No Deposits, No Returns!

David Paterson's having flash backs to the old Flip Wilson refrain; "Here comes the judge, here comes the judge!" That's because federal Judge Thomas Griesa has canned the governor's pet bottle bill expansion with an injunction that runs, get this, until April of next year. As the NYACS website reports: "In a breathtaking development, the same federal judge who on Wednesday May 27 put the bottle bill UPC code and effective date on hold, today (May 29) issued a broader injunction barring enforcement of the entire expanded bottle bill statute until next April."

Yes, the entire measure-which means that we're all not left doing the limbo, but must go back to the drawing board; this time without any NY only UPC regulation: "Judge Griesa’s preliminary injunction on Wednesday applied only to a few specific sections of the bottle bill expansion law, leaving the remaining parts such as signage and handling fees to take effect on June 1st as scheduled. But today's follow-up injunction was all-encompassing, freezing everything that was in the new law."

So now the ball's is back in the legislative court; but this time any bottle law changes must go through more normal-not budget cloaked-channels. Which means that the outcome here is less than certain. At the same time, however, the judge's ruling leaves the state with a more than $200 million budget shortfall, since the delay impacts more than one budget cycle.

Now, just how's the state going to make up the shortfall? Well, we might have a good alternative for the newly impoverished-the Morelle Wine Revitalization Act. As the Times Union tells us: "It helps the wineries, helps the wine business in New York state," Morelle said. The initiative is expected to raise more than $100 million the first year by selling supermarkets licenses." Or, perhaps even more than that.

So with one revenue source poured out down the drain, doesn't it make sense to lift a glass to a good alternative? It sure does to us.

Law in Limbo

We finally got a hold of Judge Griesa's decision in the bottle bill litigation-and it appears that only certain segments of the law have been put on hold; but one thing is totally clear, the UPC only rule is history: "Regardless of the purpose of the legislature in enacting this provision, the provision is a violation of the commerce clause. It prohibits the sale of a commodity on the basis of the state borders. This is a violation of the commerce clause."

Not much wiggle room there. And if you were still unclear, Griesa went on to say: "In the view of the Court, on the present record the plaintiffs not only have a likelihood of success, they are sure of success as a matter of law." Whew!

It thus appears that the judge has actually, through his ruling here, essentially passed the Kruger amendments in their entirety; since the senator had proposed eliminating the UPC clause and postponing the implementation date until October-a likely result of the judge granting the restraining order.

All of which means that the legislature and the governor have some defects to cure; and the status of the equal protection argument over sugared vs. non-sugared water is still up in the air, since the judge was silent on this issue. Still, there isn't much time for amendment action, since the legislature will adjourn on June 23rd. Chaos, however, continues to reign in Albany; a condition that we relish for all sorts of self serving reasons.

The Immaculate Deception

As we have posted, the proposal to develop the Kingsbridge Armory includes a 60,000sq. ft. supermarket that, according to the developer, "...will not hurt any of the existing markets...It is expected that a grocery use at that the project site would attract sales largely from the under served portion of the Primary Trade Area...A grocery store use at the project site also could capture substantial sales from portions of the Bronx outside of the Primary Trade Area, most notably residents east of Baychester Road/Interstate 678 where there is currently consumer outflow to Southern Westchester County."

So the Associated Supermarket across the street will be unharmed by the tax subsidized competitor? Only in Related World could this be said with anything approaching a straight face. But there is one thing that must be highlighted in this effort to deceive: the fact that the original RFP for the site had insisted that, "Proposed commercial and retail uses must expand and enhance the current mix of retail offerings in the area, and endeavor to not duplicate or compete with the existing retail uses." (p.6)

One thing that can be said in Related's defense-they go about doing things effortlessly, so their disregard for the parameters of the RFP shouldn't be a shock to anyone's sensibility (And no one would sit J. Masyr next to the "Pushka"). But the supermarket designation insures that there will be a battle royal over this application; and Morty and Billy Sloan are prepared to aggressively make their case.

The Sloans are particularly aggrieved considering the fact that Related is getting around $13 million in tax subsidies-while the Sloans have operated in their location without any public funds for over fifty years. In addition, the Sloan's company is a huge economic engine to the entire Kingsbridge community, generating a weekly $390,000 payroll for the area. This is in addition to the $375,000 that the company pays in city and state corporation taxes-a sum that has been consistent for decades (Not to mention the $350,000-$400,000 in real estate taxes they pay for the two contiguous markets).

So a tax subsidized competitor is asking for a special dispensation-along with amnesia over the RFP-in order to put local stores at risk. And it's not only the Sloans. The Perez family has also been operating a C-Town supermarket in the neighborhood for years; and there are at least six other, mostly minority, store owners in the line of fire as well.

All of which means that we will be in for a battle royal; and we haven't even touched on the RWDSU led effort to insure that a living wage accompanies any development that is lavishly supported by the city's strapped tax payers-an effort that is encompassed in pending legislation up in Albany. As the TU reports: "A measure currently under consideration in the Legislature would require companies receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies to provide greater detail about their plans to pay prevailing wages, consult with regional labor organizations, and whenever possible hire local workers."

So the Armory becomes ground zero in, not only a neighborhood store fight, but a major union battle as well; which doesn't bode well for Related's effort to get approval for its project. But perhaps the company, and its president Jeff Blau, feel they have an ace up their sleeve. Recently, as the Observer reported, Mike Bloomberg took time out from his busy schedule-at least when he isn't golfing in Bermuda-to make a call for the beleaguered Blau who wasn't getting any love from the co-op board where he wanted to domicile. How many of us could get the mayor to make such a call-especially one who claims that he isn't beholden to any special interests?

But, ace in the hole or not, Related's in for a bruising here-much like the one they faced over on Brush Avenue when they sought to put a BJ's on the site (now a gorgeous Home Depot occupies the land). The electeds are lining up here, and Bloomberg's favorite real estate company may have to scale things back or, alternatively, simply take a beating.

How Dare You!

Someone has dared to question the message of Our Saviour. As Daily Politics pointed out, His Holiness has accused our buddy Azi of the sin of lèse majestés: "To the annals of Mayor Bloomberg's mistreatment of the press add his testy exchange today with The Observer's Azi Paybarah, who dared to ask Hizzoner a question about term limits. The mayor, having just finished explaining to the DN's Celeste Katz that he happens to be "very optimistic" about the city's economy and giving anecdotal examples of how things are turning around, did not take kindly to Azi's inquiry about how this might undercut Bloomberg's own rationale for extending term limits - not to mention running for re-election."

Well, this was just too much for our epitome of Papal infallibility. After dismissing the question as beneath his dignity, he turned on the intrepid reporter: "And then, as the mayor walks away from the podium, he looks at Azi and says, almost under his breath: "You're a disgrace."

Azi's a disgrace? In our view, the shoe is on the wrong foot; and the mayoral exchange reminds us of the apocryphal story of the two Germans passing by the Jewish ghetto in Nazi Germany. One of the men turns to the other saying, "Boy, Don't these Jews smell?" To which his companion replies, "No, my friend, it's not the Jews that smell, the odor is from Nazism."

What is truly disgraceful is the specter of a democratically elected leader who believes that answering spontaneous questions from the press is outside of his realm of responsibility; and that the airing of millions of dollars of infomercials can be fobbed off on a gullible public as some kind of true democratic dialogue.

It is, however, instructive to discover that the mayor was forced to apologize for his uncalled for outburst: "Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser e-mailed Katz to say: "The Mayor asked me to pass along his apologies to Azi for the comment after the press conference, which I did." However appropriate the apology may be, the entire episode reveals what lies behind the constructed image; and underscores why Bloomberg avoids spontaneous exchanges with a free press.

Which is underscored by the following from the NY Times: "Since announcing his third term bid, he has publicly scolded a blogger in a wheelchair for accidentally turning on a tape recorder during a news conference. He called a question about his spending “ridiculous.” And he labeled an inquiry about a political rival a “waste” of a question."

What New Yorkers need now is more of the kind of bold inquisitiveness that Azi Paybarah demonstrated yesterday. The press corps must be direct and confrontational-because the editorial pages are in muted lock step with the mayor and his message. What needs to be stopped at all costs-the true disgrace-is the continued display of mayoral arrogance that feels that Papal bulls can adequately replace honest, spontaneous and candid give and take.

Ask Not What You Can Do For My Company

Bobby Kennedy Jr. is gifted with a Times Op-ed today on the inequities of the expanded bottle bill-and, not surprisingly, the self described environmentalist makes it all about himself-and the water company that he heads: "A good new deposit bill could encourage recycling of new classes of beverage bottles and also provide financing for curbside programs that capture other kinds of recyclable waste...Unfortunately, the New York Legislature passed a bottle law last month that not only fails to accomplish these goals but will actually harm the recycling programs New York has. It is an ugly sausage that was cooked up by lobbyists for makers of sugared drinks and their allies in the Legislature."

Really? This would be news to all of those food and beverage lobbyists that were ignored-shunted aside for all of RFK's cohort of environmental purists-when the governor and the legislative leaders crafted this bill under the cover of budget. So, the idea that this "ugly sausage" was cooked up by lobbyists for sugared drinks indicates that Bobby Jr. must be suffering from sugar shock.

But let's get to his real objections to a bill that was struck down by an injunction from a federal judge yesterday: "Instead of requiring deposits for all the new beverage categories, as Gov. David Paterson originally proposed, New York’s new bottle law covers bottled water only — unless that water contains added sugar."

And it just so happens that Bobby owns a water company-but not just any water company: "I am both a water bottler and an environmental activist. My water company, Keeper Springs, donates all its profits to the protection of rivers and public water supplies. I am also committed to achieving zero waste through recycling." So RFK isn't really one of those exploitive capitalists just in it for the money-and, as, "an environmental activist," and not a company owner, he objects to having been treated inequitably by the expanded law.

And then there are the children: "The Legislature, which began the year promising to lead national efforts against obesity and diabetes, exempted from the deposit law all noncarbonated beverages that contain added sugar. That means consumers are expected to pay more for zero-calorie choices than they will for sugar-filled options like teas and sports and juice drinks. The markup will encourage millions of New Yorkers, and especially price-sensitive populations like the poor and children, to consume sugar-spiked beverages instead of water."

No objections to the fact that the entire bill-along with the state's grabbing of the unredeemed deposits-is a huge tax on all beverage consumers; including those deluded souls that like to drink soda. And it was Governor Paterson, not the legislature, that lead the effort to tax soda.

But the RFK's of the world, supported by lavish trust funds that allow them to act as quixotically as they please, remain hostile to the economics of all of their well meaning meddling. So imbued are they by the visions of environmental purity that they lose sight of the fact that the food and beverage industry is a vital economic cog in the state's economic well-being. In the case of the expanded bottle bill, however, Judge Griesa kicked them all to the curbside.

Weiner to the Egress

So, a funny thing happened on the way to our cornucopia of electoral choices-or, in the more persuasive vernacular, another one bites the dust; with the combative Anthony Weiner taking a page out of Kubla Ross's book on death and dying, you know the Stage Five part where the terminally ill patient gets over her anger and accepts the inevitability of death. As the NY Times tells us: "In an Op-Ed page article to be published on Wednesday in The New York Times, Mr. Weiner suggests that his — or anyone’s — chances of beating Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has already spent $19 million on his re-election campaign, are slim. “As a native of Brooklyn, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t savor a good scrap,” Mr. Weiner wrote. “But I’m disappointed because I’m increasingly convinced a substantive debate isn’t likely right now.”

There can, of course, be little debate when the principle opponent is spending money hand over fist as if there's no recession in the country. What has happened here, and the Weiner withdrawal epitomizes the situation, is that Mike Bloomberg's obscene level of over spending has sucked all of the marrow out of even the possibility of a genuine democratic debate. And when this arrogant, ostentatious spending orgy is combined with the active collusion of the plutocrats-both on and off the editorial boards-the end result is that the democratic process is left thoroughly dessicated-with nothing put a procedural carcass left to examine.

As Weiner comments in the Daily Politics: "In the end, though, no matter how pretty a picture Weiner might seek to paint, the reality is this:

It comes down to money. "The mayor is expected to spend $80 million of his own money in the race, more than 10 times what candidates who have not opted out of the city’s public campaign finance program, as Mr. Bloomberg has, can spend in a primary," Weiner writes. "With spending like that, regular debates about real issues will probably take a back seat to advertising. As a native of Brooklyn, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t savor a good scrap. But I’m disappointed because I’m increasingly convinced a substantive debate simply isn’t likely right now. The sad truth for a political candidate without deep pockets is that while money isn’t the only thing, it does matter. Campaign finance laws are vital, not just to keep special interests from dominating campaigns, but also because in this case they could help prevent vast disparities in spending."

Just how all of this is good for the democratic life of the city is really beyond our tax bracket-it's left to Mike Bloomberg to explain with his little Cheshire Cat grin and supercilious demeanor. But what do the special pleaders from the Bloomberg cohort have to say? Here's Morticia with his snide avoidance of the elephant in the room: "Explaining himself in a New York Times op-ed, Weiner cited an expectation that Bloomberg will spend $80 million in a reelection fight. He predicted that "debates about real issues will probably take a back seat to advertising." What he left out is that while money is important, so, too, is message. What was his? What is Thompson's? More broadly, what does the Democratic Party, the city's dominant political organization, offer New Yorkers as it closes in on 16 years on the outs of running City Hall?"

So the swamping and subornation of democracy isn't the issue-but the lack of a Democratic message is? Please, Mort, let's not get all hypocritical on us now. Your classmate and fellow billionaire will outspend his opponent by ten to one-flooding the airwaves with his own bogus, self serving message; but Weiner, Thompson and the Democrats will lose because of a lack of message? Nothing in the editorial about the way in which obscene spending by Bloomberg limits democratic choices? Well done Mort!

And the Post isn't much better-covering its class biases with the following: "Let's be clear: Mike Bloomberg came by his money honestly, and it's his to spend any way he sees fit. Still, it's a pity that the cash has dried up what might well have been a compelling -- and, frankly, necessary -- conversation about the city's future."

Yes, it is a pity; but it's much more than that-and the way the mayor made his money is, quite frankly, simply a non sequitor here. Where's the outrage about the manner in which debate is being stifled-not to mention the way in which the Post continues to present a one sided, persistent drum beat for Bloomberg causes without even bothering to cover the alternative views? So the Post's own culpability here is elided-underscoring the need for a version of Radio Free New York for this supposedly liberal city.

And frankly, we can't wait for the NY Tmes to weigh in on the Weiner exit-and we're breathless with anticipation for Punchless Sulzberger's explanation of his expected endorsement of the Grinch that stole democracy (we'll apologize if we're wrong). Even with $15 billion dollars to your name, it's good to have toadies as friends.

But the Post is right about one thing. There are so many issues where debate is not only healthy but vital to the future of the city. Unfortunately, we will not be privy to any of that now-just the endless crawl of the kind of Bloomberg vision statements that, because of their fatuous self regard, do tremendous violence to the city's harsher realities. In particular, the real nature of the five boro economic plan charade that the Bloombergistas are parading before us nightly.; doing so, while neighborhood businesses are being forced out in record numbers-thanks in part to the mayor's anti-small business policies.

And what about the nature of governance itself? Here, the Bloomberg lack of understanding of the role that government plays as a stimulator of economic activity could be front and center in a genuine level playing field debate. This would mean confronting the Bloomberg paternalistic approach that sees expansive government as a positive force, but is blind to the way in which this expansion-built as it is on the tax paying and over regulated businesses of the city-acts as economic saltpetre.

Of course, in a real debate we would here two sides of the issue of the role of government in promoting the health of its citizens. Is it appropriate for the city to act in loco parentis, taxing and regulating our behaviors in order to mandate healthier life styles? Should government educate or regulate? All of this potential dialogue is lost in the oppositional silence that Bloomberg purchases-sucking the democratic oxygen out of the town square as he spends beyond all previous measure.

Missing, as well, is the debate over the purchase of an extension of the Mike Bloomberg tenure-a store bought bauble that was supposed to be needed to comfort us through an extraordinary crisis. This crisis-the recession is now predicted to end sometime this year-is, like all such events, a convenient cover for the usurpation of power; a familiar socio-political phenomenon used by anti democratic forces throughout history to quell popular rule. Enter the Reign of Mike the First.

On and on we could go; but the rest of this election cycle is inevitably, and regrettably, going to be dominated by the self server in chief-someone for whom Narcissus is a poor man's Bloomberg. The only silver lining? That the Chinese proverb of, be careful what you wish for, becomes prophetic to the point where events reveal the shortcomings of our hubristic leader. As for Anthony Weiner, we understand his reticence, but will miss the acerbic vitriol that would be anodyne to the arrogant display of wealth that is being mischaracterized as an election campaign.

Deposit This!

As Capitol Confidential is reporting, the state's expanded bottle has been thrown for a loss by Federal Judge Griesa-and on the issue we had spotlighted: "A federal judge has just issued an injunction putting the scheduled June 1 implementation of New York’s new expanded bottle law on hold. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Griesa ruled from the bench in New York City early this afternoon during a hearing on the lawsuit against the state filed last week by a coalition of bottled water companies. Brian Flaherty, director of public affairs for Connecticut-based Nestle Waters North America Inc., said the judge cited objections raised by the bottlers and distributors to the new law’s requirement that all returnable bottles carry a New York-specific UPC bar code."

What this means from a practical standpoint, is that the expansion may well be put off indefinitely since the plaintiffs have no reason to settle prematurely even if the state crafts compromise legislation; why not try to get the entire package of goodies by going to trial if you're almost guaranteed a win on the UPC issue? Whatever your position, this ruling puts the industry opponents of the expansion in the proverbial cat bird's seat. As Nestle's told the TU: “The court today highlighted the Constitutional and due process problems with New York’s new bottle bill,” he said. “The opportunity that we see today is, first, stopping an unconstitutional law. But more importantly, in the pause that will take place, we now can reinforce that this needs to be a better bill and can be, environmentally.”

And if the state decides it wants to litigate this, well, apparently Judge Griesa had wanted all parties to stipulate to the UPC being eliminated from the law-right in court-but the state's lawyers demurred; not a smart move if you are in federal court. So the state is now between a Rolling Rock and a hard place here. This is underscored by City Room: "In granting a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, Judge Griesa said he agreed with the bottlers that the June 1 deadline was simply too early for the companies to have realistically met, given that Mr. Paterson signed the law in April. But he also said that the plaintiffs were almost certain to be successful in overturning the prohibition on sales outside of New York."

It appears to us that, because of hubris and intransigence-particularly from the governor's office-the expanded bottle bill may have been forced into a six to nine month hiatus; and new legislation will likely have to be drafted and negotiated, with all parties having assumed hardened positions from the manner in which the law was midwifed in the first place. As a result, this becomes another example of the failure of competency at the highest levels of government.

A Good Start

As City Room blog reported, the workers at H&M are going to have the protection and security of union representation: "More than 1,000 employees at nine H&M stores in Manhattan will receive wage increases and other benefits in their first-ever union contract. The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which represents the workers, announced on Tuesday that the contract was ratified last Friday. The union organized clerks, cashiers and other workers at the Manhattan outlets of the Swedish clothing retailer in November 2007."

This is especially heartening considering the bleak economic that we're in. As Local 1102's president told City Room: “At a time when retail workers are taking it on the chin it’s great to win an agreement that’s going to mean higher wages and an even better working environment for H&M workers and their families,” said Frank Bail, president of Local 1102 of the union. The three-year contract provides a 3 percent wage increase in the first year, with wage re-openers in the second and third years An additional merit-based increase is included in each year of the contract."

Let's hope this is a sign of things to come; and, hopefully, new retail developments in the city will only come through with the assurance that retail workers won't be shafted by subsidy taking friends of the mayor. The jury's out on that front.

Food Fight at the Armory

It looks as if there will be a major battle over the development of the Kingsbridge Armory. According to the EIS submitted by the Related Companies, the project will include a 60,000 sq. ft supermarket that will not, according to this breathtakingly insightful document, hurt any of the existing markets; "It is expected that a grocery use at that the project site would attract sales largely from the under served portion of the Primary Trade Area...A grocery store use at the project site also could capture substantial sales from portions of the Bronx outside of the Primary Trade Area, most notably residents east of Baychester Road/Interstate 678 where there is currently consumer outflow to Southern Westchester County."

How convenient! So the two immediate supermarkets owned by Morton and Billy Sloan-one directly across from the Armory, and one just down the road, will be spared any negative impact because most of its customers will not move across the street because a new subsidized market is in town. Nostradamus on crack must have crafted this EIS.

All of which underscores the fact that this shapes up to be a mega battle; particularly because of all of the opposition that is lining up against Related-not only the local coalition called KARA, but most of the elected officials and CB# 7 as well. And it could also spill into the upcoming mayoral race, since Bill Thompson has become a Related critic.

What's ironic here, is that Related is using the recently certified supermarket zoning/incentive initiative as a rationale: "The Study titled "Going to Market; New York City's Neighborhood Grocery Store and Supermarket Shortage," assessed the need for new neighborhood grocery stores across the City..." (p. 3-29) And. using the DCP research on store density-population ratios, the EIS tells us that: "The ratios for the community district in which the proposed project site is located, as well as each of the adjacent community districts, are less than the citywide average, and substantially less than the DCP planning goal. This is one indication that the Primary Trade Area could support additional grocery store retail."

Well, we know that through some quirk in the city's zoning laws, Home Depot has been labeled a neighborhood hardware store, but to claim that a 60,000 sq. ft. supermarket would be a "new neighborhood grocery store" is absurd-it's certainly not Mr. Roger's neighborhood; and it underscores the fact that the city's new incentive program can be seen as problematic because of the manner in which it might threaten the viability of existing stores. It also needs to be pointed out, that the city's plan for new food stores limits them to half the size (30,000 sq. ft) of the supermarket proposed by Related.

Related's sanguine attitude about collateral damage also needs to be put into perspective as a result of the city subsidies that it has garnered. If, as we believe, the Armory development will put local stores at risk, than the granting of tax incentives to this favored development company can be seen in an even less favorable light. The Sloans have invested millions in their two stores, and have paid hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to the city; without a penny in city aid coming to support their investment-the first major supermarket in the Bronx.

And what about the workers at the two supermarkets-members of Local 338 of the RWDSU? Is there any guarantees that the new market will offer the same level of wages and benefits? Or will this retailer be the same bottom feeder that is going into the new mall on the Deegan? Guaranteed that the RW will be in this fight with all hands on deck.

So the battle lines have been drawn here. And it's not only the Armory that's in the cross hairs-but the mayor's entire supermarket proposal as well. And, perhaps, the mayor himself; last seen making calls on behalf of Related's president in the latter's effort to get past a Fifth Avenue co-op board-as if he wasn't busy enough. So much for the Bloomberg's vaunted "above special interests" mantra.

However, if our analysis of the opposition is correct, Related is facing a considerable uphill battle in this fight. But it must be a sense of déjà vu for Jesse James and company. This time we advise a well thought out Plan B; or else the Kingsbridge Armory will prove to be one bridge too far.

Embottled Legislation

The legal case against the recently expanded bottle law, will be heard in Federal District Court in New York tomorrow-and the compelling need for injunctive relief is obvious to anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge of the beverage industry. Put simply, if no relief is given, not a single bottler or franchised beer wholesaler will be in compliance with the obligation to have a "NY Only" UPC code and label on each and every container when the law is supposed to go into effect on June 1st.

As the Politicker pointed out last week: "In a complaint filed in United States District Court in Manhattan, the water companies argued that the labeling requirement violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause because the language of the bill excludes any drink to which sugar has been added, like sports drinks. The complaint also charges that the requirement violates the Constitution’s interstate commerce protections because the wording of the law also seems to ban companies from selling the New York-labeled bottles in other states."

So if no court action is taken, by next Monday we will likely have no legal container of beer, soda or water on the shelves of New York's retail outlets. Which is why Senator Kruger has introduced his bill that would eliminate this UPC requirement-and delay implementation until October. Unfortunately, the Assembly has a contradictory measure that would preserve the UPC mandate, and the governor has also weighed in with a proposal to trim the handling fee requirement; further complicating an already murky situation.

So with the clock running, it looks as if it may be up to the court to put a delay in place so that all of these issues can be hashed out in a reasonable time frame. Otherwise, we may see empty beverage aisles at the beginning of next week.

Thanks for the shout out from the Observer; and from Liz as well.

Wine Tasting

As the legislature prepares to introduce an expanded wine bill-one that will begin to allow liquor store operators to enter the new century-those who want to preserve the untenable status quo are still acting as if a state sponsored monopoly is good for both retailers and consumers. We'll now see if the majority of state law makers disagree with this antediluvian view: "A new proposal to sell wine in New York supermarkets is surfacing in Albany after liquor store interests helped kill an earlier bill. Democratic Assemblyman Joseph Morelle of Monroe County is proposing additional elements to the bill that would address long-standing concerns of liquor store owners worried that selling wine in supermarkets would kill their businesses."

James Odato of the Ties Union outlines the details: "Assemblyman Joseph Morelle, who is still seeking a law to allow wine sales in grocery stores, has drafted a bill he hopes will sell the idea before the session ends. His measure allows liquor stores to have multiple locations. It creates a medallion system to make a liquor license more liquid. It allows cooperative buying groups for package stores, and longer store hours; wine tastings would be easier to set up; and restrictions on selling to bodegas and restaurants would be lifted. And everyone buying alcohol would have to be proofed."

In other words. a win for all; but not everyone sees things this way. As one liquor store owner told CBS TV in NYC: "But liquor store owners fear the measure would drive out one of the state's last vestiges of mom-and-pop retail. "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," said liquor store owner Gary Wartels of Skyview Wines in Riverdale. Wartels also said it could put many of the state's more than 2,700 liquor stores out of business."

But why would it do so? In over thirty other states liquor stores and supermarkets sell wine-often occupying the same shopping center without the feared cannibalization; and in those states the number of liquor stores often increases as wine sales go up. In other words. it's not the zero sum game that opponents of the Morelle bill allege.

In addition, as we have pointed out, this could be really good for struggling local supermarkets: "Allowing supermarkets, and food stores to sell wine would net the state nearly $160 million in licensing revenues in the first two years and help these retailers in a tough economy. "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."

Which, if it were to happen, would be a boon for Mom and Pop retailers-contrary to the self serving spin of opponents afraid of any changes in the outdated state laws on liquor selling. As Odato points out, it will also help the New York wineries; another small business niche that has been somehow forgotten in the propaganda blitz from the liquor lobby: ""It helps the wineries, helps the wine business in New York state," Morelle said. The initiative is expected to raise more than $100 million the first year by selling supermarkets licenses."

So with state revenues plummeting, and compromise in the air, it's up to the governor and the legislative leaders to take the Morelle bill and run with it. And in the case of the state treasury, it will be running straight to the bank!

Low Friends in High Places

The common man has been pretty busy lately. As the NY Times reports, Mike Bloomberg held a private meeting a couple of weeks ago with a few of his lessers-folks who happen to have a greater net worth than most countries: "There are fewer billionaires in these tough economic times, so one might imagine that the remaining ones would attract more attention when they moved en masse. Yet when some of America’s most prominent capitalists met earlier this month at Rockefeller University, it took weeks before anyone noticed."

But why the secrecy? And what's up with Mike's surly response to reporters questions? "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who was there, revealed little in a brusque response to a question on Wednesday afternoon. “Anytime I have a meeting that’s not on the public schedule, it’s not going to be on the public schedule,” he said." Perhaps it is because the meeting clashes with his electoral reinvention as the proverbial face in the crowd.

But, as Wayne Barret points out, the mayor stepped on his patrician tongue in describing the gathering: "All my friends are philanthropic, or they probably wouldn't be my friends," he said...If "all" of Bloomberg's friends are big-time donors, then all of them must be rich, right? It's possible, of course, that the mayor meant to say all of his rich friends are philanthropic. But to Mike, that's one and the same thing..."

Which underscores many of our observations about the Bloomberg worldview. Isolated from the concerns of most folks-and not beholden, as he tells us,to the special interests (telling us that he's only beholden to himself)-Bloomberg's decision making calculus is determined by the rarefied air that only he, and a few privileged others, breathe on a regular basis.

It's time for the special interests to reassert themselves. In the context of the mayoral spending orgy, and in recognition of Bloomberg's out of touch elite billionaire laden cocoon, we need to have decision making return to the interplay of the mortals-you know, small businesses, retailers, labor unions, seniors, etc.

So, with respects to Garth Brooks, here's what Bill Thompson might have sung exiting that select little enlarged tête-à-tête-after stumbling in uninvited:

"I guess I was wrong I just don't belong
but then I've been there before, everythings alright
I'll just say goodnight and I'll show myself to the door
Hey I didn't mean to cause a big scene just wait 'til I finish this glass
Then, sweet little mogul I'll head back to the bar (haha) and you can kiss my ass"

Starving for Reason

We've been quite outspoken about the efforts of the various city and state health commissioners to enforce what they consider healthy eating through targeted taxes and regulations; and Governor Paterson's fat tax-now being unfortunately resurrected by some legislators-is another example of the public sector's intrusion into the lives and choices of New Yorkers.

But is it possible that all of this meddling is a non sequitor? That the causes of the dreaded obesity epidemic lies elsewhere? A recent study cited by Reason magazine's Hit and Run blog tells the tale: "This Just In: U.S. Obesity "Epidemic" Due Solely to Overeating!

That's right, Americans are getting fatter because they're consuming more food: "The amount of food Americans eat has been increasing since the 1970s, and that alone is the cause of the obesity epidemic in the US today. Physical activity—or the lack thereof—has played virtually no role in the rising number of expanding American waistlines, according to research presented at the 2009 European Congress on Obesity in Amsterdam last week."

Which means that soda and Twinkie taxes are besides the point; but that doesn't mean the food industry is off the hook: "The food industry has done such a great job of marketing their products, making the food so tasty that it's almost irresistible, pricing their products just right, and placing them everywhere, that it is very hard for the average person to resist temptation. Food is virtually everywhere, probably even in churches and funeral parlors."

So what's the answer? Reason has it: "So the implied solution seems to be that food industry must be forced to make their products tasteless and unattractive." Which, of course, is silly; so we're back to the dreaded need to actually convince folks to be a bit less gluttonous, and control what they eat.

One opponent of the sin tax movement has it just right; and he gets the last word: "There's a sin tax movement underway for legal activities, too. Rev. Robert Sirico ("Hate the Sin, Tax the Sinner?") looks at the recent proposals to find revenues through federal taxes on sodas and fatty foods, finding this not just economically objectionable but morally suspect as well. Whatever economic or social benefits one can dream up from the sin tax, we must also realize that the decision to tax must be weighed against the social benefits for reducing the behavior by slow and deliberate persuasion and voluntary action. When it comes to public policy, the preferred method of discouraging sin should fall under the category of alternative, mediating institutions, notably family, church, and school."

Amen!

Five Boro Economic Ingenuity

Hats off to the ingenious Clyde Haberman for uncovering the real essence of Mike Bloomberg's "five borough" economic development plan: "The mayor’s re-election campaign, which has more money at its disposal than some governments do, announced the other day that it had opened six new offices. That brought the total in the five boroughs to 11, “part of the ongoing effort,” the campaign said, “to reach voters in every neighborhood across the city.” Bravo! We need as many of these offices as possible."

Why? Well because of all of the vacant storefronts that are blighting the aesthetics of neighborhoods all over the city: "If your neighborhood is anything like mine, the streets are dotted with empty stores, victims in many cases of rapacious landlords who, with City Hall’s tacit blessing, jacked up rents to unsustainable levels. Only the bottom fell out of the economy. Those vacant storefronts, with their sad “space available” signs in the windows, are a dispiriting blight. Think of how much cheerier they would be if only they were filled with Mayor Mike campaign offices."

So, if Bloomberg can just promise to continue to open-and operate-these satellite offices, then we can see some real economic stimulus for the local neighborhood economies that are experiencing record store closings-thanks, in part, to the mayor's first 2005 five borough plan that didn't really pan out; but who can really hold him accountable for election year narrischkeit?

Just think, if the mayor can staff these offices on a year round basis, then all of the young and eager workers could buy their lunches, office supplies, and Starbucks lattes locally, thus pumping money into the neighborhood stores that are hurting. In this manner, and only through this kind of effort, Bloomberg's five borough would be given some semblance of substance. Otherwise, there's little there to stimulate much of anything.

And things are only going to get worse-as the NY Post reports today: "A fiscal hurricane is headed toward the city next year and the tough decisions needed to deal with it "are unlikely to be addressed" until after the mayoral election in November, a budget monitor warned yesterday." Sure they will, but whatever is done-and in all likelihood, Bloomberg will be in charge of the actions-will it make up for eight years of lethargy and unimaginative governing? Will the fact that Bloomberg made the city's business climate worse, causing revenues to head south, be remembered as the draconian cuts needed send advocates screaming?

Mike Bloomberg has bought two electorates, and will be another one this fall. If these upcoming events cause New Yorkers distress, they have only themselves to blame. In politics, you do get what you've been paid for.

Budget Wining

Two issues may be coming together-as the Coke commercial used to say-"in perfect harmony." They are the revival of the wine in grocery stores-this time with an added incentive to the liquor stores-and the state's continued budget free fall. Crain's Insider reports on the wine/budget confluence (subscription): "Food retailers are making another attempt for the right to sell wine. They would let liquor stores sell food and open up to five stores, rather than one...Supermarkets’ cause got a boost yesterday when plunging tax revenues opened a $239 million hole in the state budget. Their plan could generate $100 million, supporters claim."

The liquor lobby, however, isn't buying: "Mike McKeon, calls it “the same phony compromise” that the Legislature rejected in March." Well, not quite; but since when does McKeon adhere to any standard of veracity? The measure rejected in March was simply a budget initiative, and didn't include any holistic approach to the liquor store problems. But to the dead enders, anything that gives wine to the markets-and tens of millions of dollars to the state-is "phony."

Reality in this case, is simply-and exclusively-the status quo that has seen liquor stores decline in recent years from a high of around 5,000 in New York, to around 2700 today. So McKeon is pitching for a dying group of entrepreneurs who would benefit greatly from change that would allow them to be, well, entrepreneurs, rather than simply nay saying protectionists.

And the budgetary mess is getting worse by the day: "Less than two months into the state’s fiscal year, revenue collections are about half of what they were last year, according to a report issued by the state comptroller on Tuesday. The findings reinforced what seemed to be a foregone conclusion almost as soon as Gov. David A. Paterson and legislative leaders agreed last month to the state’s $131 billion budget: Lawmakers will need to return to Albany at some point this year to make further cuts. The comptroller’s report said the state collected $4.8 billion in revenue in April, compared with $8.6 billion collected in April 2008, a 44 percent decline."

There's certainly nothing phony about the revenues the state would accrue from wine licensing fees; something that would make Robin Schimminger's comments on wine in grocery stores to Crain's appear short sighted in the extreme: "But a key lawmaker has no appetite for it. “The issue has been settled,” says Robin Schimminger, chairman of the Assembly committee with jurisdiction over the matter." However, the state's dire fiscal condition may well unsettle things pretty soon.

The Supermarkets Are Coming

The city did certify the zoning and tax initiative that seeks to make it easier for new supermarkets to go into areas that have been classified as under served. As City Room reported yesterday: "In an effort to combat obesity and poor nutrition, the Bloomberg administration has announced a proposal to encourage the development of grocery stores in low-income, poor-nutrition neighborhoods. Across the city, supermarkets and grocery stores have been driven out by slim margins, restrictive zoning requirements and high rents in recent years. But the new program — called Fresh, for Food Retail Expansion to Support Health — will use a novel combination of zoning changes and financial breaks to bring neighborhood grocery stores to 45 neighborhoods largely in northern Manhattan; the Bronx; Jamaica, Queens; and central Brooklyn."

But the one underlying cause that is left unstated is, of course, the very variable that the city has most control over: the high cost of doing business; and nothing in the current proposal really addresses that key issue. Then there's the issue of the kinds of jobs that the city may be promoting in this initiative. Or rather, what is left out of the equation-the need to insure that the new store development doesn't encourage wage levels that are below those of unionized stores already doing business in the targeted areas.

Which leads to the other obvious fallacy here: the impact that new store development will have on existing stores and their employees. Without reducing the over all cost of doing business, and with less subsidies for the stores who have been in the neighborhoods for years, we have what amounts to an unlevel playing field for both operators and workers-and this needs to be addressed in the ULURP process.

After all, if this policy is designed to "combat obesity and poor nutrition," than insuring that existing stores aren't forced out should be equally compelling-aside from issues of basic fairness. As City Room points out: "A 2006 study published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine found that supermarkets and grocery stores reduced the incidence of obese and overweight residents in a neighborhood." But, as we always say on these health related measures, the health of the neighborhood economy is just as important-which means viable stores with good jobs, family wages and benefits.

So we expect that the current plan will be modified as the process winds its way towards final resolution at the city council. It is, however, high time that this crucial supermarket disappearance problem was addressed; as long as we all maintain the proper focus.

Expansion All Wet

The NY Times reports on Nestle's lawsuit against the expansion of the state's bottle law (and the Politicker provides a link): "A coalition of bottled water companies filed suit on Tuesday to block an expanded bottle deposit law scheduled to take effect next month, arguing that the law, which imposes a deposit fee on bottled water sold in New York State, is unconstitutional.
The coalition includes Nestlé Waters North America; the International Bottled Water Association, an industry trade group; and Keeper Springs, a small bottler owned by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental advocate."

Robert Kennedy? Turns out-on information and belief, as the lawyers say-that RFK Jr. has a stake in a water company; kinda reminiscent of his uncle Ted suing against windmills on Cape Cod. But we digress. What this all means is that the entire expansion may be put on hold for a while, since the companies suing simply couldn't wait for the legislature to get its act together to repair defects in the law: "In a statement, Kim Jeffery, the president of Nestlé Waters, said that the company supported recycling programs but argued that New York’s new law was overly burdensome to companies and consumers. “We would prefer that the Legislature fix these problems, but the deadline is fast approaching and we need to ensure that we will still be able to provide bottled water to our customers,” Mr. Jeffery said."

And it's the attempt to alter the UPC code that is at the heart of the lawsuit: "In a complaint filed in United States District Court in Manhattan, the water companies argued that the labeling requirement violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause because the language of the bill excludes any drink to which sugar has been added, like sports drinks. The complaint also charges that the requirement violates the Constitution’s interstate commerce protections because the wording of the law also seems to ban companies from selling the New York-labeled bottles in other states."

And since these federal actions prohibit severability, any restraining order would have to apply to the entire bill. The suit also raises equal protection issues because of the way in which the law exempts sugared water and sports drinks. As the Politicker points out: "In a complaint filed in United States District Court in Manhattan, the water companies argued that the labeling requirement violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause because the language of the bill excludes any drink to which sugar has been added, like sports drinks. The complaint also charges that the requirement violates the Constitution’s interstate commerce protections because the wording of the law also seems to ban companies from selling the New York-labeled bottles in other states."

So off we go into the federal courts-unless the legislature is now goaded into some remedial action on its own; and the Kruger bill is slated to move next week, but it doesn't address these equal protection claims. All of which leaves NYPIRG's Laura Haight in high dudgeon, according to the Times: "But Laura Haight, a senior environmental associate at the New York Public Interest Research Group, which advocated for the bottle legislation, dismissed the legal action.
“It’s ludicrous that the bottled water companies are claiming to support recycling but suing to derail this law,” Ms. Haight said."

Not a dismissal as much as a derisive commentary about her pet concept-one that didn't take some serious business impacts into full consideration. Now, it appears, the courts will-and delay may take us long past the summer months that Laura and her cohort wanted to have beach bottle free.

Paterson's High Caloric

There's more on the governor's cockamamie idea for menu labeling in yesterday's Times Union (via Liz B.): "Enjoy that slice of carrot cake guilt-free while you can. Gov. Paterson thinks you ought to know that it contains 1,500 calories, and wants a law requiring chain supermarkets and restaurants to tell you about it."

Paterson believes that this info will spur better choices at the state's fast food outlets-even though two decades or more of packaged food labeling is coincident with the current epidemic of obesity; so much for the knowledge is power crowd. As it happens, the folks who are health conscious read the labels; while those in most need of the information ignore it for the most part. So why does the governor think this labeling scheme will work?

Here's TU's account: "The legislation will help New Yorkers make better decisions about what they eat," Paterson said. "When people know what their choices are, they seem to make better choices." The governor's office cited a study showing that fast-food customers who saw calorie information displayed purchased an average of 52 fewer calories than customers who did not see the count. The New York City initiative is expected to prevent at least 30,000 new cases of diabetes over the next five years. "

What study is he talking about? Could it have been the NYC DOH's in-house evaluation-the one we poked holes in a few years ago? In fact it was the DOH's own survey, one of the most unscientific and self serving studies imaginable, that Paterson must be referring to; and the chain surveyed was the health conscious Subways: "A health department survey this spring found that only 3 percent of customers at Domino’s, Papa John’s, Taco Bell and other popular restaurants saw the calorie information provided by those chains on their Web sites or other locations before ordering. By contrast, about 31 percent of Subway customers reported seeing the calorie information, which was posted prominently next to the cash register at the time of the survey. Those who said they did consumed about 634 calories, about 50 calories less than those who did not, the study found."

Reading this, we believe that the researchers at the DOH should now turn to either astrology or alchemy; cause by doing so they'll have a better scientific perspective than this ideologically driven drivel. To wit: Aside from the fact that the Subway postings were not done in total conformance to the DOH formula, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from a comparison between Subway customers and, let's say McDonald's customers, without having a little bit of a priori knowledge of what the disparate customer bases are bringing with them in the form of nutritional information.

Subway, which has always emphasized its nutritional appeal, and markets its restaurants on this basis, may well be attracting customers with both the knowledge and inclination to utilize calorie information-wherever it's posted. And the fact that those who claimed that they saw the calorie info supposedly consumed "50 calories less" than those who didn't, proves, well, absolutely nothing, because we simply have no idea whether this result, although correlated, has any degree of causal relationship. The less consuming calorie customer may only have been predetermined by the prior inclination and knowledge we've mentioned.

And when the city regulation finally went into effect, confusion reigned. As we pointed out at the time: "And one customer that Crain's talked to really gets it: "“It's such a wide range,” says Kelli Garcia, a Chipotle customer. “It seems silly to put it there.” The restaurants say that because their meals are made to order and come in varying sizes, calorie counts can't be boiled down to a single number. Serious calorie-counters, like Ms. Garcia, say that they will have to continue to rely on nutrition-related Web sites to calculate the caloric content of restaurant meals."

So we are now relying on the unverified, and politically motivated musings of the anti-business folks at the Center for Science in the Public Interest-the brain surgeons who have been advocating this kind of health dictation for years. Except Paterson wants to go even further than Mother Tom in NYC: "The bill would apply to restaurants, supermarkets and convenience stores that are part of chains with 15 or more locations. Paterson said he hoped smaller mom-and-pop businesses would voluntarily post the calorie data, as well."

Can't wait to see how supermarkets will be forced to disclose this info-and where. Will the deli have to post all of the calorie information on its meat, cheeses and salads? Where will the postings go, and will we add salt and fat contents while we're at it? Of course, in NYC this would mean a new rich area of regulation for the DCA to fine beleaguered store owners over. As if the city's markets weren't already an endangered species.

And the idea that all of this comes at no cost to consumers is, at best, naive-and the TU reporter should stay away from any editorializing: "Unlike Paterson's more controversial proposals from last year's plan to cap property taxes to the more recent push for the legalization of same-sex marriage menu labeling is unlikely to provoke a ferocious debate. It also could be viewed as a prudent, health-oriented move. And it would come with little apparent cost to consumers, unlike a tax on sugared drinks the governor proposed earlier this year but then dropped in light of heavy opposition."

High taxes and over regulating is at the root of business loss in New York State. The governor's quixotic effort to lower the obesity rate will fatten the coffers of the bureaucrats, but do little to trim the waist lines of the state's overweight residents.

Fatuous Thinking

It now appears that the ghost of Tom Frieden is roaming the halls of the state capitol; and the good doctor's healthy meddling is being replicated in the form of a statewide menu labeling bill that appears at first glance to be even more comprehensive than the city's version. As the Politicker points out: "David Paterson will introduce a bill to require chain restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus, taking a New York City law and extending it statewide.

The bill would, according to a press release, require all "restaurants, mobile vendors, grocery stores, convenience stores and other retail stores belonging to chains that do business nationally and offer standardized menus" to post calorie counts on their menus." If it does, it would go beyond A2620 and S5003; both of which merely replicate the city's effort on menu labeling-restricting the ordinance to chain restaurants. And the Senate bill has only Senator Duane as a sponsor.

Everyone got that? At first blush, it looks as if the governor is going beyond the city's fast food parameters; at least if the release holds up and food vendors and supermarkets are included in the mix. None of this, of course makes good sense-or is an effective public policy; and we're waiting for Dr. Lynn Silver's evaluation of the city's foray into this area. Might be a good idea, after all, to see if the local experiment had any positive impacts before expanding it to the whole state.

Of course, that would mean that the city's menu labeling initiative was actually being subject to an independent audit-and not an in-house review of its efficacy. There is zero scientific evidence to support the efficacy of doing this-and certainly none of the cost-benefit analysis that the FDA does when it looks to impose these kinds of regulations; but, hey, why not experiment by increasing the regulatory burdens on restaurants with mandates that tell owners how to conduct their business?

Still, this means that we will have to re-establish our coalition of local retail and restaurant folks on a statewide level in order to counteract the feel good efforts of those who fail to understand that a healthy state and city must be predicated on a healthy business climate-and not just on how much fruits and vegetables we consume. All while our basic freedom of choice is continuing to narrow.

Mayoral Control Freaking Out

It now appears that there will be a major donnybrook in the state senate over the Bloomberg effort to retain total control over the city's educational edifice. According to the omnipresent Liz Benjamin: "Just when he had put one epic legislative battle to rest, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith appears to have another on his hands. If Smith has decided what he’s going to do about reauthorizing mayoral control of the public schools, it’s coming as news to his own members, the DN's Glenn Blain reports. Several senators expressed surprise that Smith decided to hold a press conference on the issue this evening, insisting the 32-member conference is not close to a consensus."

But Liz feels that Smith may have an easier time with this issue than he did with the MTA-even though our amigos are at it again; sowing dissension in the ranks: "Fortunately for Smith, Kruger and the amigos - or any other coalition-of-opportunity that might happen to spring up - won't likely have nearly as much clout in this case as they did with the MTA. Yes, Smith still needs 32 votes to pass anything, but in this case, he can likely count on the Senate Republicans, who are very pro-Bloomberg, for support. Unlike with the MTA bailout, where the mayor declined to get too involved in lobbying the Republicans, this is a signature issue for Bloomberg."

Perhaps so, but the amigos aren't exactly isolated on this issue-not if the comments of Bill Perking are any indication of the sentiment in the Black and Latino Caucus (and we're hearing that there was a stampede out of conference last night; presaging wholesale Democratic opposition. Even Eric Schneiderman is opposed, we're told).

And we're guessing that this time, despite what Liz tells us, Kruger's ideas will be right in the mainstream: "Diaz's fellow amigo, Sen. Carl Kruger, called mayoral control “DOA” in the Senate and said he will soon introduce his own legislation that would re-shape the Panel on Education Policy, giving the mayor only five appointees. Board members would serve serve fixed, staggered terms. (Recall that Kruger did something similar regarding the MTA bailout, proposing a plan that was widely panned by editorial boards and columnists, including the DN's own Bill Hammond)."

Which, if true, means that Mike Bloomberg may be getting an Albany hair shirt as a present for his coronation. Something that Kruger's comments to the NY Post indicates might be right on the horizon: "I don't know what's in Senator Smith's mind, but [our] proposal is not going to be in lockstep with the mayor," said Brooklyn Sen. Carl Kruger, co-chairman of the Finance Committee." And nothing would suit us more than four years of stringent oversight for a mayoral control scheme that holds Mike fully responsible for his actions-along with an accurate measure of the accomplishments of the student body.

Nestle's Files Suit

As we speculated earlier, Nestle's has pulled the trigger and has filed a lawsuit to stop the implementation of the expanded bottle bill. We're not sure of the details, but this could shelve the entire measure until the courts sort through the constitutional issues involved. As we said earlier: "The demand that all deposit containers have a "NY" only label and UPC code is the heart of the threatened lawsuit.The complaint, drafted by Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, states flat ot that the requirement for this type of labeling is a direct violation of the constitution's Commerce Clause: "The most obvious constitutional defect with the amended Bottle Bill is its flatly unconstitutional regulation of commerce occurring in other states. It is well settled that the "dormant" Commerce Clause "precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside the State's borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State." Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989)."

So now we wait and see what happens-wondering whether this stimulates quicker legislative action, or slows it down as lawmakers await the decision of the courts. It is one giant clustershtup, though.

Golisano Goes

Tom Golisano is taking his leave of New York State and his departure, while failing to conjure up any real feelings of loss and regret, does make an important statement: "New York billionaire Tom Golisano is taking his big bucks elsewhere. Furious over a new "millionaire's tax" that could cost him an extra $1 million this year, the Rochester-area resident and three-time gubernatorial candidate says he's fleeing the state for Florida's Gulf Coast."

You see, when you continue to raise taxes on the wealthy-not to mention all of the businesses taxes and fees-it is bound to eventually create the kind of blowback that Golisano's departure represents. You can gnash your teeth all you want about this, but it doesn't change a thing. These kinds of policies are counterproductive-no matter how self righteous their proponents are. And, speaking of self righteousness, how about the reaction to the Golisano going from the WFP's Dan Cantor: "Working Families Party Executive Director Dan Cantor, who championed the tax hike, called Golisano's move "selfish." "It's a disgrace that this is how he pays back the state where he was presumably educated and that's been so good to him," Cantor said. "Taxes are the price you pay for civilization. He's moving to a space where there's a little bit less civilization."

How sour are the grapes here? Golisano has been a major philanthropist in New York; and he's repaid by the confiscators for his generosity with additional levies needed to compensate for their public profligacy. As the Business Council's Ken Adams tells the Post: "What kind of message does it send when a self-made entrepreneur, incredibly successful billionaire, throws in the towel on New York state?" said state Business Council President Kenneth Adams. "He's a bold-faced name making a bold move, but he follows hundreds of thousands of people who have already done the same thing."

Yes, we're driving the wealthy and business out of the state. And we have a politics that is driven by the WFP folks who, if allowed to get their way, will soon have us repeating the debacle of the 1970s; trying to run a socialist government in a capitalist economy. It appears that those sober lessons haven't really been learned.

Post Toasts Frieden's Departure

Following our comments of the other day-and mirroring their content, the NY Post weighed in on the departure of Tom Frieden to the CDC: "City Health Commissioner Tom Frieden is off to join the Obama administration, as head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This deals a heavy blow to Mike Bloomberg's dream of making New Yorkers healthy in spite of their stubborn selves. Still, we have no doubt that Mayor Nudge's replacement health czar will be equally committed to free condoms and faux French fries."

Calling the commissioner, Dr. Mary Poppins, the paper went on to point out: "This isn't to question Frieden's motives. We've had our differences with the doctor, but we've never considered him anything but an honorable man. But there is something profoundly disquieting in public-health policies that require the results of diabetes tests to be transmitted for storage in City Hall databases -- to say nothing of sin taxes that generate major-league criminal activity."

To say nothing of the good doctor's impulse to force people to be healthy: "And then there's the annoying stuff. Transfat-free donuts? Please. Calorie counts at Mickey D's? Hey, they call it junk food for a reason! Call us old-fashioned, but public-health properly is about bacteria in the water supply and rats in the restaurants -- not government-mandated behavior-modification programs."

Well said!

Sueprmarket Planning, God Laughs

In what amounts to a really strange move, the state and city have announced that they are moving ahead on the supermarket initiative that we had discussed a few months ago-and did it late Friday afternoon without any fanfare. In a press release from the Food Trust we are told: "To coincide with the announcement of the Healthy Food/Healthy Communities initiative and the Food Retail Expansion to Support Health Program (FRESH) announced today by New York Governor David A. Paterson, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn, the New York Supermarket Commission and The Food Trust have released a full list of recommendations, Stimulating Supermarket Development: A New Day in New York."

Why the secrecy? Perhaps it has something to do with the disagreements from some in the industry and labor over the narrow scope of the proposal. As we wrote some time ago; commenting on the Observer's article on the topic: "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."

So, aside from the fact that we represent the RWDSU (sister union of the UFCW), the point is right on target-the city has concentrated on new growth when the 400-500 existing stores are not really given the kind of attention they deserve; especially considering the fact that it's existing store disappearance that's the crux of the crisis. Local markets need a real stimulus package, not one that offers a slight boost to newcomers while ignoring the exisiting stores.

But this underscores the weakness of the so-called Bloomberg "five borough" economic development plan. When examined carefully we see that the mayor's election campaign rap has a nice tune, but the lyrics ring false; because beneath all of the feel good pictures of Mike Bloomberg actually talkng to common New Yorkers, lies the reality of job loss, store closings, and an administration whose policies have ignored-at best-the problems of small business in the city. Which brings us to the heart of our critique of the supermarket initiative-even (or especially because)one that is well intended.

It will take years for this proposal to bear fruit; and in all likelihood, if the city spawns four or five new markets in the coming decade because of this plan, that will be a lot. In the meantime, though, the neighborhood economies continue to be devastated-exacerbated by a housing debacle that is forcing middle class Black and Latino folks in many city communities from their homes. And these are precisely those areas where the supermarket crisis is often most severe.

The economic challenge here is one that relates to the cost of doing business. The Bloombergistas, so focused on large scale development and Wall Street-centric, have increased taxes and unleashed a regulatory wave that has priced neighborhood retailers right out of the city. The sales taxes hike and the inane plastic bag tax are simply emblematic of an anti-small business world view that can't be eradicated with campaign propaganda disinfectant.

It also underscores the weakness of the Bloomberg world view. The mayor has supported a slew of business taxes and fees-from the aforementioned sales tax, to the devastating commercial real estate tax and the confiscatory bodega tax on tobacco. There are, however, places where he draws the line. When Freddy Ferrer proposed a stock transfer tax in 2005, Bloomberg let out a geshrie. As the Village Voice observed at the time: " Ferrer's early endorsement of a stock-transfer tax gave the mayor the ammunition he needed to depict Ferrer as an ideologue with no grasp of what makes the New York economic engine purr..."

So when it came to that part of the economy where the Bloomberg cohort dwells, the mayor was steadfast in his opposition to any tax because, at least there, he understood that such a levy would hurt the economy he prizes. But when it came to taxing a bodega staple-tobacco products, the Bloomberg response was; "It's a minor economic issue." And the loss of over $250 million a year in this sector to the black market is a big contributing factor to record store closings and evictions.

These policies, along with the current recession, is what lies at the crux of the city's-and state's-economic woes; something that a few loans made available in an election year will not ameliorate. If we examine the Bloomberg tenure, we have what amounts to a Pogo situation. The cartoon character's most famous remark applies to Mike Bloomberg: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Be Careful What You Wish For

A funny thing happened on the way to our end zone dance for the departure of NYC's health commissioner, Mother Tom Frieden-it looks as if Mike Bloomberg has found, in Dr. Tom Farley, a replacement for the good doctor who is even more extreme in his desire to regulate our lives, and force us to be healthier. As the NY Times reported yesterday: "Dr. Farley, these people said, has a strong background in public health management and shares with Mr. Bloomberg an unbridled — and at times contentious — enthusiasm for using government to curb salt, high fat content and sugar in food, and to promote pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly endeavors."

And, as the paper went on to point out: “Tom Farley is a really top-notch epidemiologist and a really, really well-respected public health official,” said a former New York City health official who had been told about the selection, but spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the announcement. “He has a lot of interest in addressing the issues that are causing people to have poor health.”

Or, as Sarah Palin would say; "You betcha!" My God, even his initials are the same as Frieden's; and Farley has laid out his views pretty comprehensively: "In 2005, Dr. Farley, who is chairman of Tulane’s community health sciences department, and Dr. Deborah A. Cohen, a senior natural scientist at the Rand Corporation, wrote “Prescription for a Healthy Nation,” a book that provoked the kind of polarizing reaction that Dr. Frieden and Mr. Bloomberg are accustomed to."

What are these views exactly? "Since it is, in Farley and Cohen’s view, our ‘physical and social environment’ that’s making us sick, we should make small changes in that environment to encourage health, such as lowering the price of healthy foods and enforcing such rules as a workplace ban on snack food in cubicles,” Publishers Weekly said in a review. “Unfortunately, throughout this litany of human foibles and social and governmental failures, there’s a pervasive tone of puritanical disapproval, and Americans are unlikely to pay attention to this pair of scolds.”

But wait a second. It's one thing when a public health scold publishes a book that no one but the fellow travellers read; it's quite another when the Scold-in-Chief is running the largest municipal health department in the country. And if you peruse his book, you get the idea pretty quick that Farley wants to regulate us to health-no matter what folks may currently feel about their own habits and behaviors.

In fact, it isn't hard to see that Frieden himself may have cribbed his silly field of dreams produce peddler idea from the perscriptions that Farley lays out in a chapter of his book titled, "More is More: Accessibility." Farley wants to micromanage what grocers can put on their shelves-and where they can place the products; even calling for a mandate that places vegetables right at check out. He also makes any number of ill informed observations about the disparity between supermarkets in lower income areas versus those in middle class areas (Where he found that the black area market had less shelf space for healthier foods, leading to this speculation: "It makes you wonder how much store displays contribute to the high obesity rates in poor black people." p.76)

So it's no wonder that Farley sees the doubling of the shelf space for fruit and vegetables as just the ingredient for increasing consumption-just as Frieden thought that green carts would lead to similar higher levels. And the next step beyond where you can put the stuff you sell, is how much you can charge for it. Taxes and regulatory mandates from the commissars can't be far behind.

Similar observations about the higher rates of liquor stores in poor neighborhoods also confuse correlation with causation; but the health meddlers see all of this as a clarion call to action. And of course the Twinkie tax is seen as a marvelous idea: "The idea of a "Twinkie" tax has been met with outrage in some parts...but not only would it be effective, it also isn't that different from where we are right now. Many states and cities have sales taxesthat apply differently to different items, and many already tax sodas and candy." (p.81)

So, brace yourselves New Yorkers. Farley in for Frieden is about to take place and it underscores the Chinese proverb about being careful what you wish for. What it means, however, is that Mike Bloomberg has chosen another health czar who has no clue about how markets function. Just what we need when we're trying to encourage more supermarkets to come into the city.

Thuggery and Filthy Lucre

The NY Times editorial board is playing catch up-catching up to the fact that Mike Bloomberg is not only breaking the bounds of decency with his obscene level of spending; but making a mockery of the Times' sacrosanct campaign finance concerns: "Months ahead of schedule, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City seems to be running frantically for re-election, much the way he did as an unknown eight years ago. Despite polls showing his increasing popularity among New Yorkers, the mayor has already spent $18.7 million on his re-election campaign — more than three times the limit for primary candidates who use public campaign money."

And he's also putting his money to good use-with a smarmy, underhanded, below the radar, negative campaign against Anthony Weiner: "At the same time, his political operatives are busily sending out negative information, especially about Representative Anthony Weiner, even though Mr. Weiner is still not firmly in the race."

Leaving the campaign finance system in tatters: "The mayor is expected to saunter easily into a third term, but the negative track of his campaign belies his claims about taking the high road and running the positive race of an easy front-runner. Meanwhile, the money he is spending and expected to spend undermines the foundations of the city’s model campaign-financing system."

Yah think? So, perhaps the paper should have had a bit more awareness of this expected turn of events when it graciously opened the door for the mayor to run again. Didn't these folks have the slightest prescience that the Blooombucks would rain down in buckets for this unseemly third act? As it said at the time: "Although a majority of New Yorkers, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, oppose changing the term-limits rule, a majority of New Yorkers also strongly approve Mr. Bloomberg’s performance and, more to the point, say they would vote for him given the opportunity. They should be given that opportunity."

Perhaps the paper should have been more circumspect, or at least hedged their support for the extension on the mayor's willingness to abide by some rational limits on his spending. It's a little late in the day to scold the mayor when the paper has been one of his most devoted enablers.

The Times does remark, in passing, that Bloomberg believes in the ethical nature of his spending spree, because he is demonstrating that he isn't beholden to, OMG, the dreaded special interests: "Mr. Bloomberg argues that by spending his own money, he is beholden to just one person — himself." This limited view, however, elides some even greater concerns-the manner in which unprecedented spending like this sucks any oxygen from right out of the room for any other countervailing political perspective.

The NY Daily News, reporting on the Bloomberg spending orgy, highlights this in the comments it elicits from the wily Wolfson: "Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said the mayor is trying to get his message across, not buy votes. "Absolutely not," Wolfson said. "We're engaging in a dialogue with voters. That's what any campaign does." Four years ago, Bloomberg spent $84,565,090 to win - dwarfing the $9,658,247 spent by his Democratic opponent, Fernando Ferrer. Wolfson, who at the time had never worked for a non-Democrat, wrote then in a New York Times op-ed article: "Such a lopsided ratio prevents voters from hearing both sides in an even-handed manner and distorts the terms of the debate."

Indeed. But perhaps Howard, just like our new Senator Gillibrand, has evolved; although in both these cases, mutation is a better word. He should, however, be honest enough to realize that dialogue means conversation between two or more persons; and when the airwaves are flooded with one point of view, the result is a stultifyingly effective monologue. Wolfson himself is the unwitting witness here: "Mr. Wolfson said. “This campaign has begun a conversation with New Yorkers about the economy and the mayor’s plan to create or save 400,000 jobs. As recent polling makes clear, voters are responding favorably when they learn about the mayor’s initiatives, and we are very pleased about that — but we are not taking anything for granted.”

Yes, the one sided multi-million dollar "conversation" is pushing the mayor's poll numbers up; but what about the fact that the term limits over turn was going to bring more competition? That is what Bloomberg said, with barely a smirk visible at the time: "“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. As many feared, it did not turn out that way. 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."

So we are faced with an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of politics in NYC. The city's richest man-the incumbent to boot-has spent more money by May of an election year than anyone else in the city has ever spent on an entire campaign. And on top of that, his charitable giving has seeped into the interstices of New York's political bloodstream in ways that further erode the concept of free and open elections.

In the face of this usurpation of the democratic process, every editorial writer and columnist should be devoting their time to exposing all of the shortcomings of Mike Bloomberg's tenure-just so there can be a counter to the propagandistic spending outlay of the mayor. We don't need any wasted column space on how Mark Green's brother has found some arcane loophole to a finance system, especially one that exibits its inherent fallacy with every Mike Bloomberg "five borough" fraud that hits the airwaves.

A final point. If the NY Times endorses this mayor for a third term, it should cease writing editorials on New York City politics forever. It would be the only decent thing left for them to do.

Enviromania

Just as the state is trying to figure out how to manage the mess it has made with the expansion of the bottle bill, along comes the Plague of Conservation Voters (thanks to Liz) to put its five cents in; apparently the group isn't happy with the proposed delay in the Kruger amendment: "One legislative proposal (S.4736A/A.8143) delays the expansion until October 1st, 2009. This delay is unacceptable, particularly since it would bypass the summer months when bottled water consumption is at its highest."

Yet, at the same time, the League states the following-without critical comment: "Lawmakers are examining whether to amend the law in response to concerns that businesses may not be able to comply with the new state-specific UPC labeling requirements in time for the June 1st start date."

Earth to League: the reason for the delay is precisely because the UPC requirement is not possible to comply with by June 1st-or at any time that would make it possible to not, "bypass the summer months when bottled water consumption is at its highest." Which is why these cats shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the legislative process-especially when business interests are at stake.

Water, Water, Everywhere

The price of water in the city is gonna go up again-a demonstration that the agency in charge of this utility, the Water Board (and the DEP which bears ultimate responsibility), is another venue where the vaunted managerial expertise of our billionaire mayor has been shown to be less than sterling. As Gotham Gazette reports: "Costs for that system are rising as revenue declines, so the price of water is likely about to go up once again. The Water Board will vote on a 14 percent rate hike on Friday. If approved -- as is all but certain -- the new rate will go into effect July 1. Together with past increases, the latest hike means the cost of water in the city will be 60 percent higher than it was four years ago. More increases are also expected."

And the mayor is feeling the heat for an incompetent gang that can't drink straight: "But elected officials and activists argue that the water rate hike isn't fair and that the Water Board, which sets those rates, is in need of reform. They say the board could spend its money more efficiently. Furthermore, its efforts at recouping bills from those who have not paid have been condemned as anti-consumer by some. The board itself is also lambasted as insular and too close to the mayor."

But it all goes back to the DEP, and the agency's need for overhaul. After all, it still is stymied in properly billing-let alone collecting-the city's water bills. So now, the city wants to criminalize home owners and businesses for this: "To further pursue cheats, the Water Board has proposed two regulations to accompany the rate hike. It would impose large fines on customers suspected of stealing or barring access to water meters. But these have not been received kindly in some corners. Hershel Weiss, president of the New York chapter of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers, called the proposals "two of the most anti-consumer documents ever written by the DEP." He says they will punish people with fees that could climb into the millions because the board suspects they are stealing. "There is no requirement for the DEP to prove that any theft is taking place."

But, as Lew Fidler says, all of this malfeasance and nonfeasance at the DEP-like so much else that goes on in the city that falls below high levels of efficiency-never reaches a level where Mike Bloomberg is seen as culpable. So it looks as if we may have four more years of smoke and mirrors-not to mention higher water bills for folks already suffering from the city's confiscatory tax rate.

Hello Dr. Frieden, You Must Be Going

Dr. Tom Frieden is leaving to become the Obama administration's new head of the CDC and, as Shakespeare once said about an executed subject in Macbeth: "Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it." For the past seven or so years the good doctor has elevated Nanny Statism to a new level-and at the same time has reduced New Yorkers to childlike status in his pursuit of dubious health goals.

His last foray in ordering us to live healthier lives was the ill-fated green carts initiative-a move that would have placed-before we got involved-1500 fruit and veggie carts in so-called underserved neighborhoods. The experiment was needed, said Frieden, because these folks weren't eating well because they lacked access. So what happened?

As the NY Daily News reported last August, the concept "wilted" when demand for the produce never materialized (as we had predicted)-and only eight carts made it to the street: "Special veggie vendors who city officials hope will help tackle the growing obesity problem have quietly hit the streets. But all is not rosy with the so-called Green Carts. One of the eight approved vendors - who have the right to sell fruits and vegetables on the street in poor neighborhoods with specially designed carts - told the Daily News business is the pits."

Just another bad premise about how to get New Yorkers healthier-similar to the calorie posting concept that forced some fast food restaurants, with absolutely no scientific data to recommend the experiment, to post calorie counts so that we could all know what we are consuming; and we're still awaiting the vaunted study of this expensive and intrusive experiment. In all of this, Frieden has exhibited the most hostile attitude to local small business.

As he said at the time of the calorie posting controversy: "In a statement, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, said, “McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts and the other big chains that haven’t yet listed calories as required by the Health Code have run out of stalling tactics. Some chains have worked hard to deny customers information they need to make healthy food choices — but this decision starts to clear the way for people to have ready access to calorie information when they order their food.”

In all of these issues, Frieden came across as an ill-informed scold-with little or no understanding of how local business worked; or of the importance of the health of these establishments to the city's economy. He eschewed education as too slow and ineffective, placing a premium on regulatory edicts that have contributed to the decline in the health of the local economy under this mayor.

Frieden's departure will be a breathe of fresh air for the city's reeling business community; and for New Yorkers who have been treated like children by Mother Tom. Let him now go forth and chase errant microbes. He will not be missed.

Money Not For Nothing

The latest polls on the way to the Bloomberg coronation reveal the obvious-money counts in politics; and when you're the richest man in New York, it counts a lot: "Mayor Bloomberg's approval rating, meanwhile, has rebounded to 59% in the latest Marist Poll - up from his 52% rating in February, which was his lowest since June 2005. Poll director Lee Miringoff attributed Bloomberg's rebound to a number of factors, ranging from those polled feeling more upbeat about the economy to Bloomberg spending several millions of dollars in recent weeks on a blizzard of television and other campaign advertising."

Interestingly, Bloomberg still barely scratches passed 50% even with all of his no response advertising; not to mention the fact that a good portion of the local press is actively rooting him on with what's known in the business as free media. The battle over the schools is a case in point.

If you believe what the editorialists at the Daily News and the NY Post have to say on the subject-which probably puts you in the market as a potential bridge buyer-than you would have to feel that the Bloomberg educational regime is nothing short of the "New York Miracle." An Elmer Gantry like moment when the blind woman rises from her knees yelling, "I can see!"

So we get the following-and on such a repetitive basis that you'd think the reporters were being paid by the word out of the coffers of the mayor's re-election campaign: "MIKE'S GRADE GETS A BOOST." In reality, however, the poll on mayoral control isn't all that supportive of the mayor: "The Marist College poll reported that 51 percent of 578 voters questioned approve of the mayor's performance, compared to 41 percent who don't. That's a dramatic swing from February, when 52 percent said he was doing a poor job in managing the schools, while 40 percent backed Bloomberg. But when voters were asked if Bloomberg should continue to run the system or whether that responsibility should be transferred to a citywide panel, 60 percent opted for the panel. "It's a mixed message," pollster Lee Miringoff said of the seemingly contradictory results."

But the Post has a bad habit of trumpeting the good news nugget in its headlines and ledes, while burying the more negative material down in the body of the stories it writes on this key issue; and then there's the editorials, that have been nothing short of both laudatory of the mayor, as well as derisive of his critics: "The Campaign for Better Schools, a teachers-union front that's leading the push to kill mayoral control of public education in New York City, has rolled out its own school-governance scheme. It's a sad joke...The lawmakers would water down the mayor's control -- giving the governor, the Assembly speaker and the Senate majority leader each an appointee on the 17-member panel. Terrific: Albany's infamous "three men in a room" would be making education policy for city kids -- and answering to no one."

Which is precisely what the Marist Poll reveals-the folks don't trust the One Man Rule, and want a system of checks and balances; something that the Post sees as simply a boost for the union laggards: "But the entire point of mayoral control, and the reason it has been so effective, is that voters finally have someone to hold accountable for school performance. Ending that system serves union purposes -- when the big cat's away, the teacher-mice tend to do anything but teach -- but it's not so hot for the kids."

But then the Post, and the Daily News as well, see the system gains through Bloomberg colored glasses: "Speaking of whom, as The Post's Carl Campanile reported yesterday, the districts of city-based senators on the key Education Committee have seen some of the more impressive classroom gains under mayoral control. That bunch includes the above-mentioned Huntley, who's seen her district's fourth-graders' pass rate on state reading and math tests shoot up 17 and 31 percent, respectively, since 2002 -- and its high-school graduation rate rise by fully 25 percent. Sens. Joseph Addabbo, Toby Ann Stavisky and Frank Padavan of Queens; Pedro Espada of The Bronx, and Velmanette Montgomery and Daniel Squadron of Brooklyn have all seen nearly as impressive academic gains in their districts."

All of which ignores-and the Post adds in the tenuous rise in graduation rates here-the fact that these figures mirror the kind of evaluation that the stockbrokers were giving to Enron, right before the company collapsed. They're based on the absolutely flawed-scandalous we would say- state tests. Andy Wolf's previous comments bear repeating here.

"Wolf, writing in the Public Advocate Corner opines: "By the statistics, mayoral control has failed, as Diane Ravitch has previously pointed out in this space. Test results on the most reliable measures are flat, despite an unprecedented influx of funds – a 79% increase in the education budget in just six years." But this failure extends beyond the numbers themselves.As Wolf demonstrates: "But mayoral control has failed in a more profound way. Desperate to show “progress,” a laundry list of structural reforms has been implemented by the gang at the Tweed Courthouse. Most of these have to do with providing incentives to principals, teachers and students. If you want to believe that teachers will only do a good job if we give them the chance to earn an extra $3,000 bonus for higher test scores, than I have a bridge to sell you."

So something funny has happened on the way to the Bloomberg coronation. An third wave of unprecedented spending is underway, accompanied by an editorial and media echo chamber that results-in the absent of any countervailing information-an increase in the mayor's poll numbers. The subornation of the democratic process is well on its way.

Watered Down Résumé

The case that Mike Bloomberg made to over turn term limits rested, in part, on his vaunted record of managerial expertise-and over all competence. Clearly, however, the mayor's stewardship of the city Department of Environmental Protection is that one major exception to his unblemished résumé of accomplishment.

As the Riverdale Press points out (thanks to Liz): "As he campaigns for a third term as mayor, Michael Bloomberg portrays himself as a man above politics and as a savvy businessman who can get us through tough times by his careful management of our dollars. Residents of the Northwest Bronx know better - or should. They have had years of bad news about the huge project that Mr. Bloomberg personally arranged to have dumped in their backyard - the water filtration plant under construction in Van Cortlandt Park."

The filtration plant is emblematic of the DEP's overall malfeasance-and city residents have the water bills to prove it: "Let's turn to the other side of the ledger, to Mike Bloomberg, the CEO of NYC, Inc. Let's observe his Department of Environmental Protection in action. Seldom has there been more comprehensively- documented proof that a city agency is managed by a gang that can't add straight or that its projections and promises are as evanescent as a spring shower that no sooner sprinkles the ground than it evaporates into thin air."

And the Press reminds us that the argument made for the plant's construction-in a park, for God's sake-was gonna lower water rates: "The only question that remains to be answered about the filtration plant is whether the decision-makers were knaves or fools: did they deliberately lie about the cost and consequences of building the plant in the park, or were they too dumb to figure out where to put the decimal points when they estimated the price?"

All of which underscores our argument-where is Bill Thompson?-that the mayor's claims of necessity for returning him for an illegal third term are, charitably, hyperbolic-and the Riverdale Press gets the last word on this multi-million dollar charade: "Is the mayor who boasts of his businesslike approach accountable for the performance of his agencies? Or is the CEO of NYC, Inc. like those other CEOs, of banks and insurance companies and automobile manufacturers, we have come to know recently, reaping the bonus of re-election for presiding over a failed enterprise?"

Five Borough Fraud

Has anyone else noticed that Mike Bloomberg's "Five Borough Economic Plan" is a retread? That it is a facsimile of the one that he used in the 2005 mayoral run over Freddy Ferrer? And, we ask, just how well did that one work to generate jobs in the city?

Here's what the NY Times wrote four years ago about Bloomberg's first foray into propaganda: "THE SCRIPT -- A male announcer says: ''Through a recession and tough times, Mike Bloomberg's five-borough economic plan has created 62,000 jobs, and there's more to come. Time magazine says Bloomberg has 'spurred a wave of economic development, especially in the four boroughs so often ignored.''' Mr. Bloomberg says: ''To build a business, you have to make smart investments. As mayor, that's what I'm doing for New York City: building infrastructure to bring jobs to long-neglected neighborhoods. A borough-by-borough plan that means jobs, that's our future.''

So, what has happened since. Over reliant on Wall Street, and taxing and regulating small business to ruination, the mayor's stewardship of the local economy has been a disaster-even before the national meltdown made a bad situation worse. And as far as his "smart investments" go, Blomberg has built big but invested unwisely-ignoring the local economies in favor of the proliferation of big box stores.

And we see nothing about the city's record level foreclosures and bankruptcies-and certainly nothing on one of the major variables behind this harmful phenomenon-the mayor's own policies, combined with his neglect of the crisis in small business. Instead we get trotted out the mayor's small business buffoon-Rob Walsh-to tell everyone about another Business Improvement District; as if a policy of doubly taxing local retailers is a substitute for lower taxes and less regulations.

So what we need now is for the local press to examine the crisis in the local economy, and look at the ways in which Mike Bloomberg-either through the sin of omission, or one of commission-is culpable for the mess he now claims he has become indispensable to return to office in order to clean up. But solving the local economic downturn requires an honest appraisal of some of its underlying causes; Bloomberg, however, isn't capable of understanding underlying, he's doing too much up front prevarication to make an honest effort.

Prime Choice, or Recalled Beef?

NYC is really no longer anything but a democracy in name only-not when the city's richest man is literally buying up support (and buying off opposition) with record monetary outlays; those that can be seen as well as those that fly below the radar. Which is why, as the NY Daily News' Michael Goodwin explains, it looks as if Mike Bloomberg is headed for a coronation: "These days, realists are everywhere in New York City. The sense that Bloomberg is headed to an inevitable victory in November is gaining so much steam that in certain quarters, the election is shaping up as a coronation. Is it over? Should, as a friend half-seriously suggested, the city just call the whole thing off and save the money?"

Now this isn't what we were lead to expect when Mayor Mike usurped the popular will in the term limits override. Remember when he told us that this would lead to more choice? No one really believed him then, and certainly there are no true believers left on this score. What Mike the Narcissist meant was that his presence was the only choice New Yorkers really needed.

Which is why we are left with a out of control mayoral election spending excess that is already-even when the opposition is either absent or in quiet retreat-setting new records. As Liz Benjamin points out: "Here's Mayor Bloomberg's latest TV ad, which touts his five-borough economic plan, and features the mayor saying that while he can't fix the national or worldwide economies (no matter how much he might wish he could) he can "take care of the New Yorkers who are here now."

What chutzpah! Here's a guy, whose tax, spend and regulate policies have killed the city's Main Streets, telling New Yorkers that he's Mr. Fix It. As one liberal critic of the mayor underscores: "What we have now is New York's richest citizen, flooding our TV stations with ads that drown out the voice of the opposition, and living in a tragic disconnect from the average citizen of the city. Here is a man with the warmth of a snapping turtle and the charm of an impatient bank teller waiting for his lunch break, offering to work for a dollar a year for the pleasure of holding on to power. And power is the ultimate pleasure for the man who has everything."

But what about his touted expertise? "A frightened population, losing jobs, and seeing so many store windows shuttered, while prices rise as incomes fall, may turn to this Messiah to save them. I can see very little about this man of great wealth that understands the lives of ordinary citizens -- actually extraordinary citizens for having managed to live in New York during the past ten years of unrestricted growth. He may ride the subway from time to time, but it's a tourist ride, not a necessary way to get to a necessary job."

How true, but the liberal critic misses just how much the policies that he agrees with the mayor on are the very ones that have made the city one of the worst places to do business in the entire country. Yes he has done too much big building; but his edifice complex has been concomitant with a disdain for all of the small businesses that really bring a rich diversity and economic well being to New York.

Still, left and right agree that a coronation is on the horizon; and that the prospect is a knife in the back to real democracy: "I keep hoping that the Democrats will get behind a human scale candidate and put up a decent fight against this Mayor -- but I don't see one in sight. The Bloomberg landslide that seems likely to come is one that may well bury the greatest city we have. He brings the smarts of an accountant rather than the wisdom of a philosopher-king to his office -- and right now we need the philosopher-kings to get us through the hard times. But money not only talks, it shouts, and it can be shaped into a club to beat the opposition into submission. The silence in the Democratic field is deafening as the Bloomberg avalanche rolls on."

All of which makes it incumbent for the local press to ratchet up its vigilance. So what is it doing? Putting the local pols under a microscope for various misdeeds. So while Albany may be the "toxic waste dump" that the News labels it, the city is becoming a royal fiefdom and the manner of the usurpation is left unexamined by the pol-hating editorialists.

Which once again reminds us of our favorite aphorism: “The law in all its majesty punishes the thief for stealing the goose from off of the Commons, but lets the greater felon loose who steals
the Commons from the goose.”

Nestlé Threatens to Sue New York

The controversy over the implementation of the expansion of the state's bottle law was complicated this week as the Nestlé company circulated a draft complaint that outlined the details of its planned legal challenge of the expansion of deposits to water. The demand that all deposit containers have a "NY" only label and UPC code is the heart of the threatened lawsuit.

The complaint, drafted by Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, states flat ot that the requirement for this type of labeling is a direct violation of the constitution's Commerce Clause: "The most obvious constitutional defect with the amended Bottle Bill is its flatly unconstitutional regulation of commerce occurring in other states. It is well settled that the "dormant" Commerce Clause "precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside the State's borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State." Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989).

How does the amended bill do this? "The direct-indeed intended, intended-effect of this New York-exclusive labeling provision is to control commerce occurring wholly in other states by prohibiting the sales in those states of a product that otherwise lawfully could be sold there."

The threatened legal action goes on to question other aspects of the new bottle law-particularly the inclusion of plain water, but not, "water to which a sugar has been added." But the challenge is both real as well as credible; and yesterday the governor appeared to recognize this as his office began circulating new amendments-one of which is the elimination of this restrictive labeling clause.

This is precisely the crux of the Kruger introduced senate bill that will be moved next week in Albany (Destito is carrying the bill in the Assembly). Still quick action needs to be taken, and next week is the deadline if something is to be done before the June 1st deadline; and that implementation date is also moved in the Kruger bill-to October of this year.

However, the governor has also proposed a two level handling fee change that would give smaller stores-under 10,000 sq. ft.-a 3 and a half cent fee; while reducing the fee to larger stores to only two cents. This measure is designed to reduce costs for bottlers and beer wholesalers who are going to be losing their unredeemed deposits. It's hard to see where the support for this is going to be coming from in the full legislature.

What we predict, is that the proposed Kruger-initiated changes will be enacted so that the state can avoid the Nestlé legal action; which doesn't preclude additional changes before the new October inception date arrives. All in all, a mess has been created that needs to be promptly cleaned up in order to avoid chaos.

Guttersniping

There's nothing wrong with running a hard hitting, even below the belt hitting, campaign in politics. It's often through this kind of forceful advocacy that the public gets to really understand the personalities and the issues in every election cycle. Drama and accusational confrontation grabs the attention and forces contenders to defend themselves-and to counterattack, thereby exposing weaknesses (and policies) that might never come to the surface.

And then there's the Bloomberg campaign; flush with unlimited cash and the ability to dig up unlimited amounts of innuendo, it can function as a stealth attack machine-casting aspersions without having the candidate anywhere near the dirty disclosures. Which is exactly what it has done in its effort to intimidate Congressman Weiner.

As the NY Times underscores this morning: "Like clockwork, the calls from reporters arrive around 4 p.m., sending Representative Anthony D. Weiner’s staff members scurrying to defend their boss. Did Mr. Weiner solicit campaign contributions from foreign fashion models, asked one reporter. Was his fight to save a hospital a political favor for a donor, asked another.“It is just every single day,” Mr. Weiner said. “It’s surreal.”But the last straw, he said, was an article in The New York Post claiming that he had repeatedly skipped votes in Congress to play hockey in New York — a claim that his staff denied."

So what we have here is the worst example of negative campaigning; one that postures-with the mayor literally and figuratively above the fray (on top of buildings, no less) with tens of millions of dollars of ads that flood the airwaves with a rose colored view of Mike Bloomberg's stewardship of the city, while at the same time digging in the dirt to intimidate Weiner into perhaps refraining from running at all.

This, to us, makes the mayor the ultimate guttersnipe-someone who allows his campaign to get as nasty and as dirty as possible, while the candidate himself pretends that he's all about the city's best interests-and is above partisan political fighting. What this is, however, is simply gross -hypocrisy-with the NY Post acting as unindicted co-conspirator: "Mr. Weiner said that despite backing away from plans to run for mayor this year, he remains the target of a well-orchestrated smear campaign that can be traced to the re-election bid of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. The mayor, he said, is running “the most consistently and relentlessly negative campaign that I and many people I know have seen.” Mr. Weiner characterized the research behind critical news articles about him as “daily Dumpster diving.”

So by all means, let's have a brass knuckles style negative campaign; but one where the candidate who has purchased as much support as is humanly possible, comes right out into the arena to hit his opponent with whatever accusation that he feels the public deserves to know about his opponent. Not a campaign where some little hired trollop gets to talk trash while her billionaire political companion smiles somewhere above the fray: "Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for the Bloomberg campaign, would not address Mr. Weiner’s claim that the campaign was behind the negative press. “This is an argument between Anthony Weiner and the New York press corps,” she said. “If he chooses to play hockey instead of doing his job in Washington, if he chooses to accept questionable campaign contributions, if he chooses to put press conferences ahead of passing legislation, then it’s no one’s fault but his own when reporters write about those choices.”

Dishonest to the very end! And the Post, which continues to flack for the Bloomberg control of the schools, is losing its reason for existence as an independent voice, there to inform the public and not take sides on behalf of someone with the kind of money Bloomberg has to misinform the folks all on his own. The shilling for Bloomberg in this kind of environment of monetary disparity is a disgrace. It's bad enough that the mayor is doing this; but there's no excuse for the press aiding and abetting him-it's anti-democratic piling on that makes a total mockery of an open electoral process.

Free In Last

Steve Malanga spotlights the dubious distinction earned by New York State-dead last in a "freedom" study conducted by George Mason University: "A new study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Freedom in the 50 States, is the most comprehensive effort to date to rank the states on how their public policies influence “individual freedom in the economic, social and personal spheres.” It includes dozens of variables, from social and personal freedoms (such as parents’ right to educate their own children) to regulatory freedom (such as the degree of occupational licensing requirements) to fiscal liberty (as measured, for instance, by states’ debt burdens, which represent a constraint on future generations). Finishing dead last in the study’s freedom index is New York State."

For those who represent businesses in New York, this doesn't come as any great shock; and for us, it underscores what we have been saying in our critique of those, like the Working Families Party and the Drum Major Institute, who promote higher taxes as some perverse idea of what constitutes "fairness." "New York earns that dubious distinction “by a wide margin,” the study reports. Businesses operating in the state won’t be astonished to hear that its economic freedom is poor, thanks to a tentacular bureaucratic regulatory regime, a civil justice system that favors plaintiffs over defendants, and high taxes and crushing per-capita government debt."

And Malanga goes on to dramatize the kind of impact that these policies have, not just on New York State, but also on those others that keep us company at the bottom of the university's ratings ladder: "What are the consequences of New Yorkers’ lack of freedom? The best way to judge is to look at the collective condition of the states with the worst rankings. Joining New York at the bottom of the index is New Jersey, in 49th place, followed by Rhode Island and California. Together, New York, New Jersey, and California face some $65 billion in budget deficits in 2009, amounting to more than two-thirds of the budget gaps faced by all 50 states. These states’ stratospheric spending and taxes have stifled economic growth and left them scarily unprepared for the economic downturn."

Malanga also highlights that our state's ranking includes a low score for personal freedom-and cites confiscatory eminent domain laws as one example. Clearly, this situation is, or should be, a clarion call for reform; and in our view, this reform needs to come from both parties. If it only comes from the Republicans who are out of power, it will mean that the impulse will be shot lived-especially since the state's demographics shift is making it more difficult for Republican rule to be anything but evanescent.

Here's how Malanga sees the need: "Rather, New York suffers from the vise grip that Albany’s politicians have on life in general. Reform, therefore, won’t be as simple as cutting a tax or eliminating a regulation. New York needs fundamental change that makes the state democratic again, and it needs reform candidates willing to push for that change."

With this kind of change needed, the only way it can occur in any meaningful sense, is if it comes from the top. Which is a clear indication that the incumbent CEO needs to find something else to do before our political climate can be cleansed.

Force Mayor

Adam Lisberg at the NY Daily News writes a cogent piece on Mike Bloomberg yesterday that tries to evince just why the guy seems to be so popular; even if-and when-his policies are less so: "Labor unions and business groups, liberals and conservatives, politicians and preachers, ethnic groups and interest groups: They are tripping over each other to endorse Mayor Bloomberg, six months before the election."

In examining this rush to embrace the mayor, Lisberg underscores the role that the Bloomberg wealth plays in generating the kind of fan appreciation normally seem over at American Idol-and no one's confusing Mike Bloomberg with Kelly Clarkson: "Why are people supporting you?" he asked himself rhetorically last week. "We wouldn't be doing it right if they didn't." He was answering a question about his enormous generosity - he gave away $235 million last year, more than any other living American - and whether it makes the groups that receive his money more likely to support his policies. "What a sick thing if they didn't," Bloomberg said. "I would hope that people that believe we're going in the right direction would want to continue that."

Finally, we have an issue that we agree with Mike Bloomberg on-people who have been bought should gratefully stay bought! And more and more of the Bloomberg consumers are doing just that; and such loyalty in this modern age needs to be appreciated, even if it appears to be remarkably similar to Karl Marx's observation of good looks and great wealth: "Money is the alienated ability of mankind," and it enables the ugly man, ... Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness-its deterrent power--is nullified."

And so it goes with the $235 million that Bloomberg has bestowed on countless organizations and individuals-and that leaves out the rest of the salivating masses yearning to get a piece of the Bloomberg pie; an undiagnosed tumor festering in the city's body politic. A situation that has led Mike Blomberg to believed that he is universally loved-and that any criticism he receives should be treated just like it was when dissidents in the old Soviet Union expressed it, and were promptly sent over to the psychiatric ward.

So we get the solipsistic Bloomberg, with skin so thin that he must need repeated grafts in order to get through the work day: "Bloomberg has a complicated relationship with criticism. He prides himself on hiring aides who will challenge his thinking and fight with him on policy. He's a numbers guy who demands reams of data about the most mundane city operations, then posts it online to evaluate what works. Yet when outside groups raise legitimate objections to the school test results or graduation rates that he brags about, he waves away their complaints as the cries of people who want to reinstall the old Board of Education."

And, in a similar vein, he morphs into Quinnberg in conflating the speaker and his own personage: "And when angry City Council members mutter that Speaker Christine Quinn always rolls over for Bloomberg's agenda, he seems not to comprehend that reasonable people can disagree with his plans. "Christine Quinn has gotten criticized for helping the city," he said. "There are people who would say, 'Oh, she shouldn't do that. The City Council should be fighting the mayor.' What kind of a stupid argument is that?"

Stupid, or crazy? You get the picture here-we have political roylaty doling out favors as fast as popes used to grant indulgences; and expecting that the granted wishes should inculcate support or, at least, feigned religious devotion. Not the kind of environment where political democracy can easily flourish. And one, where the notion of the mayor being somehow public spirited because he isn't beholden to special interests, becomes absolutely risible.

Lisberg's last observation is the article's money quote: "A popular and successful mayor will naturally have lots of people standing behind him and cheering him on. The challenge is figuring out who supports him because they support his policies - and who supports him because he's popular and successful. After almost eight years in office, with his opponents neutered or bought off or pushed to the fringes, can Bloomberg still figure that out?"

In our view, the challenge is to determine who supports him because they are paid-and cheer him on with the same new found enthusiasm of Howard Wolfson. Lisberg's observations are a good start; but they only begin to scratch the surface of this unseemly situation.

The Chancellor's New Clothes

As we have been saying, the rising test scores are a chimera-akin to the sartorial splendor of the fabled emperor;and Juan Gonzales hones in on the charade: "Too unbelievable to be true. That's what some veteran educators say about the huge jump in public school reading scores state and city officials released Thursday. In just one year, average scores for all New York City elementary pupils zoomed by an unheard of 11%. Even more astonishing, fifth graders recorded a 20% increase."

Someone needs a saliva test here-and everyone should be calling for an independent audit of these state tests; and a proper comparison with the more rigorous national (NAEP) exams: ""It's impossible that you would see this kind of change in just one year," said Martha Foote, an education researcher with Time Out From Testing, a group critical of high-stakes testing. "After seven years of these improved test scores, how come the children we're getting in high school aren't reading any better and don't show any greater love of literature?" said a veteran secondary school principal who scoffed when she heard the results."

But that doesn't stop the amen chorus at Mort's Place: "Read 'em and cheer - this year's test results are in, and city kids scored big in reading and writing. Really big. More students in every grade, three through eight, are reading at or above grade level than ever. Black and Latino children are narrowing the achievement gap with their white peers. The middle school dead zone has come to life, with huge gains in proficiency and virtual elimination of the lowest scores."

Stop the presses! But wait, not everyone is ready to bow and scrape before Merlin Klein: "Writing in the City Room, Jennifer Medina questioned some of the department’s bombast. She noted that, while more students meet standards, scores have edged up very slowly, leading skeptics to “wonder whether the state’s tests are simply becoming easier to pass.” And while the mayor — and his cheerleader Carl Campanile at the New York Post — will undoubtedly say the scores have risen because of mayoral control, Medina notes “Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse have all shown larger improvements on the mean scores.”

So let's not get, well, Buffaloed here: "Those cities have done so without the aid of mayoral control Joel Klein or Michael Bloomberg. Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch put it this way. While saying mayoral control did not hurt New York City, she told reporters “Mayoral control is not part of the conversation about the gains across the state.”

Which brings us back to these state (saliva) tests-and the last word belongs to Juan Gonzales: "As for the unprecedented rise in test scores, it couldn't have come at a better time for Bloomberg - just as he's running for reelection and weeks before the Legislature decides whether to extend mayoral control of the schools. As skeptics have noted, the federal government's national assessment tests keep puncturing the claims of local officials that New York tests scores have been rapidly improving. Results of the next national assessment won't be made public until November, so we won't know for sure until then. But I learned a long time ago that when something looks too good to be true, it usually is."

Post Dunce Cap

The NY post is doing its level best to hurt whatever chances Mike Bloomberg has to maintain his version of mayoral control of the schools-particularly with their blitzkrieg of the UFT. In yesterday's paper their editorial went like this: "The best grassroots movement money can buy was up in Albany earlier this week, singing heartily for its supper. And plenty of city-based pols were more than happy to hum along."

The Post was referring to the UFT-backed "Campaign for Better Schools." And not liking what they are seeing: "The Campaign for Better Schools, a veritable alphabet soup of "community" and "children's" outfits, scooted up to the capital Tuesday to make a ruckus over mayoral control of city schools. The idea was to give the impression of broad disquiet over Mayor Bloomberg's education reforms, ahead of Schools Chancellor Joel Klein's testimony to the Senate's Education Committee. Yet it was all a show, bought and paid for by -- who else? -- the state's powerful teachers lobby."

Which is all well and good-and we don't object when any one exposes grass roots efforts that may lack real impetus from the community. Except for the fact that the Post has been stone silent about the Learn NY group; an organization that owes its very existence to the mayor's money and influence.

Now the truth is that both groups consist of many well meaning folks who are truly concerned about what should be done to improve the schools; but it not the duty of the media to dramatize whose ox is being gored when advocates are out in front on any issue. The Post, however, is in full scuba gear alert when it comes to the mayor and the issue of control of the schools-so much so that it is falling down on its essential function of speaking truth to power. And in this case, the power dynamic really lies with the Bloombucks.

And it is one thing to set aside editorial space to skewer the union and those skeptics who believe that Mike Bloomberg isn't Socrates; it's quite another to traduce lawmakers-and the facts on the ground-directly within the body of the newspaper. But that's exactly what they did by attacking mayoral critic, State Senator Bill Perkins: "Harlem state Sen. Bill Perkins claimed this week that mayoral school control has been a "failure," but test data tell the real story: Students in his district have improved significantly under City Hall's watch since 2002. Fourth- and eighth-graders at schools in Perkins' district registered double-digit percentage-point gains on state reading and math exams during Mayor Bloomberg's tenure, according to an analysis obtained by The Post."

Question: Just where do you think this "analysis" came from? But what's missing here, is the fact that Perkins' critique is directly aimed at the statistical sleight-of-hand that comes out of the DOE-and the relative value of state test scores versus the more reliable NAEP exams. The Post, however, trumpets the watered down state results as a major benchmark: "But the percentage of fourth-graders passing the reading test jumped to 50.4 percent in 2008 from 36.7 percent in 2002. On the math exam, the percentage of kids passing shot up to 71.4 percent last year from 39.8 percent in 2002. In the eighth grade, the number of kids meeting the state reading standards increased to 33.6 percent from a measly 23.4 percent. And the number of eighth-graders passing the state math test more than doubled, to 52.8 percent from 21.5 percent."

And then they go to the super questionable graduation rates: "Meanwhile, the number of district pupils graduating high school rose to 65.7 percent in 2007 from 55.6 percent in 2002." Leaving aside, of course, the fact that these rates mask the reality that high numbers of these graduates are unable to perform at anywhere near a college level.

So what does the mayor need to get his way-aside from the cheer leading of the NY Post? Well, how about the support of the governor: "Gov. Paterson endorsed extending mayoral control of the schools -- particularly praising Mike Bloomberg for doing a "good job" on education. "My general feeling is that I like mayoral control," Paterson said this morning while greeting commuters at the Bryant Park subway station at 6th Ave. and 42nd St."

Is this the Kiss of Death, or what? But seriously, even the governor isn't willing to issue any blank check: "But Paterson said there must be revisions to the 2002 school governance law that better address parents' concerns. He said there are a "lot of complaints" from parents and advocates that they can't get grievances addressed. "If we get that cleared up," he said, "I think that will go a long way toward passing mayoral control."

Which is exactly what the critics are saying on this-not that you'd be aware from the misleading headline and lede of the story. This is serious stuff-not grist for tabloid satire. And we need our local media to be vigilant since the mayor has big bucks to spin all of these debates into a direction that hews to his own self interest. What we definitely don't need is a fawning media chorus replicating the mayor's talking point.

MTA Money Pit

Well, the deal to bail out the MTA was finally struck and voted on yesterday; but the state's unaccountable money pit is till standing-poised for future cash outlays with no relief in sight. In spite of the failure to really reform and revamp the agency, however, city motorists were spared the tolls that one and all claimed was absolutely necessary to save the system: "In December, a state commission appointed by Paterson, and headed by former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch, recommended a payroll tax and tolls on the East and Harlem River bridges to raise transit subsidies. Tolls, however, were opposed by a handful of Senate Democrats."

The MTA did receive a deserved tongue lashing from the senate leader, but no concrete action appears to be part of the deal: "But even as he championed the plan on the Senate floor, Smith blasted the MTA, calling it "bloated," "a black hole" and a "runaway train." "We inherited a mess," he said, promising to bring about an improved authority through a series of reforms." Let's hope so.

But right now, we have a rescue plan that adds additional tax burdens on a struggling New York economy. As Nicole Gelinas points out in the NY Post this morning: "For what taxpayers are giving up here, they should've gotten more in return. Lost in the relief over the averting of MTA bankruptcy is the fact that the $1.5 billion annual payroll tax created to fund the deal is a tax on jobs. New York is already the least business-friendly state -- and Downstate is already hemorrhaging jobs."

Make no mistake here, this rescue is a band aid-and the future of the transit system hasn't received long term resolution: "The numbers that state legislators and the MTA have laid out in the MTA budget leave little room for error. For example, for the seven months left in this year (if all goes perfectly) the budget's higher taxes, fees and fares will bring in $1.3 billion. But the MTA was facing a deficit of at least $1.5 billion, even after making cuts that didn't involve service."

The mayor, for his part, was tepidly supportive of the deal; still chagrined that there are no tolls to keep the riff raff out of Manhattan: "The mayor reminded the press (including DN City Hall Bureau Chief Adam Lisberg, who kindly provided me with the transcribed quotes) that he had preferred the tax-and-tolls plan proposed by Richard Ravitch because it had the added benefit of being likely to reduce congestion - a pet issue of his."

What's needed now, is for the legislature to take a long hard look at the MTA; and determine whether the authority, as currently constructed, deserves to remain. The deal struck yesterday is simply a stop gap-and if the regional economy doesn't improve, the Moneypit Transit Agency will continue to absorb our tax dollars like a sponge.

Ticketed Off

Among the things that tick of New Yorkers the most, water rates and parking tickets rank right up there. And in both these areas Mike Bloomberg has distinguished himself. Take water-and yesterday's Crain's Insider (subsc.) does just that: “I am always amazed by his poll numbers, because when I go to civic meetings—and it doesn’t matter whether it’s Irish and Italian families, or black and Caribbean families—they are not voting for him,” says Brooklyn Councilman Lew Fidler. He says that people are especially upset about rapidly increasing water rates, which will be jacked up another 14% this week, and urges Democratic mayoral candidate Bill Thompson to pin the blame on Bloomberg."

In fact under this tax, spend, and over regulate administration, water rates have skyrocketed: "Last week, New York City’s Water Board proposed to raise rates on residents by 14 percent. This comes on top of a 14 percent increase in rates that it imposed on New Yorkers last year. In fact, since 2001, when Mike Bloomberg took office, the Water Board—all members of which are appointed by the mayor— has raised rates by 77 percent. At the same time that it is squeezing money out of residents, the Water Board and the Department of Environmental Protection, which runs the water system, has been largely exempt from the cost cutting that the mayor has asked other city agencies to engage in. The reason: because the DEP is financed by the water rate."

And then there is the expected parking ticket blitz-a staple of Bloomberg's regulatory menu when the city budget is out of whack: "The cash-strapped city hopes to haul in a record $686 million in parking fines next year in what could become the mother of all ticket blitzes, The Post has learned. Documents released last week as part of Mayor Bloomberg's new $59.4 billion budget show that the Finance Department is projecting a $93 million increase in parking-summons revenue over the $593 million expected to come in this fiscal year."

And yet, as Fidler lamented, there appears to be no air for any strong opposition; and he wonders why this is so. The reason lies within our previous post on the Bloomberg blandishment phenomenon. The activists are all on the dole or simply wishing that they were. If any other mayor was sticking these kinds of daggers into middle class voters, he/she would be polling right down there with the governor.

For Whom the School Bell Tolls

It's getting close to final exam time in Albany for Joel Klein, Mike Bloomberg and the current version of mayoral control of the schools-and this time it won't be any gut take home test for these parvenus. As the NY Times reports: "As state legislators begin to review the landmark state law that gave Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg control over the New York City schools, the question seems not to be whether changes will be made, but how significant they will be."

The state legislature isn't gonna act as the mayor's handmaiden on the renewal of the current governing structure: "The committee members repeated now-familiar complaints that parents have been shut out of the school system and that there is not enough oversight of the Department of Education’s budget. They also voiced skepticism over what Mr. Klein has stressed were some of the administration’s greatest accomplishments, like increases in graduation rates and test scores."

But the NY Post sees yesterday's hearing differently-still issuing Klein press releases in the face of mounting legislative opposition; and from the chancellor's perspective, he's got to feel disappointed that the law won't be evaluated by the Post's editorial board: "Unflappable Schools Chancellor Joel Klein skillfully fended off a firestorm of criticism yesterday from Democratic state senators and other foes of mayoral control."


Yet even the Post sees the handwriting on the wall: "The hostile reception for Klein in a tense Senate committee hearing sent a clear signal that the battle over the school-governance law was near the boiling point. The seven-year-old law expires June 30. For more than an hour, Klein counterpunched and landed blows as he touted accountability amid a flurry of questions.
State lawmakers announced plans to weaken City Hall's oversight over the massive school system in the name of increasing parental involvement."

As the Times points out, the system of carte blanche to one man rule, and statistical finagling, isn't going to stand: "One sign of the hurdle Mr. Klein faces could be seen on Tuesday during a rally near the Capitol, where a parent group, the Campaign for Better Schools, lobbied for changes in the law. Nearly a dozen legislators voiced support for the group, who repeatedly chanted “Hey, hey, ho, ho — one-man rule has got to go!” Micah Z. Kellner, a Democratic assemblyman who represents the East Side of Manhattan, drew loud cheers when he said, “I think we’re all fed up that the Education Department spends a lot of time and money on spin doctoring what we know are problems.”

And it was nice to see that the senators holding yesterday's hearing agreed with us that there has been a phony straw man argument being advanced by the mayor and his minions-either you're for the current system, or you want to revert back to the bad old days: "Near the end of the hearing, Senator Kevin Parker, a Democrat who represents Brooklyn, urged Mr. Klein to present a viable alternative to the current system. “I object to this false dichotomy of total control and going back to the way things were,” he said. “If you come in here and say the system is perfect, you are going to end up with something that you hate.”

So change is gonna come; and if the mayor's re-elected he had better think long and hard about keeping the tone deaf Klein around. That's because any new system of checks and balances that the legislature devices is going to be some kind of hair shirt that the thin skinned Klein will find much too uncomfortable to wear. It will be amusing to watch, however.

Street Money

In the 2000 race for New Jersey governor, one candidate set records for doling out what's known in the parlance as, "street money" The NY Times captured this at the time:

"Albert Hawkins, who lives in a homeless shelter in Philadelphia, will not be in Pennsylvania to vote for Al Gore on Tuesday. He will be in New Jersey, ''volunteering'' for Jon S. Corzine in return for a fast $75 and all the coffee, doughnuts and sandwiches he can eat...Street money is nothing new in New Jersey, where elections are generally won on the ground. It was called ''walking around money'' in 1993, when Christine Todd Whitman's campaign manager, Ed Rollins, claimed that $500,000 had been doled out to ministers and Democratic Party workers so that they would not get out the vote among supporters of Mrs. Whitman's opponent, Gov. Jim Florio. Mr. Rollins retracted his statement the next day."

Corzine, however, took this to new heights almost a decade ago: "For years, it was the Republican Party that held the monetary advantage, particularly in presidential election years. This year, however, New Jersey's Republicans will be outspent several times over. The state party is expected to spend only about $750,000 to get out the vote. Much of that went for direct mail. Rocco Iossa, executive director of Gov. George W. Bush's campaign in New Jersey, said that on Election Day most of the canvassers, drivers and poll watchers working for the Republican ticket would receive $75 for their efforts. ''We'll have 2,000 walkers statewide,'' he said. Told of that, one Democratic official snorted, ''We'll have 2,000 people in Newark, at least.''

The reason we highlight this phenomenon-and let's not forget that it also surfaced with the Obama campaign last year in Philadelphia-is because of the way it sheds light on the importance of money-in both generating support, as well as insuring that the support generated actually makes it out to vote. Which brings us to the Bloomberg phenomenon-one that is sui generis in contemporary politics.

Except that with Bloomberg it is, "suite money," rather than street money-and the sheer level of this vast spending is so far under the radar that no one knows just how much Mike Bloomberg has doled out in philanthropic funds to organizations all over the city. The great thing about this legal graft, is that its existence puts every charitable organization in New York into play; those who are getting the Bloombucks, as well as those who hope that they might get lucky. And with over half of the employment in New York coming from either not-for-profits or government, you can see how far this money can go in generating political loyalty.

An small example of how this works was discussed in the Crain's Insider (subsc.) yesterday-and it was Councilman Lew Fidler who pointed it out in the context of explaining why generating opposition to the mayor is so difficult: "But rallying opposition is difficult. Fidler says the mayor “cuts the libraries in the budget all the time” but gets a pass from library advocates. Fidler once asked them why. “One of them came over to me and said, ‘You know, he gives a lot of money privately to institutions that people on my board care about.’ They’re afraid to speak their minds for fear that the checkbook will close.”

And so it goes. From enviros finding themselves flush with cash for ads in favor of congestion pricing; to faux grass roots organizations supporting mayoral control of the schools. Heck, Mike the Mogul was even able to suborn the incorruptible Al Sharpton; someone who suffered from lockjaw during the debate over term limits.

It is past time for our local media to get off their duff on this wholesale purchase of the democratic process. There's a Pulitzer somewhere in here; and a re-emake of the Jack Newfield/Wayne Barrett classic exposé , "City for Sale," would put this undeniably tawdry political bribery in its rightful spotlight.

And for all of those who aren't susceptible to the Bloomberg blandishments, there are the threats-and the money to dig up dirt on just about anyone; which is why Anthony Weiner's comments to the Daily News the other day were so enlightening: "In the face of Mayor Bloomberg's successful maneuver to run for a third term and the billionaire's $100 million reelection campaign, Weiner expressed reluctance to make a long-shot bid. "It isn't that I don't have the stomach for the race," Weiner told the magazine. "I know that I can run the city better than the current mayor. I know it...{but}"You really have to tip your hat to an organization that can find out the immigrant status of someone who wrote me a $300 check," Weiner said of the Bloomberg campaign. "People think I'm paranoid. But I'm not."

This entire phenomenon should be known as the, carrot and the bazooka, strategy. For those who remain unbought-but are still threatening to the rein of this new form of royalty, there is the relentless, spare no expense, digging into their personal histories. Given all of this, we're surprised that anyone has the nerve to run against the king.

Knock, Knock, Can Mikey Come out and Play?

Remember when Mike Bloomberg was arguing that his push for a third term was an argument for more voter choice? As the NY Times pointed out in March: "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, that was then, and this is now: "Vincent Mirabile leaned over the counter of his Queens butcher shop and admitted he is scared about the future. "So many people come in here and say they lost their jobs, they can't pay their bills," said Mirabile, 54. "The customers who used to buy steak are ordering bologna." As Mirabile's gripes mounted - from higher water bills to mediocre schools to rising property taxes - he grudgingly conceded he is likely to vote for Mayor Bloomberg. "I wish there were stronger candidates," he said."

So what happened? The what here is the mayor's wallet-and the sheer intimidation of trying to counteract a $100 million campaign. Which is why, as the NY Daily News reports, Anthony Weiner has substituted himself out of the game: "In the face of Mayor Bloomberg's successful maneuver to run for a third term and the billionaire's $100 million reelection campaign, Weiner expressed reluctance to make a long-shot bid. "It isn't that I don't have the stomach for the race," Weiner told the magazine. "I know that I can run the city better than the current mayor. I know it. "But sometimes there are walls even your ambition and skill can't push through."

This is Las Vegas folks; and you can't win betting against the house. You have an extraordinarily unlevel playing field-so much so that the mayor's ducking debates and, as Mike Lupica points out, is running a stealth Rose Garden campaign: "As irreplaceable as he is in tough times like these, he's almost too busy to have to actually run for reelection, against Controller Bill Thompson or anybody else. It's kind of beautiful, when the light hits it all in a certain way. Not only is Bloomberg allowed to run for a third term now that the City Council left footprints all over the city's law about term limits, voters aren't supposed to be able to tell where the second term ends and the third one begins."

And what kind of democratic process awaits us? Lupica is right in target here: "Bloomberg is a rich and powerful man who wants what he wants. And what he wants is to take his message straight to the voters the way he always has and only debate Thompson - or even acknowledge the guy's on the stage with him - as a last resort before being sworn in again."

Which will mean that democracy has been mocked-and we can't wait for the outrage over at the NY Times over this egregious violation of every principle of campaign finance reform. But wait, didn't the salons over there sound the Paul Revere charge for Mike's extension? Oh well, we guess that it's principles be damned when principal-in this case Bloombucks for Pinch-trumps them.

Which leaves the voters like that Queens butcher, stuck in the Bloomberg echo chamber: "Recent polls have shown Bloomberg sailing to victory in November. Mirabile's disappointment with the city echoed the feelings of scores of people interviewed from Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, to Belmont in the Bronx. They expressed frustration about overcrowded schools, fewer jobs and potholes that can sink small animals. They cited signs of crime creeping back up."

There is, as the Marist Poll has demonstrated, a desire for change: "A poll by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion this year showed that although 55% of those surveyed said they are ready for someone else to head the city, Bloomberg still beats Weiner and Thompson by double digits. "Even though there is dissatisfaction with Bloomberg, it doesn't mean somebody else is going to be able to cash in on it," said Lee Miringoff of the Marist Institute. "There is desire for change, but that doesn't mean it has to happen."

That desire for change needs the necessary political oxygen to breath life into the argument against a Bloomberg third term. The mayor's money, in all of its visible and not so visible manifestations, sucks the air out of any insurgency-which places an increased burden on the press to scrutinize the mayor's overblown resume.

The articles in the News yesterday, and those from the Times for that past few months, gives some cause for hope. It's unclear, however, whether there's enough ink in all of the city papers to compensate for the deforestation that characterizes the extent of all of Bloomberg's advertising.

Limbo Rock

David Paterson is being good to all of us nostalgia buffs-bringing back as he is the Chubby Checker classic, "Limbo Rock," from 1962. As the song's chorus went: "Limbo lower now, Limbo lower now, How low can you go?" Which brings us, of course, to yesterday's Marist Poll.

As City Room reports: "For Gov. David A. Paterson, the numbers only seem to get worse. Two months ago, the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion found that the governor’s job approval rating was at the lowest point Marist had seen in the 27 years it has been surveying public opinion of New York governors. But the numbers have kept falling. In a new Marist poll released on Monday morning, only 19 percent of registered voters surveyed believe the governor is doing a good or excellent job. That was down from 26 percent in the survey released in March."

It's hard to see how the governor recovers from this record low in time to stave off a challenge from a very eager Andrew Cuomo; and as for the help provided by Rev. Sharpton, well, let's just say it is unlikely to lift this sinking boat. As the NY Daily News tells us, New Yorkers would prefer the disgraced ex-governor Eliot Spitzer to the plummeting Paterson: "A majority of New York voters would rather see Eliot Spitzer, the state's hooker-happy former governor, back in office than his beleaguered successor, Gov. Paterson, a new poll revealed Monday...Strikingly, even though Paterson is the state's first black governor, 53% of non-whites said they would prefer Spitzer as the state's chief."

The famous Sharpton defibrillator's not going to be able to revive this kind of moribund political carcass: "Exposing serious weakness in his leadership credentials, 66% of voters said Paterson does not have what it takes to lead the state and 48% said he doesn't get the critical issues facing New York." If this were Major Bowes' Amateur Hour, the gong would have already been sounded.

Fat Heads

Breaking News! Harlem has more fast food joints than other neighborhoods-and Scott Stringer has a plan to rectify this imbalance: "Two-thirds of East Harlem residents are obese -- and surprise, surprise, the neighborhood has four junk-food outlets for every healthier one, officials said yesterday. By contrast, the neighboring Upper East Side, with an obesity rate of 36 percent, has just two fattening food options per healthy option, according to the first "FoodStat" survey conducted by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's office."

Why "Foodstat?" Well, because: "CompStat changed policing because we knew where the problems were. We are hoping FoodStat will do the same thing," said Stringer, referring to the NYPD's crime tracking system. "This is our way of using the same principles to fight crime to fight unhealthy eating."

Might be two totally different phenomena, Scott. Stopping criminals is not the same as getting folks to eat healthier-one involves force; the other persuasion and education, but, hey, it does sound good to look tough in the face of fast foods, doesn't it? But what can the government do? According to Stringer: "Stringer, speaking in front of an East Harlem Kentucky Fried Chicken, said the data should be used to identify areas where there's a dearth of healthy options, then give businesses looking to fill that void tax breaks, loans and other incentives."

Now in our view, giving small business loans to anyone who qualifies is generally a good thing-but certainly no panacea when the cost of doing business is so high for all neighborhood retailers. And if Stringer wants to create "Food Enterprise Zones," than the way to incentivize, is to reduce the taxes and regulations for healthier food retailers-including, of course, the supermarkets that are disappearing from areas just like the one that Stringer highlights here.

But we need to understand, at the same time, that the field of dreams theory-the one that was used for the failed veggie cart experiment-will not create the demand for better food choices. That still has to come form the people themselves; something that our health commissioner has told us is too hard to accomplish. Maybe so, but that's where we need to start if we're going to see a change in the restaurant landscape of poorer neighborhoods.

Mayor Lockjaw

Mike Bloomberg, having already suborned the will of the people on term limits through the sheer weight of his financial reach, is now adding insult to injury by staying away from any debate with his putative mayoral rivals-while arrogantly spending millions of dollars on advertising that would insult the intelligence of the average voter, if there was any degree of countervailing information disseminated by a media truth squad.

Enter Errol Louis, who is rightfully offended by this wilted Rose Garden strategy. As Louis points out: "Our city's civic machinery, in an advanced state of neglect and disrepair, recently got a welcome boost from a group of civic activists demanding that all serious candidates for mayor publicly debate the issues of greatest concern to middle-income working New Yorkers within a month."

So Bloomberg, genuinely proud of his great mayoral accomplishments, jumped at the chance to style before the debate audience, right? Well, no he didn't-too busy spending his money in an attempt to gull New Yorkers into believing that he's a job creating juggernaut. No mention in these packaged bromides of the job loss that the city has already experienced under his watchful eye.

As CNN has reported: 'New York City's economy is on track to lose almost twice the amount of private-sector jobs than originally expected, according to an unemployment forecast Wednesday. The job loss is a result of recent developments in the ongoing financial crisis. Up to 165,000 private-sector jobs could be lost over the next two years, according to the report from the city's chief economist and released by the city comptroller's office. Of those, 21 percent -- or 35,000 -- are expected to come from the financial sector."

Now we aren't blaming the mayor for the fiscal meltdown-and the concomitant employment loss down at Wall Street and Broad; but we are saying that the mayor's tax, spend and regulate policies has driven jobs and business out of New York-while Bloomberg was overly reliant on his financial sector cash cow. But with the cow no longer giving milk, the mayor is left to his job creating fantasies-fueled by the only economic engine that hasn't been hurt by the crisis; his own great wealth.

No mention either of how his latest sales tax hike will continue the trend that began when he raised the commercial real estate tax in 2002. The only real job creation we can expect is in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida-low tax environs where the city's enterprising immigrant supermarket owners are relocating their businesses to. The city's poor business climate is something that isn't debatable.

So, of course, Mike shuns debate, and Louis rightfully reminds us of the tawdry sequence in the 2005 mayoral race, when Bloomberg ducked an Apollo debate because of a bogus terrorism threat: "This is hardly the first time Bloomberg has tried to game the system for political gain. In 2005, he stalled his Democratic opponent, Fernando Ferrer, and consented to only two debates barely a week before Election Day. And then, in an act of official fraud that still boggles the mind, Bloomberg at the last minute announced a one-of-a-kind terrorist threat would prevent him from attending the first debate, which took place on Oct. 30, 2005, at the Apollo Theater with an empty lectern where Bloomberg was supposed to be. Nothing ever came of the "threat."

Or, we're sorry to say, of his arrogant shuck and duck; since his well oiled money machine blew out the hapless Ferrer by a wide margin. This time, however, he's taking no chances, and has hired Freddy's former buddies to shill for his multi-million dollar Kabuki act:

"Wolfson, {that former Democratic pit bull} who is now on Bloomberg's campaign payroll, has yet to weigh in on his wealthy new client's refusal to debate. We also have yet to hear from Andrea Batista Schlesinger, who once worked for Ferrer as executive director of the Drum Major Institute, a think tank that argues for more debate on issues that affect New York's middle class. Batista Schlesinger, like Wolfson, is now a paid Bloomberg campaign operative - a move she told skeptics would advance working-class issues. Surely a robust debate would help that agenda."

What we are waiting for-with bated breath-is the outraged editorial voices, you know, the ones that hand out Knucklehead Awards and give out the phone numbers of elected officials who offend their sense of the public interest. We're waiting for these folks to condemn, in no uncertain terms, the refusal of the mayor to engage in a vigorous public debate. After all, these same voices claimed that he was Mr. Indispensable in our current crisis, so shouldn't they demand that their boy man up?

Our guess? Our breath will have to remain bated. Bloomberg's arrogance will continue to echo in the silence of his editorial amen choir; and his job creation fantasies will continue with the end result being that it will only be the voting public that gets jobbed. Errol Louis earns the last word: "The mayor's reelection strategy seems to be one of purchasing silence and obedience - first from Democratic operatives, civic activists and the media, and ultimately from the voting public. "At least keep up the facade of an election occurring rather than rubbing our faces in what it really is - buying a third term," wrote one debate petition signer. How sad that things have come to this."

Junk Bond Rates

The NY Post continues with its "Boolah, Boohla," over the mayor's outstanding stewardship of the city's public schools-this time ranting and raving over the newly released graduation rates: "The high-school graduation rate -- the ultimate barometer of academic success -- has shot up markedly under mayoral control, according to state and city statistics."

Besides needing the same forensic accountant that the MTA could use, these numbers need to be understood with a degree of subtlety-something that the story's headline certainly lacks. But the Post does manage to get the real news of the Bill Gates sponsored evaluation of the schools into the piece-buried toward the end of the story, of course: "The problem, Gates said, is that too many of the city's graduates are still unprepared for college. Less than 40 percent of the class of 2007 met the City University's standard for college readiness, he said, adding that graduates of small schools did no better."

Left unsaid, however, is how these rates were achieved-especially since they don't reflect genuine achievement that could really be a source of pride. Just another reason why the system needs an independent auditor-and some checks and balances.

Bordering on Stupidity

Mike Bloomberg-our indispensable leader in a time of economic uncertainty-is once again playing a role that's all too familiar role of tax man. As the NY Times reports: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg proposed a budget Friday that would increase the city’s sales tax by half a percentage point as the centerpiece of $1 billion in new taxes to help the city avoid deeper spending cuts and minimize layoffs. Even clothing, which has long enjoyed at least a partial exemption from the city sales tax as a way to make city retailers more attractive than their suburban counterparts, would be subject to Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal."

So just what part of the Bloomberg five borough economic plan is this? Once you get past the glossy brochures, we are faced with a business exodus fostered by an administration that has badly damaged the small business infrastructure in NYC. Now this damage is compounded by the sales tax boost and an inane 5 cent charge on paper bag use.

And the city's shoppers aren't happy; but be careful you don't get trampled in the consumer stampede towards the border: "Mayor Bloomberg's proposed sales-tax hike got a big thumbs down yesterday from New York shoppers who predicted the "terrible" idea will further cripple the city's economy and send consumers scurrying across the river to spend their dough in New Jersey. "We have the highest taxes of anyone to begin with -- we're suffering enough," said Oksana Bitetti, 26, of Staten Island, outside Best Buy on Fifth Avenue. "I already go to New Jersey to shop, and those trips are going to increase if this goes through."

Which brings us back to the mayor's relentless campaign droning on how he's going to bolster small businesses by providing millions of dollars of loans. As his Ministry of Propaganda brochure tells us: "Increase loans to small businesses so they can meet payroll and stay open."
It is sheer balderdash. The plight of small business is correlated, not to the absence of loan capitol, but to the high costs of doing business; something that just got ratcheted up by the mayor's budget proposal.

As the NY Daily News points out, the folks are none too happy: 'Mayor Bloomberg wants to balance the budget with nickels and dimes - but in times like these, New Yorkers say they can't spare the change. "How much more are they going to squeeze from the little guy?" asked Reggie Hines, a 52-year-old tour bus driver from the Bronx. The mayor's new budget would raise the sales tax to almost 9%, charge sales tax on clothes and shoes, and put a 5-cent levy on every plastic bag you take home from the store."

And the plastic bag thing is really galling: "It's 5 cents to go shopping now!" Hines said. "They're going to force the working class out of the city." Let's not forget that the city council passed a plastic bag recycling program last year, so this tax proposal adds a further burden on both small retailers and low income shoppers.

All of which leads to a further deepening of the city's small business crisis; one that has led to the impetus behind the Jackson Small Business Protection Act. The reality, Mike, is that your bogus plan to, "create or preserve," 400,000 jobs (a metric that can't be gauged by anyone), is a smokescreen designed to hide the fact that your tax, spend and regulate policies have devastated neighborhood businesses-and now more of the same.

As the Daily News shows us: "The sales tax hike would charge 50 cents on a $100 purchase, but merchants say it sends the wrong message to shoppers who are already keeping their pocketbooks shut. "The $175 leather jackets are now $99. We can't go any lower. We've got rent to pay," said Gregory Bennett, manager at Delaney Leather in Brooklyn's Fulton Mall.
At Mitchell's Bar & Grill on nearby Flatbush Ave., manager Mike Issa gazed at the empty tables and said Bloomberg should pay more taxes out of his own pocket. "Give people a break," said Issa, 45. "I'm overtaxed. People are not making money, and you want to increase taxes? He should pay more taxes."

And the City Council has begun to show some push back on this, at least according to the Daily Politics analysis: "The pieces of Mayor Bloomberg's proposed FY 2010 budget generating the most early opposition are the 0.5 percent sales tax increase, with critics calling the move "regressive," and eliminating the tax exemption on clothing under $110. Council Finance Chairman David Weprin, who is running for comptroller this fall, predicted there would be "a lot of opposition in the Council" to the hike, adding: "It's not something that's going to be such a slam dunk."

We'll see just how much backbone the entire body has; but it's nice to see the speaker at least demur: "Council Speaker Christine Quinn also expressed her opposition, saying in a prepared statement: "I continue to believe that increasing sales tax is a regressive way to generate revenue because it places an unfair burden on those who have the least. The idea of eliminating the tax exemption on clothing only compounds that burden."

All of this underscores the extent to which the Reign Of Mike has not been a seven year Golden Age of good government and economic advancement. While he certainly made the right move to keep some surplus funds ready for a rainy day, he squandered the opportunity to rein in government so that his current position is both comical as well as hypocritical when he says: "We cannot afford the size of government we have," Bloomberg said. He blamed the recession for a nosedive in city revenues. The administration expects 328,000 New Yorkers to lose their jobs before the downturn ends, which is 12% worse than the previous estimate of 294,000."

The only remaining question for us, is whether or not we will have a meaningful debate in the fall over the gap between the mayor's campaign rhetoric and the reality of his rule. With record advertising spending on the way, it is likely that Bloomberg will suck all of the air out of the political discussion. Which means that a real burden will be placed on our local media to speak truth to power.

I See Job Loss

The mayor continues to spend campaign cash just like a drunken stockbroker over at Scores. As City Room reports: "A four-week blitz was apparently not enough. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who is seeking re-election to a third term, has bought his fifth straight week of television time for political advertising, according to a person briefed on the plan. Beginning on Saturday, he will introduce a new commercial (his fifth) focused on a plan to create green jobs, this person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the ad was not yet finished."

The question we want answered is what will capture all of the runoff from this verbal saturation? So while the mayor touts -literally-pie in the sky green jobs to appeal to environmentalists, his pollution of the airwaves continues unabated: "The latest Bloomberg TV ad combines the mayor’s relentless emphasis on job creation — the dominant theme of his four previous campaign commercials — with his record on the environment, appealing to progressives and those jittery about the economy. It begins with the image of the mayor perched on the roof of a tall building in Brooklyn, dressed in a dark blue suit and red tie. “What do you see when you look at these rooftops?” he asks. “I see good jobs, installing solar panels and developing new green technologies.”

Next thing you know, Bloomberg will be-in Milli Vanilli fashion-lip synching to the classic R Kelly tune:
"I believe I can fly
I believe I can touch the sky
I think about it every night and day
Spread my wings and fly away
I believe I can soar
I see me running through that open door
I believe
I can fly
I believe I can fly
I believe I can fly."

This is all way beyond the Wizard of Oz; and this five borough plan is a pure chimera since his seven year tax, spend, and regulate record has led to bankruptcies and foreclosures on the neighborhood retail strips like we've never seen before. So the mayor's notion of economic development is kinda like a psychotic break-a flight of fantasy that leads to the following: "The ad then cuts to a narrator, who trumpets the mayor’s “five-borough economic opportunity plan” (now a household phrase, willingly or not) to stimulate the economy. “From the streets to the rooftops,” Mr. Bloomberg says, “we’re creating jobs.”

The man behind the curtain needs a couch; this kind of phantasmagoria belongs in a DSM manual, not as part of a multi million dollar effort to bamboozle New Yorkers into believing that pigs can fly.

Deposits Bottled?

Crain's Insider (subscription) is reporting that soda bottlers are telling the state that they will not accrue the money expected from the state's absconding with the nickels from unredeemed water bottles: "Bottlers say the state won’t reach its revenue projections from nickel deposits on bottled water because it will take months to add bar codes to bottles. Some predict bottled water sales will slow to a trickle on June 1, when the new law takes effect. An extension is possible."

Not only possible, but very likely-and it now appears that the senate and the assembly staffs are meeting to address the impossibility of having any proper deposit indicia on water bottles by June 1st; at least not with any NY Only labels or UPC codes. Given that, and given the fact that the legislature appears to be following Senator Carl Kruger's lead in his bill-S4736-that was introduced this week, we can hazard a guess that the entire UPC issue will be eliminated as part of the amendment process.

And the June 1st inception date? Unlikely to hold firm; with a push back until sometime later in the year more than likely.

Follow the Yellow Brick Road

Let's give our friend Micah Kellner a real shout out for his depiction of the Bloomberg campaign as something out of the Wizard of Oz: "Assemblyman Micah Kellner, one of four state lawmakers who endorsed Comptroller Bill Thompson for mayor this morning, called his fellow Democrat a "true progressive" and accused Mayor Bloomberg of spending millions of dollars on an image makeover..."The fact that the mayor has to spend millions upon millions to recreate his image, it's very Wizard of Oz. He' already spent, what? $10 million? Is he really a progressive? I don't think so."

More so than you realize, Micah. Because Mike Bloomberg is actually type cast as the little man behind the curtain masquerading as the Wizard-since much of ballyhooed accomplishments are nothing but hot air. So ergo, the need to spend hundreds of millions in two campaigns after he was an incumbent.

When we examine specific policy areas, the achievement gap is cavernous; to wit, the great strides that Bloomberg claims to have made in the mayoral control over the city's public schools ("He thinks he's quite a lover, but there's not much there.") Then there's his fiscal stewardship of the city's finances.

After seven and a half years in office he has done next to nothing about runaway municipal labor costs-salaries, pensions and benefits. In face, he has actually increased employment every year for his entire tenure. Now, faced with a fiscal meltdown, what can he do?

The answer, knee jerk for this fella, is to-once again--raise taxes. As Marcia Kramer reports:
"There will be a bombshell tax increase in the new budget Mayor Michael Bloomberg will unveil on Friday. But there is good news. CBS 2 HD has found out New Yorkers will not – repeat not -- pay higher property taxes. No one, especially a mayor running for re-election, likes to raise taxes. But the economic crisis has left Bloomberg no choice. He's not going to raise nuisance taxes and he's not going to raise property taxes, but he is going to raise the sales tax."

What's this guy been doing for the past seven years? Certainly he hasn't looked for any innovative way to either privatize city services, or to do more with less. Instead, he came into office in 2002 raising taxes, and hasn't stopped for a breath since.

Now he looks at his labor force and, what? He can't quite figure out how to get the same folks he wined and dined to now exist on starvation rations. Go figure. As the NY Times reports: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is expected to abandon his plan to ask public employees to pay more for their health care coverage when he unveils his latest budget proposal on Friday, according to city officials familiar with the plan. Relying on tough talk and grim economic forecasts, the mayor had hoped to convince labor leaders that union members should pay 10 percent of their health care premiums, as part of an overall attempt to save $1 billion in pension and health care costs. Many employees now pay nothing, so a 10 percent contribution could save the city $350 million."

Hard to blame the workers. It's called imprinting. After years of wine and roses, with no attempt to rein in labor costs, it's hard to square this circle now. Instead, we get this: "Administration officials say they will concentrate on including the $350 million in savings in the budget for fiscal year 2011. But that assumes that the mayor wins a third term in November."

Bloomberg reinvented as Popeye's pal Wimpy: "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today." Which brings us, in mixed metaphor fashion, back to Kellner's Oz comparison. There is a sheer fantasy aspect to the entire Bloomberg persona-with the real man receding as the millions in advertising extreme makeover flim flam a gullible public.