Carly Simon; and the governor's touting of anticipation falls far short in our view-although her song's lyrics have a curious resonance for our governor and his disastrous budget: "
We can never know about the days to come
But we think about them anyway, yay
And I wonder if I'm really with you now
Or just chasin' after some finer day
Anticipation, anticipation
Is makin' me late
Is keepin' me waitin'
So, as the budget gap grows-and more stimulus is needed-we may yet recapture the Days of Wine and Roses; unless Speaker Silver remains adamant in his protection of the 80 year old state sponsored monopoly. Soon, we could be starting to hear Yogi Berra's old refrain: "It's never over, till it's over."
Low Flying Fruit
The NY Post's Dave Seifman comments on Mayor Mike's evanescence when it comes to the issue of tolls: "MAYOR BLOOMBERG adopted a low pro file in the high-stakes fight to rescue the MTA after being warned by transit advocates that his involvement could actually hurt their cause in Albany. "The politicians up there really hate the mayor," said one source. "It would be poison for him to inject himself." Yuh think?
Well, for us, this is the one reason why it might be fun to see Mike Bloomberg serve another four years-just so he can be Shelly Silver's pinata; not to mention the favorite target of some Senate Dems. But with a cash reserve of 15 billion dollars, we don't think that Miguelito will suffer all that much; although we can't wait to see the kind of poison pill that Shelly sticks into the renewal legislation on mayoral control of the schools.
Speaking of which, we had dinner the other night with some old friends-one of whom is teaching in the NYC schools as a second career. Listening to him, you wouldn't believe that the city's tabloids are occupying the real world; tales of watered down tests and funds being diverted for a testing regime designed to, well, put lipstick on a pig.
As one poster underscored on the Gothamschools website: "We do endless test prep. As much as principals might genuinely care about inspiring curiosity and giving the kids a well-rounded education, all that really matters are the scores. We didn't even get units for November and December in my school because the understanding was that we'd be doing hardcore test prep."
And, as the Public Advocate hopeful Bill De Blasio points out, it's money for testing all the time: "The Department of Education could foot the salaries of more than a thousand teachers with the money it spends measuring and promoting student performance, according to a report released today by City Council member Bill De Blasio." The DOE is hot wiring the data, and it will be left to the front group Learn NY to shuck and jive this charade forward in the upcoming debate over mayoral control.
We can't wait to see how the legislature treats this flim flamming. There's not enough disinfectant to clean this mess up-and the only thing missing here-as it is with the MTA debate-is the Wizard of Oz mayor being taken to the woodshed for his less than stellar-Pygmy like-school performance; doing less with more even while the flacks and toadies try to convince us otherwise.
Well, for us, this is the one reason why it might be fun to see Mike Bloomberg serve another four years-just so he can be Shelly Silver's pinata; not to mention the favorite target of some Senate Dems. But with a cash reserve of 15 billion dollars, we don't think that Miguelito will suffer all that much; although we can't wait to see the kind of poison pill that Shelly sticks into the renewal legislation on mayoral control of the schools.
Speaking of which, we had dinner the other night with some old friends-one of whom is teaching in the NYC schools as a second career. Listening to him, you wouldn't believe that the city's tabloids are occupying the real world; tales of watered down tests and funds being diverted for a testing regime designed to, well, put lipstick on a pig.
As one poster underscored on the Gothamschools website: "We do endless test prep. As much as principals might genuinely care about inspiring curiosity and giving the kids a well-rounded education, all that really matters are the scores. We didn't even get units for November and December in my school because the understanding was that we'd be doing hardcore test prep."
And, as the Public Advocate hopeful Bill De Blasio points out, it's money for testing all the time: "The Department of Education could foot the salaries of more than a thousand teachers with the money it spends measuring and promoting student performance, according to a report released today by City Council member Bill De Blasio." The DOE is hot wiring the data, and it will be left to the front group Learn NY to shuck and jive this charade forward in the upcoming debate over mayoral control.
We can't wait to see how the legislature treats this flim flamming. There's not enough disinfectant to clean this mess up-and the only thing missing here-as it is with the MTA debate-is the Wizard of Oz mayor being taken to the woodshed for his less than stellar-Pygmy like-school performance; doing less with more even while the flacks and toadies try to convince us otherwise.
Albany to Supermarkets and Bottlers: Drop Dead!
David Paterson, the governor whose poll ratings are approaching junk bond status, ignored the pleas of food industry executives and supermarket unions, and pushed through the expansion of the bottle bill that will drive another nail in the coffin of food retailers in New York City: "The agreement announced just before midnight Saturday also restores some proposed cuts in health care and higher education and expands the state's bottle law, putting nickel deposits on bottled water under the measure that currently covers only carbonated drinks."
The agreement is also being reported by NY1: "The bottle bill will also be expanded to include new nickel deposits on bottled water..." Unreported is the fact that, as far as we know, the measure includes a "NY Only" on all deposit containers-something apparently designed to stymie non-New York bottles and cans from being redeemed. Missed by all of the legislative hochems, is the fact that over 95% of downstate retailers redeem manually-and not with reverse vending machines that can spot the out of state containers.
This seemingly rational measure is, unfortunately, irrational-and devastating to all of the state's small bottlers who can't afford the duplicate lines and storage space necessary to accommodate the additional inventory requirements. So for Good-O, Inca Kola and Top Pop-just to name a few-this could, in combo with the nickel heist, really mean their demise. And, as far as the unredeemed deposits are concerned, it will lead to a nice steep price increase at the check out-a regressive tax on all of those struggling New Yorkers trying to make ends meet.
And with Coco Cola threatening to close plants in retaliation-especially in Senator Thompson's Buffalo district, the bottle bill will be a job killing measure; except in the mind of NYPIRG's Laura Haight: "Opponents, including Coca Cola bottlers, are threatening to leave the state, and say thousands of jobs may be lost if the bill becomes law. Environmentalists and redemption centers argue that an increased handling fee in the bill for stores and redemption locations will actually create more jobs."
Haight certainly can't tout any degree from the London School of Economics. If higher costs lead to plant and store closings, as they will in this case, the fact that a new government tax is sending a bit of loose change into the redemption system won't alter that scenario. As for jobs at redemption centers, you''ll be able to count them with the fingers of one hand.
Which brings us back to the supermarkets-and the governor's professed concern for promoting their growth in low income neighborhoods. Here's a synopsis from the governor's January state of the state address:
"In the New York State of the State address today, Governor David A. Paterson announced the Healthy Food/Healthy Communities Initiative, part of his signature initiative to combat the childhood-obesity epidemic. Research shows that the presence of supermarkets in communities helps to prevent obesity. The Healthy Food/Healthy Communities Initiative is modeled on a successful Pennsylvania program, the Fresh Food Financing Initiative (FFFI), which is helping to alleviate the scarcity of grocery stores in low-income communities. The fund has provided $51.8 million in grants and loans to 62 supermarkets projects across the state. In 2008, Harvard University named FFFI one of the nation’s most innovative government programs."
Okay, so what's the state doing on behalf of supermarkets? Well, exactly nothing except piling on more and more regulatory and tax burdens to make operating in the state more expensive. Which is the point we have made over and over: the best thing the state and New York City can do is to tax and regulate less. And as Crain's has pointed out, the Hispanic supermarket owners going to North Carolina to open stores are not doing so because that state is issuing grants and tax breaks; it's the lower cost of doing business, stupid!
But wait! The governor is providing $10 million for a supermarket initiative that will allegedly promote supermarkets in low income neighborhoods. How droll. At the rate the state is raising taxes and fees, the $10 million will be put to good use for signs to inform the public all over the neighborhoods of the city: A Supermarket Used to be Here.
And the one measure that could actually make supermarkets more profitable-allowing wine sales-was defeated because the speaker is full bore into the liquor lobby protection racket. As Newsday opined yesterday:
"Unfortunately, liquor stores have once again killed a plan to allow sales in grocery stores Grocery stores should be able to sell wine, but the liquor lobby once again kneecapped the idea, which would have garnered the state $100 million or so in franchise fees. Liquor stores, which have an official monopoly on sales, insist on protectionism. The truck drivers who deliver the goods provided the lobbying muscle. Expanding the market for wine would have allowed Long Island's wineries to thrive and consumers to get lower prices. In return, the state could have eased the impact on liquor stores. Prohibition's legacy remains intact."
So, as the state's budget goes to its final resolution, we are facing the worst economic set of circumstances in our memory-with the anti-entrepreneurial scolds at the WFP, along with their legislative allies, doing everything within their power to drive all business from the state-fair share indeed! As the NY Times reports this morning: "It is impossible to view this budget as a path to economic recovery,” said Kenneth Adams, chief executive of the Business Council of New York State. “Businesses and jobs will hasten their departure from the state, and how can you blame them? Albany treats them with disdain.” When will the WFP, and its legislative handmaidens, understand that the government generates no economic growth; but it can sure dampen it-something that will be seen in the months ahead.
The agreement is also being reported by NY1: "The bottle bill will also be expanded to include new nickel deposits on bottled water..." Unreported is the fact that, as far as we know, the measure includes a "NY Only" on all deposit containers-something apparently designed to stymie non-New York bottles and cans from being redeemed. Missed by all of the legislative hochems, is the fact that over 95% of downstate retailers redeem manually-and not with reverse vending machines that can spot the out of state containers.
This seemingly rational measure is, unfortunately, irrational-and devastating to all of the state's small bottlers who can't afford the duplicate lines and storage space necessary to accommodate the additional inventory requirements. So for Good-O, Inca Kola and Top Pop-just to name a few-this could, in combo with the nickel heist, really mean their demise. And, as far as the unredeemed deposits are concerned, it will lead to a nice steep price increase at the check out-a regressive tax on all of those struggling New Yorkers trying to make ends meet.
And with Coco Cola threatening to close plants in retaliation-especially in Senator Thompson's Buffalo district, the bottle bill will be a job killing measure; except in the mind of NYPIRG's Laura Haight: "Opponents, including Coca Cola bottlers, are threatening to leave the state, and say thousands of jobs may be lost if the bill becomes law. Environmentalists and redemption centers argue that an increased handling fee in the bill for stores and redemption locations will actually create more jobs."
Haight certainly can't tout any degree from the London School of Economics. If higher costs lead to plant and store closings, as they will in this case, the fact that a new government tax is sending a bit of loose change into the redemption system won't alter that scenario. As for jobs at redemption centers, you''ll be able to count them with the fingers of one hand.
Which brings us back to the supermarkets-and the governor's professed concern for promoting their growth in low income neighborhoods. Here's a synopsis from the governor's January state of the state address:
"In the New York State of the State address today, Governor David A. Paterson announced the Healthy Food/Healthy Communities Initiative, part of his signature initiative to combat the childhood-obesity epidemic. Research shows that the presence of supermarkets in communities helps to prevent obesity. The Healthy Food/Healthy Communities Initiative is modeled on a successful Pennsylvania program, the Fresh Food Financing Initiative (FFFI), which is helping to alleviate the scarcity of grocery stores in low-income communities. The fund has provided $51.8 million in grants and loans to 62 supermarkets projects across the state. In 2008, Harvard University named FFFI one of the nation’s most innovative government programs."
Okay, so what's the state doing on behalf of supermarkets? Well, exactly nothing except piling on more and more regulatory and tax burdens to make operating in the state more expensive. Which is the point we have made over and over: the best thing the state and New York City can do is to tax and regulate less. And as Crain's has pointed out, the Hispanic supermarket owners going to North Carolina to open stores are not doing so because that state is issuing grants and tax breaks; it's the lower cost of doing business, stupid!
But wait! The governor is providing $10 million for a supermarket initiative that will allegedly promote supermarkets in low income neighborhoods. How droll. At the rate the state is raising taxes and fees, the $10 million will be put to good use for signs to inform the public all over the neighborhoods of the city: A Supermarket Used to be Here.
And the one measure that could actually make supermarkets more profitable-allowing wine sales-was defeated because the speaker is full bore into the liquor lobby protection racket. As Newsday opined yesterday:
"Unfortunately, liquor stores have once again killed a plan to allow sales in grocery stores Grocery stores should be able to sell wine, but the liquor lobby once again kneecapped the idea, which would have garnered the state $100 million or so in franchise fees. Liquor stores, which have an official monopoly on sales, insist on protectionism. The truck drivers who deliver the goods provided the lobbying muscle. Expanding the market for wine would have allowed Long Island's wineries to thrive and consumers to get lower prices. In return, the state could have eased the impact on liquor stores. Prohibition's legacy remains intact."
So, as the state's budget goes to its final resolution, we are facing the worst economic set of circumstances in our memory-with the anti-entrepreneurial scolds at the WFP, along with their legislative allies, doing everything within their power to drive all business from the state-fair share indeed! As the NY Times reports this morning: "It is impossible to view this budget as a path to economic recovery,” said Kenneth Adams, chief executive of the Business Council of New York State. “Businesses and jobs will hasten their departure from the state, and how can you blame them? Albany treats them with disdain.” When will the WFP, and its legislative handmaidens, understand that the government generates no economic growth; but it can sure dampen it-something that will be seen in the months ahead.
Paterson Provides an Opening for Republicans
The just concluded budget negotiation, probably cements the demise of Governor Paterson-unable to hold the line against job killing taxes and runaway state spending. Fred Dicker captures this in his characterization of the governor's hapless staff: "This is the demolition squad that conspired with the Assembly's hidebound eminence grise, Speaker Sheldon Silver, and the Senate's clueless new Democratic leadership to prepare a budget with the biggest set of destructive tax hikes in already-overtaxed New York history -- even as Wall Street collapses and suburban and upstate residents continue to flee. They've put the governor on a path to plunge even lower than the record-low 19 percent "approval" rating he received in a poll last week."
And what of the state senate, just recently captured by the Democrats? For Dean Skelos' deposed crew, this could be the proverbial opening they can drive a truck through-especially if Paterson manges to stay at the top of the ticket in 2010. As the NY Daily News reports: "The new package, which lawmakers will begin voting on Tuesday, is said to contain $5.2 billion in new taxes and fees, though critics say it's likely closer to $7 billion or $8 billion. The biggest increase is a three-year hike in the personal income tax on families making at least $300,000 that is expected to raise $4 billion. Everyday New Yorkers, businesses and the health care industry will all be hit with an array of new taxes and fees. Among those are vehicle registration fees, a cigar tax, a beer and wine tax, a utility assessment, an auto insurance surcharge, driver's license fees, a rental car tax and a registration fee for tobacco sellers. Bottled water drinkers will pay a nickel more because the drink has been added to the 5-cent bottle deposit law"
There appears to be little effort to rein in government spending, or to control the size and scope of the public sector-what happened to "shared sacrifice?" As the NY Post opines: "The $132 billion budget contains some $4 billion in income-tax hikes and $3.5 billion in other new imposts and fees. It incorporates no awareness whatsoever of New York's all-but-collapsing private-sector economy -- while treating New York's cosseted public sector quite well, thank you very much."
As for the euphemistically labeled, Working Families Party; this inaptly named crew helped to midwife the biggest assault on the state's hardest working families-its genuine middle class-while fraudulently holding the working families banner: "Well served, however, are Albany's myriad special interests: The public-employee unions and their handmaiden, the Working Families Party..."
So with state spending increasing! during a fiscal meltdown, the Albany leadership triumvirate has created a gigantic opportunity for the recrudescence of Republican rule-with two thirds of the troika being extremely vulnerable to being toppled by an irate home owner and tax payer revolt; especially if a strong standard bearer is found for 2010.
And what of the state senate, just recently captured by the Democrats? For Dean Skelos' deposed crew, this could be the proverbial opening they can drive a truck through-especially if Paterson manges to stay at the top of the ticket in 2010. As the NY Daily News reports: "The new package, which lawmakers will begin voting on Tuesday, is said to contain $5.2 billion in new taxes and fees, though critics say it's likely closer to $7 billion or $8 billion. The biggest increase is a three-year hike in the personal income tax on families making at least $300,000 that is expected to raise $4 billion. Everyday New Yorkers, businesses and the health care industry will all be hit with an array of new taxes and fees. Among those are vehicle registration fees, a cigar tax, a beer and wine tax, a utility assessment, an auto insurance surcharge, driver's license fees, a rental car tax and a registration fee for tobacco sellers. Bottled water drinkers will pay a nickel more because the drink has been added to the 5-cent bottle deposit law"
There appears to be little effort to rein in government spending, or to control the size and scope of the public sector-what happened to "shared sacrifice?" As the NY Post opines: "The $132 billion budget contains some $4 billion in income-tax hikes and $3.5 billion in other new imposts and fees. It incorporates no awareness whatsoever of New York's all-but-collapsing private-sector economy -- while treating New York's cosseted public sector quite well, thank you very much."
As for the euphemistically labeled, Working Families Party; this inaptly named crew helped to midwife the biggest assault on the state's hardest working families-its genuine middle class-while fraudulently holding the working families banner: "Well served, however, are Albany's myriad special interests: The public-employee unions and their handmaiden, the Working Families Party..."
So with state spending increasing! during a fiscal meltdown, the Albany leadership triumvirate has created a gigantic opportunity for the recrudescence of Republican rule-with two thirds of the troika being extremely vulnerable to being toppled by an irate home owner and tax payer revolt; especially if a strong standard bearer is found for 2010.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Fee Hikes Will Hurt Education
We just received the following information from Jim Calvin, the president of the convenience store association (NYACS). It sheds another light on why the proposed increase in cigarette license fees is such a bad idea.
It appears that going forward with the fee hike will jeopardize millions of dollars in lottery aid to education. Here's how. Around 60% of lottery merchants also sell tobacco products.
Budget Division estimates that the tobacco fee hike will reduce the number of tobacco outlets by 40%.If 40% of the 60% of lottery merchants lose tobacco, that means the lottery sales in 24% of retail lottery outlets will be impacted by a drop in customer traffic entering the store. How much is hard to say. What's scary is that nobody in the Budget Division has done an analysis to determine the magnitude of the resulting loss of lottery aid to education.
We can assume that when their favorite shop no longer selling tobacco, some of the displaced smokers will just go to the next closest tax-collecting store tobuy tobacco. But a significant portion of them will instead seek out untaxed,unregulated sources of cigarettes -- Native American reservations, the Internet, the black market, none of whom offer NYS lottery tickets. Thus it stands to reason that fewer smokers will be visiting tax-collecting retail stores that also sell lottery, and fewer lottery tickets will be sold because of the drop in customer count. Yes, those customers who come to the store for the primary purpose of selling lottery will still come, but those who used to come for the cigarettes and then buy lottery tickets while there, you won't see them anymore.
We understand that lottery net proceeds to education are around $2.6 billion. If the impact of shift in tobacco purchases to non-lottery venues impacts lottery sales by even 1%, that will reduce lottery aid to education by $26 million,which is greater than the $17 million in new revenue they project in 2009-2010from the tobacco retail registration fee increase itself.
Bottom line, the fee increase that's designed to reduce smoking will not only fail because it will drive smokers to the tax-free, unregulated side of the street, but it also will reduce state aid to local school districts.
It appears that going forward with the fee hike will jeopardize millions of dollars in lottery aid to education. Here's how. Around 60% of lottery merchants also sell tobacco products.
Budget Division estimates that the tobacco fee hike will reduce the number of tobacco outlets by 40%.If 40% of the 60% of lottery merchants lose tobacco, that means the lottery sales in 24% of retail lottery outlets will be impacted by a drop in customer traffic entering the store. How much is hard to say. What's scary is that nobody in the Budget Division has done an analysis to determine the magnitude of the resulting loss of lottery aid to education.
We can assume that when their favorite shop no longer selling tobacco, some of the displaced smokers will just go to the next closest tax-collecting store tobuy tobacco. But a significant portion of them will instead seek out untaxed,unregulated sources of cigarettes -- Native American reservations, the Internet, the black market, none of whom offer NYS lottery tickets. Thus it stands to reason that fewer smokers will be visiting tax-collecting retail stores that also sell lottery, and fewer lottery tickets will be sold because of the drop in customer count. Yes, those customers who come to the store for the primary purpose of selling lottery will still come, but those who used to come for the cigarettes and then buy lottery tickets while there, you won't see them anymore.
We understand that lottery net proceeds to education are around $2.6 billion. If the impact of shift in tobacco purchases to non-lottery venues impacts lottery sales by even 1%, that will reduce lottery aid to education by $26 million,which is greater than the $17 million in new revenue they project in 2009-2010from the tobacco retail registration fee increase itself.
Bottom line, the fee increase that's designed to reduce smoking will not only fail because it will drive smokers to the tax-free, unregulated side of the street, but it also will reduce state aid to local school districts.
Feeble Support for Small Business
As the budget clock winds down, it appears as if the legislature is prepared to stab small retailers-from all over the state-in the back. As the Daily News reports: "Lawmakers did tentatively agree to accept a slew of tax hikes that Paterson had proposed, including one to dramatically increase the fees stores pay for the right to sell cigarettes." This is simply outrageous.
Bodegas in the city of New York have lost 60%! of their cigarette sales to the black market-where untaxed smokes from Indian sources are making a mockery of the law. According to reliable sources, as much as 55% of all cigarette sales in the state are derived from the Indians-and if the proposed fee hikes go into effect, that percentage will go even higher; robbing more tax dollars from the beleaguered state treasury.
So, with the expected successful defense of Mom and Pop liquor stores-ranking high up there in the public interest-the legislature apparently will place 13,000 bodegueros at risk; a policy of planned shrinkage that has distinctive racial and ethnic overtones. Our earlier post on this topic bears repeating:
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.
Bodegas in the city of New York have lost 60%! of their cigarette sales to the black market-where untaxed smokes from Indian sources are making a mockery of the law. According to reliable sources, as much as 55% of all cigarette sales in the state are derived from the Indians-and if the proposed fee hikes go into effect, that percentage will go even higher; robbing more tax dollars from the beleaguered state treasury.
So, with the expected successful defense of Mom and Pop liquor stores-ranking high up there in the public interest-the legislature apparently will place 13,000 bodegueros at risk; a policy of planned shrinkage that has distinctive racial and ethnic overtones. Our earlier post on this topic bears repeating:
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.
Bottles Still Fizzing
The final conclusion of the debate over the bottle bill's expansion will probably be the eleventh hour-as more senators express opposition to their leader on this contentious issue. This would have already been put to bed if not for the continued pushing of the governor. As the Politicker points out: "The bottle bill may not make it, although at the moment the budget remains highly fluid. A pared-down version that would extend deposits to bottled water was in a draft proposal last night, as reported this morning, but it's unclear if even that will pass. "We're still working on it," said State Senator Antoine Thompson, who has pushed for the expansion."
What's instructive here, is that it appears that the speaker has successfully excluded wine from the governor's budget-an indication that strong legislative leadership is the key to the resolution of many of these thorny budget issues. That being said, Finance Chair Kruger and a bevy of his colleagues are apparently circulating a letter of opposition that is to be handed to Malcolm Smith and his chief of staff Angelo Aponte: "The measure for bottled water was still alive on Wednesday, but may have now been nixed, according to multiple sources. State Senator Diane Savino told me earlier there is some resistance to it among Democrats in the conference."
Still, it's the feisty Kruger who remains the cynosure of the debate-something that some of the irksome folks over at the Albany Project take umbrage with. And here's how they characterize the senator: "Don't Let Gangsta Kruger Kill the Bill." Nice touch, no? Nothing like personal disparagement to elevate the legislative debate.
So, as Liz B has reported, flux is the word of the day-which is why it's all hands on deck as the sand in the hour glass pours out: "Pretty much everything in Albany is in a state of flux at the moment. The Bigger Better Bottle Bill, on which there was supposedly an agreement as of yesterday evening, is also back on the "no deal" list. The root of most problems continues to be the Senate where the Democrats' two-seat hold on the majority means anyone looking to kill a bill merely needs to pick off just one or two lawmakers to bring everything to a grinding halt."
And, as Democrat and Chronicle points out, "Proponents of adding a 5-cent deposit on bottles of water believed they had a deal late Wednesday, only to find out today that some Senate Democrats remain opposed. “There is certainly no readiness to do that here,” Sen. Pedro Espada, D-Bronx, said of the so-called bottle bill." Something to which the Times this morning lends credence: "Mr. Paterson’s proposal to allow grocery stores to sell wine appeared headed for defeat on Thursday night, as did a major expansion of the state’s recycling laws, which earlier this week appeared to have won the approval of key lawmakers."
But nothing is definite; as the NY Daily News underscores on the wine issue: "A push to allow grocery stores to sell wine appeared to be failing, though the governor was trying to salvage the idea." But overall, this isn't a good budget if you run a business in New York State-with those who defend small store owners in the minority fighting a real guard battle: "Lawmakers did tentatively agree to accept a slew of tax hikes that Paterson had proposed, including one to dramatically increase the fees stores pay for the right to sell cigarettes."
So the assembly and the governor are looking to destroy neighborhood commerce; and, in the final analysis, it will be up to the fractious senate to hold the line against disaster. Not a comforting picture overall.
Update
The Crain's Insider (subscription) has weighed in on the bottle bill end game as well:
"As word leaked Wednesday night that Smith, Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver and Gov. Paterson had agreed on a tentative framework for expanding nickel deposits to bottled water, opponents scrambled to divide Smith’s conference. Richard Lipsky, a supermarket and bodega lobbyist who opposes the bill, claimed on his blog that the deal was quickly blocked, at least for the moment, by the “principled opposition” of Democratic Sens. Carl Kruger, Craig Johnson, Diane Savino, Hiram Monserrate, Eric Adams, Martin Dilan, Ruth Hassel-Thompson, Kevin Parker and Jeff Klein."
Still, the Insider speculates that Smith's "failure" to push this bottle bill through would, "badly undermine his ability to negotiate with Silver and the governor." Hard to see why. Did Silver's apparent can kicking of wine undermine his ability?
Smith's folks are treading water here-and the shore line appears to be receding: "But a Smith supporter doubted that the senators would vote against an entire budget bill just because it included the bottle provision." But as we told Crain's: "Even Lipsky agrees; he says Smith would have to be compelled to remove the bottle deal from budget negotiations." Not much of an agreement on our part, is it?
What's instructive here, is that it appears that the speaker has successfully excluded wine from the governor's budget-an indication that strong legislative leadership is the key to the resolution of many of these thorny budget issues. That being said, Finance Chair Kruger and a bevy of his colleagues are apparently circulating a letter of opposition that is to be handed to Malcolm Smith and his chief of staff Angelo Aponte: "The measure for bottled water was still alive on Wednesday, but may have now been nixed, according to multiple sources. State Senator Diane Savino told me earlier there is some resistance to it among Democrats in the conference."
Still, it's the feisty Kruger who remains the cynosure of the debate-something that some of the irksome folks over at the Albany Project take umbrage with. And here's how they characterize the senator: "Don't Let Gangsta Kruger Kill the Bill." Nice touch, no? Nothing like personal disparagement to elevate the legislative debate.
So, as Liz B has reported, flux is the word of the day-which is why it's all hands on deck as the sand in the hour glass pours out: "Pretty much everything in Albany is in a state of flux at the moment. The Bigger Better Bottle Bill, on which there was supposedly an agreement as of yesterday evening, is also back on the "no deal" list. The root of most problems continues to be the Senate where the Democrats' two-seat hold on the majority means anyone looking to kill a bill merely needs to pick off just one or two lawmakers to bring everything to a grinding halt."
And, as Democrat and Chronicle points out, "Proponents of adding a 5-cent deposit on bottles of water believed they had a deal late Wednesday, only to find out today that some Senate Democrats remain opposed. “There is certainly no readiness to do that here,” Sen. Pedro Espada, D-Bronx, said of the so-called bottle bill." Something to which the Times this morning lends credence: "Mr. Paterson’s proposal to allow grocery stores to sell wine appeared headed for defeat on Thursday night, as did a major expansion of the state’s recycling laws, which earlier this week appeared to have won the approval of key lawmakers."
But nothing is definite; as the NY Daily News underscores on the wine issue: "A push to allow grocery stores to sell wine appeared to be failing, though the governor was trying to salvage the idea." But overall, this isn't a good budget if you run a business in New York State-with those who defend small store owners in the minority fighting a real guard battle: "Lawmakers did tentatively agree to accept a slew of tax hikes that Paterson had proposed, including one to dramatically increase the fees stores pay for the right to sell cigarettes."
So the assembly and the governor are looking to destroy neighborhood commerce; and, in the final analysis, it will be up to the fractious senate to hold the line against disaster. Not a comforting picture overall.
Update
The Crain's Insider (subscription) has weighed in on the bottle bill end game as well:
"As word leaked Wednesday night that Smith, Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver and Gov. Paterson had agreed on a tentative framework for expanding nickel deposits to bottled water, opponents scrambled to divide Smith’s conference. Richard Lipsky, a supermarket and bodega lobbyist who opposes the bill, claimed on his blog that the deal was quickly blocked, at least for the moment, by the “principled opposition” of Democratic Sens. Carl Kruger, Craig Johnson, Diane Savino, Hiram Monserrate, Eric Adams, Martin Dilan, Ruth Hassel-Thompson, Kevin Parker and Jeff Klein."
Still, the Insider speculates that Smith's "failure" to push this bottle bill through would, "badly undermine his ability to negotiate with Silver and the governor." Hard to see why. Did Silver's apparent can kicking of wine undermine his ability?
Smith's folks are treading water here-and the shore line appears to be receding: "But a Smith supporter doubted that the senators would vote against an entire budget bill just because it included the bottle provision." But as we told Crain's: "Even Lipsky agrees; he says Smith would have to be compelled to remove the bottle deal from budget negotiations." Not much of an agreement on our part, is it?
More Zero-Sum Misconstruing
The NY Times-who else?-joins the list of those who see the MTA crisis in rather Manichean terms; it's either tolls or the transit riders take it up the posterior: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has proposed a workable compromise that avoids such huge fare increases and service cuts. It would allow $2 tolls on the remaining bridges around Manhattan that are still toll-free. There would be a tax on payrolls in the metropolitan area and a smaller rise in fares of 8 percent. It would also get the M.T.A. out of a $1.2 billion hole that will only grow deeper without a reasonable rescue package."
But the recalcitrant naysayers in the state senate are blocking this progressive vision of, once again, handing the MTA a blank check: "As the State Senate turns its back on eight million riders a day, the M.T.A. can’t just wait. They could start preparing fare machines and scheduling delays set for June — unless Albany wakes up and comes to the rescue."
But wait, it now appears that Mike Bloomberg is ready to jump in-perhaps believing that the Albany water is safe for even he to take a dip in: "Their ears must be ringing! Hordes of angry straphangers yesterday heeded Mayor Bloomberg's call to flood state lawmakers' phone lines and get "mad as hell" at Albany's inaction on staggering fare hikes."
It reminds us of how the littlest guy in the gang waits for all of his bigger buddies to leap on the bad dudes from the other gang; and, seeing the situation under control, takes the last leap onto the pile to demonstrate his courage. But the mayor fails to offer any constructive alternatives to tolling the bridges-and, after all, why should he since he has demonstrated his hostility to outer borough drivers for the past three years.
So, once again, it is left to a small band of courageous lawmakers to demonstrate that tolls aren't the sine qua non of a transit deal. As our friend Steve Barrison points out to us: "Here the vehicle owners pay about the highest rates of parking tax, parking fines, cost of operation and maintenance, fuel taxes, city and other taxes, and most of the so called tolls fall on the backs of the hard working middle class residents of the boros and small business. The "corp. fat cats" and other quasi governmental workers, and the 240,000 "official" vehicles, and the thousands of orange government E-Z passes, and exempt, or partially so, TLC, Livery and yellow cabs, leave the heavy financial weight on those few who can't carry the burden for the inept MTA!"
Perhaps, just as Joe Biden told us in the campaign, Blooomberg, Zuckerman and Michael Daly believe that it is the patriotic duty of all city motorists to pay tolls on the bridges. After all, opposition to this scheme has already been labeled, "treasonous."
But the recalcitrant naysayers in the state senate are blocking this progressive vision of, once again, handing the MTA a blank check: "As the State Senate turns its back on eight million riders a day, the M.T.A. can’t just wait. They could start preparing fare machines and scheduling delays set for June — unless Albany wakes up and comes to the rescue."
But wait, it now appears that Mike Bloomberg is ready to jump in-perhaps believing that the Albany water is safe for even he to take a dip in: "Their ears must be ringing! Hordes of angry straphangers yesterday heeded Mayor Bloomberg's call to flood state lawmakers' phone lines and get "mad as hell" at Albany's inaction on staggering fare hikes."
It reminds us of how the littlest guy in the gang waits for all of his bigger buddies to leap on the bad dudes from the other gang; and, seeing the situation under control, takes the last leap onto the pile to demonstrate his courage. But the mayor fails to offer any constructive alternatives to tolling the bridges-and, after all, why should he since he has demonstrated his hostility to outer borough drivers for the past three years.
So, once again, it is left to a small band of courageous lawmakers to demonstrate that tolls aren't the sine qua non of a transit deal. As our friend Steve Barrison points out to us: "Here the vehicle owners pay about the highest rates of parking tax, parking fines, cost of operation and maintenance, fuel taxes, city and other taxes, and most of the so called tolls fall on the backs of the hard working middle class residents of the boros and small business. The "corp. fat cats" and other quasi governmental workers, and the 240,000 "official" vehicles, and the thousands of orange government E-Z passes, and exempt, or partially so, TLC, Livery and yellow cabs, leave the heavy financial weight on those few who can't carry the burden for the inept MTA!"
Perhaps, just as Joe Biden told us in the campaign, Blooomberg, Zuckerman and Michael Daly believe that it is the patriotic duty of all city motorists to pay tolls on the bridges. After all, opposition to this scheme has already been labeled, "treasonous."
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Daly's Gangrene
Talk about an obsession-and more piling on; that's what we make of Michael Daly's shrill column attacking the three amigos, senators Kruger, Espada and Diaz, today in the NY Daily News: "Does the fare go up or do we establish tolls on the East and Harlem River bridges? It is one or the other. Anybody with any feeling for this city would say it has to be the tolls. We are not a metropolis of automobiles like Los Angeles or Houston or those other burgs beyond the Hudson."
So, in a supposed zero-sum game-and it's a good thing we're not talking about intellect here-the only choice for Daly is a Hobson's one: tolls or fare hikes. And in the process, he joins with Morticia in attacking the pols who beg to differ: "Which is why nearly every major figure in the city - politicians, labor leaders, community activists, even patrician Metropolitan Transportation Authority board members - support the so-called Ravitch plan to minimize a fare hike and stave off service cuts by charging motorists who cross into Manhattan. The unfortunate exception is the "Gang of Three," a trio of state senators from the city: Carl (Cars) Kruger of Brooklyn, along with Ruben (Road Rally) Diaz Sr. and Pedro (Escalade) Espada, both of the Bronx."
And off he goes, losing brain cells in direct proportion to the decibel levels of invective he spews: "The three began the year threatening to go over to the Republicans and scuttle the Democratic majority if they did not get what they wanted. Diaz was worried about gay marriage. Espada imagined he might be majority leader. Kruger wanted - and got - the chairmanship of the Finance Committee, along with a special budget. The word for that stuff is "shakedown." Then, the odious three went from their shakedown to opposing tolls for a few thousand motorists at the expense of 4 million straphangers. The word for that is treason. And they are not just betraying the city."
No Michael, treason is when billionaires conspire to overturn the will of the people and re-install royalty in City Hall-all done with Daly apparently experiencing a severe case of lockjaw. So odiousness is closer to home than Daly realizes-or perhaps he does, but values the paycheck over the genuine sense of outrage that a real populist-and not someone merely mimicking the popular will-would exhibit when democracy was being suborned.
The reality here is that there are any number of ways-short of tolls-that could be devised to save the transit system. Alternative funding mechanisms are available that wouldn't burden every single bodeguero in Manhattan who travels almost every day over to Jetro on Hamilton Avenue in Brooklyn to purchase merchandise; not to mention the thousands of commuters who really have little access to decent transit in their outlying neighborhoods.
But the Daly's of the world, feasting on the carrion of their wealthy benefactors, need to resort to obloquy in the place of reasoned debate. And in the process, the jackals at the MTA are able to sit back as mentally challenged toadies divert attention away from their years of malfeasance.
So, in a supposed zero-sum game-and it's a good thing we're not talking about intellect here-the only choice for Daly is a Hobson's one: tolls or fare hikes. And in the process, he joins with Morticia in attacking the pols who beg to differ: "Which is why nearly every major figure in the city - politicians, labor leaders, community activists, even patrician Metropolitan Transportation Authority board members - support the so-called Ravitch plan to minimize a fare hike and stave off service cuts by charging motorists who cross into Manhattan. The unfortunate exception is the "Gang of Three," a trio of state senators from the city: Carl (Cars) Kruger of Brooklyn, along with Ruben (Road Rally) Diaz Sr. and Pedro (Escalade) Espada, both of the Bronx."
And off he goes, losing brain cells in direct proportion to the decibel levels of invective he spews: "The three began the year threatening to go over to the Republicans and scuttle the Democratic majority if they did not get what they wanted. Diaz was worried about gay marriage. Espada imagined he might be majority leader. Kruger wanted - and got - the chairmanship of the Finance Committee, along with a special budget. The word for that stuff is "shakedown." Then, the odious three went from their shakedown to opposing tolls for a few thousand motorists at the expense of 4 million straphangers. The word for that is treason. And they are not just betraying the city."
No Michael, treason is when billionaires conspire to overturn the will of the people and re-install royalty in City Hall-all done with Daly apparently experiencing a severe case of lockjaw. So odiousness is closer to home than Daly realizes-or perhaps he does, but values the paycheck over the genuine sense of outrage that a real populist-and not someone merely mimicking the popular will-would exhibit when democracy was being suborned.
The reality here is that there are any number of ways-short of tolls-that could be devised to save the transit system. Alternative funding mechanisms are available that wouldn't burden every single bodeguero in Manhattan who travels almost every day over to Jetro on Hamilton Avenue in Brooklyn to purchase merchandise; not to mention the thousands of commuters who really have little access to decent transit in their outlying neighborhoods.
But the Daly's of the world, feasting on the carrion of their wealthy benefactors, need to resort to obloquy in the place of reasoned debate. And in the process, the jackals at the MTA are able to sit back as mentally challenged toadies divert attention away from their years of malfeasance.
Bottle Bursts
All of Albany was buzzing yesterday with news that the Bigger, Better Bottle Bill was going to expand as a result of a deal that had apparently been struck by legislative leaders with the governor. As the NY Times reports this morning:
"Gov. David A. Paterson and legislative leaders have reached tentative agreements on major cuts to health care spending and a significant expansion of recycling laws, legislators, aides and lobbyists who have been briefed on the negotiations said Wednesday evening...The agreement on recycling would require consumers to pay a nickel deposit on bottles of water for the first time, much as they do on bottled beer, soda and other beverages. The deal would also force beverage distributors to give up most of the millions of dollars in unclaimed deposits they are currently allowed to keep. Retailers would also be able to charge distributors a higher fee for every bottle they collect from consumers."
Well, something happened on the way to the printer-and the Times simply got ahead of itself-along with the NY Daily News which told us this morning: "State lawmakers are close to a budget deal to whack 20% from anti-smoking programs, sources said Wednesday night.
They're also close to agreement to expand the 5-cent bottle deposit to cover water and are considering raising salaries for home health care workers - although hospital and nursing home cuts are still on the table."
When word of the deal started to get out the Alliance and its allies-food retailers and soda company reps-mobilized; and by nightfall we counted at least 14 senators who had balked over the deal. The Times catches a whiff of what was in the works: "The legislation, known by supporters as the Bigger Better Bottle Bill, has passed the Assembly several times in recent years only to die in the Senate, which had been controlled by Republicans until this year. The bill is staunchly opposed by a coalition of beverage companies and grocers. But the deal could still fall apart in the Senate, where the chairman of the Finance Committee, Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, and other Democrats oppose it. “I was very upset when I heard about it,” Mr. Kruger said on Wednesday. “Let’s see what the morning brings as the negotiations continue to go forward.”
And, as Cat Stevens used to sing, "Morning has broken..." With the morning comes the reality that the senate apparently lacks the requisite votes to pass this regressive tax on consumers; one that will hurt struggling food retailers, particularly in NYC, and small ethnic bottlers such as Good-O. The short term death of the measure, however, doesn't mean that the expansion is forever interred. It could still be jimmied into the current budget if our coalition doesn't remain vigilant; nothing is over until the ink dries! And we definitely expect its resurrection as a stand alone bill before the session ends.
Which means that the opponents of the expansion who worked so hard yesterday-with particular kudos to the labor folks at the RWDSU, UFCW and the Teamsters-must stay focused, regroup and prepare for a big battle ahead. For now, hats off to Senator Kruger and the amigos-as well as others like Craig Johnson, Diane Savino, Hiram Monseratte, Eric Adams, Martin Dilan, Hassel Thompson, Kevin Parker and Jeff Klein. Their principled opposition has-until further notice-saved the day.
"Gov. David A. Paterson and legislative leaders have reached tentative agreements on major cuts to health care spending and a significant expansion of recycling laws, legislators, aides and lobbyists who have been briefed on the negotiations said Wednesday evening...The agreement on recycling would require consumers to pay a nickel deposit on bottles of water for the first time, much as they do on bottled beer, soda and other beverages. The deal would also force beverage distributors to give up most of the millions of dollars in unclaimed deposits they are currently allowed to keep. Retailers would also be able to charge distributors a higher fee for every bottle they collect from consumers."
Well, something happened on the way to the printer-and the Times simply got ahead of itself-along with the NY Daily News which told us this morning: "State lawmakers are close to a budget deal to whack 20% from anti-smoking programs, sources said Wednesday night.
They're also close to agreement to expand the 5-cent bottle deposit to cover water and are considering raising salaries for home health care workers - although hospital and nursing home cuts are still on the table."
When word of the deal started to get out the Alliance and its allies-food retailers and soda company reps-mobilized; and by nightfall we counted at least 14 senators who had balked over the deal. The Times catches a whiff of what was in the works: "The legislation, known by supporters as the Bigger Better Bottle Bill, has passed the Assembly several times in recent years only to die in the Senate, which had been controlled by Republicans until this year. The bill is staunchly opposed by a coalition of beverage companies and grocers. But the deal could still fall apart in the Senate, where the chairman of the Finance Committee, Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, and other Democrats oppose it. “I was very upset when I heard about it,” Mr. Kruger said on Wednesday. “Let’s see what the morning brings as the negotiations continue to go forward.”
And, as Cat Stevens used to sing, "Morning has broken..." With the morning comes the reality that the senate apparently lacks the requisite votes to pass this regressive tax on consumers; one that will hurt struggling food retailers, particularly in NYC, and small ethnic bottlers such as Good-O. The short term death of the measure, however, doesn't mean that the expansion is forever interred. It could still be jimmied into the current budget if our coalition doesn't remain vigilant; nothing is over until the ink dries! And we definitely expect its resurrection as a stand alone bill before the session ends.
Which means that the opponents of the expansion who worked so hard yesterday-with particular kudos to the labor folks at the RWDSU, UFCW and the Teamsters-must stay focused, regroup and prepare for a big battle ahead. For now, hats off to Senator Kruger and the amigos-as well as others like Craig Johnson, Diane Savino, Hiram Monseratte, Eric Adams, Martin Dilan, Hassel Thompson, Kevin Parker and Jeff Klein. Their principled opposition has-until further notice-saved the day.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Wining and Dining
As we mentioned in our previous post, the worsening budget deficit is boosting the wine in grocery store issue; and the Indian cigarette tax collection as well. Here's Mike Gormley's incisive AP story: "Proposals to sell wine in supermarkets and collect cigarette taxes on Indian reservations are gaining ground in the Legislature as they are promoted as ways to raise millions in revenues in tough times. A week before the new fiscal year, a new projection shows the budget deficit deepening by $2.2 billion and Gov. David Paterson says he must resort to layoffs for the first time in more than a decade to shed 8,900 jobs."
And the previously cited NY Times story puts to rest all of the scare tactics of the Last Store Standing coalition-drunk driving, closed stores, lost jobs; all a chimera conjured up in the fertile mind of Mike McKeon. The reality here is that NY State's in trouble, and the $160 million in fees are badly needed to close the budget gap that is now approaching $16 billion.
As Gormley points out: "On Tuesday, a coalition of grocery stores, bodegas, wine sellers and vintners pushed for a law to allow wine to be sold in supermarkets, as it is in 35 states. They say it will create thousands of jobs from western New York farms to factories in central New York to bodegas in the Bronx while giving a boost to New York's wine industry and tourism. "We view wine as table food," said Nicholas D'Agostino III, president of D'Agostino Supermarkets based in Westchester County. "Consumers deserve the same choice and convenience that consumers get in these states." They say sales will increase state revenues by $160 million in the first two years, save New Yorkers $80 million in lower prices through greater competition and add 2,000 net jobs."
And as far as the Indians are concerned: "Calling it "the forgotten billion-dollar stimulus," the New York Association of Convenience Stores and anti-smoking groups pushed for Paterson to enforce a law that would collect sales tax on cigarettes sold by tribes worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue. Although treaties allow Indians to avoid sales tax, their non-Indian customers are supposed to pay, according to the state."
Tough times demand tough measures; but the situation here is pretty easy. Open the market up to competition, collect the license fees and the Indian taxes, and watch as the sky doesn't fall.
And the previously cited NY Times story puts to rest all of the scare tactics of the Last Store Standing coalition-drunk driving, closed stores, lost jobs; all a chimera conjured up in the fertile mind of Mike McKeon. The reality here is that NY State's in trouble, and the $160 million in fees are badly needed to close the budget gap that is now approaching $16 billion.
As Gormley points out: "On Tuesday, a coalition of grocery stores, bodegas, wine sellers and vintners pushed for a law to allow wine to be sold in supermarkets, as it is in 35 states. They say it will create thousands of jobs from western New York farms to factories in central New York to bodegas in the Bronx while giving a boost to New York's wine industry and tourism. "We view wine as table food," said Nicholas D'Agostino III, president of D'Agostino Supermarkets based in Westchester County. "Consumers deserve the same choice and convenience that consumers get in these states." They say sales will increase state revenues by $160 million in the first two years, save New Yorkers $80 million in lower prices through greater competition and add 2,000 net jobs."
And as far as the Indians are concerned: "Calling it "the forgotten billion-dollar stimulus," the New York Association of Convenience Stores and anti-smoking groups pushed for Paterson to enforce a law that would collect sales tax on cigarettes sold by tribes worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue. Although treaties allow Indians to avoid sales tax, their non-Indian customers are supposed to pay, according to the state."
Tough times demand tough measures; but the situation here is pretty easy. Open the market up to competition, collect the license fees and the Indian taxes, and watch as the sky doesn't fall.
Time for a Wine Toast
As the Crain's Insider reports this morning (subscription), the rapidly enlarging budget shortfall could possibly enhance the effort to allow supermarkets to sell wine: "The need for more revenue bolsters the case for allowing supermarkets and other beer sellers to sell wine. Liquor stores, which enjoy a monopoly on wine sales, sometimes argue that smaller businesses won’t be able to get loans to pay the proposed fee for a wine-selling license, and that the state won’t reap the $100 million it forecasts. But the budget deal needs to be balanced only on paper, and the wine plan will facilitate that. With more sales outlets, wine sales would increase, benefiting growers."
Still, the inside plying of the special interests has made this more difficult than it should be; it seems that there are those in the assembly in particular, who care more for the 2500 liquor stores than they do for city supermarkets and the state's consumers-something that we emphasized to WCBS2 last night: "It would be good for supermarkets, particularly in New York city, because we have been losing supermarkets, 300 in the last five years," said Richard Lipsky of Gristedes. And supermarket operators say increased competition would save consumers some $80 million."
But the Channel 2 story fell short of balance-giving greater time for the liquor store owner to state erroneous information without rebuttal concerning job loss: "I just want to point out to you if this bill passes, to my right is a Food Emporium, to my left is another small kosher market, both of whom would be eager to start selling wines," Wartels said. Wartels also said it could put many of the state's more than 2,700 liquor stores out of business. It's not just liquor store profits that are at issue. Wartels' store employs 11 people and the owner told CBS 2 HD if the bill passes, some of these jobs could be at risk."
Fascinating tale, but what's missing here is the fact that the situation that owner Martells fears, is enacted without harm in all of the 35 states that allow wine to be sold in grocery stores-and frequently side by side in the same shopping centers. And the job issue is simply a canard; since if business did shift in an unlikely zero-sum game, good-mostly union-jobs would be created at the supermarkets.
But what about the danger of increased underage drinking? Another canard-check out today's Dining and Wine section of the NY Times: "As for the argument that wine in supermarkets will facilitate underage drinking, it doesn’t seem to be true in the states that permit supermarket sales. “What do kids drink?” asked Rick Garza, the deputy director of the Liquor Control Board in Washington State, which has permitted supermarkets to sell wine since 1969. “In Washington they drink primarily beer and spirits, not wine. People in the prevention community will tell you that very seldom do we have youth-access issues around wine.”
But the opponents, undeterred, keep pouring out the disinformation-wrapping it, like two day old fish, around the small store protection facade: "We don’t see any great public clamoring for this,” said Michael McKeon, a spokesman for Last Store on Main Street, the evocatively named coalition opposing the proposal. “This is an idea wholly generated by the big stores — solely a money grab.”
Of course, this assertion is undermined by the reality of the NYC retail market: "It would be like a dream come true,” said David Grotenstein, the general manager for Union Market, which has two high-end stores in Park Slope, Brooklyn. “It’s like the lost cross-merchandising element of retail — we seem so backward and primitive here in New York.” Hardly big box, is he?
But there is legitimate concern that the governor's proposal needs to be bolstered-with liquor stores being allowed to enter into the 21st century-an idea that has good support in the legislature with Senator Espada's bill to permit the liquor stores to expand. As the Times points out: "Nobody supporting the bill would begrudge some concessions to wine and liquor stores, which right now are not permitted to sell cheeses, bread and other foods that would naturally pair with wine. They can’t even sell beer, which is sold in groceries, delis and convenience stores. If groceries are permitted to sell wine, perhaps wine shops ought to be able to sell cheese and beer."
All the liquor lobby offers, however, is intransigence: "Mr. McKeon of Last Store on Main Street disparages such concessions. He asserts that the proposal will not generate nearly the revenue that the governor projects and predicts that 1,000 of the state’s 2,700 wine and liquor stores will have to close...It’s absolutely a joke that we’re going to compete with Whole Foods and Wal-Mart,” he said. “The mom-and-pop stores, they don’t need to change the law.”
No, the joke lies with McKeon's deceptive trade practices-and with those in the legislature who want to stand for square-against New York's consumers-for an archaic monopoly. The budget is in free fall, consumers are parched, and it's time to change this obsolete law.
Still, the inside plying of the special interests has made this more difficult than it should be; it seems that there are those in the assembly in particular, who care more for the 2500 liquor stores than they do for city supermarkets and the state's consumers-something that we emphasized to WCBS2 last night: "It would be good for supermarkets, particularly in New York city, because we have been losing supermarkets, 300 in the last five years," said Richard Lipsky of Gristedes. And supermarket operators say increased competition would save consumers some $80 million."
But the Channel 2 story fell short of balance-giving greater time for the liquor store owner to state erroneous information without rebuttal concerning job loss: "I just want to point out to you if this bill passes, to my right is a Food Emporium, to my left is another small kosher market, both of whom would be eager to start selling wines," Wartels said. Wartels also said it could put many of the state's more than 2,700 liquor stores out of business. It's not just liquor store profits that are at issue. Wartels' store employs 11 people and the owner told CBS 2 HD if the bill passes, some of these jobs could be at risk."
Fascinating tale, but what's missing here is the fact that the situation that owner Martells fears, is enacted without harm in all of the 35 states that allow wine to be sold in grocery stores-and frequently side by side in the same shopping centers. And the job issue is simply a canard; since if business did shift in an unlikely zero-sum game, good-mostly union-jobs would be created at the supermarkets.
But what about the danger of increased underage drinking? Another canard-check out today's Dining and Wine section of the NY Times: "As for the argument that wine in supermarkets will facilitate underage drinking, it doesn’t seem to be true in the states that permit supermarket sales. “What do kids drink?” asked Rick Garza, the deputy director of the Liquor Control Board in Washington State, which has permitted supermarkets to sell wine since 1969. “In Washington they drink primarily beer and spirits, not wine. People in the prevention community will tell you that very seldom do we have youth-access issues around wine.”
But the opponents, undeterred, keep pouring out the disinformation-wrapping it, like two day old fish, around the small store protection facade: "We don’t see any great public clamoring for this,” said Michael McKeon, a spokesman for Last Store on Main Street, the evocatively named coalition opposing the proposal. “This is an idea wholly generated by the big stores — solely a money grab.”
Of course, this assertion is undermined by the reality of the NYC retail market: "It would be like a dream come true,” said David Grotenstein, the general manager for Union Market, which has two high-end stores in Park Slope, Brooklyn. “It’s like the lost cross-merchandising element of retail — we seem so backward and primitive here in New York.” Hardly big box, is he?
But there is legitimate concern that the governor's proposal needs to be bolstered-with liquor stores being allowed to enter into the 21st century-an idea that has good support in the legislature with Senator Espada's bill to permit the liquor stores to expand. As the Times points out: "Nobody supporting the bill would begrudge some concessions to wine and liquor stores, which right now are not permitted to sell cheeses, bread and other foods that would naturally pair with wine. They can’t even sell beer, which is sold in groceries, delis and convenience stores. If groceries are permitted to sell wine, perhaps wine shops ought to be able to sell cheese and beer."
All the liquor lobby offers, however, is intransigence: "Mr. McKeon of Last Store on Main Street disparages such concessions. He asserts that the proposal will not generate nearly the revenue that the governor projects and predicts that 1,000 of the state’s 2,700 wine and liquor stores will have to close...It’s absolutely a joke that we’re going to compete with Whole Foods and Wal-Mart,” he said. “The mom-and-pop stores, they don’t need to change the law.”
No, the joke lies with McKeon's deceptive trade practices-and with those in the legislature who want to stand for square-against New York's consumers-for an archaic monopoly. The budget is in free fall, consumers are parched, and it's time to change this obsolete law.
Cig Hell
A shout out to the Daily News' Ken Lovett who has been tracking the cigarette fee debacle. As he pointed out yesterday, there's no real enthusiasm on either side of the aisle for the measure: "Gov. Paterson's plan to raise fees on stores that sell cigarettes drew fire Monday from Democrats and Republicans..."Why doesn't he just say we're against small businesses," said Assemblyman Micah Kellner (D-Manhattan). "It's an absurd proposal, particularly in hard times."
And one lawmaker immediately saw the connection to the government's failure to collect taxes from Indian retailers: "State Sen. Dale Volker, a Buffalo Republican, called it "wrong and dangerous to drive social policy with tax policy." Volker said the plan is a double whammy to owners of small stores. On the one hand, they will be charged more. On the other, he said, they are at a competitive disadvantage because the Paterson administration has not gone after taxes owed for the sale of cigarettes to non-Indians on reservations."
As usual, health advocates believe that fewer outlets will mean less consumption: "Health Commissioner Dr. Richard Daines said if fewer stores sell cigarettes, more people will quit smoking." But over half of all cigarettes sold in NY State are sold-untaxed-through Indian retailers; and that is why the current proposal amounts to a double whammy on store owners: "Meanwhile, a report released Monday by the New York Association of Convenience Stores says the state is losing $1 billion a year by not going after taxes for cigarettes sold on Indian reservations. Paterson budget spokesman Jeffrey Gordon said he hadn't seen the report."
Ah, continued hear no evil, see no evil; while stores continue to close. Here's a case were the state's tax revenues have literally gone up in smoke.
And one lawmaker immediately saw the connection to the government's failure to collect taxes from Indian retailers: "State Sen. Dale Volker, a Buffalo Republican, called it "wrong and dangerous to drive social policy with tax policy." Volker said the plan is a double whammy to owners of small stores. On the one hand, they will be charged more. On the other, he said, they are at a competitive disadvantage because the Paterson administration has not gone after taxes owed for the sale of cigarettes to non-Indians on reservations."
As usual, health advocates believe that fewer outlets will mean less consumption: "Health Commissioner Dr. Richard Daines said if fewer stores sell cigarettes, more people will quit smoking." But over half of all cigarettes sold in NY State are sold-untaxed-through Indian retailers; and that is why the current proposal amounts to a double whammy on store owners: "Meanwhile, a report released Monday by the New York Association of Convenience Stores says the state is losing $1 billion a year by not going after taxes for cigarettes sold on Indian reservations. Paterson budget spokesman Jeffrey Gordon said he hadn't seen the report."
Ah, continued hear no evil, see no evil; while stores continue to close. Here's a case were the state's tax revenues have literally gone up in smoke.
The Silence of the Lambs
The NY Times ran an interesting analysis yesterday of the poor state of the Democratic party in New York-and what this depleted status meant for the upcoming mayoralty: "The situation has already led some Democrats to be pessimistic about the party’s prospects in the mayoral race, nearly eight months before Election Day. “Frankly, I don’t see the party organizing against him,” Assemblyman N. Nick Perry, a Brooklyn Democrat, said about Mr. Bloomberg. “I don’t see the party committing a lot of its scarce resources to what most would consider an unlikely win.”
But this lead us to musing on one of our favorite topics-the inverse proportionality between Mike Bloomberg's performance and his approval ratings-ratings that remain high while most New Yorkers find it difficult to warm up to him. Bloomberg, for his part, remains Popeyesque; the "I am who I am, and that's all that I am refrain: "On Tuesday morning, in a new poll from Quinnipiac University, Mr. Bloomberg was given high marks for job performance but was perceived by New Yorkers as cold and unable to relate to their problems."
So, while Bloomberg remains thoroughly unlikable, he continues to stay rather incongruously stratospheric when it comes to most polls. Why the disconnect? If we were to place our finger on this disparity, we think that the culprit must be the media; an entity that has, for over seven years, remained thoroughly incurious at investigating the mayor's job performance; and the gap between how the mayor portrays his achievements and the real world evidence that we believe tells a different tale (although, as of late, that has begun to change just a bit-with more media scrutiny being evinced).
The problem here, as with all things Bloomberg, is the power of the purse-and Mike's ability to toss around millions as if they were pennies from heaven. With so many of the local dailies on the verge of collapse, Mike Bloomberg remains always available as a potential White Knight-which leads to an obsequiousness bordering on courtier status; to wit, the flipping on term limits demonstrated by all three of the locals.
And what's with the NY Post, writing a schools puff piece on a daily basis in the run up to the debate over mayoral control? So incessant has the bleating been, that they almost convinced us that our schools are reaching Utopian status-and that the 78% increase in the local school budget has given us our money's worth. Here's the latest on a polll that "supports" mayoral control-with the headline transcending the real conclusions in the survey: "Overall, 47 percent of voters approve of the way Mayor Bloomberg has run the schools, compared to 40 percent who give him a thumbs-down. But when voters were asked if the mayor should share power over the schools with the City Council, the results shift: 53 percent support joint authority, and 37 percent don't."
So, with the prospect of a mayor going to break all time election spending records to achieve immortal status, we will not be able to rely on the press to really go after him on his exaggerated campaign claims; certainly not to the extent that the tabloids diminish, deconstruct and demonize lesser pols. After all, Mike's part of the Billionaire Boys Club and, as a consequence, is beyond real reproach.
But this lead us to musing on one of our favorite topics-the inverse proportionality between Mike Bloomberg's performance and his approval ratings-ratings that remain high while most New Yorkers find it difficult to warm up to him. Bloomberg, for his part, remains Popeyesque; the "I am who I am, and that's all that I am refrain: "On Tuesday morning, in a new poll from Quinnipiac University, Mr. Bloomberg was given high marks for job performance but was perceived by New Yorkers as cold and unable to relate to their problems."
So, while Bloomberg remains thoroughly unlikable, he continues to stay rather incongruously stratospheric when it comes to most polls. Why the disconnect? If we were to place our finger on this disparity, we think that the culprit must be the media; an entity that has, for over seven years, remained thoroughly incurious at investigating the mayor's job performance; and the gap between how the mayor portrays his achievements and the real world evidence that we believe tells a different tale (although, as of late, that has begun to change just a bit-with more media scrutiny being evinced).
The problem here, as with all things Bloomberg, is the power of the purse-and Mike's ability to toss around millions as if they were pennies from heaven. With so many of the local dailies on the verge of collapse, Mike Bloomberg remains always available as a potential White Knight-which leads to an obsequiousness bordering on courtier status; to wit, the flipping on term limits demonstrated by all three of the locals.
And what's with the NY Post, writing a schools puff piece on a daily basis in the run up to the debate over mayoral control? So incessant has the bleating been, that they almost convinced us that our schools are reaching Utopian status-and that the 78% increase in the local school budget has given us our money's worth. Here's the latest on a polll that "supports" mayoral control-with the headline transcending the real conclusions in the survey: "Overall, 47 percent of voters approve of the way Mayor Bloomberg has run the schools, compared to 40 percent who give him a thumbs-down. But when voters were asked if the mayor should share power over the schools with the City Council, the results shift: 53 percent support joint authority, and 37 percent don't."
So, with the prospect of a mayor going to break all time election spending records to achieve immortal status, we will not be able to rely on the press to really go after him on his exaggerated campaign claims; certainly not to the extent that the tabloids diminish, deconstruct and demonize lesser pols. After all, Mike's part of the Billionaire Boys Club and, as a consequence, is beyond real reproach.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Stimulate This!
Kudos to Liz Benjamin for linking to the NYACS sponsored study on the Indian cigarette tax revenue that the state is leaving uncollected-over $1billion! As the report underscores: "New tax revenues (including sales tax receipts) from the taxation of Native-American retail sales of cigarettes to non-tribal customers would be in the vicinity of $1billion. These new revenue sources would help close the projected budget deficit of $13.7 billion in the upcoming fiscal year."
Incredibly, the governor has not only excluded any of these revenues from his budget projections, but-adding insult to injury-is looking to raise the cigarette licensing fees by 900% for those retailers who are charging and collecting the levies. This insult was featured yesterday in a NY1 story that pointed out: "Governor Paterson's proposal to raise the $100 registration fee store owners pay for the right to sell tobacco products is drawing the ire of small business owners and advocates."
What's the state's windfall here? A measly $18 million; but for store owners, it's a real fiscal pain at a time when stores are closing their doors in record numbers-and that goes for the city's newsstand owners as well. As Rob Bookman, counsel to the Newsstand Operators Association told the station: "It would hurt the little guy the most...They can't stop selling it, they must have the product. They'd lose too many customers who buy other products if they didn't have that. They wouldn't come into the store. So it's truly taking $900 out of the pockets of the small business owners of the city of New York at a time when they could least afford it."
And, as we told NY1, the plan would have a zero impact on public health-simply driving smokers further into the illegal black market that is already bleeding tax dollars away from the state's treasury; just another reason why the governor's approval ratings are sinking faster than AIG stock. Paterson needs to go on the warpath against the black market, and not small store owners struggling to stay afloat in these rough economic times.
Incredibly, the governor has not only excluded any of these revenues from his budget projections, but-adding insult to injury-is looking to raise the cigarette licensing fees by 900% for those retailers who are charging and collecting the levies. This insult was featured yesterday in a NY1 story that pointed out: "Governor Paterson's proposal to raise the $100 registration fee store owners pay for the right to sell tobacco products is drawing the ire of small business owners and advocates."
What's the state's windfall here? A measly $18 million; but for store owners, it's a real fiscal pain at a time when stores are closing their doors in record numbers-and that goes for the city's newsstand owners as well. As Rob Bookman, counsel to the Newsstand Operators Association told the station: "It would hurt the little guy the most...They can't stop selling it, they must have the product. They'd lose too many customers who buy other products if they didn't have that. They wouldn't come into the store. So it's truly taking $900 out of the pockets of the small business owners of the city of New York at a time when they could least afford it."
And, as we told NY1, the plan would have a zero impact on public health-simply driving smokers further into the illegal black market that is already bleeding tax dollars away from the state's treasury; just another reason why the governor's approval ratings are sinking faster than AIG stock. Paterson needs to go on the warpath against the black market, and not small store owners struggling to stay afloat in these rough economic times.
Obsessive Compulsion
What is there to make of the obsessive compulsive behavior over at the editorial offices of the New York Daily News? By our count, yesterday's editorial on the MTA-and the roughing up of the state senate-is at least the seventh that the paper has run on the subject. Here's Johnny One Note at work: "Good morning to our readers on city subways and buses. We regret to inform you that state Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith will today start the legal process for raising your fares and cutting your service."
Well, even the most obtuse News reader should have gotten the point, so why the continued onslaught? As someone speculated with us, the answer may lie with the omnipresent Mike Bloomberg-someone who has been very low profile when it comes to the toll issue; as the News reported yesterday.
Perhaps, as with the school governance issue, the mayor is using a sophisticated surrogate strategy to deal with his bete noir-the Byzantine Albany labyrinth; after all, his outspoken advocacy of tolls would be-as our uncle once coined the phrase-The Kiss of Death. That's just how popular Typhoid Mike is in the state capitol.
So is it out of the realm of possibility to imagine that Morticia of 33rd Street-hemorrhaging money, and bleeding the News to death's door-would be a willing beard for Mike the Mogul? Can anyone Karaoke to that old Fontana Bass song, Rescue Me? But what's most egregious in this incessant bleating, is the fact that the paper fails in its responsibility to hold the MTA accountable in any way for the approaching "doomsday."
Here's the familiar refrain: "The numbers are no joke. They will start to get nailed down today when the Metropolitan Transportation Authority finance committee votes. And the MTA has no choice but to approve the hikes, thanks to Smith, Skelos and their members in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Fast approaching is the day the MTA board votes to close subway lines and bus routes, again thanks to Smith, Skelos & Co. They've been warned for months that the region's mass transit is nearing doomsday. While Gov. Paterson and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver have backed a rescue that entails imposing a modest payroll tax and tolls on the East River and Harlem River bridges, Smith and Skelos have shown no such courage."
Haven't we heard this all before? What could be a more toxic asset than the MTA? And what could be more irresponsible than a continuing blank check for the prodigal agency, which went ahead yesterday with its fare increases and service cuts? Even many transit riders living in the districts of the unholy senators opposing tolls manage to see this more clearly than Morticia-as the NY Times revealed yesterday:
"But interviews with residents in these districts revealed that the holdout legislators have tapped into a concern shared by many of their constituents, even among those where it might be least unexpected: transit riders. And while toll opponents made up a spirited minority among straphangers interviewed in recent days, their views stood out, because they were both unexpected and passionately held."
And some riders exhibited more acumen than the entire News editorial board: "Several subway riders said they opposed both tolls and higher fares and expressed a deep distrust of the transportation authority. “The whole organization is very inefficient,” said Boris Gertsberg, 33, a software developer who lives in Mr. Kruger’s district in Brooklyn and takes the subway daily to his office in Manhattan. He said he did not drive a car but was still against tolls. “I don’t think looking at hiking fares or putting tolls is the right way to solve the budgetary crisis they’re in,” he said."
So let the News continue its special-and suborned?-pleading. Kudos to the senate holdouts who rightfully focus attention on the malfeasance of the MTA; and who refuse to bailout the agency unless it is radically transformed.
Well, even the most obtuse News reader should have gotten the point, so why the continued onslaught? As someone speculated with us, the answer may lie with the omnipresent Mike Bloomberg-someone who has been very low profile when it comes to the toll issue; as the News reported yesterday.
Perhaps, as with the school governance issue, the mayor is using a sophisticated surrogate strategy to deal with his bete noir-the Byzantine Albany labyrinth; after all, his outspoken advocacy of tolls would be-as our uncle once coined the phrase-The Kiss of Death. That's just how popular Typhoid Mike is in the state capitol.
So is it out of the realm of possibility to imagine that Morticia of 33rd Street-hemorrhaging money, and bleeding the News to death's door-would be a willing beard for Mike the Mogul? Can anyone Karaoke to that old Fontana Bass song, Rescue Me? But what's most egregious in this incessant bleating, is the fact that the paper fails in its responsibility to hold the MTA accountable in any way for the approaching "doomsday."
Here's the familiar refrain: "The numbers are no joke. They will start to get nailed down today when the Metropolitan Transportation Authority finance committee votes. And the MTA has no choice but to approve the hikes, thanks to Smith, Skelos and their members in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Fast approaching is the day the MTA board votes to close subway lines and bus routes, again thanks to Smith, Skelos & Co. They've been warned for months that the region's mass transit is nearing doomsday. While Gov. Paterson and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver have backed a rescue that entails imposing a modest payroll tax and tolls on the East River and Harlem River bridges, Smith and Skelos have shown no such courage."
Haven't we heard this all before? What could be a more toxic asset than the MTA? And what could be more irresponsible than a continuing blank check for the prodigal agency, which went ahead yesterday with its fare increases and service cuts? Even many transit riders living in the districts of the unholy senators opposing tolls manage to see this more clearly than Morticia-as the NY Times revealed yesterday:
"But interviews with residents in these districts revealed that the holdout legislators have tapped into a concern shared by many of their constituents, even among those where it might be least unexpected: transit riders. And while toll opponents made up a spirited minority among straphangers interviewed in recent days, their views stood out, because they were both unexpected and passionately held."
And some riders exhibited more acumen than the entire News editorial board: "Several subway riders said they opposed both tolls and higher fares and expressed a deep distrust of the transportation authority. “The whole organization is very inefficient,” said Boris Gertsberg, 33, a software developer who lives in Mr. Kruger’s district in Brooklyn and takes the subway daily to his office in Manhattan. He said he did not drive a car but was still against tolls. “I don’t think looking at hiking fares or putting tolls is the right way to solve the budgetary crisis they’re in,” he said."
So let the News continue its special-and suborned?-pleading. Kudos to the senate holdouts who rightfully focus attention on the malfeasance of the MTA; and who refuse to bailout the agency unless it is radically transformed.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Talk About Leaving Money on the Table
In Albany today we will be joining the New York State Association of Convenience Stores (NYACS) in a press conference highlighting the fact that the state has a round a billion dollars in untapped funds it's not even trying to get at during this budget crisis-untaxed Indian cigarettes. As the NYACs press release tells us: "Supporters of fair tax collection today released an economic study confirming for the first time that the hemorrhage of State revenue resulting from untaxed sales of cigarettes by Native American tribes has now reached $1 Billion a year.
The analysis performed by Brian O’Connor Ph.D. for the New York Association of Convenience Stores shows that if the Paterson administration were enforcing the existing state law requiring collection of cigarette taxes on tribal sales to non-Indian customers, it would yield new tax revenue “in the proximity of $1 billion.”
Incredible! And no one has used the current crisis to simply implement a workable scheme to tap these funds at the source-the manufacturer who ships the product directly into the state: "Calling it “the forgotten billion-dollar stimulus,” NYACS and allies in the quest to bring about fair tax collection held a press conference in Albany today to urge Governor Paterson and legislative leaders not to forego this major source of new revenue as they negotiate a new budget due to take effect April 1. “With businesses and consumers being asked to absorb billions in spending cuts, new taxes, and fee increases, it would be fiscally irresponsible to craft a budget without tapping into this recurring revenue stream,” said James Calvin, President of the New York Association of Convenience Stores."
And on top of this, the state is proposing that cigarette licensing fees-for those legitimate, tax paying retailers-be boosted by 900%. making it even more difficult for them to compete against the tax cheats. As we said over a month ago: "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."
Which is precisely what the NY Daily News highlights this morning: "Gov. Paterson wants to snuff out cigarette sales by drastically raising fees for stores that sell them, the Daily News has learned. Paterson's budget office projects cigarettes and other tobacco products would be sold at 40% fewer stores if his proposal is adopted."
Can you say, major disconnect? As we told the News: "Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, warned the proposal wouldn't stop people from smoking but would boost sales on the Internet and black market." So much for what the governor describes as a "health care initiative." Not only is it not going to accomplish its health care objective, it will drive another nail into the health of local small stores.
So instead of this misdirection, the governor and the legislature needs to grab the $1 billion on the table-and save the small businesses from unnecessary further misery. This is a path that all clear thinking legislators should pursue with vigor.
The analysis performed by Brian O’Connor Ph.D. for the New York Association of Convenience Stores shows that if the Paterson administration were enforcing the existing state law requiring collection of cigarette taxes on tribal sales to non-Indian customers, it would yield new tax revenue “in the proximity of $1 billion.”
Incredible! And no one has used the current crisis to simply implement a workable scheme to tap these funds at the source-the manufacturer who ships the product directly into the state: "Calling it “the forgotten billion-dollar stimulus,” NYACS and allies in the quest to bring about fair tax collection held a press conference in Albany today to urge Governor Paterson and legislative leaders not to forego this major source of new revenue as they negotiate a new budget due to take effect April 1. “With businesses and consumers being asked to absorb billions in spending cuts, new taxes, and fee increases, it would be fiscally irresponsible to craft a budget without tapping into this recurring revenue stream,” said James Calvin, President of the New York Association of Convenience Stores."
And on top of this, the state is proposing that cigarette licensing fees-for those legitimate, tax paying retailers-be boosted by 900%. making it even more difficult for them to compete against the tax cheats. As we said over a month ago: "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."
Which is precisely what the NY Daily News highlights this morning: "Gov. Paterson wants to snuff out cigarette sales by drastically raising fees for stores that sell them, the Daily News has learned. Paterson's budget office projects cigarettes and other tobacco products would be sold at 40% fewer stores if his proposal is adopted."
Can you say, major disconnect? As we told the News: "Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, warned the proposal wouldn't stop people from smoking but would boost sales on the Internet and black market." So much for what the governor describes as a "health care initiative." Not only is it not going to accomplish its health care objective, it will drive another nail into the health of local small stores.
So instead of this misdirection, the governor and the legislature needs to grab the $1 billion on the table-and save the small businesses from unnecessary further misery. This is a path that all clear thinking legislators should pursue with vigor.
Lockjaw Mike
As the NY Daily News' Adam Lisberg reports, our wealthy overseer Mike Bloomberg has been as quiet as a church mouse over the entire MTA debacle-even while he can be found pontificating on the country's financial woes on national television: "Every bus and subway rider in New York is about to get punched in the wallet, and all Mayor Bloomberg is doing is standing around watching."
Why the silence? Well, given his rapport with Albany pols, his sideline silence may be the best hope for straphangers looking for relief: "This might be the perfect time for a bully pulpit-loving mayor to try twisting arms in Albany to save MTA riders - except he's still wiping egg off his face from the last time he tried it. The congestion pricing debacle - when Bloomberg wrestled his version of a toll plan through the City Council but got outmaneuvered in the Assembly - left him burned, say people who work with him. So when Richard Ravitch proposed a detailed, thoughtful plan for saving the MTA in December, the mayor figured the best thing he could do was stay out of its way."
And if he's re-elected, we can expect that anything he tries to get out of the state capitol will be mostly dead on arrival: "A broad coalition of unions, business groups and good-government organizations is pressing the Senate Democrats to approve the tolls-and-tax package - but Bloomberg, who works with all of them, is content to let them do the lifting. His political team knows that Bloomberg has little hope of peeling away recalcitrant Democrats, after giving $500,000 to Republicans last year in their failed attempt to keep the Senate in GOP hands."
And what does the this billionaire juggernaut do when faced with the impasse? Punt! And place the onus on the Democratic Party: "But so far, he hasn't used that $500,000 as leverage on the GOP either. For half a million bucks, a mayor ought to be able to at least buy a few upstate Republicans to vote for tolls on bridges they never drive, right? Bloomberg ducked a question about that last week, saying, "It's going to have to be the Democratic senators to come together with the Democratic Assembly people and a Democratic governor and solve this problem."
So, tell us again, why this is guy Mr. Indispensable, someone whose elevation to a third term is needed to address the fiscal challenges of out time? This doesn't bode well for Bloomberg's fight over mayoral control-oh, we forgot, he's shucking and ducking on that one as well-hiding behind a coalition funded by his own money muscle and the public largess that he controls.
Why the silence? Well, given his rapport with Albany pols, his sideline silence may be the best hope for straphangers looking for relief: "This might be the perfect time for a bully pulpit-loving mayor to try twisting arms in Albany to save MTA riders - except he's still wiping egg off his face from the last time he tried it. The congestion pricing debacle - when Bloomberg wrestled his version of a toll plan through the City Council but got outmaneuvered in the Assembly - left him burned, say people who work with him. So when Richard Ravitch proposed a detailed, thoughtful plan for saving the MTA in December, the mayor figured the best thing he could do was stay out of its way."
And if he's re-elected, we can expect that anything he tries to get out of the state capitol will be mostly dead on arrival: "A broad coalition of unions, business groups and good-government organizations is pressing the Senate Democrats to approve the tolls-and-tax package - but Bloomberg, who works with all of them, is content to let them do the lifting. His political team knows that Bloomberg has little hope of peeling away recalcitrant Democrats, after giving $500,000 to Republicans last year in their failed attempt to keep the Senate in GOP hands."
And what does the this billionaire juggernaut do when faced with the impasse? Punt! And place the onus on the Democratic Party: "But so far, he hasn't used that $500,000 as leverage on the GOP either. For half a million bucks, a mayor ought to be able to at least buy a few upstate Republicans to vote for tolls on bridges they never drive, right? Bloomberg ducked a question about that last week, saying, "It's going to have to be the Democratic senators to come together with the Democratic Assembly people and a Democratic governor and solve this problem."
So, tell us again, why this is guy Mr. Indispensable, someone whose elevation to a third term is needed to address the fiscal challenges of out time? This doesn't bode well for Bloomberg's fight over mayoral control-oh, we forgot, he's shucking and ducking on that one as well-hiding behind a coalition funded by his own money muscle and the public largess that he controls.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Bloomberg's School Glaze
Buried in the middle of a brilliant piece by Jacob Gershman in today's NY Post is the following observation on the educational version of money for nothing: "Mayor Bloomberg's budget essentially froze public education spending. The stimulus wipes out about 80 percent of the cuts that he and Paterson proposed, pouring nearly another $1 billion on the city's schools. Bloomberg's total education budget is now expected to grow by 3.5 percent. To puts things in perspective: The state and city will be spending 78 percent more on our schools than when Bloomberg took office.
Now, what Gershman is commenting on is the Albany version of the Shell game-nice, huh? This is the game that uses the sense of economic crisis to increase taxes while simultaneously doing absolutely nothing to trim the fat out of the state budget. It devolves from the Alinsky style crisis mongering that the WFP's Dan Cantor is mimicking to great effect: "When pressed, Cantor added some clarity: "Like Rahm Emanuel, we don't believe in wasting a crisis." He's sure about one thing, however: "Every dollar we get means some poor kid somewhere doesn't get hurt so badly."
But, as the education scenario above underscores, more money is rarely the sine qua non of enhanced service delivery. This is the Social Democratic version of Roberto Michel's dissection of the bureaucratic impulse. Michels, in his classic work Political Parties, observed that: “The social revolution would not effect any real modification of the internal structure of the mass. The socialists might conquer, but not socialism, which would perish in the moment of its adherents’ triumph.”
Along with the educational prospects of the poor child who is still, without the choices that the children of Obama, Bloomberg and Klein are offered, left to suffer within the confines of well-funded, but under performing, NYC educational bureaucracy. Which brings us inevitably to the upcoming battle over mayoral control; something that WNYC has focused a keen eye on (via Liz).
What the station does is to examine the make up of Learn NY, a supposedly independent group formed to back re-authorization of mayoral control of the schools. As one skeptic points out: "Learn NY is being funded inadvertently, not directly, through the mayor. He’s done great P.R. I think its very sad that he’s using parents in this way, and that the real fact is we have to look to see if the mayor has been successful in what he says that he’s brought to New York City. And if you look at the facts, not the spin, the eighth grade scores in math and English are totally flat."
Well, the scores may be flat, but the budget's certainly robust-and if the team is way over the salary cap, but it's winning championships, who could complain, right? Apparently, however, the city school performance is closer to that of it's local NBA team; where huge spending sprees in the pursuit of excellence, have given the fans very little to cheer about.
But the skeptic is correct; the mayor does great PR-and is aided and abetted by the lack of curiosity in the local media. So what about the "funded inadvertently" claim? How inadvertent does anyone who examines the situation think it really is? "Learn NY has filled other assembly hearings with parents, many of them from charter schools. It’s hired the political consulting and polling firm Global Strategy Group, which worked for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Congressman Charles Rangel. Learn NY claims to have raised $3 million. But it won’t say who’s funding its campaign and because it’s a non-profit it doesn’t have to. The group DOES maintain it’s NOT funded by Mayor Bloomberg."
Quite the grass roots outfit, no? A three million dollar budget, and the mayor's an innocent bystander/recipient of the sweat equity of neighborhood folks. All that's missing here is the orchestra: "Geoffrey Canada chairs the board of Learn NY. He’s also Chief Executive of the Harlem Children’s Zone – which runs a network of services for families, plus two charter schools. Canada says Learn NY is supported by private foundations who don’t wish to be identified, but which are longtime contributors to the schools. A spokesman for the mayor also says the group gets no money from Bloomberg and is completely independent. Canada says he incorporated Learn NY last summer, before Bloomberg declared his intention to seek a third term. He says it’s an important issue for him in Harlem, because too many people were passing the buck before the mayor took charge."
Canada's a good guy, but to claim he's a free agent is to test the credulity of even the most gullible: "Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Childen’s Zone has received almost $388 million in contracts from the city and the Education Department over the past decade, according to records from the comptroller’s office. Two other board members of Learn NY are Reverend Calvin Butts of the Abyssinian Baptist Church, and Sister Paulette LoMonaco of Good Shepherd Services. Their organizations have done almost $400 million worth of combined business with the city over the last decade. Canada acknowledges that raises legitimate questions about what he stands to gain or lose."
Which makes him, at least in comparison to Mike Bloomberg, a regular Diogenes: "Last year, Canada was also among a group of non-profit leaders who supported Mayor Bloomberg’s call to abolish term limits. That led to questions about whether they were pressured by City Hall, something they denied. But Chris Keeley, Associate Director of Common Cause New York, sees a similar pattern in this campaign to keep mayoral control of the schools."
And Keeley's not alone; particularly since the mayor's wealth insinuates itself into all of these public policy debates that ultimately redound to Bloomberg's own self interest: "The underlying message when the mayor would ask for participation in a board is, what if you say no? The implicit message, and that’s not to say that the mayor does that, but it is a power dynamic that exists. If somebody is providing finances for your organization and they ask you for a favor it can be difficult to say no. About 40 community based organizations and charter schools have joined Learn NY. Many of them get city funding. There’s no evidence Mayor Bloomberg pressured them to join. But last September, Klein, Bloomberg, and Geoffrey Canada hosted a breakfast at City Hall with foundation heads and business leaders. Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott was also there. He says no one was asked to campaign for mayoral control – though attendees were shown a powerpoint presentation about the system’s success."
And since Bloomberg now wants to masquerade as a Republican, can we call all of this astroturfing the real elephant in the room? After all, if Bloomberg went to sell this stuff in Albany by his lonesome, how does anyone think it would work out? Say West Side Stadium three times: "Coalitions may be especially important for Bloomberg, whose relationships with Albany lawmakers have been strained. His signature plans for a West Side stadium and congestion pricing on the East River bridges died in Albany. April Humphrey represents a group that is fighting to put checks and balances on the mayor’s power, called the "Campaign for Better Schools". She concedes it’s politically smart for someone as respected as Geoffrey Canada to lead a group supporting mayoral control, instead of Bloomberg and his chancellor."
All of this is purposefully designed to put a populist patina on the mayor's school and re-election agendas; while at the same time gilding a rather wilted school performance lily. WNYC deserves kudos for this piece, and we hope it sets a trend in the needed deconstruction of the Myth of Mike.
Now, what Gershman is commenting on is the Albany version of the Shell game-nice, huh? This is the game that uses the sense of economic crisis to increase taxes while simultaneously doing absolutely nothing to trim the fat out of the state budget. It devolves from the Alinsky style crisis mongering that the WFP's Dan Cantor is mimicking to great effect: "When pressed, Cantor added some clarity: "Like Rahm Emanuel, we don't believe in wasting a crisis." He's sure about one thing, however: "Every dollar we get means some poor kid somewhere doesn't get hurt so badly."
But, as the education scenario above underscores, more money is rarely the sine qua non of enhanced service delivery. This is the Social Democratic version of Roberto Michel's dissection of the bureaucratic impulse. Michels, in his classic work Political Parties, observed that: “The social revolution would not effect any real modification of the internal structure of the mass. The socialists might conquer, but not socialism, which would perish in the moment of its adherents’ triumph.”
Along with the educational prospects of the poor child who is still, without the choices that the children of Obama, Bloomberg and Klein are offered, left to suffer within the confines of well-funded, but under performing, NYC educational bureaucracy. Which brings us inevitably to the upcoming battle over mayoral control; something that WNYC has focused a keen eye on (via Liz).
What the station does is to examine the make up of Learn NY, a supposedly independent group formed to back re-authorization of mayoral control of the schools. As one skeptic points out: "Learn NY is being funded inadvertently, not directly, through the mayor. He’s done great P.R. I think its very sad that he’s using parents in this way, and that the real fact is we have to look to see if the mayor has been successful in what he says that he’s brought to New York City. And if you look at the facts, not the spin, the eighth grade scores in math and English are totally flat."
Well, the scores may be flat, but the budget's certainly robust-and if the team is way over the salary cap, but it's winning championships, who could complain, right? Apparently, however, the city school performance is closer to that of it's local NBA team; where huge spending sprees in the pursuit of excellence, have given the fans very little to cheer about.
But the skeptic is correct; the mayor does great PR-and is aided and abetted by the lack of curiosity in the local media. So what about the "funded inadvertently" claim? How inadvertent does anyone who examines the situation think it really is? "Learn NY has filled other assembly hearings with parents, many of them from charter schools. It’s hired the political consulting and polling firm Global Strategy Group, which worked for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Congressman Charles Rangel. Learn NY claims to have raised $3 million. But it won’t say who’s funding its campaign and because it’s a non-profit it doesn’t have to. The group DOES maintain it’s NOT funded by Mayor Bloomberg."
Quite the grass roots outfit, no? A three million dollar budget, and the mayor's an innocent bystander/recipient of the sweat equity of neighborhood folks. All that's missing here is the orchestra: "Geoffrey Canada chairs the board of Learn NY. He’s also Chief Executive of the Harlem Children’s Zone – which runs a network of services for families, plus two charter schools. Canada says Learn NY is supported by private foundations who don’t wish to be identified, but which are longtime contributors to the schools. A spokesman for the mayor also says the group gets no money from Bloomberg and is completely independent. Canada says he incorporated Learn NY last summer, before Bloomberg declared his intention to seek a third term. He says it’s an important issue for him in Harlem, because too many people were passing the buck before the mayor took charge."
Canada's a good guy, but to claim he's a free agent is to test the credulity of even the most gullible: "Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Childen’s Zone has received almost $388 million in contracts from the city and the Education Department over the past decade, according to records from the comptroller’s office. Two other board members of Learn NY are Reverend Calvin Butts of the Abyssinian Baptist Church, and Sister Paulette LoMonaco of Good Shepherd Services. Their organizations have done almost $400 million worth of combined business with the city over the last decade. Canada acknowledges that raises legitimate questions about what he stands to gain or lose."
Which makes him, at least in comparison to Mike Bloomberg, a regular Diogenes: "Last year, Canada was also among a group of non-profit leaders who supported Mayor Bloomberg’s call to abolish term limits. That led to questions about whether they were pressured by City Hall, something they denied. But Chris Keeley, Associate Director of Common Cause New York, sees a similar pattern in this campaign to keep mayoral control of the schools."
And Keeley's not alone; particularly since the mayor's wealth insinuates itself into all of these public policy debates that ultimately redound to Bloomberg's own self interest: "The underlying message when the mayor would ask for participation in a board is, what if you say no? The implicit message, and that’s not to say that the mayor does that, but it is a power dynamic that exists. If somebody is providing finances for your organization and they ask you for a favor it can be difficult to say no. About 40 community based organizations and charter schools have joined Learn NY. Many of them get city funding. There’s no evidence Mayor Bloomberg pressured them to join. But last September, Klein, Bloomberg, and Geoffrey Canada hosted a breakfast at City Hall with foundation heads and business leaders. Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott was also there. He says no one was asked to campaign for mayoral control – though attendees were shown a powerpoint presentation about the system’s success."
And since Bloomberg now wants to masquerade as a Republican, can we call all of this astroturfing the real elephant in the room? After all, if Bloomberg went to sell this stuff in Albany by his lonesome, how does anyone think it would work out? Say West Side Stadium three times: "Coalitions may be especially important for Bloomberg, whose relationships with Albany lawmakers have been strained. His signature plans for a West Side stadium and congestion pricing on the East River bridges died in Albany. April Humphrey represents a group that is fighting to put checks and balances on the mayor’s power, called the "Campaign for Better Schools". She concedes it’s politically smart for someone as respected as Geoffrey Canada to lead a group supporting mayoral control, instead of Bloomberg and his chancellor."
All of this is purposefully designed to put a populist patina on the mayor's school and re-election agendas; while at the same time gilding a rather wilted school performance lily. WNYC deserves kudos for this piece, and we hope it sets a trend in the needed deconstruction of the Myth of Mike.
In Liu of Incompetence
As the Crain's Insider is reporting today (subscription), John Liu-one of the city's most intelligent politicians-has quietly been in the forefront of criticizing the MTA's bridge toll: "The disconnect between the agency and elected officials is exemplified by the harsh words of Councilman John Liu, chairman of the council Transportation Committee. Liu is a fan of mass transit and supported congestion pricing. But he has been a relentless critic of bridge tolls proposed to shore up the MTA’s finances. Liu was one of two elected officials outside the state Senate to support that chamber’s alternative to the Ravitch plan (Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz was the other)."
And here's the kicker; Liu's concerns devolve from the questions he has about the use of the tolls for-not keeping the fare down-but for the long term capitol needs of the MTA. Can anyone say congestion tax? But, just as those "clowns" in the state senate, Liu has no idea just what that capitol plan entails: "“A lot of people are playing numbers games,” Liu says. “But [Richard] Ravitch said so himself back in December that revenues from bridge tolls are not needed for the bailout of the MTA, that in fact they would be solely used to fund future improvements in bus service.” And the MTA won’t say what those improvements will be, Liu complains."
The Insider captures this pig-in-the-poke approach: "Agency officials say they don’t want to be accused of developing bus plans without community input. But elected officials want specific improvements to justify new tolls and taxes." How similar is this irresponsible naivete to what's going on down in Washington with AIG?
Michael Goodwin captures what we believes is an eerie similarity: "Much of the government outrage over the bonuses pool of $165 million was phony anyway, canned up for a public now being taught that the private sector is evil and must be punished. The real outrage is that the bonuses represented a fraction of the $180 billion of public money pumped into AIG without any real oversight."
And this is precisely what Malcolm's marauders are trying to avoid; and instead of accolades they are greeted with derision by the practitioners of business as usual; folks who are trying to backdoor the tolls because of the failure of the Bloomberg congestion tax. The sad thing here, is that Shelly should know better. The congestion cockamamie isn't a bad idea simply because Mike Bloomberg proposed it.
The Herculean task of cleaning the MTA's Augean Stables needs to begin posthaste. Everything else is liner for the bird cage.
And here's the kicker; Liu's concerns devolve from the questions he has about the use of the tolls for-not keeping the fare down-but for the long term capitol needs of the MTA. Can anyone say congestion tax? But, just as those "clowns" in the state senate, Liu has no idea just what that capitol plan entails: "“A lot of people are playing numbers games,” Liu says. “But [Richard] Ravitch said so himself back in December that revenues from bridge tolls are not needed for the bailout of the MTA, that in fact they would be solely used to fund future improvements in bus service.” And the MTA won’t say what those improvements will be, Liu complains."
The Insider captures this pig-in-the-poke approach: "Agency officials say they don’t want to be accused of developing bus plans without community input. But elected officials want specific improvements to justify new tolls and taxes." How similar is this irresponsible naivete to what's going on down in Washington with AIG?
Michael Goodwin captures what we believes is an eerie similarity: "Much of the government outrage over the bonuses pool of $165 million was phony anyway, canned up for a public now being taught that the private sector is evil and must be punished. The real outrage is that the bonuses represented a fraction of the $180 billion of public money pumped into AIG without any real oversight."
And this is precisely what Malcolm's marauders are trying to avoid; and instead of accolades they are greeted with derision by the practitioners of business as usual; folks who are trying to backdoor the tolls because of the failure of the Bloomberg congestion tax. The sad thing here, is that Shelly should know better. The congestion cockamamie isn't a bad idea simply because Mike Bloomberg proposed it.
The Herculean task of cleaning the MTA's Augean Stables needs to begin posthaste. Everything else is liner for the bird cage.
Useful Idiots
We got this call yesterday, from someone who said that he was from the group Transportation Alternatives. The phone voice was upset with something we had written that characterized the group as bike riding, skateboarding wackos. He complained about the name calling and pleaded for more civility-a discussion of policy, if you will-and less name calling. Feeling kinda of bad for the poor fella, we told him that we would consider following his suggestion. That was until we saw the shenanigans that these rather lame street performers were displaying on their web site.
The site in question was linked by the intrepid Liz, and featured a contest to caption a picture of four state senators-the guys who used to be called the Gang of Four-who had taken on the MTA; and who were vigorously opposing the imposition of bridge tolls. The site, representing the height of sophomoric humor, quickly quelled any rachmones we felt for these useful idiots-tools of business moguls who, ensconced in their private clubs and corporate board rooms, are laughing at their gullible malleability.
So, as we said yesterday, these bike riding naifs are being used to defend-not only the corporate interests of the Manhattan business class, folks who are looking to make the island that much freer from outer borough traffic; but the interests of the most corrupt and inefficient public authority on the planet. They are, in a word, a perfect diversion; performing street theater in a purported defense of straphangers while someone else counts the receipts.
Which brings us back to the MTA itself, and agency that reminds us of the old joke about the farmer who $1 million in the lottery. When asked what he'll do with the money, he replies: "I guess I'll keep farming till it's all gone." So it goes with our transit sinkhole. It's long past the time when this antiquated governing structure was-like an old subway train-dismantled and sold for parts.
But all of this is obscured by the attack on the senate and its most colorful members. But if you examine the high dudgeon coming from the governor and his lackeys the other day, there was nothing about what to do with an agency that manages to lose more and more money each day; as it simultaneously packs its buses and trains with record ridership. And check the speaker's proposal-not a peep about transforming the MTA.
Can anyone say TARP? Are these so-called responsible citizens and elected officials willing-like the tooth fairy believing Washington pols-to simply pour money into the MTA with no strings attached? And these are the folks, cheered on by the street performers, who claim they are defending the transit riders: "While we're at it, we figure if the State Senate is going to treat New York City's transit riders like clowns and turn the MTA funding process into a year-long circus, we're going to need a good graphic to go with the story. So, here's what Livable Streets Initiative graphic design genius Carly Clark came up with. From left-to-right that's Monserrate playing the role of the abusive Moe, Kruger as the developmentally-impaired Curly, Espada as Shemp, and Diaz as the bumbling but lovable Larry. We'll have travel mugs and t-shirts printed up soon so you can ride with the Fare Hike Four on your morning commute."
How sad. It is about time that some electeds said enough is enough-and changed the way the transit system is governed. And did you see that the agency might be bringing back Marc Shaw to head up its affairs? The same guy who spent the agency into hopeless debt. What, Freddy Krueger wasn't available?
So Streetsblog needs to have a thorough overhaul; because it has little abilty to expose the real clowns from under the MTA circus tent. If they are really interested in protecting transit riders they wouldn't be shilling for the dysfunctionals now running the system into the ground. Name calling in this calamitous environment is appropriate; but the objects of obloquy have to be changed.
The site in question was linked by the intrepid Liz, and featured a contest to caption a picture of four state senators-the guys who used to be called the Gang of Four-who had taken on the MTA; and who were vigorously opposing the imposition of bridge tolls. The site, representing the height of sophomoric humor, quickly quelled any rachmones we felt for these useful idiots-tools of business moguls who, ensconced in their private clubs and corporate board rooms, are laughing at their gullible malleability.
So, as we said yesterday, these bike riding naifs are being used to defend-not only the corporate interests of the Manhattan business class, folks who are looking to make the island that much freer from outer borough traffic; but the interests of the most corrupt and inefficient public authority on the planet. They are, in a word, a perfect diversion; performing street theater in a purported defense of straphangers while someone else counts the receipts.
Which brings us back to the MTA itself, and agency that reminds us of the old joke about the farmer who $1 million in the lottery. When asked what he'll do with the money, he replies: "I guess I'll keep farming till it's all gone." So it goes with our transit sinkhole. It's long past the time when this antiquated governing structure was-like an old subway train-dismantled and sold for parts.
But all of this is obscured by the attack on the senate and its most colorful members. But if you examine the high dudgeon coming from the governor and his lackeys the other day, there was nothing about what to do with an agency that manages to lose more and more money each day; as it simultaneously packs its buses and trains with record ridership. And check the speaker's proposal-not a peep about transforming the MTA.
Can anyone say TARP? Are these so-called responsible citizens and elected officials willing-like the tooth fairy believing Washington pols-to simply pour money into the MTA with no strings attached? And these are the folks, cheered on by the street performers, who claim they are defending the transit riders: "While we're at it, we figure if the State Senate is going to treat New York City's transit riders like clowns and turn the MTA funding process into a year-long circus, we're going to need a good graphic to go with the story. So, here's what Livable Streets Initiative graphic design genius Carly Clark came up with. From left-to-right that's Monserrate playing the role of the abusive Moe, Kruger as the developmentally-impaired Curly, Espada as Shemp, and Diaz as the bumbling but lovable Larry. We'll have travel mugs and t-shirts printed up soon so you can ride with the Fare Hike Four on your morning commute."
How sad. It is about time that some electeds said enough is enough-and changed the way the transit system is governed. And did you see that the agency might be bringing back Marc Shaw to head up its affairs? The same guy who spent the agency into hopeless debt. What, Freddy Krueger wasn't available?
So Streetsblog needs to have a thorough overhaul; because it has little abilty to expose the real clowns from under the MTA circus tent. If they are really interested in protecting transit riders they wouldn't be shilling for the dysfunctionals now running the system into the ground. Name calling in this calamitous environment is appropriate; but the objects of obloquy have to be changed.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
MTA=AIG
Remember back last fall, when all of the wise heads said that we absolutely needed to bail out the banks-along with the corrupt enterprise known as AIG? Even the maverick went along with the charade. And where did it get us? Railing away at bonuses with faux outrage.
But now, as we digress into analogy, we find the local wise men and women hectoring us about the essentialness of bailing out the MTA-with nary a word about the authority's history of malfeasance and political corruption. And the chorus is being led by newspapers that are exhibiting their own financial chops while swimming in oceans of red ink. Folks, it's pot and kettle time.
Leading the way, as usual, is Morticia of 33rd Street: "A scribbler on a napkin could have crafted a more coherent plan for preserving mass transportation in New York than the slapdash dodge offered yesterday by state Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith. Challenged to ensure the survival of affordable, reliable transportation for millions of riders, Smith and his Democrats delivered half measures that were, at best, half baked."
This judgment hearkens us back to the old joke about the thermos being the greatest invention the world has ever seen. Why? Because when you put something hot into it, it stays hot; and when the liquid is cold, the thermos stays cold. To which the fool, explaining its greatness proclaims: "How does it know?"
So when the News tells us-"The flaws in Smith's prescription were as fundamental as can be - starting with the fact that his numbers didn't add up. This would be laughable except that, left unchecked, he and his colleagues would subject subway, bus and commuter line passengers to enormous fare hikes and declining service."-our response is the wondrous musing of the fool: "How does it know?"
Well, it knows because that's what all of the best and the brightest are telling everyone is true; and if the senate's numbers don't add up, then who's doing the vetting of the MTA figures? Tim Geithner? But the stopped clock on 33rd Street got one thing right: "Mired in deficits, the MTA will be forced to impose backbreaking fare hikes and service cuts, and to abandon track, station and signal maintenance, unless the Legislature provides funding."
This is the old story of the business that is losing money on every doo dad that it makes. When asked how it will be able to turn a profit on all of its sales, the boss replies: "Volume." So it goes with the MTA. Record ridership concomitant with record deficits. But, heh, why would these folks lie to us about their numbers?
The real scandal here is the willingness of all of these lemmings to go along with pouring money down the MTA sinkhole-while calling those who oppose the Ponzi scheme bad names. The NY Post stands accused: "Still, it's clear that Smith has absolutely no control over his conference.
Yesterday's travesty was engineered by the same loathsome Senate foursome who withheld their support from Smith as majority leader until he bought them off with plum committee chairmanships. That's not leadership. That's a commercial transaction."
Not a peep about how this agency's been ripping off the folks for years. Even Nicole Gelinas, someone who feels that the senate plan doesn't add up, gets the MTA debacle: " It's heartening, then, that Gov. Paterson seemed to want no part of this "compromise" yesterday - and that the MTA bigwigs stood with him. But it's worrisome that Smith may have made the most astute political calculations...But it should be yet another reminder for the MTA that a big reason why Smith et. al. can get away with their games is that the public truly doubts the MTA can be trusted with any new money."
So let's all take a deep breathe; and even we will cease and desist from woofing opprobrium for at least the short term if all other will agree to do the same. We will be waiting, however, to see if the other branches of government will be ready to overhaul the MTA as part of any bailout. That must be the sine quo non of any going forward.
But now, as we digress into analogy, we find the local wise men and women hectoring us about the essentialness of bailing out the MTA-with nary a word about the authority's history of malfeasance and political corruption. And the chorus is being led by newspapers that are exhibiting their own financial chops while swimming in oceans of red ink. Folks, it's pot and kettle time.
Leading the way, as usual, is Morticia of 33rd Street: "A scribbler on a napkin could have crafted a more coherent plan for preserving mass transportation in New York than the slapdash dodge offered yesterday by state Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith. Challenged to ensure the survival of affordable, reliable transportation for millions of riders, Smith and his Democrats delivered half measures that were, at best, half baked."
This judgment hearkens us back to the old joke about the thermos being the greatest invention the world has ever seen. Why? Because when you put something hot into it, it stays hot; and when the liquid is cold, the thermos stays cold. To which the fool, explaining its greatness proclaims: "How does it know?"
So when the News tells us-"The flaws in Smith's prescription were as fundamental as can be - starting with the fact that his numbers didn't add up. This would be laughable except that, left unchecked, he and his colleagues would subject subway, bus and commuter line passengers to enormous fare hikes and declining service."-our response is the wondrous musing of the fool: "How does it know?"
Well, it knows because that's what all of the best and the brightest are telling everyone is true; and if the senate's numbers don't add up, then who's doing the vetting of the MTA figures? Tim Geithner? But the stopped clock on 33rd Street got one thing right: "Mired in deficits, the MTA will be forced to impose backbreaking fare hikes and service cuts, and to abandon track, station and signal maintenance, unless the Legislature provides funding."
This is the old story of the business that is losing money on every doo dad that it makes. When asked how it will be able to turn a profit on all of its sales, the boss replies: "Volume." So it goes with the MTA. Record ridership concomitant with record deficits. But, heh, why would these folks lie to us about their numbers?
The real scandal here is the willingness of all of these lemmings to go along with pouring money down the MTA sinkhole-while calling those who oppose the Ponzi scheme bad names. The NY Post stands accused: "Still, it's clear that Smith has absolutely no control over his conference.
Yesterday's travesty was engineered by the same loathsome Senate foursome who withheld their support from Smith as majority leader until he bought them off with plum committee chairmanships. That's not leadership. That's a commercial transaction."
Not a peep about how this agency's been ripping off the folks for years. Even Nicole Gelinas, someone who feels that the senate plan doesn't add up, gets the MTA debacle: " It's heartening, then, that Gov. Paterson seemed to want no part of this "compromise" yesterday - and that the MTA bigwigs stood with him. But it's worrisome that Smith may have made the most astute political calculations...But it should be yet another reminder for the MTA that a big reason why Smith et. al. can get away with their games is that the public truly doubts the MTA can be trusted with any new money."
So let's all take a deep breathe; and even we will cease and desist from woofing opprobrium for at least the short term if all other will agree to do the same. We will be waiting, however, to see if the other branches of government will be ready to overhaul the MTA as part of any bailout. That must be the sine quo non of any going forward.
Bailout the MTA?
All of a sudden there are pols and their enablers who have been struck with amnesia-so swift are they to tax the folks for an MTA that rivals AIG in a complete lack of accountability or transparency. To listen to the geshrei from the critics of the Senate majority's plan to rescue the MTA from...well, itself, you'd think that they'd just stiffed the Little Sisters of the Poor.And the very first critic out of the box was the little leprechaun Mike Bloomberg.
Now if Mike Bloomberg is taking pot shots at you on a transportation and tolling policy than you must be on the side of the angels. Here's the wisdom of the little engine that could:
"We need a plan that solves the problem, not something that's going to get us to next year," the mayor told reporters, including DN City Hall Bureau Chief Adam Lisberg, who is trailing Bloomberg at the St. Patrick's Day Parade.
"Next year will be even more difficult to get something through the Legislature, because it will be an election year for the state Senate and the state Assembly and for the governor," the mayor continued. "So I think this is the year to solve this problem, and incidentally, we have to solve the capital problem. The capital problem comes first. If you don't solve your capital problem, you don't know how to project what the operating expenses are going to be."
This comes from someone who's very first instinct is to tax the folks and give all the swells that hang out with him a pass-owing to their indispensability. Only Bloomberg would wax nostalgic about his congestion tax: "As he likes to do when the topic of generating revenue for mass transit comes up, Bloomberg reminded everyone that he had his own plan - congestion pricing - that was summarily rejected by Albany...'The city came up with their plan, we sent it up to Albany, they wanted to do something different, and that's fine," Bloomberg said. The MTA is a state agency. We have four votes. But we have to have a system that's reliable. Otherwise, this city will choke."
Right along side of the mayor-bike and skateboards at the ready-was the Transportation Alternative wackos, ready to provide some street cred for the patrician mayor. As the Politicker points out: "Near as I can tell, Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives struck first, via e-mail. "The Senate Democrats' so-called MTA rescue plan is a deferral of responsibility that postpones tough decisions and threatens to make the Authority's financial situation worse," he wrote. "What the City, State and millions of straphangers need are the long-term solutions offered by the Ravitch plan."
Than along comes the permanent government types like Kathy Wylde-ready to provide the amen chorus for anything that hurts the city's outer boroughs and small businesses. And all of the criticism seems to be directed at the fact that the Smith-led plan doesn't address the "long term needs" of the agency. Well, aside from the fact that in the long run we're all dead, where does it say that it's responsible to give the MTA any kind of long term lease on the tax payers' purse strings? As Pedro Espada told the NY Times: "Senator Pedro Espada Jr., a Bronx Democrat who has strongly opposed the Ravitch toll proposal, defended the Democratic conference against its critics. “The arrogance of saying, we told you senators what we need, and you will rubber-stamp it,” he said. “There’s a new day in the Senate. It’s that kind of arrogance that has given us tunnels to nowhere and some of the worst service around.”
The reality is that the deferral of addressing the capital needs of the agency-when that agency is being given carte blanche by some to self medicate-devolves from the fact that there is no long term plan that's been laid out by the MTA scions. By aside from that, why is it responsible to provide for the long term health of such an addicted patient?
Here's Liz's take, something that never made the paper's official government version story in the NY Daily News this morning: "Smith said this plan is sufficient to meet the MTA's short-term problem, which is its operating deficit. In terms of the long-term, capital shortfall, that would be addressed after a forensic audit, with a commitment to upstate and Long Island transportation projects and perhaps through either PIT surcharge in the MTA region and "new ideas from the public and legislators." Let's just take a moment," Smith pleaded. "...At best, we should see what the capital plan looks like, where the money is being spent, how it 's being spent and see what we can do to help...We took care of the operational problem; there will be no service cuts with this...Give us now at least until the end of the session to come up with a capital plan for (the MTA). We'll work with them to do that."
Yet all of the putatively responsible folks who get their Daily News exclusive this morning think that buying a pig in a poke is sound fiscal planning. Maybe they can hire Chris Dodd to do their forensic audit. So the News simply bashes the senate plan in print in the body of the paper-perhaps leaving the editorial writers to do the fact gathering: "Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith's universally panned MTA bailout appears dead on arrival - leaving riders closer to sky-high fare hikes and service cuts. Not only did the Democratic governor and Assembly speaker blast the stop-gap plan Tuesday, but the head of the Senate Finance Committee rejected it, too. "I don't think a piecemeal approach will accomplish the goals," state Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan) told the Daily News."
Oops, sorry, wrong Kruger fellas-but mistaking the second fiddle for the orchestra leader is only one of their many sins. How about writing as if the MTA and its legion of resident chorus of enabling geniuses are imbued with papal infallibility: "Kathryn Wylde, head of the Partnership for New York, an influential business group, panned Smith's idea, saying,"You can drive a truck through the holes in that plan." Gary LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, said ignoring the capital construction plan would mean no work for tens of thousands of construction workers. "The Senate essentially is telling tens of thousands of construction workers, 'Go join the unemployment line.'"
So the battle is on-and kudos for Smith's response to Wylde in the Politicker, as the majority leader refused to genuflect to someone who carries the water of others who simply lack any real concern for straphangers: " I asked Smith about the business community's position on the payroll tax as he unveiled his plan, and he said, "The business community doesn't vote on this plan. We do."
And for all of the umbrage being displayed at the Smith plan-and especially the snarky responses of Marty Golden who should say that the mayor paid his way into the theater before commenting-the rescue plan needs to go through the senate; and there is no support there for the Toll House cookies on display at the governor's office yesterday (unless Golden wants to step up and support tolls and go head to head with Vinnie Gentile in 2010). So let the games begin, and good luck to those who want to make the MTA their poster child for good governance.
Pedro Espada in the Politicker gets the last word: "A few minutes after Paterson's event had ended, Espada called my desk. "I think the advocates, the governor and all the critics. I ask one question: where is the capital plan?" He asked. It has not yet been introduced; normally the M.T.A. submits a wish list every five years (this year it happens in October), which must be approved by a board consisting of Smith, Silver, Paterson and Michael Bloomberg. So it's a moving target. "When we don't think and we write these blank checks, we get service that ranks them just above Mr. Madoff in terms of accountability," he said. "This is a new day, and all kudos to Senator Malcolm Smith. He's taken on the permanent government."
Now if Mike Bloomberg is taking pot shots at you on a transportation and tolling policy than you must be on the side of the angels. Here's the wisdom of the little engine that could:
"We need a plan that solves the problem, not something that's going to get us to next year," the mayor told reporters, including DN City Hall Bureau Chief Adam Lisberg, who is trailing Bloomberg at the St. Patrick's Day Parade.
"Next year will be even more difficult to get something through the Legislature, because it will be an election year for the state Senate and the state Assembly and for the governor," the mayor continued. "So I think this is the year to solve this problem, and incidentally, we have to solve the capital problem. The capital problem comes first. If you don't solve your capital problem, you don't know how to project what the operating expenses are going to be."
This comes from someone who's very first instinct is to tax the folks and give all the swells that hang out with him a pass-owing to their indispensability. Only Bloomberg would wax nostalgic about his congestion tax: "As he likes to do when the topic of generating revenue for mass transit comes up, Bloomberg reminded everyone that he had his own plan - congestion pricing - that was summarily rejected by Albany...'The city came up with their plan, we sent it up to Albany, they wanted to do something different, and that's fine," Bloomberg said. The MTA is a state agency. We have four votes. But we have to have a system that's reliable. Otherwise, this city will choke."
Right along side of the mayor-bike and skateboards at the ready-was the Transportation Alternative wackos, ready to provide some street cred for the patrician mayor. As the Politicker points out: "Near as I can tell, Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives struck first, via e-mail. "The Senate Democrats' so-called MTA rescue plan is a deferral of responsibility that postpones tough decisions and threatens to make the Authority's financial situation worse," he wrote. "What the City, State and millions of straphangers need are the long-term solutions offered by the Ravitch plan."
Than along comes the permanent government types like Kathy Wylde-ready to provide the amen chorus for anything that hurts the city's outer boroughs and small businesses. And all of the criticism seems to be directed at the fact that the Smith-led plan doesn't address the "long term needs" of the agency. Well, aside from the fact that in the long run we're all dead, where does it say that it's responsible to give the MTA any kind of long term lease on the tax payers' purse strings? As Pedro Espada told the NY Times: "Senator Pedro Espada Jr., a Bronx Democrat who has strongly opposed the Ravitch toll proposal, defended the Democratic conference against its critics. “The arrogance of saying, we told you senators what we need, and you will rubber-stamp it,” he said. “There’s a new day in the Senate. It’s that kind of arrogance that has given us tunnels to nowhere and some of the worst service around.”
The reality is that the deferral of addressing the capital needs of the agency-when that agency is being given carte blanche by some to self medicate-devolves from the fact that there is no long term plan that's been laid out by the MTA scions. By aside from that, why is it responsible to provide for the long term health of such an addicted patient?
Here's Liz's take, something that never made the paper's official government version story in the NY Daily News this morning: "Smith said this plan is sufficient to meet the MTA's short-term problem, which is its operating deficit. In terms of the long-term, capital shortfall, that would be addressed after a forensic audit, with a commitment to upstate and Long Island transportation projects and perhaps through either PIT surcharge in the MTA region and "new ideas from the public and legislators." Let's just take a moment," Smith pleaded. "...At best, we should see what the capital plan looks like, where the money is being spent, how it 's being spent and see what we can do to help...We took care of the operational problem; there will be no service cuts with this...Give us now at least until the end of the session to come up with a capital plan for (the MTA). We'll work with them to do that."
Yet all of the putatively responsible folks who get their Daily News exclusive this morning think that buying a pig in a poke is sound fiscal planning. Maybe they can hire Chris Dodd to do their forensic audit. So the News simply bashes the senate plan in print in the body of the paper-perhaps leaving the editorial writers to do the fact gathering: "Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith's universally panned MTA bailout appears dead on arrival - leaving riders closer to sky-high fare hikes and service cuts. Not only did the Democratic governor and Assembly speaker blast the stop-gap plan Tuesday, but the head of the Senate Finance Committee rejected it, too. "I don't think a piecemeal approach will accomplish the goals," state Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan) told the Daily News."
Oops, sorry, wrong Kruger fellas-but mistaking the second fiddle for the orchestra leader is only one of their many sins. How about writing as if the MTA and its legion of resident chorus of enabling geniuses are imbued with papal infallibility: "Kathryn Wylde, head of the Partnership for New York, an influential business group, panned Smith's idea, saying,"You can drive a truck through the holes in that plan." Gary LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, said ignoring the capital construction plan would mean no work for tens of thousands of construction workers. "The Senate essentially is telling tens of thousands of construction workers, 'Go join the unemployment line.'"
So the battle is on-and kudos for Smith's response to Wylde in the Politicker, as the majority leader refused to genuflect to someone who carries the water of others who simply lack any real concern for straphangers: " I asked Smith about the business community's position on the payroll tax as he unveiled his plan, and he said, "The business community doesn't vote on this plan. We do."
And for all of the umbrage being displayed at the Smith plan-and especially the snarky responses of Marty Golden who should say that the mayor paid his way into the theater before commenting-the rescue plan needs to go through the senate; and there is no support there for the Toll House cookies on display at the governor's office yesterday (unless Golden wants to step up and support tolls and go head to head with Vinnie Gentile in 2010). So let the games begin, and good luck to those who want to make the MTA their poster child for good governance.
Pedro Espada in the Politicker gets the last word: "A few minutes after Paterson's event had ended, Espada called my desk. "I think the advocates, the governor and all the critics. I ask one question: where is the capital plan?" He asked. It has not yet been introduced; normally the M.T.A. submits a wish list every five years (this year it happens in October), which must be approved by a board consisting of Smith, Silver, Paterson and Michael Bloomberg. So it's a moving target. "When we don't think and we write these blank checks, we get service that ranks them just above Mr. Madoff in terms of accountability," he said. "This is a new day, and all kudos to Senator Malcolm Smith. He's taken on the permanent government."
DCP Addresses Supermarket Gap
In a post last week that we were derelict in not citing, the Observer's Eliot Brown details the city's draft supermarket stimulus proposal: "Amanda Burden thinks the city needs more C-Towns. Boiled down a bit, that is the essence of a Bloomberg administration initiative in the planning stages for many months now to boost the city’s stock of supermarkets, particularly in poorer neighborhoods. The administration believes as many as three million New Yorkers live in neighborhoods it considers to be underserved by grocery stores, and is developing ways to encourage their production, aiming to boost health and encourage job growth."
This is, of course, an issue that we have been hectoring the city on for the better part of two decades-and have we've said, the city's current draft plan is a welcome first step in devising a sound promotion and preservation strategy. So what does the plan envision?
According to Brown: "Based on recommendations from a study completed last fall and a draft of new policies shared with grocery industry executives, it is clear that the Bloomberg administration intends to loosen zoning rules and offer tax incentives to boost the development of new supermarkets. The draft of policies—which the Planning spokeswoman stressed were not yet complete and are subject to change—proposed both land use incentives and tax incentives for supermarkets in certain neighborhoods."
So who could object? Well, perhaps that habitual naysayer might find the plan wanting: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents grocery store workers, said the draft policies were a “good step,” but do not go far enough to counter the forces that are continually shuttering grocery stores citywide. “The more compelling policy issue is the disappearance of existing stores,” he said. He also urged the city to prioritize grocery store uses when selling off city-owned land, which was one of the Planning Department’s own recommendations last fall."
Which brings us to the question of the Kingsbridge Armory-where the developer Related has been given tax incentives to redevelop the structure with a retail mall; and there's a good chance it will seek to put a food use into the facility. As the NY Daily News reported yesterday: "With the city approving millions in tax breaks for the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment, community groups are now hoping to claim some of that public largess through a community benefits agreement. The city Industrial Development Agency voted Wednesday to give $17 million in tax breaks to the Related Companies to redevelop the armory, over the objections of a local coalition and representatives of City Controller William Thompson and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. Both had sought to delay the agency's decision on tax credits until after Related signed an agreement."
Good for the community coalition; if the developer's gonna get the cash from the tax payers-just like AIG?-it will have to give back to the community. But that's not the only issue here. What the $17 million of tax incentives underscores is that, should a food use be proffered for the site, it would in essence be providing that food use with a subsidy to compete against the local supermarket that has occupied the site across the street for over 50 years!
So the Armory fight highlights the weakness of the DCP draft supermarket stimulus plan; and by ignoring existing markets, the current plan might actually increase the efflux of supermarkets from local neighborhoods. But, as the planning department says, this is still a work in progress: "The Planning Department spokeswoman, Rachaele Raynoff, said the initiative is a work in progress. It’s something where we need to hear from people in different areas what their concerns and objectives are, and incorporate that as we go forward,” she said."
And here from us she will-especially as the Battle of Kingsbridge begins to heat up. After all, a local market that serviced a neighborhood for years, without the benefit of any tax or zoning benefits, doesn't deserve to have its business threatened by a city policy designed to promote supermarkets.
This is, of course, an issue that we have been hectoring the city on for the better part of two decades-and have we've said, the city's current draft plan is a welcome first step in devising a sound promotion and preservation strategy. So what does the plan envision?
According to Brown: "Based on recommendations from a study completed last fall and a draft of new policies shared with grocery industry executives, it is clear that the Bloomberg administration intends to loosen zoning rules and offer tax incentives to boost the development of new supermarkets. The draft of policies—which the Planning spokeswoman stressed were not yet complete and are subject to change—proposed both land use incentives and tax incentives for supermarkets in certain neighborhoods."
So who could object? Well, perhaps that habitual naysayer might find the plan wanting: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents grocery store workers, said the draft policies were a “good step,” but do not go far enough to counter the forces that are continually shuttering grocery stores citywide. “The more compelling policy issue is the disappearance of existing stores,” he said. He also urged the city to prioritize grocery store uses when selling off city-owned land, which was one of the Planning Department’s own recommendations last fall."
Which brings us to the question of the Kingsbridge Armory-where the developer Related has been given tax incentives to redevelop the structure with a retail mall; and there's a good chance it will seek to put a food use into the facility. As the NY Daily News reported yesterday: "With the city approving millions in tax breaks for the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment, community groups are now hoping to claim some of that public largess through a community benefits agreement. The city Industrial Development Agency voted Wednesday to give $17 million in tax breaks to the Related Companies to redevelop the armory, over the objections of a local coalition and representatives of City Controller William Thompson and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. Both had sought to delay the agency's decision on tax credits until after Related signed an agreement."
Good for the community coalition; if the developer's gonna get the cash from the tax payers-just like AIG?-it will have to give back to the community. But that's not the only issue here. What the $17 million of tax incentives underscores is that, should a food use be proffered for the site, it would in essence be providing that food use with a subsidy to compete against the local supermarket that has occupied the site across the street for over 50 years!
So the Armory fight highlights the weakness of the DCP draft supermarket stimulus plan; and by ignoring existing markets, the current plan might actually increase the efflux of supermarkets from local neighborhoods. But, as the planning department says, this is still a work in progress: "The Planning Department spokeswoman, Rachaele Raynoff, said the initiative is a work in progress. It’s something where we need to hear from people in different areas what their concerns and objectives are, and incorporate that as we go forward,” she said."
And here from us she will-especially as the Battle of Kingsbridge begins to heat up. After all, a local market that serviced a neighborhood for years, without the benefit of any tax or zoning benefits, doesn't deserve to have its business threatened by a city policy designed to promote supermarkets.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A Good Idea-By Anyone's Standard
The hits just keep on coming-this time it's the Syracuse Post-Standard weighing in on support for the sale of wine in supermarkets: "So what's the big deal? You're shopping for groceries, planning a nice meal with friends. You want a bottle of wine to go along with it. If the grocery store offered a selection, you could take care of that errand at the same time. Convenient, right? So how come New York state hasn't allowed wine to be sold in grocery stores for decades? Good question. Gov. David Paterson wants to lift the ban. He says it could bring in close to $160 million in license fees from the state's 18,000 grocery outlets over the next two years. He also argues that it would be good for consumers, and good for business -- including the $3.4 billion New York state wine industry."
And the paper vivisects the liquor store fear tactics: "The gist of the liquor industry's complaint is that things are just fine the way they are. The "mom-and-pop" stores provide jobs for thousands of New Yorkers -- as many as 2,000 in Central New York alone. Wine constitutes more than 50 percent of liquor-store sales. Allowing grocery stores to sell it could doom 1,000 stores and 4,000 jobs, according to an industry study. Not to mention spikes in alcoholism, drunk driving and underage sales. But 35 other states allow wine sales in grocery stores -- and liquor stores. While drunk-driving may be more prevalent in states like Florida and California than New York, people also drive a lot more than in places like New York City."
But doesn't the increase in the number of outlets insure a spike in underage sales? Not according to the Post-Standard: "Concern about increased DWIs concedes there might be expanded sales -- which seems to be the case. In Washington state, the year after grocery stores began selling wine, sales increased by more than 50 percent -- while wine sales in liquor stores generally stayed close to pre-expansion levels. Keeping wine out of the hands of juveniles is imperative. But so is keeping them away from the beer that already is being sold in grocery stores."
Which means to us that, if measures can be added that insure better training of store personnel-as well as more vigilant enforcement of law breaking-a compromise can be reached to allay the fears of some that proliferation means greater inebriation; as well as more drinking and driving tragedies. If the opposition isn't being simply disingenuous about its concerns over this issue.
Of course, the liquor stores do need some help to modernize; and the Post-Standard agrees: "The logic of allowing wine sales in grocery stores is compelling. But before moving ahead with this proposal, lawmakers should try and make it fairer for liquor store owners who have invested in their enterprises and played by the rules. One of those rules bars them from selling anything but wine and liquor. Another prevents them from owning more than one store. What about allowing liquor stores to sell mixers, snacks, accessories -- and beer? How about eliminating the one-store-only rule?"
Exactly what Senator Espada has proposed to do; which means that there is a very palatable middle ground that can be reached. And if the liquor store lobby resists? Well, as Rousseau once said, sometimes you have to force people to be free.
And the paper vivisects the liquor store fear tactics: "The gist of the liquor industry's complaint is that things are just fine the way they are. The "mom-and-pop" stores provide jobs for thousands of New Yorkers -- as many as 2,000 in Central New York alone. Wine constitutes more than 50 percent of liquor-store sales. Allowing grocery stores to sell it could doom 1,000 stores and 4,000 jobs, according to an industry study. Not to mention spikes in alcoholism, drunk driving and underage sales. But 35 other states allow wine sales in grocery stores -- and liquor stores. While drunk-driving may be more prevalent in states like Florida and California than New York, people also drive a lot more than in places like New York City."
But doesn't the increase in the number of outlets insure a spike in underage sales? Not according to the Post-Standard: "Concern about increased DWIs concedes there might be expanded sales -- which seems to be the case. In Washington state, the year after grocery stores began selling wine, sales increased by more than 50 percent -- while wine sales in liquor stores generally stayed close to pre-expansion levels. Keeping wine out of the hands of juveniles is imperative. But so is keeping them away from the beer that already is being sold in grocery stores."
Which means to us that, if measures can be added that insure better training of store personnel-as well as more vigilant enforcement of law breaking-a compromise can be reached to allay the fears of some that proliferation means greater inebriation; as well as more drinking and driving tragedies. If the opposition isn't being simply disingenuous about its concerns over this issue.
Of course, the liquor stores do need some help to modernize; and the Post-Standard agrees: "The logic of allowing wine sales in grocery stores is compelling. But before moving ahead with this proposal, lawmakers should try and make it fairer for liquor store owners who have invested in their enterprises and played by the rules. One of those rules bars them from selling anything but wine and liquor. Another prevents them from owning more than one store. What about allowing liquor stores to sell mixers, snacks, accessories -- and beer? How about eliminating the one-store-only rule?"
Exactly what Senator Espada has proposed to do; which means that there is a very palatable middle ground that can be reached. And if the liquor store lobby resists? Well, as Rousseau once said, sometimes you have to force people to be free.
Bell Tolls for Ravitch Plan
According to the NY Times, the state senate has devised a short term plan to provide the MTA with a cash infusion-while at the same time eschewing any of the tolls that the Kruger-led faction believes is an anathema: "A proposal to add tolls to bridges over the East and Harlem Rivers to help finance the beleaguered Metropolitan Transportation Authority appears to be dead in the State Senate, as the Democratic majority is preparing to offer on Tuesday a scaled-back, short-term alternative to bail out the authority, two people briefed on that plan said."
If so, this is a big victory for strapped commuters; and the first step, hopefully, towards the badly needed overhaul of a corrupt and inefficient public authority: "The immediate impact would be, all service cuts are restored, fare increases would be cut in half, and there would be no tolls,” said one of the two people briefed on the plan. Democratic staff members reviewed some of the authority’s finances in recent days and concluded that a scaled-back plan would suffice in the short term. But the Senate proposal would require the transportation authority to submit to a deeper forensic auditing, a step lawmakers from both parties have demanded as a condition of laying out more taxpayer money for the authority, long dogged by waste and corruption."
What should be commenced-and almost immediately after this deal is struck-is a demand for the resignation of all senior staff; and the hiring of a team of bankruptcy attorneys and transit experts to determine how the badly needed restructuring of the authority should be accomplished. While this stop gap will not please the avaricious Ravitch, it will give the legislature the time to devise the agency's revamping.
What seems about to happen, however, is-at least from the governor's perspective-does not look pretty: "Gov. David A. Paterson also did not appear ready to accept the Senate plan. He is scheduled to hold a news conference with transit advocates on Tuesday, when he is expected to call for passage of the full Ravitch plan. The Ravitch plan was designed to spread the fiscal pain by requiring financial contributions from several groups. Businesses would pay a payroll tax. Riders would pay an 8 percent fare increase. And drivers would pay new bridge tolls. The rationale was that all three groups should pay because they all benefited from the transit system, including drivers, who would find roads heavily congested without it. Mr. Ravitch hoped his plan would command wide support and head off critics who might complain that one group or another was being singled out."
Paterson apparently is a glutton for punishment; willing to burden everyone in order to look evenhanded, he risks suffering the kind of slings and arrows that an anemic approval rating can ill-afford to bear. But by devising this alternative plan, the senate shifts the focus away from the governor's political self-flagellating gluttony, and throws the ball right over to the assembly, "where there is also opposition to tolls." (an apparent understatement)
Will the governor take the life raft? Hard to predict. But what we do know for sure, is that the amigos have struck again; and tolls will not be put on the city's free bridges.
If so, this is a big victory for strapped commuters; and the first step, hopefully, towards the badly needed overhaul of a corrupt and inefficient public authority: "The immediate impact would be, all service cuts are restored, fare increases would be cut in half, and there would be no tolls,” said one of the two people briefed on the plan. Democratic staff members reviewed some of the authority’s finances in recent days and concluded that a scaled-back plan would suffice in the short term. But the Senate proposal would require the transportation authority to submit to a deeper forensic auditing, a step lawmakers from both parties have demanded as a condition of laying out more taxpayer money for the authority, long dogged by waste and corruption."
What should be commenced-and almost immediately after this deal is struck-is a demand for the resignation of all senior staff; and the hiring of a team of bankruptcy attorneys and transit experts to determine how the badly needed restructuring of the authority should be accomplished. While this stop gap will not please the avaricious Ravitch, it will give the legislature the time to devise the agency's revamping.
What seems about to happen, however, is-at least from the governor's perspective-does not look pretty: "Gov. David A. Paterson also did not appear ready to accept the Senate plan. He is scheduled to hold a news conference with transit advocates on Tuesday, when he is expected to call for passage of the full Ravitch plan. The Ravitch plan was designed to spread the fiscal pain by requiring financial contributions from several groups. Businesses would pay a payroll tax. Riders would pay an 8 percent fare increase. And drivers would pay new bridge tolls. The rationale was that all three groups should pay because they all benefited from the transit system, including drivers, who would find roads heavily congested without it. Mr. Ravitch hoped his plan would command wide support and head off critics who might complain that one group or another was being singled out."
Paterson apparently is a glutton for punishment; willing to burden everyone in order to look evenhanded, he risks suffering the kind of slings and arrows that an anemic approval rating can ill-afford to bear. But by devising this alternative plan, the senate shifts the focus away from the governor's political self-flagellating gluttony, and throws the ball right over to the assembly, "where there is also opposition to tolls." (an apparent understatement)
Will the governor take the life raft? Hard to predict. But what we do know for sure, is that the amigos have struck again; and tolls will not be put on the city's free bridges.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Can the Bottle Bill
Clearly upset with the possibility of having to handle even more bottles and cans, New York City retailers and the workers they employ, feeling that enough's enough, are going to go over to the governor's office today to present him with a symbolic load of deposit containers to demonstrate that they simply have to more room-or resources-to handle this garbage disposal burden. The group wants the legislature to remove the expanded bottle bill from any budget negotiations at a time when the city is losing grocery stores and supermarkets.
Of course, this doesn't stop the NY Times-with absolutely no sense of irony-or shame-from editorializing once again in favor of the increased burden on local stores; and the just jettisoned job killing fat tax as well: "But it would be a mistake to drop his “fat tax” on soda — liquid candy, as health advocates call it. That alone would cost the state at least $400 million a year. And we can only hope the governor will not back away from some of his other important initiatives, like expanding the bottle redemption system in order to finance the state’s environmental program."
Let us reiterate. The biggest waste removal problem that the city has is newspapers that are discarded instead of being put out at the curb for recycling. Of this we hear nary a peep from the Times-folks who are great at adding costs for others but who are equally adept at eliding their own responsibilities. Which is why we have argued that it is time to tax the newspapers. After all, why should the tax payers pay the freight for the disposal of their waste product.
So, we are headed over to Third Avenue today to underscore the plight of city retailers; and before the Times and others promote bottle bill expansion, they should be sensitive to the disappearance of city food stores-a vital resource for all New Yorkers. This isn't the time to impose expensive burdens on retailers fighting for their business lives.
Of course, this doesn't stop the NY Times-with absolutely no sense of irony-or shame-from editorializing once again in favor of the increased burden on local stores; and the just jettisoned job killing fat tax as well: "But it would be a mistake to drop his “fat tax” on soda — liquid candy, as health advocates call it. That alone would cost the state at least $400 million a year. And we can only hope the governor will not back away from some of his other important initiatives, like expanding the bottle redemption system in order to finance the state’s environmental program."
Let us reiterate. The biggest waste removal problem that the city has is newspapers that are discarded instead of being put out at the curb for recycling. Of this we hear nary a peep from the Times-folks who are great at adding costs for others but who are equally adept at eliding their own responsibilities. Which is why we have argued that it is time to tax the newspapers. After all, why should the tax payers pay the freight for the disposal of their waste product.
So, we are headed over to Third Avenue today to underscore the plight of city retailers; and before the Times and others promote bottle bill expansion, they should be sensitive to the disappearance of city food stores-a vital resource for all New Yorkers. This isn't the time to impose expensive burdens on retailers fighting for their business lives.
Voter Free Choice Act Repealed
Remember when the term unlimited debate was going full throttle, and Mike Bloomberg was making the argument that an overturning of the law would yield a cornucopia of choices for the democratically challenged New York voter? Well a funny thing happened on the way to the feast; more and more it looks as if the great choices prophesied to be available have turned out to be evanescent.
A great deal of this is revealed in Michael Barbaro's political memo in Saturday's NY Times: "It was a central argument by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for re-engineering the city’s term limits law last year: Allowing him to seek re-election would give voters a bigger pool of candidates from which to choose, enhancing democracy, not squashing it, as his opponents contended. “If anything, the public has more choice because there will be more candidates, at least one more in the mayor’s race,” he said the day after the City Council voted to rewrite the rule."
Well it looks as if one more choice was simply one too many; and the idea of greater choice has become risible unless-like Mike Bloomberg-the concept of greater is simply seen as a derivative of the mayor's amor-propre: "Mr. Bloomberg’s popularity, the power of his incumbency and his willingness to spend $80 million of his own fortune to secure re-election have persuaded at least four mayoral hopefuls — two Democrats and two Republicans — to exit the race or sit it out."
Or, as one wag remarked: "We now know what Bloomberg meant when he said ‘choice’ — he meant himself,” said Bruce F. Berg, chairman of the political science department at Fordham University. Rewriting term limits, Mr. Berg said, “has stifled choice. And if Thompson drops out, he may well have eliminated choice.”
All of this, of course does little to diminish the sense of irony exhibited by that yellow dog Democrat Howard Wolfson: "Mr. Bloomberg’s supporters argue that the parties have only themselves to blame for producing lackluster mayoral candidates who badly trail the mayor in the polls. And, they note, anyone is free to challenge him. “At the end of the day the City Council decision allowed any New Yorker who wanted to run the opportunity to run,” said Howard Wolfson, a Bloomberg campaign spokesman."
Free to commit political suicide as Mayor Mike-the city's riches man-spends $100 million to re-introduce himself to a public apparently suffering from political dementia; and if this attrition keeps up we may have the kind of referendum that the North Koreans find so uplifting. The fact of the matter is-and we're watching you Times editorialists-if this guy spends this kind of money to scorched earth a lackluster field of diminished opponents, then he should be ridiculed by every opinion writer in the city. And they should hammer him at least as often as the NY Daily News has done to Senator Kruger because of his principle opposition to tolling the East and Harlem River bridges.
But all of this has not only given us Wolfson the ironist; it has also bequeathed a bit of aggravatingly typical Mike Bloomberg disingenuousness: "Asked this week whether his decision to seek a third term, and to spend heavily to achieve it, had a chilling effect on potential rivals, Mr. Bloomberg said, “There is no evidence to me that there are fewer candidates running.” CSI he's not.
As the campaign manager for one of the potential candidates who's likely to sit this election out tells the Times: "We were definitely gearing up to run — and then term limits happened,” said Rob Ryan, an aide to Mr. Catsimatidis, who is still weighing a run, but only in the unlikely event that Mr. Bloomberg does not win approval to run on the Republican ballot line. Mr. Ryan expressed bewilderment over Mr. Bloomberg’s contention that altering the term limits would create a wider pool of candidates. “Historically, in any race, you will see more candidates when it’s an open seat than when there is an incumbent,” he said."
Will any of this matter to the voters in the fall? Probably not; but strange things have been known to happen when campaigns get started. In our view, if Thompson is the candidate, he needs to after the mayor full bore-bearding the lion, so to speak. The mayor has been able to insulate the general public from the sharper edges of his personality. We'd like to see the real Mike Bloomberg goaded up.
A great deal of this is revealed in Michael Barbaro's political memo in Saturday's NY Times: "It was a central argument by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for re-engineering the city’s term limits law last year: Allowing him to seek re-election would give voters a bigger pool of candidates from which to choose, enhancing democracy, not squashing it, as his opponents contended. “If anything, the public has more choice because there will be more candidates, at least one more in the mayor’s race,” he said the day after the City Council voted to rewrite the rule."
Well it looks as if one more choice was simply one too many; and the idea of greater choice has become risible unless-like Mike Bloomberg-the concept of greater is simply seen as a derivative of the mayor's amor-propre: "Mr. Bloomberg’s popularity, the power of his incumbency and his willingness to spend $80 million of his own fortune to secure re-election have persuaded at least four mayoral hopefuls — two Democrats and two Republicans — to exit the race or sit it out."
Or, as one wag remarked: "We now know what Bloomberg meant when he said ‘choice’ — he meant himself,” said Bruce F. Berg, chairman of the political science department at Fordham University. Rewriting term limits, Mr. Berg said, “has stifled choice. And if Thompson drops out, he may well have eliminated choice.”
All of this, of course does little to diminish the sense of irony exhibited by that yellow dog Democrat Howard Wolfson: "Mr. Bloomberg’s supporters argue that the parties have only themselves to blame for producing lackluster mayoral candidates who badly trail the mayor in the polls. And, they note, anyone is free to challenge him. “At the end of the day the City Council decision allowed any New Yorker who wanted to run the opportunity to run,” said Howard Wolfson, a Bloomberg campaign spokesman."
Free to commit political suicide as Mayor Mike-the city's riches man-spends $100 million to re-introduce himself to a public apparently suffering from political dementia; and if this attrition keeps up we may have the kind of referendum that the North Koreans find so uplifting. The fact of the matter is-and we're watching you Times editorialists-if this guy spends this kind of money to scorched earth a lackluster field of diminished opponents, then he should be ridiculed by every opinion writer in the city. And they should hammer him at least as often as the NY Daily News has done to Senator Kruger because of his principle opposition to tolling the East and Harlem River bridges.
But all of this has not only given us Wolfson the ironist; it has also bequeathed a bit of aggravatingly typical Mike Bloomberg disingenuousness: "Asked this week whether his decision to seek a third term, and to spend heavily to achieve it, had a chilling effect on potential rivals, Mr. Bloomberg said, “There is no evidence to me that there are fewer candidates running.” CSI he's not.
As the campaign manager for one of the potential candidates who's likely to sit this election out tells the Times: "We were definitely gearing up to run — and then term limits happened,” said Rob Ryan, an aide to Mr. Catsimatidis, who is still weighing a run, but only in the unlikely event that Mr. Bloomberg does not win approval to run on the Republican ballot line. Mr. Ryan expressed bewilderment over Mr. Bloomberg’s contention that altering the term limits would create a wider pool of candidates. “Historically, in any race, you will see more candidates when it’s an open seat than when there is an incumbent,” he said."
Will any of this matter to the voters in the fall? Probably not; but strange things have been known to happen when campaigns get started. In our view, if Thompson is the candidate, he needs to after the mayor full bore-bearding the lion, so to speak. The mayor has been able to insulate the general public from the sharper edges of his personality. We'd like to see the real Mike Bloomberg goaded up.
No More Wining Allowed
The more serious-and non indentured-folks take a look at the wine in grocery store issue, the more it becomes apparent that only liquor store partisans see the downside. The latest evaluation comes from yesterday's Newsday strong supportive editorial: "Today, we raise a glass to the free market and endorse a proposal to allow the sale of wine in New York grocery stores. The idea would bring convenience to consumers and ultimately expand the state's winemaking industry."
And while Newsday feels-as we do ourselves-that the modern liquor store must become, well, modern, it doesn't feel that the fear of competition justifies the continuance of a protected monopoly: "But most businesses that are threatened by economic changes don't seek legal immunity from competition. Liquor-store owners want to protect a status quo that no one else enjoys in this increasingly global economy."
The liquor stores are so afraid of the competition that they're resisting the kind of positive change that Newsday believes-and Senator Espada's legislation advances-would be in the industry's best interests: "So, before the state opens the door to grocery stores, it must also modernize its liquor-store statutes. Allow liquor stores to sell beer, mixers, cheese and other complementary products. Let them extend their hours and expand to more than one outlet. Fair is fair...The governor's office invited liquor store owners to add their wish list to the legislation, but so far, they are holding back."
The money's on the table, and all it takes to advance the issue is getting folks on both sides of the question to give a little and craft a compromise that will benefit all of the stakeholders. The days of my way or the highway should be over; and Newsday, which understands this very well, deserves the last word: "Albany lawmakers should grasp this cup to their lips for the benefit of the state's wine industry and consumers - while serving liquor stores generously too."
And while Newsday feels-as we do ourselves-that the modern liquor store must become, well, modern, it doesn't feel that the fear of competition justifies the continuance of a protected monopoly: "But most businesses that are threatened by economic changes don't seek legal immunity from competition. Liquor-store owners want to protect a status quo that no one else enjoys in this increasingly global economy."
The liquor stores are so afraid of the competition that they're resisting the kind of positive change that Newsday believes-and Senator Espada's legislation advances-would be in the industry's best interests: "So, before the state opens the door to grocery stores, it must also modernize its liquor-store statutes. Allow liquor stores to sell beer, mixers, cheese and other complementary products. Let them extend their hours and expand to more than one outlet. Fair is fair...The governor's office invited liquor store owners to add their wish list to the legislation, but so far, they are holding back."
The money's on the table, and all it takes to advance the issue is getting folks on both sides of the question to give a little and craft a compromise that will benefit all of the stakeholders. The days of my way or the highway should be over; and Newsday, which understands this very well, deserves the last word: "Albany lawmakers should grasp this cup to their lips for the benefit of the state's wine industry and consumers - while serving liquor stores generously too."
Posting the Truth on Wine
It's getting to be redundant, but that's what happens when something is so self-evident; as the benefits for allowing the sale of wine in grocery stores surely is. The latest evidence is found in today's editorial in the NY Post: "With potentially more than $100 million in new revenue dangling be fore their eyes, lawmakers in Albany may finally do New Yorkers a favor - and let groceries sell wine. We'll raise a glass to that."
And the Post lashes out at the fact that the archaic state law raises prices to New York's consumers because of the lack of competition: "This bizarre rule dates back to Prohibition. But it's left the state with just 2,700 nonrestaurant retail wine-sale venues - for nearly 20 million residents. The result: New York is one of the least convenient places in America to buy wine. (With just shy of twice New York's population, California boasts 10 times the number of wine-retail outlets.) New Yorkers pay more, too - thanks to the lack of competition. Lifting the outdated ban would boost the number of venues tenfold, proponents predict, saving consumers some $80 million a year."
The paper also appreciates the potential revenue gains for the state: "And by licensing new outlets, the state can quickly produce a cool $100 million in licensing fees, to help plug a $14 billion budget hole. Albany's drunken sailors should love that idea. Of course, most New Yorkers like it, too: Some 68 percent say they want to be able to buy wine in grocery stores."
Which leaves only the monopolists opposed: "Actually, there is a group opposed. Yup, you guessed it: liquor-store owners, who now hold a monopoly on retail sales. To fight the reform, they've invented a few excuses: Underage drinking will soar, they claim - though teens tend to buy beer, not wine, and that's already sold in groceries. Liquor stores, facing new competition, may close, they say - killing jobs. Maybe. But even more new jobs will pop up to help distribute, market, stock and sell the product at the new outlets."
And, of course, a local industry could be bolstered as well: "Indeed, demand for New York-produced wine is likely to grow. Then Empire State vintners would need to up production, creating still more jobs - a nice shot in the arm for a neglected homegrown industry."
So let's get this show on the road-and, as the Post says; "Albany shouldn't keep wine sales, um, bottled up. It's time to let grocers sell wine."
And the Post lashes out at the fact that the archaic state law raises prices to New York's consumers because of the lack of competition: "This bizarre rule dates back to Prohibition. But it's left the state with just 2,700 nonrestaurant retail wine-sale venues - for nearly 20 million residents. The result: New York is one of the least convenient places in America to buy wine. (With just shy of twice New York's population, California boasts 10 times the number of wine-retail outlets.) New Yorkers pay more, too - thanks to the lack of competition. Lifting the outdated ban would boost the number of venues tenfold, proponents predict, saving consumers some $80 million a year."
The paper also appreciates the potential revenue gains for the state: "And by licensing new outlets, the state can quickly produce a cool $100 million in licensing fees, to help plug a $14 billion budget hole. Albany's drunken sailors should love that idea. Of course, most New Yorkers like it, too: Some 68 percent say they want to be able to buy wine in grocery stores."
Which leaves only the monopolists opposed: "Actually, there is a group opposed. Yup, you guessed it: liquor-store owners, who now hold a monopoly on retail sales. To fight the reform, they've invented a few excuses: Underage drinking will soar, they claim - though teens tend to buy beer, not wine, and that's already sold in groceries. Liquor stores, facing new competition, may close, they say - killing jobs. Maybe. But even more new jobs will pop up to help distribute, market, stock and sell the product at the new outlets."
And, of course, a local industry could be bolstered as well: "Indeed, demand for New York-produced wine is likely to grow. Then Empire State vintners would need to up production, creating still more jobs - a nice shot in the arm for a neglected homegrown industry."
So let's get this show on the road-and, as the Post says; "Albany shouldn't keep wine sales, um, bottled up. It's time to let grocers sell wine."
Liquor Battle Rewined
The Politicker has focused on the liquor store-supermarket wars over wine, and outlines some of the objections that are being raised: "Marc Ressler, owner of Midnight Liquors in Tonawanda and vice president of the state Liquor Store Association, said the measure would "steal" the wine business from liquor stores, and said after the licensing fees would provide only a relatively small amount of revenue for the state. "What that one-shot deal is going to cost us is, from our estimates, over 1,000 small businesses," he said."
Which leads us to wonder just how liquor stores in the 35 states that allow the sale of wine in grocery stores have managed to survive-and in many cases even grow their businesses. Go travel through Florida and you'll find supermarkets and liquor stores in the same shopping centers; compatibly thriving even though the wine sales are being shared. Makes you wonder about the reliability of the liquor lobby's alarmist "studies."
But in response to the concerns of these stores Senator Espada has introduced a bill to aid the industry: "Meanwhile, State Senator Pedro Espada Jr. has introduced an olive-branch bill that allows liquor store owners to have more than one location and sell snack foods to, as Espada told me, "even the playing field."
Sounds like the seed of a potential compromise, doesn't it? What remains to be seen, however, is the extent to which the liquor lobby is simply obstinate; unwilling to compromise at all, and perfectly happy for the state to fore go the (conservative) $105 million in licensing fees that it would accrue should the measure be enacted. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail; and a solution can be crafted so that all parties can gain. That would make a lot of sense to us.
Which leads us to wonder just how liquor stores in the 35 states that allow the sale of wine in grocery stores have managed to survive-and in many cases even grow their businesses. Go travel through Florida and you'll find supermarkets and liquor stores in the same shopping centers; compatibly thriving even though the wine sales are being shared. Makes you wonder about the reliability of the liquor lobby's alarmist "studies."
But in response to the concerns of these stores Senator Espada has introduced a bill to aid the industry: "Meanwhile, State Senator Pedro Espada Jr. has introduced an olive-branch bill that allows liquor store owners to have more than one location and sell snack foods to, as Espada told me, "even the playing field."
Sounds like the seed of a potential compromise, doesn't it? What remains to be seen, however, is the extent to which the liquor lobby is simply obstinate; unwilling to compromise at all, and perfectly happy for the state to fore go the (conservative) $105 million in licensing fees that it would accrue should the measure be enacted. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail; and a solution can be crafted so that all parties can gain. That would make a lot of sense to us.
Friday, March 13, 2009
An Un-Timely Opinion
We just knew that they couldn't resist-and the editorialists at the NY Times couldn't; weighing in today in order to give fiscal counsel to those state senators who are resisting tolling the East and Harlem River bridges: "Sometime this month, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is preparing to severely cut service and raise fares by a painful 23 percent. Here’s the reason: A few New York state senators have decided to let commuters suffer, even their own constituents, rather than approve a tax on payrolls and modest new tolls on bridges over the Harlem and East Rivers."
Now, let's put aside for a moment the almost total suspension of disbelief involved in the Times' accepting the MTA's budget numbers and its deadline for the imposition of a fare hike and service cuts. Just how does the paper get off rendering financial evaluations on anything; after all, this is the business that has put its corporate jet up for sale and is borrowing money at the usurious rate of 14%!
Then again, maybe the Times has an intimate knowledge of just what kind of financial hole the MTA has driven itself into. Perhaps, the two entities are sharing bread and water together in the proverbial hole-and commiserating about the predicament they both find themselves in. But the fact that the Times and the MTA are like-minded profligates, doesn't mean that we need to accept what either says as gospel; and for both, it can hardly be said that any of their utterances can be taken to the bank!
Here's how the Times sees the situation: "Even with Albany’s help, the M.T.A. would have to raise fares by 8 percent and cut some services. But without those new taxes and tolls, the M.T.A. can only deal with its $1.2 billion deficit by making it a lot worse for 8.5 million riders a day." How does it know? Why, because the MTA says it's so.
But that's not good enough for some legislative skeptics-and recent convert State Senator Hiram Monseratte has joined the dissenting chorus: "Sen. Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens), one of the first outer-borough lawmakers to back tolls on the now-free East River bridges, announced yesterday he's pulling his support. Monserrate said he wouldn't agree to the measure until other options, such as raising income taxes on the wealthy or selling off excess MTA land, are exhausted."
But the MTA is moving ahead with its doomsday threats, and troubleshooter Richard Ravitch is claiming that temporary measures will just make things worse: "In an interview, he said that if the Legislature ultimately offered the authority a one-time cash infusion, the authority should go ahead with the fare increase and use the state funds to pay for long-term maintenance, or perhaps hold onto it to help close the budget gap next year. The authority’s board will meet on Friday in a special session to review its finances with and without a rescue plan. The board will meet again on March 25 to vote on the size of a fare increase, which would take effect in June. It will also vote then on whether to move ahead with planning for a series of deep service cuts, most of which would take place later this year."
In our view, the governor should make this a make my day moment-and publicly tell the authority to hold off in order to give the state time to fully review the authority's books; and give all of the new board members (yes, throw each and every one under the bus) time to develop a long term restructuring plan. For the Times, however, the agency's crackpot realism is accepted as an article of faith-prompting the paper to end its editorial with this lame observation on the complaints of legislative dissenters: "Their latest complaints are focusing more on the way the M.T.A. operates. Yes, the M.T.A. could always be more efficient, more transparent, but that is no excuse to punish the millions of New Yorkers who rely on public transit."
This tepid acknowledgement of MTA governing practices reminds us of the kind of defense Barney Frank mustered for Freddie Mac last July-yes there are some problems, but nothing to stop us from doing business as usual. So the Times-and the Daily News-should stop excoriating legislative opponents of bridge tolls, and demand that the governor and the state legislature devise a temporary plan to forestall fare increases. After that is done, than the newly restructured MTA-aided by the public accounting from its newly appointed trustees-could begin the hard work of making the authority function with transparent efficiency.
Now, let's put aside for a moment the almost total suspension of disbelief involved in the Times' accepting the MTA's budget numbers and its deadline for the imposition of a fare hike and service cuts. Just how does the paper get off rendering financial evaluations on anything; after all, this is the business that has put its corporate jet up for sale and is borrowing money at the usurious rate of 14%!
Then again, maybe the Times has an intimate knowledge of just what kind of financial hole the MTA has driven itself into. Perhaps, the two entities are sharing bread and water together in the proverbial hole-and commiserating about the predicament they both find themselves in. But the fact that the Times and the MTA are like-minded profligates, doesn't mean that we need to accept what either says as gospel; and for both, it can hardly be said that any of their utterances can be taken to the bank!
Here's how the Times sees the situation: "Even with Albany’s help, the M.T.A. would have to raise fares by 8 percent and cut some services. But without those new taxes and tolls, the M.T.A. can only deal with its $1.2 billion deficit by making it a lot worse for 8.5 million riders a day." How does it know? Why, because the MTA says it's so.
But that's not good enough for some legislative skeptics-and recent convert State Senator Hiram Monseratte has joined the dissenting chorus: "Sen. Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens), one of the first outer-borough lawmakers to back tolls on the now-free East River bridges, announced yesterday he's pulling his support. Monserrate said he wouldn't agree to the measure until other options, such as raising income taxes on the wealthy or selling off excess MTA land, are exhausted."
But the MTA is moving ahead with its doomsday threats, and troubleshooter Richard Ravitch is claiming that temporary measures will just make things worse: "In an interview, he said that if the Legislature ultimately offered the authority a one-time cash infusion, the authority should go ahead with the fare increase and use the state funds to pay for long-term maintenance, or perhaps hold onto it to help close the budget gap next year. The authority’s board will meet on Friday in a special session to review its finances with and without a rescue plan. The board will meet again on March 25 to vote on the size of a fare increase, which would take effect in June. It will also vote then on whether to move ahead with planning for a series of deep service cuts, most of which would take place later this year."
In our view, the governor should make this a make my day moment-and publicly tell the authority to hold off in order to give the state time to fully review the authority's books; and give all of the new board members (yes, throw each and every one under the bus) time to develop a long term restructuring plan. For the Times, however, the agency's crackpot realism is accepted as an article of faith-prompting the paper to end its editorial with this lame observation on the complaints of legislative dissenters: "Their latest complaints are focusing more on the way the M.T.A. operates. Yes, the M.T.A. could always be more efficient, more transparent, but that is no excuse to punish the millions of New Yorkers who rely on public transit."
This tepid acknowledgement of MTA governing practices reminds us of the kind of defense Barney Frank mustered for Freddie Mac last July-yes there are some problems, but nothing to stop us from doing business as usual. So the Times-and the Daily News-should stop excoriating legislative opponents of bridge tolls, and demand that the governor and the state legislature devise a temporary plan to forestall fare increases. After that is done, than the newly restructured MTA-aided by the public accounting from its newly appointed trustees-could begin the hard work of making the authority function with transparent efficiency.
Sick Transit Lacks Glory
With the plutocrats hell bent on tolling the working class, in a brazen shilling for a corrupt public authority, it is refreshing to see the wayward fourth amigo weighing in; and watching the back of his former amigo colleague. That's exactly what Hiram Montserrate did in a big way yesterday: "If ever there was a sign that the toll portion of Richard Ravitch's MTA bailout plan is "dead" for lack of support in the Senate (as Sen. Martin Dilan says), it is the statement Sen. Hiram Montserrate released this morning. The Democratic freshman lawmaker from Queens was the first to endorse the idea of tolling the East and Harlem river bridges, although he later clarified by saying he considered it a "last resort." He's now backing away from the idea altogether and echoing his colleagues' criticisms of the MTA for failing to explain "specifically" how toll revenue would be used to pay for service and capital improvements."
Take that NY Daily News!-the paper that has a virtual love affair with the senescent MTA. And Hiram pulls no punches in going after the nonfeasant authority-reinforcing the fact that the agency is badly in need of a fiscal enema; something that Majority Leader Smith has suggested.
But perhaps the strongest defense of the MTA skeptics, comes from our friend Corey Bearak. Bearak penned the following, in response to one of the Daily News attacks on the senate:
"The Daily News editorial board, not five courageous state senators, “need to see the light.” (Editorial: “We've got their numbers: Five state senators betray a half-million straphangers,” March 11, 2009). The Daily News evidently cares no one iota about the deleterious impact of packing even more riders to the over-capacity subway cars that surely will result if the toll-taxers get their way and impose tolls on the extensions of our city streets known as our free bridges across the East River and Harlem River. Rather than a inefficient, unfair and inequitable tax that will pack in straphangers like Sardines, the Daily News better serves its readers and the public by advocating the sound alternatives advocates by the coalition of civic, business and labor organizations, Keep NYC Free. Please visit www.KeepNYCFree.com to read our proposals and urge our elected officials to embrace these alternatives, which unlike the Ravitch scheme, avoids any reliance on a fare hike. If a few more electeds join Senators Kruger, Diaz, Espada, Parker and Hassell-Thompson, the path to a no-fare-hike, stable revenue for transit plan becomes more likely every day."
And, given the financial dire straights of Mort Zuckerman's News, we don't think that the paper should be fiscally critiquing-and mocking-those lawmakers who proffer alternative, non-toll scenarios. As Real Clear Politics tells us: "The New York Times may be constantly in the news with all its financial woes, but its two tabloid rivals are the ones facing imminent threat of closing down. The more sensational Post probably will survive a bit longer because of Rupert Murdoch's deep pockets, whereas the Daily News may have more trouble riding out the current economic downturn. Its owner Mort Zuckerman just stopped printing his weekly magazine US News & World Report, making it an online-only entity. And with his real estate business taking a beating, Zuckerman may not be able to continue subsidizing the money-losing Daily News."
But perhaps the News, cognizant of the end of the road ahead, feels the need to get all of this vitriol off its chest before night falls on the paper; and the voice of plutocratic reason is silenced forever. We have too many friends who write for the paper to wish its demise, but a change in the company's management wouldn't cause us any real chagrin.
Take that NY Daily News!-the paper that has a virtual love affair with the senescent MTA. And Hiram pulls no punches in going after the nonfeasant authority-reinforcing the fact that the agency is badly in need of a fiscal enema; something that Majority Leader Smith has suggested.
But perhaps the strongest defense of the MTA skeptics, comes from our friend Corey Bearak. Bearak penned the following, in response to one of the Daily News attacks on the senate:
"The Daily News editorial board, not five courageous state senators, “need to see the light.” (Editorial: “We've got their numbers: Five state senators betray a half-million straphangers,” March 11, 2009). The Daily News evidently cares no one iota about the deleterious impact of packing even more riders to the over-capacity subway cars that surely will result if the toll-taxers get their way and impose tolls on the extensions of our city streets known as our free bridges across the East River and Harlem River. Rather than a inefficient, unfair and inequitable tax that will pack in straphangers like Sardines, the Daily News better serves its readers and the public by advocating the sound alternatives advocates by the coalition of civic, business and labor organizations, Keep NYC Free. Please visit www.KeepNYCFree.com to read our proposals and urge our elected officials to embrace these alternatives, which unlike the Ravitch scheme, avoids any reliance on a fare hike. If a few more electeds join Senators Kruger, Diaz, Espada, Parker and Hassell-Thompson, the path to a no-fare-hike, stable revenue for transit plan becomes more likely every day."
And, given the financial dire straights of Mort Zuckerman's News, we don't think that the paper should be fiscally critiquing-and mocking-those lawmakers who proffer alternative, non-toll scenarios. As Real Clear Politics tells us: "The New York Times may be constantly in the news with all its financial woes, but its two tabloid rivals are the ones facing imminent threat of closing down. The more sensational Post probably will survive a bit longer because of Rupert Murdoch's deep pockets, whereas the Daily News may have more trouble riding out the current economic downturn. Its owner Mort Zuckerman just stopped printing his weekly magazine US News & World Report, making it an online-only entity. And with his real estate business taking a beating, Zuckerman may not be able to continue subsidizing the money-losing Daily News."
But perhaps the News, cognizant of the end of the road ahead, feels the need to get all of this vitriol off its chest before night falls on the paper; and the voice of plutocratic reason is silenced forever. We have too many friends who write for the paper to wish its demise, but a change in the company's management wouldn't cause us any real chagrin.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Daily News, Daily Blues
The NY Daily News has had a history of offering just awful advice-so much so that the folk singer Tom Paxton penned the immortal "Daily News, Daily Blues," ditty. Here are the money lyrics-with an adjustment for inflation:
"Daily News, daily blues
Pick up a copy any time you choose
Seven little pennies in the newsboy's hand
And you ride right along to never, never land."
So, it's within this context that we need to take this morning's advice to Malcolm Smith, that the majority leader strip Carl Kruger of his finance chairmanship: "That post demands a modicum of sense and responsibility as to raising and spending taxpayer monies. Brooklyn Democrat Carl Kruger has neither. His plan for bailing out the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is so far off the beam, it's lunacy."
Of course, if your Morticia at the Daily News it's completely rational to rip off motorists in order to pour money down the black hole called the MTA; or, to do a complete 180 on your position on term limits in order to usher in the reign of Mike III. Or, to propose a congestion tax so that Manhattan can be freed up for greater limousine access for your Billionaire Boys Club.
Now Kruger's transit plan may not pass the smell test for the scions at the News, but how would folks with a permanent sinus condition when it comes to sniffing public malfeasance-at least when it comes to their rich real estate buddies-be able to tell? After all, the News lead the cheers for all of the city's eminent domain projects, where local property owners were forced, looking down the barrel of a public gun, to relinquish their land to richer folks.
And, how can we forget that the paper lauded the sweetheart Bronx Terminal Market rip-off, where small minority wholesalers were evicted for the pleasure of the billionaire Steve Ross. Oh, and did the Daily News ever opine about how the Bloombergistas ripped off Bronx parkland in hopeful exchange for a luxury box? No, exhibiting typical noblesse oblige lockjaw, they left that to their intrepid columnist Juan Gonzales to inveigh against.
So now they want Kruger's scalp, and for what? For the temerity of standing up for the outer borough middle class, the same folks who pay 50 cents to allow Morticia to editorialize against their interests. If anyone should leave, it is the paper's publisher; let him follow the profligate and inept Pinch Sulzberger, right out the door. The resulting editorial silence would be a blessing.
"Daily News, daily blues
Pick up a copy any time you choose
Seven little pennies in the newsboy's hand
And you ride right along to never, never land."
So, it's within this context that we need to take this morning's advice to Malcolm Smith, that the majority leader strip Carl Kruger of his finance chairmanship: "That post demands a modicum of sense and responsibility as to raising and spending taxpayer monies. Brooklyn Democrat Carl Kruger has neither. His plan for bailing out the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is so far off the beam, it's lunacy."
Of course, if your Morticia at the Daily News it's completely rational to rip off motorists in order to pour money down the black hole called the MTA; or, to do a complete 180 on your position on term limits in order to usher in the reign of Mike III. Or, to propose a congestion tax so that Manhattan can be freed up for greater limousine access for your Billionaire Boys Club.
Now Kruger's transit plan may not pass the smell test for the scions at the News, but how would folks with a permanent sinus condition when it comes to sniffing public malfeasance-at least when it comes to their rich real estate buddies-be able to tell? After all, the News lead the cheers for all of the city's eminent domain projects, where local property owners were forced, looking down the barrel of a public gun, to relinquish their land to richer folks.
And, how can we forget that the paper lauded the sweetheart Bronx Terminal Market rip-off, where small minority wholesalers were evicted for the pleasure of the billionaire Steve Ross. Oh, and did the Daily News ever opine about how the Bloombergistas ripped off Bronx parkland in hopeful exchange for a luxury box? No, exhibiting typical noblesse oblige lockjaw, they left that to their intrepid columnist Juan Gonzales to inveigh against.
So now they want Kruger's scalp, and for what? For the temerity of standing up for the outer borough middle class, the same folks who pay 50 cents to allow Morticia to editorialize against their interests. If anyone should leave, it is the paper's publisher; let him follow the profligate and inept Pinch Sulzberger, right out the door. The resulting editorial silence would be a blessing.
House of Cards
Adolfo Carrion is now added to the increasingly large list of folks for whom the White House vetting process has proven to be more than somewhat lacking. Not only was Carrion a master of the pay-for-play political shakedown; he was also using his position to get folks to provide free services. As the NY Daily News reported yesterday: "President Obama's new urban czar, Adolfo Carrión, admitted Tuesday he has not paid an architect who designed a renovation of his Bronx home two years ago.That presents conflict-of-interest issues because at the time the architect was a key player in a Bronx development that needed approval from Carrión, then the Bronx borough president."
Well, it's only been two years, so maybe Adolfo had a clause that allowed him to wait-forever?-until he could be sure that the house wouldn't collapse because of architectural errors: "In a statement to the Daily News, Carrión admitted he hadn't paid architect Hugo Subotovsky to design a porch and balcony for his City Island home. The renovation occurred more than two years ago. The last document filed with the city Buildings Department is dated Feb. 2, 2007. The work permit on the job expired that same month."
Unable to ignore this potentially unreported-and illegal-gift, the White House responded to the News' revelations in today's edition: "The White House told urban czar Adolfo Carrión on Wednesday to pay the architect who did work on his Bronx home more than two years ago. The Daily News reported that Carrión, the former Bronx borough president who is now the White House urban policy director, had the architect draw up renovations in early 2007. That work came as Carrión's office was reviewing the architect's plan for a housing project. Carrión still hasn't paid for the work, raising questions about whether it was a freebie done to win approval of the project."
And, on the editorial page, the paper mocks the "urban legend," underscoring what many of us have known about the slippery AC: "Then, one day, the powerful borough president, who goes by the name Adolfo Carrión and who was always asked for valuable permissions, said to the architect: "Please, my supplicant, design a wondrous home for me." And the architect, whose name was Hugo (The Helpful) Subotovsky, said: "Yes, powerful sir." And so Hugo the Helpful drew up magnificent plans in the Victorian style, and he worked and worked on them until, lo, after the passage of almost three years, the powerful borough president had a renovated house that suited his magnificence."
Carrion better pay up fast-after all, he doesn't have any job to go back to now that he has resigned his Bronx post. But with the new administration's desire to bail out all manner of deadbeats with its mortgage bailout proposal, we believe that Adolfo Carrion will fit in well down in DC, along with a number of other ethical challenged folks-reminding us of the words sung by the melodious Mary Wells: "I'm sticking to my guy like a stamp to a letter. Like birds of a feather, we stick together. I'm tellin' you from the start. I can't be torn apart from my guy."
For AC's sake, this better be the last bombshell; or else he will join Tom Daschile and Bill Richardson in the Conflict of Interest Hall of Fame. But, probably not. Even when it comes to taking a hand out, he remains simply minor league.
Well, it's only been two years, so maybe Adolfo had a clause that allowed him to wait-forever?-until he could be sure that the house wouldn't collapse because of architectural errors: "In a statement to the Daily News, Carrión admitted he hadn't paid architect Hugo Subotovsky to design a porch and balcony for his City Island home. The renovation occurred more than two years ago. The last document filed with the city Buildings Department is dated Feb. 2, 2007. The work permit on the job expired that same month."
Unable to ignore this potentially unreported-and illegal-gift, the White House responded to the News' revelations in today's edition: "The White House told urban czar Adolfo Carrión on Wednesday to pay the architect who did work on his Bronx home more than two years ago. The Daily News reported that Carrión, the former Bronx borough president who is now the White House urban policy director, had the architect draw up renovations in early 2007. That work came as Carrión's office was reviewing the architect's plan for a housing project. Carrión still hasn't paid for the work, raising questions about whether it was a freebie done to win approval of the project."
And, on the editorial page, the paper mocks the "urban legend," underscoring what many of us have known about the slippery AC: "Then, one day, the powerful borough president, who goes by the name Adolfo Carrión and who was always asked for valuable permissions, said to the architect: "Please, my supplicant, design a wondrous home for me." And the architect, whose name was Hugo (The Helpful) Subotovsky, said: "Yes, powerful sir." And so Hugo the Helpful drew up magnificent plans in the Victorian style, and he worked and worked on them until, lo, after the passage of almost three years, the powerful borough president had a renovated house that suited his magnificence."
Carrion better pay up fast-after all, he doesn't have any job to go back to now that he has resigned his Bronx post. But with the new administration's desire to bail out all manner of deadbeats with its mortgage bailout proposal, we believe that Adolfo Carrion will fit in well down in DC, along with a number of other ethical challenged folks-reminding us of the words sung by the melodious Mary Wells: "I'm sticking to my guy like a stamp to a letter. Like birds of a feather, we stick together. I'm tellin' you from the start. I can't be torn apart from my guy."
For AC's sake, this better be the last bombshell; or else he will join Tom Daschile and Bill Richardson in the Conflict of Interest Hall of Fame. But, probably not. Even when it comes to taking a hand out, he remains simply minor league.
Soda Tax RIP
In what was almost inevitable since the public outcry-and industry-led lobbying effort-was started over the governor's proposed soda tax, it was announced yesterday that the tax on sugared soft drinks had fizzled: "Gov. David Paterson is poised to announce a three-way agreement between himself and majority legislative leaders to ditch many of the so-called "fun taxes" he proposed as revenue generators in his 2009-2010 budget, lawmakers briefed on the plan confirm. The soda tax (AKA the "fat tax"), which Paterson all-but declared dead not too long ago, despite a valiant YouTube defense mounted by DOH Commissioner Richard Daines, will now be officially confined to the recycling heap, along with the ever-unpopular "iPod" tax that would have applied to all digital downloads (including porn)."
As we had pointed out in our posts, and in a well publicized press conference, the tax hurt poor consumers along with the store owners in low income neighborhoods. As we said at the time, when it looked as if Paterson was about to cry uncle: "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."
Still, can we at least say that this victory is a sweet one? Especially for the small Hispanic bottlers such as Good-O, Inca Kola and Top Pop; folks who would have been hard pressed to absorb the increase during these tough times. As Luis Jardines, owner of Inca, told El Diario-emphasizing the tough economic conditions: "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”.
Clearly, the unpopularity of both the tax-as well as the governor himself-played a role in the jettisoning of the soda levy. The City Room blog captures this: "With budget negotiations proceeding at a crawl and his approval ratings in the gutter, Gov. David A. Paterson announced a deal with the Legislature on Wednesday to use more than a billion dollars in federal stimulus money to eliminate some of the unpopular new taxes and fees he had proposed to help balance next year’s state budget."
Next up, the bottle bill-with support for the measure waning in the state senate; the razor thin Democratic majority makes this a difficult sell. As the NY Times points out this morning: "Everything has broken down,” said one Democratic lobbyist, who insisted on anonymity to protect the interests of his clients. “The reason is that the Senate can’t produce — they can’t generate votes for taxes, for Rockefeller drug law reform, for anything.” At the same time, it is clear that many in the legislature feel that it's not the time to foist regulatory burdens on struggling retailers; and, surprise, we agree.
As we had pointed out in our posts, and in a well publicized press conference, the tax hurt poor consumers along with the store owners in low income neighborhoods. As we said at the time, when it looked as if Paterson was about to cry uncle: "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."
Still, can we at least say that this victory is a sweet one? Especially for the small Hispanic bottlers such as Good-O, Inca Kola and Top Pop; folks who would have been hard pressed to absorb the increase during these tough times. As Luis Jardines, owner of Inca, told El Diario-emphasizing the tough economic conditions: "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”.
Clearly, the unpopularity of both the tax-as well as the governor himself-played a role in the jettisoning of the soda levy. The City Room blog captures this: "With budget negotiations proceeding at a crawl and his approval ratings in the gutter, Gov. David A. Paterson announced a deal with the Legislature on Wednesday to use more than a billion dollars in federal stimulus money to eliminate some of the unpopular new taxes and fees he had proposed to help balance next year’s state budget."
Next up, the bottle bill-with support for the measure waning in the state senate; the razor thin Democratic majority makes this a difficult sell. As the NY Times points out this morning: "Everything has broken down,” said one Democratic lobbyist, who insisted on anonymity to protect the interests of his clients. “The reason is that the Senate can’t produce — they can’t generate votes for taxes, for Rockefeller drug law reform, for anything.” At the same time, it is clear that many in the legislature feel that it's not the time to foist regulatory burdens on struggling retailers; and, surprise, we agree.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
News Extolling Kruger
The NY Daily News, the paper for whom the congestion tax was the highest standard of public policy excellence, is continuing its campaign of trying to, well, throw the three amigos-and two other senators-under the bus for their principled opposition to bridge tolls: "If you're among the 109,000 southern Brooklyn subway riders, be warned: your state senator, Carl Kruger, is engineering drastic fare hikes and service cuts for you. If you're among the 123,000 southern Bronx subway riders, be warned: your senator, Ruben Diaz, is pushing you toward the same awful fate. The same is true if you're among 111,400 subway riders in Sen. Pedro Espada's central Bronx district; 78,000 in Sen. Kevin Parker's central Brooklyn district, and 56,000 in Ruth Hassell-Thompson's northern Bronx district. Kruger, Diaz, Espada, Parker and Hassell-Thompson have emerged as the leading opponents of rescuing the MTA from collapse by imposing a tax on payrolls and tolls on the East River and Harlem River bridges."
This is, count them, the sixth editorial that the paper has run in its attempt to tar baby the opposition-and present the toll hike as the inevitable result of what it presents as a zero-sum game. Absent in any of this advocacy and excoriation is there any recognition that the MTA is a dysfunctional agency whose cries of poverty need to be seen in order to be believed; as with a forensic accounting of its books and practices.
For instance, just how many over there are making better than six figure salaries? How much property could be sold to create a temporary respite while the agency's finances are gone over with a fine tooth comb? None of this is within the tolling purview of the News; a paper that seemingly delights in the anticipation of socking it to city motorists.
Neither does the News explore any alternative funding mechanisms-as Kruger has done. Here's his comments to the Politicker: ""Deadlines are arbitrary dates set by people that have things to hide," State Senator Carl Kruger, who is adamantly opposed to tolls, told me. His idea to generate revenue for the M.T.A.: use bridges over the East and Harlem River as collateral, borrow $4.25 billion against them, give $1 billion to the M.T.A. and invest the remainder in the state's common retirement fund and use the return - it's "conservatively" pegged at 6.5 percent - to pay off the bonds."The most recent proposal about creating a public benefit authority: it's met with stonewall silence," Kruger claimed. "There are other proposals on the table as well and they too have been met with silence. I don't feel, nor will I accept the fact that there's linkage from one piece of this so-called bailout is married to another piece of the bailout."
So instead we get the bogarting bum rush from the taxers-limousine riders from Manhattan who now cry crocodile tears for straphangers-all in order to hide their shameless defense of the malfeasant public authority, It's time that Malcolm Smith called Silver's bluff-and the MTA's anti-motorist and small business plan. There's a better alternative out there than tolling all of the bridges.
This is, count them, the sixth editorial that the paper has run in its attempt to tar baby the opposition-and present the toll hike as the inevitable result of what it presents as a zero-sum game. Absent in any of this advocacy and excoriation is there any recognition that the MTA is a dysfunctional agency whose cries of poverty need to be seen in order to be believed; as with a forensic accounting of its books and practices.
For instance, just how many over there are making better than six figure salaries? How much property could be sold to create a temporary respite while the agency's finances are gone over with a fine tooth comb? None of this is within the tolling purview of the News; a paper that seemingly delights in the anticipation of socking it to city motorists.
Neither does the News explore any alternative funding mechanisms-as Kruger has done. Here's his comments to the Politicker: ""Deadlines are arbitrary dates set by people that have things to hide," State Senator Carl Kruger, who is adamantly opposed to tolls, told me. His idea to generate revenue for the M.T.A.: use bridges over the East and Harlem River as collateral, borrow $4.25 billion against them, give $1 billion to the M.T.A. and invest the remainder in the state's common retirement fund and use the return - it's "conservatively" pegged at 6.5 percent - to pay off the bonds."The most recent proposal about creating a public benefit authority: it's met with stonewall silence," Kruger claimed. "There are other proposals on the table as well and they too have been met with silence. I don't feel, nor will I accept the fact that there's linkage from one piece of this so-called bailout is married to another piece of the bailout."
So instead we get the bogarting bum rush from the taxers-limousine riders from Manhattan who now cry crocodile tears for straphangers-all in order to hide their shameless defense of the malfeasant public authority, It's time that Malcolm Smith called Silver's bluff-and the MTA's anti-motorist and small business plan. There's a better alternative out there than tolling all of the bridges.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Carrion's Home Improvement
Questions are being raised about that kind of help former Bronx BP might have gotten to renovate his City Isl;and house. As the NY Daily News reports: "President Obama's new urban czar renovated his Bronx home with help from the architect on a major development that needed his approval, a Daily News investigation has found."
Carrion, for his part, vigorously defended his tenure: "As the Bronx borough president, I built a reputation for integrity and dedication to my constituents." But, as the News reported last week: "...several developers seeking Carrión's approval for projects across the Bronx raised tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions for him."
Maybe Adolfo left at the opportune moment-but to his defense, his alleged misdeeds pale in comparison to those of the shifty fingered Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut; someone for whom merely getting some architectural help is considered chump change when a sweetheart mortgage is available-from an industry he regulates-to save himself tens of thousands of dollars.
But then AC is going to Washington where, apparently, his Bronx training will stand him in good stead for the rigors of national politics; and the blandishments of the pay-to-play crowd. Not like Mr. Smith, is it?
Carrion, for his part, vigorously defended his tenure: "As the Bronx borough president, I built a reputation for integrity and dedication to my constituents." But, as the News reported last week: "...several developers seeking Carrión's approval for projects across the Bronx raised tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions for him."
Maybe Adolfo left at the opportune moment-but to his defense, his alleged misdeeds pale in comparison to those of the shifty fingered Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut; someone for whom merely getting some architectural help is considered chump change when a sweetheart mortgage is available-from an industry he regulates-to save himself tens of thousands of dollars.
But then AC is going to Washington where, apparently, his Bronx training will stand him in good stead for the rigors of national politics; and the blandishments of the pay-to-play crowd. Not like Mr. Smith, is it?
Poisoned Toll House Cookies
It certainly looks as if it's gonna be a difficult sell for Malcolm Smith to get his conference to accept tolling of the East River and Harlem bridges, even as Anthony Weiner proposes just charging out-of-towners. As the NY Post reports: "Mayoral hopeful Rep. Anthony Weiner wants the MTA's financial crisis to take the biggest toll on out-of-towners. Weiner said cameras could take pictures of license plates crossing the now free East and Harlem river bridges, and bill drivers who aren't registered in the city $4.15 each way. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith tried to rally support for a plan that would bill anyone who crosses the East River bridges $5 or $4.15 for E-ZPass holders. Drivers crossing the Harlem River bridges would be billed $2."
One of the toll's little understood impacts is the hurting it would put on the city's small businesses. Just recently, for instance, Assemblyman Espaillat brought MTA guru Richard Ravitch up to meet with our friend Paul Gagliardi, the owner of Flair Beverage on 207th Street. Espaillat wanted Ravitch to gauge how the toll plan would impact Flair's cash and carry beer business-a business that relies on bodegas coming from the Bronx across 207th Street to shop.
Gagliardi estimated that he could lose up to 35% of his business because the cash-strapped bodegueros make frequent daily trips across the span to replenish their stock of beer and soda; and his neighboring supermarkets could also be impacted, he told Ravitch, because of the additional expense of tolls. What the transit vultures never realize-and we saw the same thing with the mayor's congestion tax-is that the city is one seamless piece; and small business relies on its easy access to Manhattan markets to sustain wholesale and contracting operations housed in the outer boroughs.
So, while five state senators are balking at the toll plan because of its unfair impact on their constituents, there is also the recognition by the three amigos that the toll will hurt the predominately Hispanic and other minority small retail and wholesale businesses for whom the tolls would be another nail in the proverbial recession-built coffin; something that the NY Daily News editorial board loses sight of when it points fingers at the hold outs.
Here's the News at its most strident, and less thoughtful: "Smith, Kruger, Skelos and all the other anti-toll lawmakers will bear responsibility for hammering millions of daily riders because they feared the wrath of a comparative handful of bridge motorists. Among the guilty will also be Sens. Ruben Diaz and Pedro Espada of the Bronx. All have railed against tolls and/or taxes or, like Smith, postured this way or that - without offering any credible alternative. Ideas that have been floated are unworkable or lunacy."
Why the hasty doom and gloom? Well, because of the MTA's self imposed legislative doomsday deadline-one that the News accepts without question. No one-least of all Kruger, Diaz and Espada, thinks that there isn't the need for a plan-and perhaps an overhaul of the agency's governance; but that doesn't mean that tolls are the answer, or that Shelly Silver's about face is the manifestation of policy sagacity.
New Yorkers are hurting, and the legislature needs to find a way to fund a transit system that the previous leadership drove deeply into debt: "The authority's biggest problem is the massive amounts of debt it took on years ago, in the Pataki era. Politicos, including then-Executive Director Marc Shaw, forced that debt to bloat knowing full well that it would blow up after they had left."
So let's come up with the plan that does the least harm-and one that avoids either tolls or huge fare hikes. Mismanagement of transit should not find its remedy in the pockets of cash poor New York residents and small businesses.
One of the toll's little understood impacts is the hurting it would put on the city's small businesses. Just recently, for instance, Assemblyman Espaillat brought MTA guru Richard Ravitch up to meet with our friend Paul Gagliardi, the owner of Flair Beverage on 207th Street. Espaillat wanted Ravitch to gauge how the toll plan would impact Flair's cash and carry beer business-a business that relies on bodegas coming from the Bronx across 207th Street to shop.
Gagliardi estimated that he could lose up to 35% of his business because the cash-strapped bodegueros make frequent daily trips across the span to replenish their stock of beer and soda; and his neighboring supermarkets could also be impacted, he told Ravitch, because of the additional expense of tolls. What the transit vultures never realize-and we saw the same thing with the mayor's congestion tax-is that the city is one seamless piece; and small business relies on its easy access to Manhattan markets to sustain wholesale and contracting operations housed in the outer boroughs.
So, while five state senators are balking at the toll plan because of its unfair impact on their constituents, there is also the recognition by the three amigos that the toll will hurt the predominately Hispanic and other minority small retail and wholesale businesses for whom the tolls would be another nail in the proverbial recession-built coffin; something that the NY Daily News editorial board loses sight of when it points fingers at the hold outs.
Here's the News at its most strident, and less thoughtful: "Smith, Kruger, Skelos and all the other anti-toll lawmakers will bear responsibility for hammering millions of daily riders because they feared the wrath of a comparative handful of bridge motorists. Among the guilty will also be Sens. Ruben Diaz and Pedro Espada of the Bronx. All have railed against tolls and/or taxes or, like Smith, postured this way or that - without offering any credible alternative. Ideas that have been floated are unworkable or lunacy."
Why the hasty doom and gloom? Well, because of the MTA's self imposed legislative doomsday deadline-one that the News accepts without question. No one-least of all Kruger, Diaz and Espada, thinks that there isn't the need for a plan-and perhaps an overhaul of the agency's governance; but that doesn't mean that tolls are the answer, or that Shelly Silver's about face is the manifestation of policy sagacity.
New Yorkers are hurting, and the legislature needs to find a way to fund a transit system that the previous leadership drove deeply into debt: "The authority's biggest problem is the massive amounts of debt it took on years ago, in the Pataki era. Politicos, including then-Executive Director Marc Shaw, forced that debt to bloat knowing full well that it would blow up after they had left."
So let's come up with the plan that does the least harm-and one that avoids either tolls or huge fare hikes. Mismanagement of transit should not find its remedy in the pockets of cash poor New York residents and small businesses.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Tax the Newspapers!
Newday is the latest newspaper to come out in support of bottle bill expansion: "Have you noticed the plastic water bottles littering our state? Do you enjoy the juggling act of returning empty beer and soda bottles to the store, but water and tea bottles to the curb? Albany can change that - and it really should - by expanding the state's original bottle bill." Which leads us to ask, given that the NY Times has also editorialized on behalf of the expansion: Why not tax the newspapers?
When we examine the post consumer recycling waste stream in NYC, we find that newspapers make up the largest percentage of materials that could be recycled-but isn't. 22% of the deposed waste is paper; and 41% of that paper is newsprint. So effectively, we're paying to dispose of newspapers that should be recycled by the public but, for whatever reason-perhaps inconvenience-it lands in the garbage instead.
What this underscores is that fact that the various deposit items aren't finding their way into the municipal garbage truck, even when they aren't returned to the store; but that newspaper is. Therefore, unless someone thinks that a newspaper deposit makes sense, newsprint needs to be taxed to defray the tax payer cost of its disposal.
But, you say that newspapers are in economic trouble, and that adding a tax burden will hurt them further? Oh, we get it. Only the troubled NYC supermarkets and grocery stores should have the added burden of more deposit work that helps the environment-leaving the Times and Newsday free to hector without shouldering the load themselves; and Newsday makes it worse by not even acknowledging that those burdens exist.
So from our vantage, if you want to be green, than join in and volunteer-especially is you're willing to volunteer others so freely. If not, than just shut up-or risk the following chiding refrain: Those who can't do, teach.
When we examine the post consumer recycling waste stream in NYC, we find that newspapers make up the largest percentage of materials that could be recycled-but isn't. 22% of the deposed waste is paper; and 41% of that paper is newsprint. So effectively, we're paying to dispose of newspapers that should be recycled by the public but, for whatever reason-perhaps inconvenience-it lands in the garbage instead.
What this underscores is that fact that the various deposit items aren't finding their way into the municipal garbage truck, even when they aren't returned to the store; but that newspaper is. Therefore, unless someone thinks that a newspaper deposit makes sense, newsprint needs to be taxed to defray the tax payer cost of its disposal.
But, you say that newspapers are in economic trouble, and that adding a tax burden will hurt them further? Oh, we get it. Only the troubled NYC supermarkets and grocery stores should have the added burden of more deposit work that helps the environment-leaving the Times and Newsday free to hector without shouldering the load themselves; and Newsday makes it worse by not even acknowledging that those burdens exist.
So from our vantage, if you want to be green, than join in and volunteer-especially is you're willing to volunteer others so freely. If not, than just shut up-or risk the following chiding refrain: Those who can't do, teach.
Remnants of Prohibition
In the past few weeks we have seen the liquor stores escalating their claim that allowing grocery stores to sell wine will lead to, well, an escalation of underage drinking. It does a heart good to see the local liquor store elevated as a guardian of the public morals; but does the argument hold any water?
Let's take the one assertion-made over and over by the lobbyists-that the governor's proposal will lead to a huge increase in, the number of outlets selling alcohol! Flat out false; since those grocery stores already sell alcohol-particularly those products such as beer and malt liquor that are the drinks of choice for the underage. In fact, liquor industry studies show that wine is way down the list (around 4%) when it comes to the choice of young drinkers.
But the argument is understandable. After all, what kind of policy position can, "Protect my retail monopoly" be? So we read this from a liquor store owner in yesterday's Newsday: "The only thing I'm licensed to sell is wine and spirits. If I sell to a minor, the state can shut me down and I will earn nothing. If a grocer loses the ability to sell wine for a while, that's no skin off his knuckles; the rest of his store is still bustling."
The reality, however, is that grocery stores and supermarkets-unlike drug stores-are doing a great job at insuring that stores comply with the underage drinking laws; so if we would look to tweak the governor's proposal to limit the availability of wine at the local Walgreen's or CVS; that's an idea worth exploring.
Once the prohibitionist arguments are put aside, we're left with the protect our stores-damn the consumer rhetoric that, quite frankly, doesn't withstand even the slightest independent scrutiny. Here's the industry view in yesterday's Poughkeepsie Journal: "Jeff Saunders, founder of the Last Store on Main Street Coalition, a group of retailers that opposes the governor's proposal, believes about 1,000 liquor stores will close, costing 4,000 to 5,000 jobs. "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 of high unemployment, "why would anyone want to do anything to add to those numbers? We don't know." The coalition is made up of three trade associations representing retailers, including liquor stores."
Now, even if we accept the alarmist projection of a 40% loss in the number of liquor stores-an assumption that is contradicted be only a cursory look at other states where supermarkets and liquor stores co-exist-the idea that New York State will lose thousands of jobs is pure propaganda. As the Journal pointed out: "Allowing wine sale in grocery and drug stores would provide sizable economic benefit through the creation of 2,000 additional jobs, $93.4 million in added tax revenue and increase consumer spending in the state. Overall, wine sales would increase by nearly 19 percent," according to MKF Research, a California-based company hired by the Wine & Grape Foundation."
The increase in wine sales, then, would act as the proverbial rising tide lifting all boats-even the leaky liquor store row boat As Jim Rogers of the Food Industry Alliance says: "Rogers added there could be 2,000 net new jobs created related to wine sales and distribution if the law were to pass. "There will be more business and there will be a need for more employees," he said." The large percentage of these jobs would be high paying, good pension and benefits jobs that are driven by the unionized supermarket workforce.
What's totally clear in this debate-a point that is made with an erudite historical flair by Michael Lerner in yesterday's Newsday-is that the current patchwork quilt nature of the alcoholic beverage laws in NY need to be overhauled: "We've been through this before. New Yorkers have sought to allow grocers to sell wine on a half dozen occasions in the 75 years since Prohibition's end. ("Wine is food, wine belongs in food stores," was the slogan of a 1951 campaign.) Each time, the arguments offered by liquor stores - understandably offered in the interest of self-preservation - have prevailed. But what is really at work here is the legacy of Prohibition, and what is at stake is an opportunity to adopt a more rational approach to the way we think about, and enjoy, wine."
The opportunity is upon us to act rationally-in the interest of the state's wineries, consumers and local economies. Will the special interests once again prevail? That's up to the legislature.
Let's take the one assertion-made over and over by the lobbyists-that the governor's proposal will lead to a huge increase in, the number of outlets selling alcohol! Flat out false; since those grocery stores already sell alcohol-particularly those products such as beer and malt liquor that are the drinks of choice for the underage. In fact, liquor industry studies show that wine is way down the list (around 4%) when it comes to the choice of young drinkers.
But the argument is understandable. After all, what kind of policy position can, "Protect my retail monopoly" be? So we read this from a liquor store owner in yesterday's Newsday: "The only thing I'm licensed to sell is wine and spirits. If I sell to a minor, the state can shut me down and I will earn nothing. If a grocer loses the ability to sell wine for a while, that's no skin off his knuckles; the rest of his store is still bustling."
The reality, however, is that grocery stores and supermarkets-unlike drug stores-are doing a great job at insuring that stores comply with the underage drinking laws; so if we would look to tweak the governor's proposal to limit the availability of wine at the local Walgreen's or CVS; that's an idea worth exploring.
Once the prohibitionist arguments are put aside, we're left with the protect our stores-damn the consumer rhetoric that, quite frankly, doesn't withstand even the slightest independent scrutiny. Here's the industry view in yesterday's Poughkeepsie Journal: "Jeff Saunders, founder of the Last Store on Main Street Coalition, a group of retailers that opposes the governor's proposal, believes about 1,000 liquor stores will close, costing 4,000 to 5,000 jobs. "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 of high unemployment, "why would anyone want to do anything to add to those numbers? We don't know." The coalition is made up of three trade associations representing retailers, including liquor stores."
Now, even if we accept the alarmist projection of a 40% loss in the number of liquor stores-an assumption that is contradicted be only a cursory look at other states where supermarkets and liquor stores co-exist-the idea that New York State will lose thousands of jobs is pure propaganda. As the Journal pointed out: "Allowing wine sale in grocery and drug stores would provide sizable economic benefit through the creation of 2,000 additional jobs, $93.4 million in added tax revenue and increase consumer spending in the state. Overall, wine sales would increase by nearly 19 percent," according to MKF Research, a California-based company hired by the Wine & Grape Foundation."
The increase in wine sales, then, would act as the proverbial rising tide lifting all boats-even the leaky liquor store row boat As Jim Rogers of the Food Industry Alliance says: "Rogers added there could be 2,000 net new jobs created related to wine sales and distribution if the law were to pass. "There will be more business and there will be a need for more employees," he said." The large percentage of these jobs would be high paying, good pension and benefits jobs that are driven by the unionized supermarket workforce.
What's totally clear in this debate-a point that is made with an erudite historical flair by Michael Lerner in yesterday's Newsday-is that the current patchwork quilt nature of the alcoholic beverage laws in NY need to be overhauled: "We've been through this before. New Yorkers have sought to allow grocers to sell wine on a half dozen occasions in the 75 years since Prohibition's end. ("Wine is food, wine belongs in food stores," was the slogan of a 1951 campaign.) Each time, the arguments offered by liquor stores - understandably offered in the interest of self-preservation - have prevailed. But what is really at work here is the legacy of Prohibition, and what is at stake is an opportunity to adopt a more rational approach to the way we think about, and enjoy, wine."
The opportunity is upon us to act rationally-in the interest of the state's wineries, consumers and local economies. Will the special interests once again prevail? That's up to the legislature.
Ring Around Malcolm?
In yesterday's NY Daily News, the paper alleges that Speaker Silver is "running rings around" Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith: " Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the new king of Albany, has quietly been undermining the fragile leadership of new Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, insiders say."
Well, as they say, context is everything; and to imply that this possible state of affairs is correlative to Smith's abilities is invidious, to say the least-what would Silver do with the current senate demographics? "By passing the bills, Silver has managed to not only appease his liberal constituency but also highlight the fact that Smith's razor-thin majority has left him impotent.
The Senate Democrats have a 32-30 majority, meaning every Democratic vote is needed to get most controversial measures through the house."
This is underscored quite well in this morning's NY Post article about the MTA bridge toll proposal: "Unless five Democratic state senators can be convinced to change their minds, the plan to bail out the MTA by imposing tolls on East and Harlem river bridges is dead in the water, a Post survey has revealed." So here. in sharp relief, is the real problem: the numbers militate against Smith; and he can't dictate to a splintered conference when the issue is contentious-as bridge tolls certainly are.
Silver's styling may look good because of his overwhelming majority, but the end result here will devolve from a composite box score that can only be compiled after the state budget passes; and if the end product sucks, Silver won't be able to escape untarnished. Or, in other words, they're all in it together: "You have three players each with a different agenda, and hopefully, they'll meet someplace for the benefit of the taxpayers," said Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf."
Let's not forget, that the Assembly has taken the lead on some of the high tax proposals that could give it a black eye should the economy continue to tank. In short, performance-of both the legislature and the economy in tandem-is key; with inside politics scorecards taking a distant second place.
Well, as they say, context is everything; and to imply that this possible state of affairs is correlative to Smith's abilities is invidious, to say the least-what would Silver do with the current senate demographics? "By passing the bills, Silver has managed to not only appease his liberal constituency but also highlight the fact that Smith's razor-thin majority has left him impotent.
The Senate Democrats have a 32-30 majority, meaning every Democratic vote is needed to get most controversial measures through the house."
This is underscored quite well in this morning's NY Post article about the MTA bridge toll proposal: "Unless five Democratic state senators can be convinced to change their minds, the plan to bail out the MTA by imposing tolls on East and Harlem river bridges is dead in the water, a Post survey has revealed." So here. in sharp relief, is the real problem: the numbers militate against Smith; and he can't dictate to a splintered conference when the issue is contentious-as bridge tolls certainly are.
Silver's styling may look good because of his overwhelming majority, but the end result here will devolve from a composite box score that can only be compiled after the state budget passes; and if the end product sucks, Silver won't be able to escape untarnished. Or, in other words, they're all in it together: "You have three players each with a different agenda, and hopefully, they'll meet someplace for the benefit of the taxpayers," said Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf."
Let's not forget, that the Assembly has taken the lead on some of the high tax proposals that could give it a black eye should the economy continue to tank. In short, performance-of both the legislature and the economy in tandem-is key; with inside politics scorecards taking a distant second place.
News Refuses to be Buffaloed
In its lead editorial on Saturday, the Buffalo News joined with a number of other editorial outlooks, and strongly endorsed the sale of wine in grocery stores; and in doing so in a thorough and comprehensive manner, the paper insightfully shredding the opposition arguments:
"For the 2,600 or so (mostly) small businesses that now enjoy a legal monopoly on the sale of wine in New York, there is no good time to change the rules. They fear the loss of that monopoly will put many of them out of business...But there is evidence from the other 35 states that do allow supermarket wine sales that wineries can benefit and that the impact would not be that draconian on smaller stores, which still would hold a monopoly on liquor sales and still can offer better selections, knowledgeable sales staff and better service. New York now ranks 47th in the number of places per capita where wine can be bought, and states with supermarket sales also have more liquor stores."
But let's not bother with the facts when we can impugn the governor's integrity; or create a strawman argument over drunk driving. And the News also argues cogently that any change in the law should be used to benefit liquor stores as well-and we agree: "If supermarket customers gain the right to buy a little wine with their cheese, though, antiquated liquor store rules also should be changed to allow customers there to buy a little cheese with their wine—or crackers, beer, chips, glassware, gift bags and other items such stores are not now allowed to sell. And wine sale hours also should be equal." Sounds like the basis for a negotiated settlement, doesn't it?
But that's hard to do when the only response from the liquor lobby is: No compromise! Yet, the News is little convinced that-whatever the dire threats predicted by the monopolists-preserving the protection racket makes good public policy sense: "Most businesses—restaurants, hardware stores, newspapers— also are threatened by economic changes, and yet they neither seek nor receive legal immunity from competition."
The Wine Spectator agrees, and sees that compromise is indeed viable: "The legislators negotiating over the details of the bill are exploring compromises that might soften the blow for wine and liquor stores. One idea is to remove restrictions on such stores—currently they are not allowed to sell food or party supplies. They are also forbidden to have more than one location, which makes expansion near impossible."
The Buffalo News also sees the good things in the measure for the state's beleaguered wineries: "Reported experiences elsewhere suggest that more wine sales are good news for home-state wine makers and their suppliers, where new jobs could easily overwhelm any losses from liquor stores closings. That’s been the case in Washington, a state that has seen its own wine industry more than triple, surpassing New York’s as the second largest in the nation, after the number of retail outlets there was increased."
And what about the drunk driving strawman? The News is skeptical: "And grocers, who already have established their ability to safely handle the sale of beer, seem equal to the task of legally selling wine, a product that is a distant second to beer as the beverage of choice for drunken drivers." The 80 year monopoly makes little sense-for either economic growth or consumer interest; and a change in the law would benefit everyone; even the liquor stores. We'll give the News the last good word: "Wine is supposed to maketh a heart glad, not give Albany heartburn. The market seems big enough for everyone, and all should benefit from a new, more rational, system."
"For the 2,600 or so (mostly) small businesses that now enjoy a legal monopoly on the sale of wine in New York, there is no good time to change the rules. They fear the loss of that monopoly will put many of them out of business...But there is evidence from the other 35 states that do allow supermarket wine sales that wineries can benefit and that the impact would not be that draconian on smaller stores, which still would hold a monopoly on liquor sales and still can offer better selections, knowledgeable sales staff and better service. New York now ranks 47th in the number of places per capita where wine can be bought, and states with supermarket sales also have more liquor stores."
But let's not bother with the facts when we can impugn the governor's integrity; or create a strawman argument over drunk driving. And the News also argues cogently that any change in the law should be used to benefit liquor stores as well-and we agree: "If supermarket customers gain the right to buy a little wine with their cheese, though, antiquated liquor store rules also should be changed to allow customers there to buy a little cheese with their wine—or crackers, beer, chips, glassware, gift bags and other items such stores are not now allowed to sell. And wine sale hours also should be equal." Sounds like the basis for a negotiated settlement, doesn't it?
But that's hard to do when the only response from the liquor lobby is: No compromise! Yet, the News is little convinced that-whatever the dire threats predicted by the monopolists-preserving the protection racket makes good public policy sense: "Most businesses—restaurants, hardware stores, newspapers— also are threatened by economic changes, and yet they neither seek nor receive legal immunity from competition."
The Wine Spectator agrees, and sees that compromise is indeed viable: "The legislators negotiating over the details of the bill are exploring compromises that might soften the blow for wine and liquor stores. One idea is to remove restrictions on such stores—currently they are not allowed to sell food or party supplies. They are also forbidden to have more than one location, which makes expansion near impossible."
The Buffalo News also sees the good things in the measure for the state's beleaguered wineries: "Reported experiences elsewhere suggest that more wine sales are good news for home-state wine makers and their suppliers, where new jobs could easily overwhelm any losses from liquor stores closings. That’s been the case in Washington, a state that has seen its own wine industry more than triple, surpassing New York’s as the second largest in the nation, after the number of retail outlets there was increased."
And what about the drunk driving strawman? The News is skeptical: "And grocers, who already have established their ability to safely handle the sale of beer, seem equal to the task of legally selling wine, a product that is a distant second to beer as the beverage of choice for drunken drivers." The 80 year monopoly makes little sense-for either economic growth or consumer interest; and a change in the law would benefit everyone; even the liquor stores. We'll give the News the last good word: "Wine is supposed to maketh a heart glad, not give Albany heartburn. The market seems big enough for everyone, and all should benefit from a new, more rational, system."
Friday, March 06, 2009
Store Campaign All Liquored Up
Crain's Insider is reporting this morning (subscription only), that the liquor store lobby was behind a scurrilous Facebook campaign designed to drum up support for its astroturf, "Last Store Standing on Main Street" campaign: "The coalition of liquor stores fighting Gov. Paterson’s proposal to let supermarkets sell wine posted a photo on its Facebook page suggesting he is corrupt. The photo illustration showed Paterson accepting wads of cash from Neil Golub, president and CEO of the parent company of Price Chopper, which supports the plan. A spokeswoman for Mercury Public Affairs, which represents the liquor stores, says Mercury was unaware of the photo until being notified by the Insider and promptly had it taken down."
Ironically, while there is no record of Golub-a Republican donor for many years-giving Paterson a nickle, it is well known that the liquor store lobby has been very generous in stuffing campaign coffers; no sin in that, but the height of hypocrisy when these kinds of accusations are leveled at others: "Campaign finance records show Golub made no contributions to Paterson. (He did make many four-figure donations to Republicans, among them George Pataki, who was a Mercury client.)"
In addition to this Facebook controversy, Crain's also points out, with the help of wine spokesman Dave Vermillion, that the so-called law enforcement groups that have been listed in the liquor store effort may be simply creatures of Mercury's imagination: "Vermillion also says he cannot find any evidence that a group called Law Enforcement Against Drunk Driving existed prior to its participation in the liquor stores’ campaign. The group’s press contact, Gordy Warnock, works for Mercury’s government relations division. LEADD Chairman Dan Sisto says the group is new, but the idea for it predates the current debate."
So, while the plight of the local liquor store may be compelling for some, the questionable campaign on its behalf indicates that the over the top claims of future extinction-much like the faux Mercury campaign itself-need to be fully vetted for veracity before any of the claims are given credibility in the ongoing debate over wine in supermarkets.
Ironically, while there is no record of Golub-a Republican donor for many years-giving Paterson a nickle, it is well known that the liquor store lobby has been very generous in stuffing campaign coffers; no sin in that, but the height of hypocrisy when these kinds of accusations are leveled at others: "Campaign finance records show Golub made no contributions to Paterson. (He did make many four-figure donations to Republicans, among them George Pataki, who was a Mercury client.)"
In addition to this Facebook controversy, Crain's also points out, with the help of wine spokesman Dave Vermillion, that the so-called law enforcement groups that have been listed in the liquor store effort may be simply creatures of Mercury's imagination: "Vermillion also says he cannot find any evidence that a group called Law Enforcement Against Drunk Driving existed prior to its participation in the liquor stores’ campaign. The group’s press contact, Gordy Warnock, works for Mercury’s government relations division. LEADD Chairman Dan Sisto says the group is new, but the idea for it predates the current debate."
So, while the plight of the local liquor store may be compelling for some, the questionable campaign on its behalf indicates that the over the top claims of future extinction-much like the faux Mercury campaign itself-need to be fully vetted for veracity before any of the claims are given credibility in the ongoing debate over wine in supermarkets.
Well Armored For a Fight
Comptroller Bill Thompson, after remaining fairly quiet over a number of questionable deals, is gearing up for a fight over the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory. As the Real Estate Observer reports: "But now, with the mayoral election just eight months away, Mr. Thompson is striking a noticeably different tone, as he seems to be taking a more activist approach to some of the various roles the comptroller’s job affords."
Thompson is rightfully questioning the subsidizing of the Armory deal-particularly if the retail development will have shops that compete with existing neighborhood businesses: "The latest round came Thursday morning, when he joined the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union and a host of other labor, religious and community groups to take a swipe at the Related Companies’ plans for a $323 million retail development in the Bronx, threatening a "no" vote if Related did not make certain changes. The project, the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment, must go before the IDA, as Related is seeking $13.8 million in tax breaks."
And there are possible plans for putting a food use right across the street from the borough's oldest supermarket-one that has been remodeled with millions of the Sloan brothers' own money: "With regard to Related, Mr. Thompson is vowing to vote against the deal unless there is a community benefits agreement in which Related would agree to concessions such as guaranteed wages and community hiring. The firm has been asked many things for the development, including requests that it build a school, and that it not build a competitor to a neighboring grocery store."
The controversy puts into sharp relief our observation about the city's supermarket promotion plan; one that proposes to subsidize new building, but might do so at the expense of stores that have been working in the neighborhoods for many years. Such is the case of the Associated Supermarket on the corner of Kingsbridge and Jerome. The fact that the Sloans hire around 700 Kingsbridge residents for all of their stores in Manhattan only adds to the inequity of promoting a project-with tax subsidies-that would hurt such a large local employer.
The city needs to be cognizant of nurturing existing markets-and the possibility of a box store at the site, one that might threaten the viability of scores of local markets, makes no policy sense. Thompson is right; and the local council persons-Baez and Rivera-need to stand tall with KARA and the RWDSU, the community coalition that has done so much to galvanize community support for Associated and a strong community benefits agreement.
Thompson is rightfully questioning the subsidizing of the Armory deal-particularly if the retail development will have shops that compete with existing neighborhood businesses: "The latest round came Thursday morning, when he joined the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union and a host of other labor, religious and community groups to take a swipe at the Related Companies’ plans for a $323 million retail development in the Bronx, threatening a "no" vote if Related did not make certain changes. The project, the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment, must go before the IDA, as Related is seeking $13.8 million in tax breaks."
And there are possible plans for putting a food use right across the street from the borough's oldest supermarket-one that has been remodeled with millions of the Sloan brothers' own money: "With regard to Related, Mr. Thompson is vowing to vote against the deal unless there is a community benefits agreement in which Related would agree to concessions such as guaranteed wages and community hiring. The firm has been asked many things for the development, including requests that it build a school, and that it not build a competitor to a neighboring grocery store."
The controversy puts into sharp relief our observation about the city's supermarket promotion plan; one that proposes to subsidize new building, but might do so at the expense of stores that have been working in the neighborhoods for many years. Such is the case of the Associated Supermarket on the corner of Kingsbridge and Jerome. The fact that the Sloans hire around 700 Kingsbridge residents for all of their stores in Manhattan only adds to the inequity of promoting a project-with tax subsidies-that would hurt such a large local employer.
The city needs to be cognizant of nurturing existing markets-and the possibility of a box store at the site, one that might threaten the viability of scores of local markets, makes no policy sense. Thompson is right; and the local council persons-Baez and Rivera-need to stand tall with KARA and the RWDSU, the community coalition that has done so much to galvanize community support for Associated and a strong community benefits agreement.
Stringer's Gotham Food Policy
In a post at the Gotham Gazette, there is an interesting discussion of Manhattan BP Stringer's "food enterprise zones;" areas where city policy would nurture existing supermarket businesses, while incentivizing the building of new markets: "He recommends the city create "food enterprise zones" to attract food retailers to underserved areas through zoning and tax incentives. The plan calls for public financing or micro loans to community food partnerships, allowing food vendors tax abatements under the Industrial and Commercial Abatement Program and exempting vendors from business taxes. It also suggested the New York City Housing Authority make provisions for food retailers in public projects."
There is much rich material in the Stringer plan-and it amplifies, with essential mitigation, some of the ideas that the city is circulating to enhance supermarkets in underserved areas. In particular, Stringer's concept of tax exemptions for existing stores, recognizes the need to help these retailers so that any new siting that is encouraged doesn't deleteriously impact their business; after all, they may have been operating in the so-called food deserts without city aid for years.
Some of the zoning changes that Stringer suggests, do mirror what the city is considering: "Zoning regulations offer another policy option to increase the number of retailers selling healthy foods and stem the tide of closing supermarkets. The report suggests government agencies develop an integrated plan for city support of supermarkets, adjust land-use regulations influencing supermarkets, consider supermarkets' need during future rezoning and evaluate the possibility of supermarkets on city owned property. For example, the city might categorize retailers selling fresh fruits and differently from general food stores and so provide them with a density bonus or a permit for additional floor area exemption, according to Stringer."
So what the city needs is a balanced approach; one that recognizes the need to staunch the bleeding of supermarkets that has led to their disappearance, while at the same time, devising a growth promotion policy. Meanwhile, all that has come out of the administration so far-besides jawboning on the issue-is a fruit peddler initiative that fell flat. We need a more muscular approach from the Bloombergistas.
There is much rich material in the Stringer plan-and it amplifies, with essential mitigation, some of the ideas that the city is circulating to enhance supermarkets in underserved areas. In particular, Stringer's concept of tax exemptions for existing stores, recognizes the need to help these retailers so that any new siting that is encouraged doesn't deleteriously impact their business; after all, they may have been operating in the so-called food deserts without city aid for years.
Some of the zoning changes that Stringer suggests, do mirror what the city is considering: "Zoning regulations offer another policy option to increase the number of retailers selling healthy foods and stem the tide of closing supermarkets. The report suggests government agencies develop an integrated plan for city support of supermarkets, adjust land-use regulations influencing supermarkets, consider supermarkets' need during future rezoning and evaluate the possibility of supermarkets on city owned property. For example, the city might categorize retailers selling fresh fruits and differently from general food stores and so provide them with a density bonus or a permit for additional floor area exemption, according to Stringer."
So what the city needs is a balanced approach; one that recognizes the need to staunch the bleeding of supermarkets that has led to their disappearance, while at the same time, devising a growth promotion policy. Meanwhile, all that has come out of the administration so far-besides jawboning on the issue-is a fruit peddler initiative that fell flat. We need a more muscular approach from the Bloombergistas.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Bottle Bill Hard of Hearing
The State Senate yesterday held a hearing (via Liz) on the so-called Bigger, Better Bottle Bill, and the lines were drawn early. Environmentalists praised the measure while business groups-particularly in the food and beverage industry-spoke about the costs of the expanded regulation.
One thing became clear, however, not a soul believed that the unclaimed deposits should be used to fund the EPF: "Even supporters of Paterson's proposal call it flawed because it ties funding of the state Environmental Protection Fund to $118 million in projected funds from unredeemed deposits, and strips away the more reliable real estate transfer tax. Sen. Carl Marcellino, R-Syosset, said this method would mean that more redeemed deposits would result in less available money for the already shrunken environmental fund, which pays for land conservation, solid waste, recycling and other programs. "The government should not issue a program and hope it fails," said the former Republican chairman of the environmental committee."
On top of this the pleas of small bottlers such as Good-O Beverage, one of the largest Hispanic operated bottlers, were heard on this issue. As Martin Salo, vice president of the company, told the EnCon committee: "In the first place, the proposal to have the state escheat the unredeemed deposits will take away from Good-O money that it desperately needs to fund the current redemption process. Our margins are thin to begin with, since we sell to small stores in some of the lowest income neighborhoods in the city, state and country. Taking away the unredeemed nickels will force us to raise our prices to the consumer and will, at the same time, reduce the demand for Good-O products-since these sodas are marketed, not only for their unique tastes, but also for their affordability."
This holds true for other small Hispanic-owned bottlers like Inca Kola and Top Pop who need the unredeemed deposits to maintain their own slim margins. In spite of this Senator Thompson, the chair of the committee, believes a compromise is possible: "Senate Environmental Conservation Committee Chairman Antoine Thompson, D-Buffalo, said after the hearing is confident a compromise agreement could be worked out and would recommend to Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, that negotiations be held, he said. "I think there's been a willingness to come together," Thompson said, adding the legislation could be done before a budget is passed."
Perhaps so; but this will mean that the senate majority will have to overcome some significant concerns of Hispanic lawmakers-Good-O is in Senator Espada's district. And if the three amigos stick together-and we believe that the fourth amigo, Senator Monserrate, will re-join his colleagues on this issue-it will be difficult to craft the middle ground here.
Still, it will be a bruising battle; but the dispute over the EPF should effect the removal of the matter from the budget process. Which will leave the measure to be debated as a separate issue later in the session. Our own view is that it is the absolute wrong time to be adding expensive regulations to the beleaguered supermarket, grocery store, and beverage businesses.
One thing became clear, however, not a soul believed that the unclaimed deposits should be used to fund the EPF: "Even supporters of Paterson's proposal call it flawed because it ties funding of the state Environmental Protection Fund to $118 million in projected funds from unredeemed deposits, and strips away the more reliable real estate transfer tax. Sen. Carl Marcellino, R-Syosset, said this method would mean that more redeemed deposits would result in less available money for the already shrunken environmental fund, which pays for land conservation, solid waste, recycling and other programs. "The government should not issue a program and hope it fails," said the former Republican chairman of the environmental committee."
On top of this the pleas of small bottlers such as Good-O Beverage, one of the largest Hispanic operated bottlers, were heard on this issue. As Martin Salo, vice president of the company, told the EnCon committee: "In the first place, the proposal to have the state escheat the unredeemed deposits will take away from Good-O money that it desperately needs to fund the current redemption process. Our margins are thin to begin with, since we sell to small stores in some of the lowest income neighborhoods in the city, state and country. Taking away the unredeemed nickels will force us to raise our prices to the consumer and will, at the same time, reduce the demand for Good-O products-since these sodas are marketed, not only for their unique tastes, but also for their affordability."
This holds true for other small Hispanic-owned bottlers like Inca Kola and Top Pop who need the unredeemed deposits to maintain their own slim margins. In spite of this Senator Thompson, the chair of the committee, believes a compromise is possible: "Senate Environmental Conservation Committee Chairman Antoine Thompson, D-Buffalo, said after the hearing is confident a compromise agreement could be worked out and would recommend to Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, that negotiations be held, he said. "I think there's been a willingness to come together," Thompson said, adding the legislation could be done before a budget is passed."
Perhaps so; but this will mean that the senate majority will have to overcome some significant concerns of Hispanic lawmakers-Good-O is in Senator Espada's district. And if the three amigos stick together-and we believe that the fourth amigo, Senator Monserrate, will re-join his colleagues on this issue-it will be difficult to craft the middle ground here.
Still, it will be a bruising battle; but the dispute over the EPF should effect the removal of the matter from the budget process. Which will leave the measure to be debated as a separate issue later in the session. Our own view is that it is the absolute wrong time to be adding expensive regulations to the beleaguered supermarket, grocery store, and beverage businesses.
Up Against the Wal-Mart
In what could be the ultimate challenge-to both Wal-Mart and its opponents-the retail giant is apparently looking for a site in Manhattan: "Manhattan's retail rent rollback is causing Wal-Mart to give the city another look. The giant discount chain has shopped for space in Union Square and among the big-box stores along Sixth Avenue in Chelsea, The Post has learned. Wal-Mart recently passed on a proposal by Related Companies for a two-level store of about 57,000 feet in Union Square where Virgin Megastores and Circuit City are closing, sources said. The company's real-estate scouts have also been roaming the area around 620 Sixth Ave., said the sources.:
Now the challenge here for the Walmonster, is the logistics of the parking deprived borough; with the store being the anti-congestion tax all by itself. In addition, it's unlikely-no, probably impossible to find the usual single story site that the retailer is used to; so that anew configuration of multi story levels would have to be devised.
At the same time, however, any site that Wal-Mart might be looking at is probably zoned for commercial use-a major problem for all of its opponents who have relied upon defeating the various Wal-Mart sites in the city because of the need in those cases for some kind of zoning permit. That being said, wherever Wal-Mart might look to go, it will find determined foes: "Unions say that despite the city's economic distress, it doesn't need the retail giant.
"We don't need Wal-Mart to take advantage of an economic crisis to sneak into New York and drive down standards and wages," said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union."
Still, the economic downturn may, because of its bargain reputation, in fact increase Wal-Mart's appeal; raising the level of difficulty for the Alliance and its supporters. Still, we remain undaunted; and with a string of Alliance-stimulated defeats, the Walmonster better tread lightly-it's starting to get the same reputation in NYC as Casey Stengel's old Mets; losers, but without any lovable tag.
Now the challenge here for the Walmonster, is the logistics of the parking deprived borough; with the store being the anti-congestion tax all by itself. In addition, it's unlikely-no, probably impossible to find the usual single story site that the retailer is used to; so that anew configuration of multi story levels would have to be devised.
At the same time, however, any site that Wal-Mart might be looking at is probably zoned for commercial use-a major problem for all of its opponents who have relied upon defeating the various Wal-Mart sites in the city because of the need in those cases for some kind of zoning permit. That being said, wherever Wal-Mart might look to go, it will find determined foes: "Unions say that despite the city's economic distress, it doesn't need the retail giant.
"We don't need Wal-Mart to take advantage of an economic crisis to sneak into New York and drive down standards and wages," said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union."
Still, the economic downturn may, because of its bargain reputation, in fact increase Wal-Mart's appeal; raising the level of difficulty for the Alliance and its supporters. Still, we remain undaunted; and with a string of Alliance-stimulated defeats, the Walmonster better tread lightly-it's starting to get the same reputation in NYC as Casey Stengel's old Mets; losers, but without any lovable tag.
End the Protection Racket
The Rochester Business Journal came out strongly this week for deregulating the sale of wine: "Here’s the real question: Is there a compelling reason to preserve the wine-sale monopoly now granted to liquor and wine stores and to wineries? No, there is not."
And the Journal ridicules the "Last Store Standing on Main Street" plea: "The liquor store industry and its supporters have branded their lobbying effort against this provision as the Last Store on Main Street, suggesting that they are the final defense against the demise of small business in New York. In fact, they represent only a very small portion of the state’s small businesses; should legal protection also be extended to the rest?"
As we have pointed out-and this is particularly true of NYC-the most important stores in the neighborhoods are the bodegas and local supermarkets. The local liquor store has no function beyond the sale of wine and hard liquor; while the others mentioned are the linchpin for neighborhood economies and healthy eating.
That doesn't mean that we would want the liquor store to be put out of business; but changes in the law are needed by this niche as well: "Grocery stores should be free to sell wine, period. But likewise, liquor stores should be permitted to sell beer, food items and other products that now are off-limits for them."
The bottom line here is that consumers are the real beneficiaries of a competitive market-something that the Business Journal underscores: "Fair competition brings out the best in superior companies of all sizes. And let’s not forget that it benefits consumers." All small stores are important, but we need a public policy that promotes equity and not any special exemption from fair competition.
And the Journal ridicules the "Last Store Standing on Main Street" plea: "The liquor store industry and its supporters have branded their lobbying effort against this provision as the Last Store on Main Street, suggesting that they are the final defense against the demise of small business in New York. In fact, they represent only a very small portion of the state’s small businesses; should legal protection also be extended to the rest?"
As we have pointed out-and this is particularly true of NYC-the most important stores in the neighborhoods are the bodegas and local supermarkets. The local liquor store has no function beyond the sale of wine and hard liquor; while the others mentioned are the linchpin for neighborhood economies and healthy eating.
That doesn't mean that we would want the liquor store to be put out of business; but changes in the law are needed by this niche as well: "Grocery stores should be free to sell wine, period. But likewise, liquor stores should be permitted to sell beer, food items and other products that now are off-limits for them."
The bottom line here is that consumers are the real beneficiaries of a competitive market-something that the Business Journal underscores: "Fair competition brings out the best in superior companies of all sizes. And let’s not forget that it benefits consumers." All small stores are important, but we need a public policy that promotes equity and not any special exemption from fair competition.
Bodega SOS
In yesterday's El Diario, there was a strong plea for greater help for the city's bodegas: "The New York City Council and Bloomberg administration are gearing up to help small businesses. Those plans must include concrete support for the thousands of bodega owners across our city." From where we stand, the current proposals don't offer much relief.
In fact, Speaker Quinn's initiatives are no more than palliatives: "The New York City Council and Bloomberg administration are gearing up to help small businesses. Those plans must include concrete support for the thousands of bodega owners across our city." And the paper agrees; "These plans could help ease the pain of small businesses as they struggle to stay afloat. But bodega owners, 80 percent of who are Latino, are in need of a tailored strategy."
Something in the area of a real estate tax abatement would help considerably; as would implementation of the Small Business Protection Act, a bill that would relieve stores from the pressure of overly zealous landlords: "For decades, bodegas have served neglected neighborhoods around the clock and where supermarkets and other services are scarce. And while other small businesses also face financial pressures, some bodegueros are getting squeezed by landlords. In a survey of mostly bodegas, the U.S.A. Latin Chamber of Commerce found that nearly one in three Latino small-business owners say that greedy landlords are demanding cash bribes before negotiating new leases."
But the real bane for the bodegueros is the way in which the state and city overwhelm them with taxes and fines: "The Association of Bodegueros says that fines and penalties, along with new state taxes being introduced, also threaten to undermine the survival of these stores. There are approximately 10,000 bodegas in the city, according to the Association." This means the soda tax in particular-a tax that really will impact the folks in those neighborhoods where bodegas thrive.
And wouldn't it be nice, as Bill Hammond wrote on Tuesday, if grocery stores were given the right to sell wine; after all, they are the bulwark of Main Street shopping: "Wine lovers who like a nice Chianti with their spaghetti would gain the convenience of one-stop shopping. And they'd probably save a few bucks, too, as thousands of additional retailers compete for their business.
Plus, this is a unique situation in which the affected taxpayers - supermarkets and bodegas - are eagerly volunteering to chip in a couple thousand bucks each for the opportunity to move into a new market."
Deregulation and lower taxes are the linchpin of business success-and the bodegas are no exception. Making it easier to get a permit is fine; but reining in the anti-store owner DCA would be even better. That, however, might effect the city's own revenues-and that's an area where it is often unwilling to yield. If the city keeps it up, its revenue pinata may soon shrivel. What then would city regulators have left to do?
In fact, Speaker Quinn's initiatives are no more than palliatives: "The New York City Council and Bloomberg administration are gearing up to help small businesses. Those plans must include concrete support for the thousands of bodega owners across our city." And the paper agrees; "These plans could help ease the pain of small businesses as they struggle to stay afloat. But bodega owners, 80 percent of who are Latino, are in need of a tailored strategy."
Something in the area of a real estate tax abatement would help considerably; as would implementation of the Small Business Protection Act, a bill that would relieve stores from the pressure of overly zealous landlords: "For decades, bodegas have served neglected neighborhoods around the clock and where supermarkets and other services are scarce. And while other small businesses also face financial pressures, some bodegueros are getting squeezed by landlords. In a survey of mostly bodegas, the U.S.A. Latin Chamber of Commerce found that nearly one in three Latino small-business owners say that greedy landlords are demanding cash bribes before negotiating new leases."
But the real bane for the bodegueros is the way in which the state and city overwhelm them with taxes and fines: "The Association of Bodegueros says that fines and penalties, along with new state taxes being introduced, also threaten to undermine the survival of these stores. There are approximately 10,000 bodegas in the city, according to the Association." This means the soda tax in particular-a tax that really will impact the folks in those neighborhoods where bodegas thrive.
And wouldn't it be nice, as Bill Hammond wrote on Tuesday, if grocery stores were given the right to sell wine; after all, they are the bulwark of Main Street shopping: "Wine lovers who like a nice Chianti with their spaghetti would gain the convenience of one-stop shopping. And they'd probably save a few bucks, too, as thousands of additional retailers compete for their business.
Plus, this is a unique situation in which the affected taxpayers - supermarkets and bodegas - are eagerly volunteering to chip in a couple thousand bucks each for the opportunity to move into a new market."
Deregulation and lower taxes are the linchpin of business success-and the bodegas are no exception. Making it easier to get a permit is fine; but reining in the anti-store owner DCA would be even better. That, however, might effect the city's own revenues-and that's an area where it is often unwilling to yield. If the city keeps it up, its revenue pinata may soon shrivel. What then would city regulators have left to do?
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Ex-Tolling the MTA
It is looking more and more as if the plan to toll the East River bridges will founder on the opposition of key Senate Democrats. As the NY Daily News reported yesterday: "Questions about the MTA'S credibility are hampering a plan designed to rescue 8.5 million subway, bus and commuter train riders from massive fare hikes and service cuts.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) Monday said he has enough votes to pass a package with tolls on East and Harlem river bridges. But some Senate Democrats doubted a majority of senators would go along - and Majority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) said the Metropolitan Transportation Authority "does not have a history of being forthright in terms of their budget. You know, they kept two books at a time."
Well, this skepticism mirrors our own-and the issue of the need for a forensic accountant is something we had brought up two years ago when the Bloomberg congestion tax was proposed. Here's how the NY Post details the senate opposition: "Smith (D-Queens) demanded a comprehensive audit of the beleaguered MTA before he would agree to any plan to plug its projected $1.2 billion budget gap with new tolls and a regional payroll tax. The ultimatum cast new doubt on a compromise that was emerging last week, when Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) threw his support behind a $2 toll on East and Harlem River spans, down from the $5 toll proposed by the MTA."
Put simply, that fact that the MTA, after saying that it needed $5 bridge tolls, could so easily shift and accept the deuce raised the suspicion levels in the Democratic majority. As the News pointed out: "Senate Dems planned a "full vetting of MTA finances" and want to strengthen the state controller's oversight of the authority, Smith said in a statement last night...The "two sets of books" phrase was popularized in a legal challenge of MTA fare hikes in 2003. A suit based on reports by the state and city controllers claimed the MTA misled the public by exaggerating its financial situation."
But aside from the agency's creative bookkeeping, there should be concern about the general ability of the MTA to actually govern the regional transit system-something that the NY Times had raised-only to forget when the mayor's tax was proposed-when the fare increase had been trial ballooned a few years back.. The reality here, as the Post shows, is that Smith simply doesn't have the votes for a toll: "The audit demand was widely seen as a stall tactic by the new Senate leader, who had encountered stiff resistance from outer-borough Democrats after saying he would consider Silver's compromise. All 32 Democrats would have to vote unanimously to overcome unified opposition from Republicans, who say the transit plan neglects upstate road needs and includes unacceptable tax hikes."
We are reaping the whirlwind now for years of fiscal laxity and mismanagement at this sclerotic agency. Why riders and auto commuters should be made to suffer for this is beyond us-no matter what the plutocratic editorial boards say-something that many outer borough pols understand: "The coalition of legislators argues that the toll plan would not evenly spread the cost of meeting the transit shortfall. They argue it is unfair to residents of neighborhoods where mass transit options are limited. "Why should people pay for a system that's not available to them?" said Assembly member Rory Lancman (D-Queens). "I can assure you no one drives into Manhattan for the fun of it."
So it looks as if the governor once again has egg on his face as Liz points out: "Asked whether he has reached out to the senators who are so far steadfast in their opposition to the bailout - a group that includes at least two of the Three Amgios - (Kruger and Diaz Sr.) - Paterson replied:
"Well, I've made myself available to the majority leader if I can help. I served with a lot of Senate Democrats and with the Assembly members and am always happy to talk to them...I'm not just going to call them up. I don't know what their conversations with Sen. Smith are, if there's any way I can be of help to get this process moving, i can be available at a moment's notice." This hands-off approach is a big departure from the method employed by past governors. Eliot Spitzer, and even George Pataki, used to routinely call rank-and-file members - or at least have their staffers do it - for priority policy issues."
All of which underscore, perhaps, why Paterson's poll numbers are tanking; and there historically so low that it's hard to see how he can extricate himself from a situation that will soon lead other Democrats to follow Ruben Diaz's lead in (possibly) calling for him to step down. In the middle of a massive MTA and state budget gap, this is not a pretty picture.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) Monday said he has enough votes to pass a package with tolls on East and Harlem river bridges. But some Senate Democrats doubted a majority of senators would go along - and Majority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) said the Metropolitan Transportation Authority "does not have a history of being forthright in terms of their budget. You know, they kept two books at a time."
Well, this skepticism mirrors our own-and the issue of the need for a forensic accountant is something we had brought up two years ago when the Bloomberg congestion tax was proposed. Here's how the NY Post details the senate opposition: "Smith (D-Queens) demanded a comprehensive audit of the beleaguered MTA before he would agree to any plan to plug its projected $1.2 billion budget gap with new tolls and a regional payroll tax. The ultimatum cast new doubt on a compromise that was emerging last week, when Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) threw his support behind a $2 toll on East and Harlem River spans, down from the $5 toll proposed by the MTA."
Put simply, that fact that the MTA, after saying that it needed $5 bridge tolls, could so easily shift and accept the deuce raised the suspicion levels in the Democratic majority. As the News pointed out: "Senate Dems planned a "full vetting of MTA finances" and want to strengthen the state controller's oversight of the authority, Smith said in a statement last night...The "two sets of books" phrase was popularized in a legal challenge of MTA fare hikes in 2003. A suit based on reports by the state and city controllers claimed the MTA misled the public by exaggerating its financial situation."
But aside from the agency's creative bookkeeping, there should be concern about the general ability of the MTA to actually govern the regional transit system-something that the NY Times had raised-only to forget when the mayor's tax was proposed-when the fare increase had been trial ballooned a few years back.. The reality here, as the Post shows, is that Smith simply doesn't have the votes for a toll: "The audit demand was widely seen as a stall tactic by the new Senate leader, who had encountered stiff resistance from outer-borough Democrats after saying he would consider Silver's compromise. All 32 Democrats would have to vote unanimously to overcome unified opposition from Republicans, who say the transit plan neglects upstate road needs and includes unacceptable tax hikes."
We are reaping the whirlwind now for years of fiscal laxity and mismanagement at this sclerotic agency. Why riders and auto commuters should be made to suffer for this is beyond us-no matter what the plutocratic editorial boards say-something that many outer borough pols understand: "The coalition of legislators argues that the toll plan would not evenly spread the cost of meeting the transit shortfall. They argue it is unfair to residents of neighborhoods where mass transit options are limited. "Why should people pay for a system that's not available to them?" said Assembly member Rory Lancman (D-Queens). "I can assure you no one drives into Manhattan for the fun of it."
So it looks as if the governor once again has egg on his face as Liz points out: "Asked whether he has reached out to the senators who are so far steadfast in their opposition to the bailout - a group that includes at least two of the Three Amgios - (Kruger and Diaz Sr.) - Paterson replied:
"Well, I've made myself available to the majority leader if I can help. I served with a lot of Senate Democrats and with the Assembly members and am always happy to talk to them...I'm not just going to call them up. I don't know what their conversations with Sen. Smith are, if there's any way I can be of help to get this process moving, i can be available at a moment's notice." This hands-off approach is a big departure from the method employed by past governors. Eliot Spitzer, and even George Pataki, used to routinely call rank-and-file members - or at least have their staffers do it - for priority policy issues."
All of which underscore, perhaps, why Paterson's poll numbers are tanking; and there historically so low that it's hard to see how he can extricate himself from a situation that will soon lead other Democrats to follow Ruben Diaz's lead in (possibly) calling for him to step down. In the middle of a massive MTA and state budget gap, this is not a pretty picture.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Toasting a Change in the Law
In this morning's NY Daily News, Bill Hammond comes out strongly for what he sees as a budget no-brainer-wine in grocery stores: "Here's a budget-balancing idea that won't cost average New Yorkers a penny - and goes down really well with a nice, aged cheddar: Start selling wine in grocery stores. There's no good reason that the store where you buy a T-bone steak can't also sell you a Cabernet to go with it."
Well, there is one good reason; but it has nothing to do with sound public policy-an antiquated law and the liquor lobby that backs it: "But thanks to New York's antiquated, Prohibition-era alcohol control laws, grocery stores can sell beer but not wine. And liquor stores can sell wine and the hard stuff - and pretty much nothing else...Overhauling these laws would make life easier for almost everyone, boost the economy and raise a few bucks for our cash-strapped state government in the bargain. The only thing standing in the way is the liquor store lobby, which is predictably opposed to giving up even part of its longstanding monopoly."
And Hammond underscores one of the law changes best features; it would-unlike some of his retail taxes-actually benefit consumers, the folks who back the idea in poll after poll: "This would be a great deal for consumers. Unlike Paterson's other money-raising ideas - such as taxing sugary soda or taxing music downloads or taxing movie tickets - this is one levy that promotes pleasure instead of penalizing it. Wine lovers who like a nice Chianti with their spaghetti would gain the convenience of one-stop shopping. And they'd probably save a few bucks, too, as thousands of additional retailers compete for their business."
Not only that; but there's a great deal of dough in this proposal for the strapped state: "Plus, this is a unique situation in which the affected taxpayers - supermarkets and bodegas - are eagerly volunteering to chip in a couple thousand bucks each for the opportunity to move into a new market." Not to mention what kind of shot in the arm this would be for an upstate economy that is down in the dumps: "With thousands of additional retailers selling wine, it stands to reason that New York's winegrowers - a surprisingly important part of upstate's economy - would benefit, too. New York, which once was the nation's No. 2 wine producing state, has been slipping in recent years. "I really believe if wine goes into grocery stores, I'll have to triple my production," says Scott Osborn of Fox Run Vineyards in upstate Penn Yan."
As Hammond points out, however, the liquor lobby does have one argument against the plan that isn't-on its face-self serving; the specter of an increase in underage drinking. He isn't much impressed by the scare tactic: "For example, they quote the scary-sounding figure that grocery stores account for 90% of illegal sales of alcohol to minors. What they generally fail to point out is that there are more than 16,000 grocery stores in New York, but only 2,700 liquor stores. So proportionally, the rate of underage sales is right in line with what you'd expect. Also, grocery stores already carry beer, which is widely recognized as the drink of choice for young people. Nobody's suggesting changing that."
But what about all of those lost jobs on Main Street claimed by the lobby? "The liquor stores also claim that changing the law would drive 1,000 of their members out of business and eliminate 4,000 jobs. But that figure comes from a five-year-old industry-sponsored study that leaves out any hiring that might occur at grocery stores and vineyards."
There will undoubtedly be some dislocation involved if the 80 year old state monopoly is upended; but that's why supporters of the measure believe that the liquor stores deserve some extra considerations: "In fairness, liquor store owners deserve some consideration for losing part of their traditional monopoly. The right way to balance that out is to let them sell additional products - such as mixers and snack foods - and open more than one store on a single license."
With the state in a financial bind-and with city grocery stores really struggling to survive-a change in the law would be a real boon. We'll give Hammond the last word: "Thirty-five other states already allow wine sales in grocery stores. It's high time that New York joined the party."
Well, there is one good reason; but it has nothing to do with sound public policy-an antiquated law and the liquor lobby that backs it: "But thanks to New York's antiquated, Prohibition-era alcohol control laws, grocery stores can sell beer but not wine. And liquor stores can sell wine and the hard stuff - and pretty much nothing else...Overhauling these laws would make life easier for almost everyone, boost the economy and raise a few bucks for our cash-strapped state government in the bargain. The only thing standing in the way is the liquor store lobby, which is predictably opposed to giving up even part of its longstanding monopoly."
And Hammond underscores one of the law changes best features; it would-unlike some of his retail taxes-actually benefit consumers, the folks who back the idea in poll after poll: "This would be a great deal for consumers. Unlike Paterson's other money-raising ideas - such as taxing sugary soda or taxing music downloads or taxing movie tickets - this is one levy that promotes pleasure instead of penalizing it. Wine lovers who like a nice Chianti with their spaghetti would gain the convenience of one-stop shopping. And they'd probably save a few bucks, too, as thousands of additional retailers compete for their business."
Not only that; but there's a great deal of dough in this proposal for the strapped state: "Plus, this is a unique situation in which the affected taxpayers - supermarkets and bodegas - are eagerly volunteering to chip in a couple thousand bucks each for the opportunity to move into a new market." Not to mention what kind of shot in the arm this would be for an upstate economy that is down in the dumps: "With thousands of additional retailers selling wine, it stands to reason that New York's winegrowers - a surprisingly important part of upstate's economy - would benefit, too. New York, which once was the nation's No. 2 wine producing state, has been slipping in recent years. "I really believe if wine goes into grocery stores, I'll have to triple my production," says Scott Osborn of Fox Run Vineyards in upstate Penn Yan."
As Hammond points out, however, the liquor lobby does have one argument against the plan that isn't-on its face-self serving; the specter of an increase in underage drinking. He isn't much impressed by the scare tactic: "For example, they quote the scary-sounding figure that grocery stores account for 90% of illegal sales of alcohol to minors. What they generally fail to point out is that there are more than 16,000 grocery stores in New York, but only 2,700 liquor stores. So proportionally, the rate of underage sales is right in line with what you'd expect. Also, grocery stores already carry beer, which is widely recognized as the drink of choice for young people. Nobody's suggesting changing that."
But what about all of those lost jobs on Main Street claimed by the lobby? "The liquor stores also claim that changing the law would drive 1,000 of their members out of business and eliminate 4,000 jobs. But that figure comes from a five-year-old industry-sponsored study that leaves out any hiring that might occur at grocery stores and vineyards."
There will undoubtedly be some dislocation involved if the 80 year old state monopoly is upended; but that's why supporters of the measure believe that the liquor stores deserve some extra considerations: "In fairness, liquor store owners deserve some consideration for losing part of their traditional monopoly. The right way to balance that out is to let them sell additional products - such as mixers and snack foods - and open more than one store on a single license."
With the state in a financial bind-and with city grocery stores really struggling to survive-a change in the law would be a real boon. We'll give Hammond the last word: "Thirty-five other states already allow wine sales in grocery stores. It's high time that New York joined the party."
City Hall Pot and Bronx Kettle
The Politicker reported yesterday that Mike Bloomberg, for one, doesn't think that Adolfo Carrion did any thing wrong when he took developer money for a myriad of Bronx projects: "Michael Bloomberg said that he doesn’t think Adolfo Carrion did anything wrong by approving development projects associated with people who donated money to his campaigns...“I assume there’s been nothing done wrong there,” Bloomberg said, who went on to praise the city’s campaign finance system, which he said was better than the state’s."
But why would he? The solipsistic Mr. Bloomberg believes that moral rectitude devolves exclusively from an agreement with the mayor's own positions; and in the case of the Bronx-where the Terminal Market and Yankee Stadium debacles roiled that political landscape-the mayor and Adolfo were, well, perfect together. In fact AC emerged from those ventures soaking wet-giving new meaning to the idea of carrying some one's water.
But once again, the issue of campaign cash remains; and Adolfo assiduously plied the developer treasure trove with the kind of zeal that the neighborhood folks around Yankee Stadium only wished he had demonstrated for the preservation of their local parks. It's why AC was given the sobriquet, "Cash and Carrion," by the ever vigilant Juan Gonzales. But, as far as we can tell, there's no dissonance here for a mayor, whose concern for neighborhoods and small business has yet to be detected-even in the slightest.
But why would he? The solipsistic Mr. Bloomberg believes that moral rectitude devolves exclusively from an agreement with the mayor's own positions; and in the case of the Bronx-where the Terminal Market and Yankee Stadium debacles roiled that political landscape-the mayor and Adolfo were, well, perfect together. In fact AC emerged from those ventures soaking wet-giving new meaning to the idea of carrying some one's water.
But once again, the issue of campaign cash remains; and Adolfo assiduously plied the developer treasure trove with the kind of zeal that the neighborhood folks around Yankee Stadium only wished he had demonstrated for the preservation of their local parks. It's why AC was given the sobriquet, "Cash and Carrion," by the ever vigilant Juan Gonzales. But, as far as we can tell, there's no dissonance here for a mayor, whose concern for neighborhoods and small business has yet to be detected-even in the slightest.
Monday, March 02, 2009
More Bloomberg Blather
Yeterday, the NY Daily News' Adam Lisberg highlighted Mike Bloomberg's rhetorical flourishes-something that used to be called talkng out of both sides of your mouth until Mike bought the domain name and, in self service, retired the phrase from public use: "Mayor Bloomberg built his political reputation as the guy who speaks uncomfortable truths, but what happens to that reputation when the truth gets muddled? The issue arises after last week's closed-door meeting with the five Republican county chairs who could let him onto the party's ballot - or not>
The real confusion surrounded two fairly easy words to understand-support, and vote: "All five chairs told the Daily News that when Bloomberg talked about Republicans he supported, he brought up John McCain. (And a top McCain source tells the Daily News' Tom DeFrank that Bloomberg personally assured him he was a supporter, despite being publicly neutral.) Yet when the mayor walked outside, he told reporters they talked about President Obama. And the next day, he denied ever saying he supported McCain. "I didn't say that at all. I've never said who I voted for," Bloomberg responded. "I did say that John McCain is a friend of mine. He campaigned for me in 2001, and I've always respected him. ... But I certainly did not say who I supported, nor will I."
Now it takes a well-paid campaign guru to demystify this: "But his public walk-back soured some of those good feelings - since he was the only one who ever mentioned Obama.
"He hurt himself more with the Obama issue," a third chair said. "Why would we have waited all that time to meet with him, and then talked about Obama?" Bloomberg's campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said the mayor never misled the chairs about McCain. "He has supported John McCain. That's a little different than him saying he supported him for President," Wolfson said. "He is a Republican that Mike Bloomberg supported."
So, once again, the mayor's allegiance to the straight talk express has gotten derailed; and his support and vote for George Bush is exiled-in 1984 fashion-to the refuse bin of expurgated history. And the man for all reasons emerges to face the voters; born again in newly purchased garb.
The real confusion surrounded two fairly easy words to understand-support, and vote: "All five chairs told the Daily News that when Bloomberg talked about Republicans he supported, he brought up John McCain. (And a top McCain source tells the Daily News' Tom DeFrank that Bloomberg personally assured him he was a supporter, despite being publicly neutral.) Yet when the mayor walked outside, he told reporters they talked about President Obama. And the next day, he denied ever saying he supported McCain. "I didn't say that at all. I've never said who I voted for," Bloomberg responded. "I did say that John McCain is a friend of mine. He campaigned for me in 2001, and I've always respected him. ... But I certainly did not say who I supported, nor will I."
Now it takes a well-paid campaign guru to demystify this: "But his public walk-back soured some of those good feelings - since he was the only one who ever mentioned Obama.
"He hurt himself more with the Obama issue," a third chair said. "Why would we have waited all that time to meet with him, and then talked about Obama?" Bloomberg's campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said the mayor never misled the chairs about McCain. "He has supported John McCain. That's a little different than him saying he supported him for President," Wolfson said. "He is a Republican that Mike Bloomberg supported."
So, once again, the mayor's allegiance to the straight talk express has gotten derailed; and his support and vote for George Bush is exiled-in 1984 fashion-to the refuse bin of expurgated history. And the man for all reasons emerges to face the voters; born again in newly purchased garb.
Grapes of Wrath
In yesterday's NY Post, the paper details some of the acrimony surrounding the fight to allow supermarkets to sell wine: "A bottle of red, a bottle of spite - it all depends upon your side of the debate. Gov. Paterson's proposal to expand wine sales in New York - and pour money into state coffers - has pitted supermarkets against liquor shops, and in some cases, it's gotten vicious."
How vicious? Well, threatening wineries with a boycott is pretty vicious to us: "One supporter, upstate vineyard owner Scott Osborn, said that after he testified in favor of the proposal at a budget hearing last month, several liquor-store owners threatened to pull his wines from their shelves. "I used to be pushing your wines, but now just looking at them makes me want to puke," one liquor-store owner wrote in e-mail. "I'll never sell any of your wines ever again!"
And this is no isolated incident; scores of liquor store owners-zealously out to protect and preserve their state-sponsored monopoly-have made similar calls to other state wineries. This disturbing restraint of trade campaign is being looked at by AG Cuomo: "Osborn, who owns Fox Run Vineyards in the Finger Lakes, said the expanded market for his wine would help business. He asked Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to investigate what he said was a "coordinated campaign of intimidation and retaliation." Cuomo's office said it's reviewing the request."
The liquor stores, hard pressed to come up with any public interest rationale that would justify the preservation of an anti-competitive monopoly-and to deflect attention away from their pressure tactics, managed to find one policy objective that didn't simply devolve from their own narrow self interest-under aged drinking: ""We don't threaten anybody," said Jeff Saunders, owner of McCabe's liquor store on the Upper East Side and founder of The Last Store on Main Street, a coalition opposing the Paterson plan. Saunders said permitting supermarkets to peddle pinot noir will not only put liquor stores out of business, but increase underage drinking. He said teens would be able to purchase wine more easily in grocery and convenience shops, where cashiers may not be vigilant in preventing such sales."
So now we've seen everything! Liquor stores looking out for the kids. But, who are they really kidding? This is all simply about your basic protectionism-and the damn the consumer mentality that goes with it; something that Crain's New York Business understands very well.
In this week's magazine (subscription only), Crain's tells us: "A proposal to allow grocery stores to sell wine in New York state comes down to a choice between more competition and increased tax revenue on one hand, and continued protection for a regulated industry on the other...If the idea is approved, consumers would enjoy lower prices and more convenience. New York's wine industry, which desperately needs new markets in the state if it is to grow, would also benefit by increasing its distribution network. That's why the New York Farm Bureau is an enthusiastic supporter, as are many of the state's most innovative wineries."
And Crain's goes on to voice support for changing the law so that the liquor stores can evolve-and adapt to the modern age: "Liquor stores' real problem isn't competition; it is the archaic laws that hamstring owners. They can operate only one outlet, which precludes them from expanding and amassing the economic wherewithal that would allow them to compete. The state also prohibits them from selling complementary products such as gift bags, cheese or snack items...The Legislature should approve the proposal to allow wine to be sold in grocery stores, and accompany it with legislation loosening the rules that stifle liquor stores. The result will help the state's consumers and its finances."
So let's look to modernize this entire industry-and give consumers a choice at the same time. In the process, NYC's neighborhood supermarkets-hurting badly during the economic downturn-would get a needed boost. The benefits of such a move far outweigh any of the negatives; the ball is in the legislature's court.
How vicious? Well, threatening wineries with a boycott is pretty vicious to us: "One supporter, upstate vineyard owner Scott Osborn, said that after he testified in favor of the proposal at a budget hearing last month, several liquor-store owners threatened to pull his wines from their shelves. "I used to be pushing your wines, but now just looking at them makes me want to puke," one liquor-store owner wrote in e-mail. "I'll never sell any of your wines ever again!"
And this is no isolated incident; scores of liquor store owners-zealously out to protect and preserve their state-sponsored monopoly-have made similar calls to other state wineries. This disturbing restraint of trade campaign is being looked at by AG Cuomo: "Osborn, who owns Fox Run Vineyards in the Finger Lakes, said the expanded market for his wine would help business. He asked Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to investigate what he said was a "coordinated campaign of intimidation and retaliation." Cuomo's office said it's reviewing the request."
The liquor stores, hard pressed to come up with any public interest rationale that would justify the preservation of an anti-competitive monopoly-and to deflect attention away from their pressure tactics, managed to find one policy objective that didn't simply devolve from their own narrow self interest-under aged drinking: ""We don't threaten anybody," said Jeff Saunders, owner of McCabe's liquor store on the Upper East Side and founder of The Last Store on Main Street, a coalition opposing the Paterson plan. Saunders said permitting supermarkets to peddle pinot noir will not only put liquor stores out of business, but increase underage drinking. He said teens would be able to purchase wine more easily in grocery and convenience shops, where cashiers may not be vigilant in preventing such sales."
So now we've seen everything! Liquor stores looking out for the kids. But, who are they really kidding? This is all simply about your basic protectionism-and the damn the consumer mentality that goes with it; something that Crain's New York Business understands very well.
In this week's magazine (subscription only), Crain's tells us: "A proposal to allow grocery stores to sell wine in New York state comes down to a choice between more competition and increased tax revenue on one hand, and continued protection for a regulated industry on the other...If the idea is approved, consumers would enjoy lower prices and more convenience. New York's wine industry, which desperately needs new markets in the state if it is to grow, would also benefit by increasing its distribution network. That's why the New York Farm Bureau is an enthusiastic supporter, as are many of the state's most innovative wineries."
And Crain's goes on to voice support for changing the law so that the liquor stores can evolve-and adapt to the modern age: "Liquor stores' real problem isn't competition; it is the archaic laws that hamstring owners. They can operate only one outlet, which precludes them from expanding and amassing the economic wherewithal that would allow them to compete. The state also prohibits them from selling complementary products such as gift bags, cheese or snack items...The Legislature should approve the proposal to allow wine to be sold in grocery stores, and accompany it with legislation loosening the rules that stifle liquor stores. The result will help the state's consumers and its finances."
So let's look to modernize this entire industry-and give consumers a choice at the same time. In the process, NYC's neighborhood supermarkets-hurting badly during the economic downturn-would get a needed boost. The benefits of such a move far outweigh any of the negatives; the ball is in the legislature's court.
Feasting on Carrion
The NY Daily News' I-Team focused yesterday on the tawdry pay for play machinations of our new White House policy advisor-the developer's munecho-Adolfo Carrion: "The man who is President Obama's newly minted urban czar pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers' money, a Daily News probe found. Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion often received contributions just before or after he sponsored money for projects or approved important zoning changes, records show."
On project after project AC was a friend, not to the communities or minority businesses who could have used the support of the city's highest ranking Hispanic legislator, but to those real estate interests whose projects were often antithetical to real community needs. Nothing was more emblematic of this sell-out philosophy than AC's shilling for the destruction of the Bronx Terminal Market, and the subsequent building of the Gateway Mall by Related.
Here, not only were the merchants evicted, without so much as a meager helping hand from the Bronx BP (after Carrion called the market a, "commercial ghetto"); but the resulting project will generate 125,000! cars and trucks a week to the area of the South Bronx known as "asthma alley." As the News points out, and as we have commented extensively on:
"Developer Related Companies' subsidiary, BTM Development Partners, needed Carrion and the city Planning Commission to change zoning, modify height restrictions and approve permits for parking spaces. As the project moved forward, the neighborhood railed about increased traffic and the impact the chain stores would have on local businesses. All the while Related executives wrote campaign checks to Carrion. On March 10, 2005, five $1,000 donations from Related executives arrived. On June 20, 2005, the company notified the city it planned to build a 1 million-square-foot retail center with 2,610 parking spaces and a 250-room hotel. On Oct. 19, 2005, Carrion approved the project, with his office monitoring local hiring. Since 2003, Carrion has received $39,100 from 24 Gateway-related donations."
Adding insult to injury, Carrion proceeded to usurp the community's role in the development of a community benefits agreement. As we highlighted at the time:
"The negotiation process for this CBA was incredibly, incredibly flawed:
• Normally CBAs are negotiated prior to the land use review process so that community coalitions can have leverage over developers. The opposite occurred with the Gateway CBA. Brainstorming for the document only began in November after City Planning Certification, Community Board approval, and the Borough President’s “Yes” vote. The agreement was finalized two days prior to the City Council’s approval.
• There was no independent community coalition. The community-based organizations involved in the initial brainstorming (“the taskforce”) were handpicked by BOEDC and Borough President Carrion. When certain group representatives said or did things that upset the Borough President they were kicked out of the negotiating group.
• None of the taskforce members had CBA negotiating experience
• The taskforce was not given legal representation
• Unknown to the participants, representatives from Related were in the room while the taskforce brainstormed
• The taskforce never negotiated directly with Related. Final negotiations occurred between Bronx elected officials and the developer. For this reason the final CBA is a very watered down version of what the community asked for.
• Most of the City Council never had the chance to read the CBA. The final copy was sent to the Council the morning of the project’s approval."
And, as we pointed out in this morning's NY Times focus on Carrion: "It’s ironic that President Obama hired Adolfo Carrión, whose record in the Bronx at every turn thwarted the interest of the community, and yet the president started his career as a community organizer,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the market’s former merchants." The NY Daily News followed up its expose yesterday as well, and we told the paper: "Carrión's acted in such a perverse manner to really go out of his way to thwart community and small-business concerns," Lipsky charged."
So Carrion, someone with both good looks and charm-if not good judgment-leaves a legacy of abandoning genuine community interests; both substantively as well as procedurally, to go to work for the ultimate community organizer. Either Obama has taken a real audacious leap of faith here-suspending all disbelief-or Carrion will hopefully transform himself into a shrewd analyst of urban problems. Anyone want to take the under/over here?
On project after project AC was a friend, not to the communities or minority businesses who could have used the support of the city's highest ranking Hispanic legislator, but to those real estate interests whose projects were often antithetical to real community needs. Nothing was more emblematic of this sell-out philosophy than AC's shilling for the destruction of the Bronx Terminal Market, and the subsequent building of the Gateway Mall by Related.
Here, not only were the merchants evicted, without so much as a meager helping hand from the Bronx BP (after Carrion called the market a, "commercial ghetto"); but the resulting project will generate 125,000! cars and trucks a week to the area of the South Bronx known as "asthma alley." As the News points out, and as we have commented extensively on:
"Developer Related Companies' subsidiary, BTM Development Partners, needed Carrion and the city Planning Commission to change zoning, modify height restrictions and approve permits for parking spaces. As the project moved forward, the neighborhood railed about increased traffic and the impact the chain stores would have on local businesses. All the while Related executives wrote campaign checks to Carrion. On March 10, 2005, five $1,000 donations from Related executives arrived. On June 20, 2005, the company notified the city it planned to build a 1 million-square-foot retail center with 2,610 parking spaces and a 250-room hotel. On Oct. 19, 2005, Carrion approved the project, with his office monitoring local hiring. Since 2003, Carrion has received $39,100 from 24 Gateway-related donations."
Adding insult to injury, Carrion proceeded to usurp the community's role in the development of a community benefits agreement. As we highlighted at the time:
"The negotiation process for this CBA was incredibly, incredibly flawed:
• Normally CBAs are negotiated prior to the land use review process so that community coalitions can have leverage over developers. The opposite occurred with the Gateway CBA. Brainstorming for the document only began in November after City Planning Certification, Community Board approval, and the Borough President’s “Yes” vote. The agreement was finalized two days prior to the City Council’s approval.
• There was no independent community coalition. The community-based organizations involved in the initial brainstorming (“the taskforce”) were handpicked by BOEDC and Borough President Carrion. When certain group representatives said or did things that upset the Borough President they were kicked out of the negotiating group.
• None of the taskforce members had CBA negotiating experience
• The taskforce was not given legal representation
• Unknown to the participants, representatives from Related were in the room while the taskforce brainstormed
• The taskforce never negotiated directly with Related. Final negotiations occurred between Bronx elected officials and the developer. For this reason the final CBA is a very watered down version of what the community asked for.
• Most of the City Council never had the chance to read the CBA. The final copy was sent to the Council the morning of the project’s approval."
And, as we pointed out in this morning's NY Times focus on Carrion: "It’s ironic that President Obama hired Adolfo Carrión, whose record in the Bronx at every turn thwarted the interest of the community, and yet the president started his career as a community organizer,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the market’s former merchants." The NY Daily News followed up its expose yesterday as well, and we told the paper: "Carrión's acted in such a perverse manner to really go out of his way to thwart community and small-business concerns," Lipsky charged."
So Carrion, someone with both good looks and charm-if not good judgment-leaves a legacy of abandoning genuine community interests; both substantively as well as procedurally, to go to work for the ultimate community organizer. Either Obama has taken a real audacious leap of faith here-suspending all disbelief-or Carrion will hopefully transform himself into a shrewd analyst of urban problems. Anyone want to take the under/over here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
