Imposturing

Clyde Haberman takes aim this morning against the city's new effort to get in your face for your own good health-the mandate that diseased lungs be postered on the point-of-sale at retail outlets where cigarettes are sold: "Before too long, you may be forced to stare at a photo of blackened lungs, oozing decay, every time you go to the bodega for a quart of milk. We’re trying to figure out where under the heading of quality of life to file this bit of news."

And Haberman is wondering just where all of this in your face do-goodism will stop-if at all: "In that case, how about taking this approach even further? Why stop with cigarettes? Why not require pictures of morbidly obese people at candy counters, to show what too many Snickers bars can do? Or photos of clogged arteries at fast-food restaurants, to discourage orders of double cheeseburgers? To promote safe sex, graphic examples of Kaposi’s sarcoma could be placed by condom racks. Displays of horribly diseased livers in liquor stores ought to deter people from drinking to excess."

Of course, you will say, that's just Haberman being his usual sardonic self. You don't really believes that the kinds of things that he suggests will ever enter into the non-diseased minds of the public health set? Do you? But this kind of thinking is part of a classic slippery slope; because the appetite for healthy intervention is indeed a voracious one.

But, as we have been saying, the concern by the Bloombergistas over the health of New Yorkers doesn't extend to the health of the very same stores that the city will soon festoon with grisly pictures of blackened lungs. With more for-rent signs sprouting up-something that Haberman has also noticed-it would be nice if we could get a bit more expansive in what we consider to be in the health interest of New Yorkers.

But, unfortunately, Mike Bloomberg has no real concern for the retailers whose livelihoods he is challenging while fervently engaged in lengthening the life span of his reluctant subjects. Here's the Haberman critique last month of the Bloomberg five borough economic fiasco that he calls a plan: "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."

Still, with all of the empty store fronts, brought on in part be the Bloomberg small business myopia, there is an opportunity: a huge and expanding urban canvas upon which the Department of Health can-graffiti like-decorate with all of its avuncular health messages; all the while covering up the chronic economic malaise that the mayor ignores in his public relations snow job into a third term.

The End of Mayoral Control; Or, Where the Wild Things Are

As we approach the predicted chaos that Mike Bloomberg is envisioning if the reauthorization of mayoral control isn't approved before the end of the day, all we can do is chuckle-after all, chaos isn't something that we should be frightened of; especially if it is being predicted by the solipsistic Mr. Bloomberg or the self serving Randi ("It's only about the kids") Weinberg. We have been treated to an endless drumbeat of doomsday rhetoric from those quarters-not to mention the flacks over at the tab editorial pages-and it will be interesting to see whether Armageddon will actually come-as John Sampson plays his role, with the mayor cast as Delilah.

But, at least for the short term we will be treated to the visage of an angry and helpless billionaire mayor; and no matter that this delicious sighting devolves from silliness in Albany, it is certainly a sight for these sore eyes. Here's the NY Post's lamentations this morning: "Mayor Bloomberg's legal authority to run the city's school system could expire tonight after Senate Democratic leader John Sampson hardened his position against quick passage of mayoral-control legislation. "We said we are dealing with noncontroversial bills . . . Mayoral control is a controversial issue [among Senate Democrats] -- and we would like some input," Sampson said."

Things are so bad that Bloomberg is actually-Can you believe it?-counseling participatory democracy, and taking to the streets: "Earlier yesterday, a frustrated Bloomberg said he wanted to give the public the phone numbers and home addresses of senators who are failing to do the state's business. "We'll give you the numbers of the senators, assuming everybody promises to call them at 3 in the morning," Bloomberg quipped. "I can do one better," the mayor added. "We should give you their addresses so you can stand outside their houses. That would really make a dent."

But the frustration that Bloomberg feels, is something that is self-inflicted; since it was his courtiers who led the senate coup and threw that chamber into the chaos that he now laments. And now the courtiers, turned into court jesters, are casting stones at Sampson and their other Democratic colleagues-a classic case of misdirection: "Republicans wasted no time blasting the Democrats' position. "It makes absolutely no sense. It's obstructing, it's irresponsible," Senator Frank Padavan, a Queens Republican who is the sponsor of the bill, said. "Maybe he's using these 1.1 million kids as a pawn in his grab for power," Senator Andrew Lanza, a Staten Island Republican, said of Sampson."

All of which allows the governor to enact the role of the monsters in "Where the Wild Things Are."

AND WHEN HE CAME TO THE PLACE WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE THEY
CHILD 3: ROARED THEIR TERRIBLE ROARS! (ALL ROAR)
CHILD 4: AND GNASHED THEIR TERRIBLE TEETH! (ALL GNASH TEETH)
CHILD 1: AND ROLLED THEIR TERRIBLE EYES! (ALL ROLL EYES)
CHILD 2: AND SHOWED THEIR TERRIBLE CLAWS!

Until Max said stop! Now, since we know it won't be Paterson playing Max in this sequel (in spite of Bill Hammond's kudos to the sudden burst of testosterone), the only question remaining is, Who will? The chaotic situation can't continue to stall governance forever. But, in the meanwhile, we can all be entertained by the stymied Mad Michael, his comedic courtiers, and his dyspeptic flacks. Gridlock has never been so much fun to watch.

Veni, Vedi, Ricci

It gives us some great deal of pleasure to see that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of firefighter Frank Ricci in the now famous New Have case. What's interesting to us, is what Justice Kennedy has written here on the issue of disparate impacts: "The City’s actions would violate the disparate-treatment prohibition of Title VII absent some valid defense. All the evidence demonstrates that the City chose not to certify the examination results because of the statistical disparity based on race—i.e., how minority candidates had performed when compared to white candidates. As the District Court put it, the City rejected the test results because “too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted were the lists to be certified.”

What this means is that New Haven never argued that the test was unfair, only that the results weren't what they hoped for. Which, if this is going to be a criteria for sh*t canning a test, means that municipalities will have to continue to test until they get the "right" results.

Having represented firefighters in the past, we know just how important their public safety efforts are-and how complicated and dangerous as well. If the test was constructed fairly, and in a race neutral way-as Kennedy feels it was-than to jettison the results, or modify the test to make it more accommodating somehow to the examinationally challenged, is a direct threat to, not only fairness and a level playing field, but to the public safety as well.

As Justice Kennedy points out: "If an employer cannot rescore a test based on the candidates’ race, §2000e–2(l), then it follows a fortiori that it may not take the greater step of discarding the test altogether to achieve a more desirable racial distribution of promotion-eligible candidates—absent a strong basis in evidence that the test was deficient and that discarding the results is necessary to avoid violating the disparate impact provision. Restricting an employer’s ability to discard test results (and thereby discriminate against qualified candidates on the basis of their race) also is in keeping with Title VII’s express protection of bona fide promotional examinations."

But, as one commenter over at the Atlantic points out, the racialists want to do just that-keep up the testing in hopes of achieving the "scientifically desirable" results: "Maybe I bring my scientist-filter into everything, but it reminds me of validating scientific results. If you run an experiment and get consistent results that weren't what your model predicted, it's integral to the scientific process to comb through your experiment (and have others do the same) to make sure there weren't outside factors influencing the experiment. You want to make sure you have the most correct data possible before drawing conclusions. So in this case, if the city comes up with a different test that gets the same results on the same group of people, then great - no worries about bias, and it really was merit-based. And if not, they've discovered a flaw in their system that was invalidating their results.""

But the "model" predicted race neutrality; and that doesn't mean that more minorities will score high enough to be promoted, only that the test in question was fair. To some folks, however, the mere fact that minorities scored lower than other applicants means that the test, ipso facto, was unfair-and needed to be thrown out.

As the lawyer for Ricci pointed out to the District Court, being a firefighter isn't the same as being a sanitation worker-there are real skills and safety issues that need be given proper deference. And, as Stuart Taylor has written, throwing out the test has real world consequences for those who did score higher: "The disparate-impact dynamic has the benefit of expanding opportunities for preferred minorities. But it also has great costs. It is unjust to high-scoring white and Asian workers; it has greatly eroded the anti-discrimination principle; and it downgrades incentives for students and workers to study and learn -- both in school and in rigorous test-preparation courses such as the one that helped some New Haven firefighters improve their skills and do well on the test."

So, by all means, expand opportunities and training for those who want to become firefighters. Give those who have been excluded, for whatever reason, a boost up in this way. Just don't water down a test that determines who will be racing up that ladder should, God forbid, someone you love is threatened with a horrible death.

Getting Buschwacked

We have commented previously on the ominous trend to consolidation in the beer industry-a trend that will lead to the shuttering of local businesses and higher beer prices for consumers. Another window into this trend can be seen from the following article in the WSJ: "Anheuser-Busch InBev NV is studying the idea of consolidating its network of independent U.S. beer distributors, perhaps by owning many more distributors itself, according to an analyst report that represents a potential blow for the beer titan's roughly 600 distributors."

What this means is that eventually, if nothing intervenes to stop it, all of the country's beer distribution will be in the hands of foreign entities; and the three-tiered system will become moribund. What this means in New York is that hundreds of independent, non-franchise wholesalers-along with the dwindling cohort of franchise wholesalers-will be made extinct.

Decisions on marketing and beer pricing will be made in Belgium-and the consolidated sclerosis of a distribution system will suck the consumer parched dry; with cost savings winging their way right out of the country. As the WSJ points out: "The report is the first serious indication that the brewer based in Leuven, Belgium, intends to put the squeeze on its distribution network to improve its own profitability. Potentially billions of dollars currently flowing to distributors could be at stake. InBev has reduced costs at Anheuser since acquiring the company for $52 billion last fall. But its distributors so far mostly have been spared the knife."

So, with independents looking to NY State for some statutory protections-while franchise wholesalers fight them tooth and nail-it appears that both sides are fighting a war of attrition while the common enemy waits to literally pick up the pieces. New York needs to act promptly to counteract the monopolistic, anti-consumer, trends that threaten to force the state's beer consumers to drown their sorrows in higher beer prices.

Handwriting on the Capitol Wall?

The Times has an interesting analysis of demographic trends in NY State, trends that bode well for future Democratic control over the state senate: "Albany gridlock got you down? Well, worry no longer, the end is in sight — the State Senate should be back in business by 2013. An analysis of population shifts since this decade began suggests that Democrats are poised to gain as many as six seats when legislative districts are reapportioned after the 2010 census. That would give them an ample margin to untangle the 31-to-31 tie that has stalemated the Senate for three weeks."

Which certainly explains just why the Republicans made their move to grab a leadership position when they did-it was now or never. They need to have a shot at controlling the reapportionment process next year if they're gonna have any hope of maintaining a shot at relevance: "Redistricting is more abstract art than exact science, though, and Dr. Beveridge’s analysis is subject to several caveats — the most vital being which party controls the Senate after the 2010 election. After the 2000 census, the Republican majority was able to minimize the impact of population losses in its upstate base in two ways, both of which survived legal challenges."

In other words, creative carving is their last bastion of hope; and it might explain why our friend Pedro also decided to roll the Republican dice. In a senate where the Dems have a greater margin of seats, it's unlikely that his colleagues would be inclined to support his leadership ambitions. Perhaps he saw the current short term play as being in his best interests-with the inside straight possibility that, as King Gerrymander, he might ride the wave a while longer.

That, of course, doesn't change the current molasses metrics; and, as we have said elsewhere today, it probably doesn't bode well for NY's tax payers-unless a new sighted Democratic standard bearer rides into town on a centrist horse. So, in the long run, the Republican play isn't the way to bet; but for Espada and the Republican coup leaders, the insight of John Maynard Keynes was probably their underlying motivation. As the economist famously said: "In the long run, we're all dead.”

Taxing Our Patience?

There has been a great deal of teeth gnashing over the continuing gridlock up in Albany; but isn't it time we looked at the bright side of all this wrangling? Let's start with that famous quote on the danger that legislatures often pose-and the one in Albany never fails to do: "No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session” is a classic political phrase that popularly began with a New York court decision in 1866. The phrase has been applied to the legislatures of other states as well."

Which brings us to the Wall Street Journal editorial on the dangers that legislative overreach can cause-particularly in the area of taxation: "A decade ago all three states were among America's most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due."

All this as a result of a capricious disregard of just what undergirds the prosperity of any local economy: "These states have been models of "progressive" policies that are supposed to create wealth: high tax rates on the rich, lots of government "investments," heavy unionization and a large government role in health care...Has all this public sector "investment" translated into jobs? Not quite. California had the nation's third highest jobless rate in May (11.5%). New Jersey and New York had below average unemployment rates in May compared to the national average of 9.4%, but one reason is that so many discouraged workers have left those states. From 1998-2007, which included two booms on Wall Street, New York and New Jersey ranked 36th and 31st in job creation. From 2000 to 2007, the New Jersey Business & Industry Association calculates that nine out of 10 new Garden State jobs were in the government."

So the, "soak the rich" philosophy, best epitomized by the platform of the Working Families Party and the missives of the Drum Major Institute, hastens the kind of economic retardation that, while it erodes the tax base all over, is particularly hard on local small businesses-as one recent study highlights: "Consistent with the growing tax burden on small-business owners, as well as the growing body of evidence linking higher tax burden with limited entrepreneurial growth and higher closure rates, this study has found that tax problems constitute an important reason for bankruptcy filings for a sizable number of entrepreneurs."

So perhaps all is not lost when legislative gridlock paralyzes the state capitol-and if this had happened in March instead of June a whole host of new taxes wouldn't have been concocted in order to stick knives in the local economies all over the state; and let's not forget that the job killing Quinnberg sales tax hike is also in limbo as the legislature continues to squabble. We're happy to see stalemate, even if it affords the governor to pretend that he's looking out for the public interest.

Unfortunately for New York's tax payers, however, this stalemate will eventually be resolved. And the WSJ's mordant analysis is way too accurate for any real debunking: "So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures."

Will Bloomberg Lose Control?

As the deadline looms to re-authorize mayoral control of the NYC schools, it doesn't appear that the state senate will be able to convene to even consider the extension. As the NY Daily News reports, even if the senators manage to get their act together, the prospects for Mike Bloomberg's pet project appear quite dim: "The extension of mayoral control over the schools is no slam dunk even if warring senators break their stalemate, the Daily News has learned. The law expires Tuesday and a number of Senate Democrats are leery of passing the Assembly's mayoral control bill without making changes. "They don't like the idea that's it's being stuffed down their throats," a Democratic aide said."

And let's not forget, that Bloomberg has railed against even the smallest changes to the assembly-backed version of re-authorization: "The Assembly bill, which leaves the basic tenets of the current mayoral control law in place, has enough support from a handful of Democrats and all 30 Republicans to pass. Paterson warned of "chaos" if the law expires, and Bloomberg called the Senate's inaction "Albany at its worst."

We kinda liked the self-serving comments of Randi Weingarten on the senate's inaction: "City teachers union President Randi Weingarten said letting the law lapse gives kids "a terrible lesson about the rule of law. We're also suggesting that chaos and instability is a good thing." Hey Randi, was the overturning of the popular will on term limits the kind of, "rule of law," lesson you had in mind? We're guessing that, as long as there's a strong leader and stability reigns supreme, we are in good shape.

But you also have to get a chuckle out of the Chicken Littles over at the NY Post, with another one of their sky is falling predictions over the possible demise of mayoral control: "Time is running short. At midnight tomorrow, an extraordinarily successful experiment could begin to unravel. That would be a tragedy." But then again, how do you tell the difference between a Post editorial and a news article on this subject. Fair and balanced? Not.

Which brings us to the, "what happens next?" scenario. As the NY Times points out, everyone's been forced to game plan the, sky is falling, unthinkable here: "Quiz: Which impending crisis, in the words of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, threatens to bring rioters into the streets and turn City Hall into the Kremlin? A swine flu pandemic? More cutbacks to the city’s labor force? Not quite. In Mr. Bloomberg’s view, doomsday will be on its way if the Senate fails to renew mayoral control of city schools by Tuesday, when the 2002 law authorizing it expires."

So what's a poor billionaire mayor to do? "But exactly how the operation of the nation’s largest school system would change — aside from, perhaps, the return of old Board of Education stationery — remains a question." But if this is the crisis that Bloomberg believes, we may find out how the city's chief executive acquits himself under duress. Truman or Carter, is there an, "under/over," on this?

But just maybe, this isn't quite like, let's say, the Berlin Airlift or the Iranian Hostage Crisis. If so, the mayor may become victim of his own hyperbole: "Mr. Bloomberg has not announced any contingency plans, perhaps trying to hasten action upstate. But he has portrayed the possibility of losing control of the schools as nothing short of a catastrophe. “If the Senate passes something that differs by one word or more,” he warned on Thursday, “it is saying to the city: ‘We want to resurrect the Soviet Union. We want to bring back chaos.’ ” In February, he said, “I think that there’d be riots in the streets.”

But alternatives are being thought about-and let's not overlook the ambition of the five borough presidents, who would get to appoint a member if the old BOE was resurrected: "Reverting to the old law would give more influence to the borough presidents, who would control five of the seven seats on the board. The mayor would be able to name only two board members, but would probably be able to persuade at least two borough presidents to appoint members favorable to the mayor’s policies."

But aren't the prospects her fun to imagine; with the imperious Michael being thwarted in his goal of world conquest. Should he find himself stymied, will his self-control be as evanescent as his lost control over school governance?

Related's Revolutionary Guard

The Bronx News Network has some very good coverage of Tuesday's Kingsbridge Armory hearing-particularly concerning the goonish actions of the Negative Workforce crew: "The evening started out with a bang as about a hundred or so construction union guys, mostly from Positive Workforce, a big supporter of the Armory's designated developer, the Related Companies, literally bum rushed past cops and security guards into the dining room and installed themselves as a backdrop to all the night's speakers.Several attendees were startled by their aggressiveness, others felt intimidated. Their message throughout the night was clear: build at the Armory now."

Lacking any real community support, Related-kind of like the ayatollahs in Iran-are utilizing paid intimidators-who, by the way, aren't union folks at all-to threaten their regime's opponents. And, as BNN explains, they have gotten an assist from the CB itself: "The hearing began with a round of "special" speakers (I think because they were disabled, they were allowed to speak first) from Co-op City who praised the project because of its apparent similarities to the Bay Plaza mall, which they think added to their part of the Bronx. It seemed kind of random."

On the contrary, there was method to the supposed randomness; and the speakers, disabled or not, had no special role to play in Tuesday's hearing-aside from acting to dilute the opposition's objections. But BNN did highlight the fact that almost all of the speakers-aside from the goon squad-were opposed to Related's project in one form or another: "Related's presentation was followed by essentially three kinds of public testimony: KARA representatives (lots of them, they dominated the hearing, no question) who told Board members to vote no on the project unless Related signed a Community Benefits Agreement, which would include union protections, living wage job requirements (which Related says is a non-starter) and free or affordable recreation space; representatives from Morton Williams who were adamantly opposed to the supermarket idea for obvious reasons; and construction workers from Positive Workforce who supported the project wholeheartedly."

We still maintain that the entire episode was illegal; since the lockout prevented a legitimate public hearing from taking place. But kudos to BNN for accurately depicting the questionable community board tactics as well as the chaotic nature of the hearing.

Budding Empire

We have commented on the anti-competitive nature of the beer distribution system in NY State; and, in particular, the fact that one of the world's largest brewers Anheuser-Busch/Inbev operates a branch distributor in three NYC countires-Manhattan, the Bronx, and Queens. In effect, in these three boroughs we have, courtesy of the territorial monoploy contracts that franchise wholesalers have maintained, a foreign company dictating to the locally owned independent wholesalers and their retail customers.

The arguments by the franchise wholesalers against a beer distribution bill (A-5001) sponsored by the Empire State Beer Distributors-the association of the independents-is that the legislation would disrupt the three-tiered distribution system that has been designed to protect local franchises against the predations of out-of-state brewers.

But if these brewers start to absorb the locally owned companies, how sacred is the three tiered system? And why should NY State go out of its way to protect a system that is being undermined from within? And, according to Beer Business Daily, this is what's about to happen on a very large scale: "There are ill-winds blowing from Europe. In a shocking revelation from across the pond, London-based UBS beverage analyst Melissa Earlam (via UBS analyst Kaumil Gajrawala in the U.S.) writes in a note to investors early today that AB InBev may be looking into shipping beer "direct" through expanding company-owned branches, to retailers in certain markets in the United States, up to 50% of its volume. This revelation was delivered to UBS analysts and investors last week in Belgium by ABI chief Carlos Brito and other top execs."

So now, if this trend continues and is mimicked by the other multi-national brewers, as we believe it will since AB has always been the industry leader, we will see the elimination of both franchise as well as independent wholesalers in New York. As BBD reports:

"While there is a "wide variance in application of regulation on alcohol on a State by State basis," writes Mel, "some States allow brewers to own wholesalers. ABI is currently reviewing the potential for direct distribution in the US. A-B already has 13 company-owned distribution companies, and 7% of its volume is done through direct distribution, though this ownership is more accidental than due to a deliberate strategy." It turns out that A-B's "accidental" strategy of buying up branches provided the number crunchers in Belgium with enough fodder to move forward. Melissa writes that when InBev purchased A-B in summer 2008, "ABI had thought that 20% direct distribution was possible in the US market. ABI now believes in theory 50% of volumes could ultimately be sold through direct distribution (not necessarily in 50% of States - some States such as California could do 100% and other States zero)."

If this comes to pass-and other brewer stakes already exist in some local franchises-then we will be looking at a monopolistic distribution system run exclusively for the benefit of multi-national conglomerates. It thus appears to us, that franchise wholesalers may have more in common with the independents than they would, perhaps, like to believe.

Myth of Mayoral Efficiency

With the city enveloped in an editorial fog-a compliant echo chamber that has elevated Mike Bloomberg into iconic status based on little more than the fact that he hangs in the same elite circles as the do our publishing magnates, it was refreshing to read the following report (counter-intuitive to the scions, no doubt) on the shenanigans over at the DOB: "Buildings Department inspectors are poorly trained, inspections are frequently slipshod and fines are routinely laughed off as "the cost of doing business." Those are the findings of a $4 million study released yesterday by the troubled city agency at the end of a five-year building boom that led to record numbers of construction deaths."

Can it possibly be true? After almost eight year of the most capable managerial oversight, we find that a critical city agency is overrun by stumble bums? Fraid so: "Inspectors are currently not uniformly equipped to judge the acceptability of common unsafe conditions," the study concluded. "They rely primarily on their own varying level of training, experience and degree of tolerance on nonconforming issues." The report faulted the department for having "no standard training procedure" for critical field inspections and said procedures are so lax it's often impossible to to determine whether architects' plans conform to city code."

Watch out for the falling cranes! Yet, in spite of some grave issues of competency and inattention on the part of the beatified incumbent, we are rapidly approaching an election that appears to have all of the suspense of a Laker-Knicks game; with the editorialists making lapdogs look like Rottweilers.

Even today, the NY Post uses an editorial column to savage Bill Thompson on the issue of mayoral control. To borrow Joseph Welch's comments to Joe McCarthy, we'd like to ask the Post: "Have You No Sense of Decency?" Where are the editorials on the mayor's failure to stem the tide of bigger government? Where are the snide comments about a phony five borough economic plan, one that somehow fails to mention that Bloomberg's economic policies have escorted 300 local supermarkets right out of town? And where are the countervailing voices on school governance, ones that might point out that the city's of Rochester and Buffalo have experienced as much "success" as New York even without a mayoral control system; underscoring, perhaps, that the evaluating metrics have been eroded.

But the sense of decency is missing-and its absence dramatizes the most indecent aspect of the Bloomberg victory lap; the obscene use of a private fortune to drown out any potential for a real public debate. My God, we even had to watch and listen to a Bloomberg ad during the NBA draft! And that one told us that the mayor was creating jobs for small business. Talk about disinformation!

So, let Adam Brodsky examine the statements of Bill Thompson with a careful Talmudic sense of rectitude. But let's not make any mistake about what's happening here. The editorialists have created such an echo chamber that certain political truths have become its first victim. Mike Blomberg is getting the kind of kid gloves treatment that would embarrass even an ayatollah; and this is happening in the great bastion of liberal thinking, no less.

Armory Hearing Questions

The first hearing on the redevelopment of the Kinsbridge Armory was held on Tuesday-and if this meeting is any indication, the land use process is going to be a contentious one. As NY I reports: "Developers and local business owners gathered at a meeting Wednesday night in the Bronx to discuss the plan to turn the Kingsbridge Armory, empty for 20 years, into a massive shopping center... It was a heated debate Wednesday as to what kind of development should be built inside of the old Kingsbridge Armory. The Related Companies, a construction firm, is proposing a massive shopping mall. At Community Board 7's public hearing, Related tried to gain support of the crowd."

Huh? Related's crowd pleasing efforts consisted of apparently hiring a squad of hired goons who goosed stepped chanting into the Lehman College gathering menacing onlookers in the process. Making matters worse, the sixty or seventy member contingent of the non-union Positive Work Force, took up seating that should have been available to the community-but wasn't. As a result, scores of community residents were locked out of the meeting; and, with an apparent violation of the NYS open meetings law, the community board's hearing should be all rights be considered null and void.

The fact is that a public meeting must be held in a venue that is able to accommodate the public that is interested in coming to either simply hear, or to testify about the proposed project. With Tuesday's lock out, however, Community Board #7 didn't hold a valid public meeting; and in our view, will need to hold an additional public gathering before the scheduled July, 14th vote on the redevelopment project (something that area elected officials should insist upon).

The lockout was just the beginning of the problems that the Board is facing. The agenda for the hearing raises serious questions over the impartiality of the review process. In our over twenty five years of participation in community board reviews, we have never seen a pre-hearing schedule set up to purposefully undermine the opponents of a project.

But that's what the board did-bringing in some folks from Co-op City to tell the gathering that there was nothing to fear from the proposed mall. Why? Because they too had a mall in their community and, despite early misgivings, the mall was built and the world didn't come to an end. Here were people with absolutely no connection to the Kingsbridge community-and with no knowledge of the developer's proposed plans-brought in to pre-rebutt opposition arguments; and allowed to do so for an open ended period, while opponents were rigidly restricted to a three minute time frame.

Meanwhile the hundreds of opponents-as well as the locked-out residents and workers-were treated as if they were interlopers by the biased process servers. Surely, the motives and actions of the district manager and the Board's chair need to be investigated. There is enough untoward activities being examined in the borough, to raise serious suspicions about how-and why-the Board is proceeding as it is. There's an old saying that just might be applicable here: "He who pays the piper calls the tune."

Still, we all need to be cognizant of the fact that despite the Board's questionable actions, its decisions are purely advisory; and, as we saw in the case of the Brush Avenue BJs, the city council can and does override a local board if it feels that a project isn't in the public interest. And this one, with its millions of dollars of tax subsidies that will destroy two Morton Williams Supermarkets if it includes a big box food use, clearly is not.

As NYI points out: "The Kingsbridge Armory is larger than Madison Square Garden, meaning that plenty of stores can be put inside the nearly 100 year old building. But workers from local grocery stores are worried over the possibility of a 60,000 square foot supermarket at the Armory. 'With the subsidies that they are receiving from the city and the state, subsidies that we pay in taxes, we never get subsidies.' Said Morton Sloan, president of Morton Williams Supermarkets. 'We pay the taxes for the subsidies of the competition that will turn around and hurt us.'"

So, while the community board machinations are vexing, it is the votees of the local council members that will tell the story when all is said and done in this land use review. And, while we are confident that the council will stand up for local business, we still feel strongly that all of the actions of this community board need to be thoroughly scrutinized. Its behavior on Tuesday was a disgrace to the very idea of a fair and impartial review process.

And as far as Related and this development is concerned, we'll give local community activists the final word: "The Armory project calls the question: What type of development serves New Yorkers best? Will it be one based on the privatized, deregulated, unrestrained and now bankrupt model that brought on our current recession? Or can we do better? Can we meet the community’s need for good jobs that pay a living wage — the bedrock of healthy families and communities? This is what Community Board 7 must decide within the next 30 days. While Community Board 7 deliberates, our job is to hold them accountable. We need to speak out and let our voices be heard."

The Russians are Coming,The Russians are Coming

That master of historical allusion is at it again-this time Mike Bloomberg is comparing any dilution of mayoral control of the schools to the return of the old Soviet Union (via Liz): "Using some of his toughest language yet, Mayor Bloomberg demanded that the gridlocked Senate pass the Assembly's mayoral control bill or risk throwing the entire system into "chaos", the DN's Frank Lombardi reports. “If the Senate passes something that differs by one word or more it is saying to the city: We want to resurrect the Soviet Union, we want to bring back chaos.” Bloomberg fumed."

That's what we like about Mike, he's always ready with an inapt analogy for our edification. In fact, there's so much wrong with this one, that we don't even know where to begin. Well, to start, the old Soviets were are corrupt bunch of thugs, but chaos hardly describes their dictatorial rein. Which underscores the thin ice that Bloomberg I is skating on-there's more to his particular governing style that resembles the autocratic than the hapless old BOE.

What's amusing, is that he has started to believe the editorial echo chamber: "You want to see a school system in disarray? A good example would be the Albany Senate - nobody in charge and they can’t function. And that’s exactly what happened before when nobody was in charge of (the) school system. And once you get somebody in charge, you might not agree with every decision, but it’s pretty hard to disagree with the results.”

Well, we were no fans of the old system-and our knowledge was gleaned first hand from five years of teaching elementary school-but to imply that the old system was totally dysfunctional is a bit too much for us. And, as far as the "results" are concerned, we believe that the entire examination process is watered down; providing misleading progress reports for an eager bunch of self servers.

So we hope that Senator Sampson calls the mayor's bluff; and a poison pill is just the kind of medicine that an unaccountable mayor needs to swallow in order to instill humility where only hubris has ever been evinced. Let's see if the senate Dems have the cojones for this.

Dead Man Walking

The struggle over control of the state senate has apparently caused a fatal schism between the governor and his allies in the legislature. As the NY Times reports: "While the governor does not have the unilateral authority to order state troopers to round up truant senators and force them to come back to the Capitol, he can go to court and ask for an order compelling senators into session. If such an order is issued and they refuse, Mr. Paterson said, the State Police could be called in. The stalemate in Albany has not reached that point yet, but the situation on Wednesday continued as a back-and-forth of political shots. After Mr. Paterson issued his ultimatum, Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat, criticized the governor and complained that he had not done more to defend fellow Democrats in their leadership struggle with Senate Republicans."

But Parker went on to further challenge Paterson in strong language: "He’s a coward,” Mr. Parker said. “His idle threats about holding our paychecks and those other things, which he certainly has no authority to do under either the Constitution or any other law, is mean-spirited and without basis.” Mr. Parker then took a shot at Mr. Paterson’s low job-approval ratings: “He will not be returning as governor, I’m fairly sure.”

So, it looks as if the governor's going to try to take a page out of Harry Truman's book-and run against the, "do-nothing," legislature. Only problem that we see, is that it's hard to be the "do nothing governor" running against the "do nothing legislature." The Paterson persona doesn't come close to that of the feisty Truman; and we don't believe this kind of testosterone display-so late in the game-will prompt a wave of electoral support for Paterson.

So the senate will return today to, do what? Calls for pay garnishing and criminal probes notwithstanding, it's unlikely that a quick resolution of this mess will be soon at hand. Paterson's desperate display of executive power is, however, too little, too late.

Sign of Bad Economic Times; or "Minor Economic Issue?"

Yesterday, as the NY Daily News reports, the city 's Board of Health passed a regulation requiring stores to post large anti-smoking signs: "The health department wants to serve up something new at your corner bodega - a fresh slice of blackened lung. The grisly image is one of several new anti-smoking ads - as big as 3 feet by 3 feet - that new Health Commissioner Thomas Farley wants to post at the cash registers of every store in the city that sells cigarettes."

Once again, the city goes after the legitimate cigarette retailers-regulating rather than legislating-while allowing the black market to flourish. As we told the News: "The signs are counterproductive to the viability of these businesses," said Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, who said many shopkeepers are paid to display cigarette ads. "The profitability of these stores is going to be eroded." Others said a 3-foot-square sign would be difficult to accommodate, especially in a space as small as a newsstand."

Since the mayor passed the largest percentage tax increase in the city's history-the 1800% hike in the cigarette tax in 2002-60% of all tobacco sales have suffered a forced migration to the black market or Internet; a $250 million loss to area bodegas, newsstands and green grocers. Mike Bloomberg, deriding the concerns of small shopkeepers, called the loss, "a minor economic issue." And the mayor has done little to aggressively interdict the illegal sellers-preferring to crackdown on the legal store owners.

As Robert George pointed out at the time: "Bloomberg earlier this year raised the city tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.50. That means the average pack of cigarettes in New York City costs about $7.00 (the state had raised its own tax on the not-yet-illegal substance last year). Yet, two months ago, the association that represents bodega (Puerto Rican deli) owners, protested on the steps of city hall to say that the cigarette tax was killing their business. Bloomberg stunningly responded to the protests, "I just find it inconceivable that you could equate people's lives — particularly children that buy cigarettes in bodegas — with a minor economic issue…Let's get serious!"

And these store owners are now suffering the worst effects of-not only the recession-but of the city's anti-small business policies; and we are experiencing the the highest levels of bankruptcies and store evictions in the city's history. On Monday, over 60 small business and advocacy groups will be gathering at city hall to promote a Robert Jackson-sponsored bill that would mitigate evictions through mandatory arbitration. But, as far as we can see, the Bloombergistas remain tone deaf.

And, if the mayor's five borough economic plan ads is examined, a total psychotic break; since, under the mayor's less than watchful eye, stores are dropping like flies-with for rent signs becoming ubiquitous all over the neighborhoods of the city. But tobacco is fair game, no matter how much the ubber-regulators may hurt the local merchants. And the state has chimed in with an exorbitant increase in tobacco registration fees.

The health of New Yorkers is an important target for policy makers; but so is the health of small stores. Taking away bodega ad space for another warning sign is just another example of the idée fixe of Mike Bloomberg and his regulatory crusaders. Pretty soon, we're gonna have ten foot anti-smoking signs plastered all over the windows of the proliferating legions of empty store fronts.

Get My Shawl

In Mame, the musical that the late David Lipsky had the privilege of doing the press for, there's a great line that Auntie Mame-wonderfully played by the recently deceased Bea Arthur-utters: "Get my shawl," she tells her nephew, "I feel the winds of change blowing." The line came to mind, while we were reading the Op-Ed from Rudy Giuliani in today's NY Times.

The editorial, signalling perhaps that the hapless incumbent governor should be looking over both of his shoulders, focuses directly at the dysfunction in Albany-calling for a constitutional convention to address the serious, and endemic, state problems: "NEW YORK STATE government is not working. This has been true for some time. But the paralysis and confusion that has overtaken the capital demonstrates the need to confront this dysfunction directly and take decisive steps to solve it once and for all. That’s why I’m calling on Albany to convene a state constitutional convention."

There's an old saying, that power abhors a vacuum, and the existence of a power vacuum in the state capitol is one of the most undeniable facts of political life in New York today. The more that this is made manifest, the more attractive the Rudy persona becomes-and some of his prescriptions for change will certainly resonate strongly among fed-up voters.

The economic focus of the former mayor is one that we are particularly enamored with: "There are more New Yorkers unemployed than at any time in 33 years, and the poverty rate is rising. Our combined state and local tax burden is the highest in the nation after New Jersey. Our business tax climate is rated the second worst in the country. And in the face of the worst recession in a quarter-century, the State Legislature decided to increase spending by 9 percent while increasing taxes and fees by $8 billion. No wonder a recent poll showed that more than 20 percent of New Yorkers are thinking of leaving the state in search of lower taxes and fewer government mandates."

We have been posting on this very theme for months now-and have watched with dismay as more taxes and fees have been added on; saddling New York business with the kind of burden that is simply intolerable in the current economic climate. That is why his call for a supermajority clause for any tax increase was music to our ears: "Too often increasing taxes is the first impulse for Albany legislators. Requiring a supermajority for tax increases would provide a powerful check on those who still think we can tax and spend our way out of economic problems. A supermajority would protect already over-burdened citizens and attract businesses, improving our long-term competitiveness."

The city and the state have been governed for too long by tax and spend forces that have grown the size of government, and made the state a very poor place to conduct business. We're certainly not ready to endorse the potential candidacy of someone whom we have fought some fierce battles with in the past; but we're happy that Rudy has laid out some agenda items that others would also be wise to adopt as we go into the next election cycle.

Showtime at the Armory: Supermarket in the Eye of the Storm

The battle over the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory gets going in full force tonight as CB# 7 holds its first land use hearing on the application of the Related Cos. to convert the facility into a retail mall. As the Observer reports: "It’s probably safe to assume that the faculty dining room at the Bronx’s Lehman College will be packed the evening of June 24 with a lot of people wanting a lot of things from the Related Companies. The prolific developer is coming before Community Board 7 to discuss its planned development of the behemoth Kingsbridge Armory, a whale of a 92-year-old, 588,000-square-foot building just beyond Manhattan. The city has been trying to develop the building for years, and now Related, led by Stephen Ross, is preparing to convert it into a $323 million shopping center, complete with cinemas, a fitness center and to-be-determined retailers."

And some battle it will be-with neighborhood coalitions, union workers, small business representatives, and supermarket owners all scheduled to come out to protest aspects of the proposed plan; with the expected fight over wages looking like a real contentious issue: "The central issue that’s emerged: Union and community groups are demanding retailers that pay a “livable wage.” Related is balking, saying that such a requirement would force it to scrap the project, leaving the site vacant."

And then there's the supermarket issue. We testified yesterday at a city council hearing on, "fresh food in NYC neighborhoods," and made the following points: "In 2008, the Department of City Planning conducted a study that determined that a supermarket gap existed in NYC. As the department’s report stated; “There is enormous capacity for new supermarkets throughout the city. NYC has the potential to capture approximately $1 billion in lost grocery sales to suburbs. The loss in sales is enough to support more than 100 new neighborhood grocery stores and supermarkets.”
Absent from the analysis, however, is the fact that-over the past eight or nine years-the city has lost over 300 local supermarkets. So, if indeed there is a gap, than the gap has come as a result of the loss of existing markets. But instead of addressing the disappearance factor-the underlying causes of store closings-City Planning devised an elaborate plan for incentivizing new market penetration in areas it considers to be underserved."

Which gets to the heart of what's at stake in tonight's official launch of the Armory ULURP. The plan by Related to place a 60,000 sq. ft. suburban-style store in the Armory would lead to the loss of at least four local supermarkets-the average when stores of this size are parachuted into city neighborhoods. Which is why, as the Observer points out: "Nearby supermarket chain Morton Williams is also pressuring local electeds to have Related rule out a grocery store within the armory."

This is a good trade off? Not in our view. In fact, even in the city's own incentive plan, new store size is capped at 30,000 sq. ft.-half the size of the one that Related proposes. The city recognizes neighborhood ecology in its plan; while Related proposes an outsized market that, while it may create an oasis at the Armory, will likely create retail deserts everywhere else. And, if successful, they will do so with $17 million of the tax payers' money.

It simply makes no sense to promote supermarkets in the city if, at the same time, planners are encouraging large suburban style markets and/or food selling box stores. In the reported aim of staunching the outflow of city shoppers, the likely alternative result will be the cannibalization of existing supermarkets-hastening their demise.

So the Armory fight pits the city against itself. It can't say it wants to promote supermarkets in the neighborhoods-using public health as the rationale-while, at the same time, promoting the kinds of developments that will contribute to the exact opposite effect. The fight over the supermarket at Kingsbridge puts this issue forward with great clarity; and, from what we're hearing, the Bronx council delegation-including Maria Baez, the local member from the area, understand what's a stake.

We're encouraged so far with the support that Morton Williams is getting in this life and death struggle for the soul of the neighborhood's economic viability. It's beginning to look a lot like another similar fight; and we'll give the Observer the last word: "But it’s worth noting that before Related’s victory at the Bronx Terminal Market, the firm suffered a rare loss on a land-use project in the borough a year earlier, under circumstances similar to those today. Related wanted to put a 130,000-square-foot BJ’s along Brush Avenue, only to see it voted down in a key City Council subcommittee."

Needed: Public Advocate for the Tabs

In our post this morning on the disgraceful cutting of the Public Advocate's budget, we derided the NY Post's snide clamoring-piling on while, simultaneously, shamelessly shilling for Deep Pockets Bloomberg. We did, however, miss the expected choral agreement from the equally supine NY Daily News.

And the paper didn't disappoint: "When last heard from, Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum ... er ... when was Betsy Gotbaum last heard from? Oh, right. She was a witness in the Brooke Astor trial. Now, she is worked up that Mayor Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine Quinn pushed through a budget that cuts public advocate funding from $2.8 million to $1.7 million. She charges political evildoing, revenge for opposing extended term limits. If only her office were consequential enough to merit payback. It ain't. It's like an appendix, useless but prone every now and then to flaring up with press releases. Long ago, it should have been excised."

Well, you know, the News may be right if our local editorialists did their job-kind of like what the paper's Mike Goodwin is doing to the president-holding the powerful more accountable. Instead we get editorial after editorial; with the News playing, "can you top that," with the Post-in the effort to see who can climb inside the mayor's shorts first.

So, we do need the PA more than ever when the news climate resembles Pravda's control of public information in the old Soviet Union. But, perhaps, the Advocate's role can be redefined, and the office's renewed focus can be on holding the press barons accountable for their dereliction of duty.

Paterson on the Griddlelock

With the so called special legislative session degenerating into a middle school food fight-and polling indicating a total collapse in support for the state's legislators-it is David Paterson, and he alone, who will reap this particular whirlwind. Why, because no one knows any of the other players in this tragicomedy-aside from their own senator who, of course, they think should be re-elected: "But voters say 48 - 27 percent that their state senator deserves to be reelected in 2010. Democrats back their individual state senator 56 - 19 percent, while Republicans are less supportive, 41 - 36 percent. Independent voters back their incumbent 47 - 31 percent."

So it's left to the governor to bear the brunt of the public scorn-and his role is far from that of simple scapegoat. In the run up to this farce, Paterson has so diminished his own stature that he reminds us of the hapless substitute teacher, trying in vain to quiet an unruly group of eighth graders. The need for an intervention from the principal became more compelling yesterday as the children literally began to climb the walls-escalating the name calling to another level.

As the NY Daily News reports-with a "Girls Gone Wild"-style headline: "How low will they go? The Capitol's dysfunction sunk to amazing new depths Tuesday as warring senators held dueling sessions in the same room at the same time - and accomplished absolutely nothing. Gov. Paterson's effort to break the leadership stalemate with a special Senate session only furthered the confusion when Democrats accused the governor of not sending legislation on time. "Keystone comedy," said Sen. Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn)."

The NY Times underscores the sophomoric theme: "The two sides, like feuding junior high schoolers refusing to acknowledge each other, began holding separate legislative sessions at the same time. Side by side, the parties, each asserting that it rightfully controls the Senate, talked and sometimes shouted over one another, gaveling through votes that are certain to be disputed. There were two Senate presidents, two gavels, two sets of bills being voted on."

In most major controversies, the press lists all of the winners and losers; but in the legislative stalemate, as Bill Hammond points out, there are only losers: "Instead of doing the people's urgent business, the senators staged the political equivalent of a professional wrestling match - only a lot less dignified. They bellowed, they pointed fingers, they turned their backs on one another, they stalked out of the ring and took a bunch of phony votes that decided nothing."

Hammond does make one exception in his losers gallery: "But it's the senators who bear the ultimate blame, because they could not put aside their political infighting long enough to pass a few noncontroversial measures necessary to keep the state running. Instead, they birthed a legal mess that just might tie up the courts for years. Come to think of it, there were winners yesterday. The lawyers."

He did leave out, however, the real winner in all this; the stealth governor-in-waiting: Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo is just waiting to pick up the pieces when the mess is finally resolved-even if only on an interim basis. Maybe he is the principal that this school for scoundrels really needs.

Checks and Imbalances

Isn't it bad enough that the mayor and the council speaker have been locked in a four year embrace that makes a mockery of the idea of checks and balances? Apparently not, since the two sides of city hall have collapsed on each other with the knifing of the public advocate's budget for the upcoming fiscal year. As the NY Times reports: "The five men vying to succeed Betsy Gotbaum as the city’s next public advocate showed up together at City Hall Friday to demonstrate solidarity with Ms. Gotbaum over a critical issue: the viability of the office."

Now we know that the all but invisible tenure of Ms. Gotbaum has got a lot of folks thinking-well, so what? But the larger point here is that the office of the Public Advocate has the potential to serve as a bully pulpit; and the need for a countervailing voice, if not force, is all the more compelling when we are facing the possibility of another four years of political pas de deux by Quinnberg.

As Mark Green, putative front runner to replace Gotbaum, told the Times: "Mr. Green, for instance, talked at length about the history of the office, before boiling down his concerns to a basic question: “Here’s the question I would urge you and you and all of you in a position to simply ask the mayor and speaker: ‘Why has only the watchdog over City Hall been cut 40 percent?’ ”

But the NY Post, quite unintendedly ironic, demurs: "Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum and her would-be successors took to the steps of City Hall yesterday to bemoan the 40 percent budget cut her office suffered at the hands of the City Council last week. O, woe is them...They all want the cut restored, because they're running for advocate, too. All the more reason to cut it again.
This time, completely."

The Post, which has been functioning as a key cog of the Bloomberg propaganda machine on the issue of school governance; sometimes running three promotional items a day, wants to eliminate, what?-any possibility of a discouraging word on the city hall range? Quite another nod to the new Supreme Leader, and a disgraceful shot at political dissent in the city.

Bloomberg's Pension Mischief

We have been arguing for some time that the argument for a third term for Mike Bloomberg-you know, a tough man for tough economic times-doesn't really hold up under even the slightest independent scrutiny. Bloomberg, imbued with an expansive government propensity-and lacking any real sympathy for the lower tax arguments that most people with a business background imbibed with their mother's milk-has raised cost that are, in the words of our national leader, "unsustainable."

Now, in a really incisive news report, the NY Times exposes the Myth of Mike; a man who has pensioned off the city's fiscal future: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is sounding the alarm over New York City’s pension system these days, calling it “out of control.” Costs have ballooned, he says, threatening to bankrupt the city. Municipal unions and lawmakers in Albany created the crisis, he suggests, and left the city holding the bag. But interviews and budget records show that the Bloomberg administration itself is responsible for much of the growth in city pension costs over the last eight years, and has repeatedly missed opportunities to rein in the spending."

Having missed all of these opportunities is not the only black mark on the Bloomberg fiscal report card. At the same time that he was avoiding making any of the responsible decisions needed to make government more cost-effective, he was simultaneously-adding injury to insult to injury-raising the crippling local taxes that have been a major contributing factor in the city's economic meltdown.

All the while, like some out of work lottery winner, the mayor was thoughtlessly spending Wall Street cash-acting as if the spigot would never be turned off. Some of this-rather unintentionally-is captured by the Times in the following tepid mea culpa from one of the Bloomberg toadies: "Aides to the mayor defend his handling of pension costs. While acknowledging that Mr. Bloomberg has given significant raises, the aides say the weakened stock market has also driven up costs, because the city is forced to cover investment losses in the pension system."

But that, of course, doesn't explain the mayor's instinctive generosity over the years: "Mr. Bloomberg presents himself as a model of financial restraint who has stood up to special interests, like unions, in order to hold down city spending — a claim that is at the heart of his bid for a third term. But financial-watchdog groups say that rather than confronting the city’s pension problem, the mayor has made it worse over the last several years, negotiating costlier payouts for retirees in flush economic times that threaten to be crippling now that the city is in a recession. “You have a mayor who says that pension costs are unsustainable, that they will bankrupt the city, who has willfully increased the city’s pension liabilities,” said Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute who focuses on New York City’s finances."

Bloomberg came into office-unbought and unbossed, to use an old Kochism-with a great opportunity to lower the cost of government through creative reinvention. Instead we got John Vliet Bloomberg-a man that never saw a government program he either didn't like, or want to expand even further; a best friend to all city workers.

Ah, but now he sees the light, after only eight years in office, and is rushing to reinvent-not government-but his own image; and he's got the money to do just that. Here's the NY Post on the teacher pension deal reached yesterday: "The teachers union and Mayor Bloomberg announced a breakthrough deal last night on a pension-reform package that the mayor estimated would save the city $2 billion over 20 years. It was the first significant pension change won by Bloomberg since taking office in 2002 -- and followed a series in The Post that disclosed that some city workers, especially cops and firefighters, were routinely collecting six-figure retirement checks."

So, perhaps Mike Bloomberg-like some other clever pols in the past-is actually running to throw the bum out; making arguments about fiscal restraint that would be less discordant coming from a real mayoral challenger. Even the old excuse that Albany ate my homework, comes off not only lame, but inaccurate as well. As the Times points out: "Over the last seven years, public sector unions have successfully lobbied lawmakers to pass dozens of bills increasing their pension benefits. In most cases, aides to the mayor said, the city has vigorously opposed the measures, to no avail. “Unfortunately, the battle we’ve been fighting over pensions is how to keep them from getting even more generous and expensive,” said Edward Skyler, the deputy mayor who oversees labor negotiations. But the mayor has, in fact, supported legislation that makes pensions more lucrative. Coming into office after the Sept. 11 attack, he backed proposals to increase retirement pay for firefighters and police officers, who receive the city’s biggest pensions"

But all of this butt covering elides the main point-and masks Mike Bloomberg's gross culpability; a guilt that goes to the heart of the mayor's big government love affair: "The mayor’s biggest contribution to pension costs, however, are the raises he has negotiated for city workers." And in response, we get the following whopper from Pie in the Skylar: "Mr. Skyler said the administration has negotiated contracts that have improved productivity and attracted more qualified job candidates. As a result, the city has been able to improve services, he said. “We get our money’s worth,” he said."

This is all beyond laughable, and if any normal incumbent was making this argument, his poll numbers would be Paterson-like. The Times underscores Bloomberg's folly: "But records show that wage increases granted by the Bloomberg administration have outpaced the rate of inflation, and have sent labor costs surging. The Citizens Budget Commission, a municipal watchdog group, has called the raises “generous in both historical and comparative terms.” “It’s pretty simple: If you pay people more, their pensions get bigger,” said Charles M. Brecher, the research director at the commission. “And wages are negotiated by the mayor. This is his call.”

All of this could have been avoided if Mike Bloomberg had the political wisdom and the scones to tackle the municipal gravy train-something he alone, because of his great wealth and self-funded campaigns-could have done with relative impunity. As Fred Siegel tells the Times: "The mayor’s political independence — unlike most politicians, he takes no campaign donations — made him “perfectly situated to impose pension reforms, but he chose to not really even try,” Mr. Siegel said. “That’s the tragedy.”

So, as we go full steam into the upcoming election cycle, we are befogged by an
unprecedented spending storm; a magical mystification tour that is going unrebutted by the supposed challenger. As a result, we have reached a nadir in the city's history-real fiscal irresponsibility caused by an incumbent has thrown the city's financial and business situation into a tailspin but, like the proverbial tree in the forest, not many people are finding out about how it has fallen. Maybe this Times critique will usher in a new trend. For all of our sakes, let's hope so.

More Soda Addiction

Just when we thought that the dreaded soda tax was going to simply go away when Governor Paterson withdrew it from last spring's budget negotiations, we now see it reappear on the federal level-proposed to help fund the president's trillion dollar health care package: "Early work on the ambitious health care overhaul the Obama administration is seeking has exposed the kinds of in-house fights that typify just how hard it will be to get meaningful legislation this year. Case in point: A proposal to help bankroll universal health coverage with a dime-a-can increase in the price of soft drinks."

So when candidate Obama said that he wouldn't raise taxes on 95% of all Americans, he was leaving out all of the possible levies that will be needed for funding ObamaCare:

"The final price tag for that effort could top $1 trillion, with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid covering the rest of the cost.

The tax options include:


- Increasing the price of soda and other sugary drinks by 10 cents a can.

- Applying a potential 2 percent income tax increase to single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year and households earning more than $250,000.


- A new employer payroll tax could target 3 percent of employers' health care expenditures.

- Taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits above certain levels - a less likely option but one that still is in the running."

One trillion dollars for a health plan that could very well end up with this country having a single payer-Medicare-style-system that will, as Dr. Marc Siegel writes in the NY Post, cause chaos, mayhem, and a substandard system of care for all: "The bottom line, I think, is that primary-care physicians fear that near-mindless efforts to find cost savings -- the kind we've seen in existing government programs, and spreading to private plans -- will irrevocably damage our very ability to practice, to prevent and treat illness. We're told a "public option" will mean insurance for people who now don't pay -- but it seems to me, based on hard experience, that it will mean worse health care for everyone."

All of which makes the front page NY Times poll story, not only mendacious, but fantastical as well. The idea that 72% of Americans support a Medicare-like system is as fraudulent as the poll's methodology. And, one thing we can be sure of; if anything resembling the Obama plan is ever enacted, then the soda tax that is proposed will only be the beginning of a tax assault-one made necessary by the expanding public health care Leviathan.

Mayoral Control Mahyem

Mike Bloomberg is finally getting mad with the stalled state senate because the issue of mayoral control is in jeopardy. His own role in the political stalemate is, however, downplayed. As usual, Bloomberg fails to acknowledge his own culpability in the stalemate-and his resort to the kind of political monkeying around that he portrays as tawdry-and beneath his dignity.

As the NY Post reports: "A furious Mayor Bloomberg has declared war on Albany -- warning the Senate clowns and their ringmaster that he's sick of watching them play power games while the fate of the city's schoolkids hangs in the balance. "I find it inconceivable they won't do this," Bloomberg told The Post in an exclusive interview."

What the Sainted One fails to tell the Post in its "exclusive" press release, is that the current impasse is a direct result of a power grab by his own little class of senate sycophants-the same group that he spent so much money in an effort to insure continued Republican control over the body. And now he's angry? Perhaps, he's simply unhappy with what he has wrought.

But the coverage of the Bloomberg pique over the school issue, underscores once again just how the local press-absolutely obsessed and unhinged over mayoral control-simply doesn't cover the nuances of anything Bloomberg; particularly if these underlying factors cast the mayor in a less than flattering light. We are left to relying on Wayne Barrett for all of our unbiased reportage; and, as a result, the public-bombarded by Bloomberg's own paid messages-is shortchanged.

Small Busness and Bloomberg's Five Borough Plan

We have previously posted on the incremental progress encompassed in the city council's effort-along with the mayor's-to try to improve the business climate for the city's smallest entrepreneurs. A more robust response is needed, however, since the current economic crisis can't be solved by any incremental band aid approach. In addition, a greater recognition is also necessary concerning how municipal policy itself contributes to the retail crisis.

The salience of this observation was brought home last week at a City Hall press conference headed by the intrepid Council member Tony Avella: "Extortion is taking a heavy toll on businesses throughout the city as under-the-table fees spread unchecked, according to a report by the U.S.A. Latin Chamber of Commerce.Responding to the corruption, Mayoral Candidate Tony Avella joined nearly 70 business owners and advocates at city hall on Wednesday, calling for a federal investigation."

What the press conference underscored, was that Mom and Pop retailers are being victimized at every turn-whether it's unscrupulous landlords, or simply the high tax environment that sends so much business elsewhere. Which is, of course, one of the reasons why local supermarkets are disappearing before our very eyes-the subject of a City Council hearing tomorrow.

In the view of the city planners, however, it is the lack of selection-or simply the lack of sufficient number of markets-that is causing consumers to shop elsewhere. As the DCP report on the supermarket gap pointed out: "There is enormous capacity for new supermarkets throughout the city. NYC has the potential to capture approximately $1 billion in lost grocery sales to suburbs. The loss in sales is enough to support more than 100 new neighborhood grocery stores and supermarkets.”

This observation highlights the confusion so often made between causation and correlation. Many folks do leave the city to shop; and it is our belief, bolstered by considerable data, that they will continue to do so even if the city is able to subsidize some new supermarket development. The fact is that the city's strapped consumers are being forced out to less tax happy environs.

This was recognized by Rudy Giuliani when he first pioneered the elimination of the clothing sales tax for purchases under $110: "The overwhelming successes of these tax free weeks obviously sent a message to Albany that did not go unheeded," said Mayor Giuliani. "The removal of this regressive tax on items costing less than $110 will save New York City families hundreds of dollars each year, add approximately 13,200 jobs and boost the City's economy by $910 million. I commend Governor Pataki and the State Legislature for passing this important legislation."

And Giuliani went on to point out: "It will also do much to recover the $700 million per year New York City merchants lose to New Jersey because of this tax," the Mayor continues. "Working families with lower incomes that typically spend a large portion of their income - as much as 12 percent - on clothing and footwear will especially benefit from the removal of this burdensome tax."

High taxes=lost business; it's just that simple. And with another sales tax hike on the way-if the state senate can ever get its act together-more consumer emigration will certainly follow. Which means to us, that building new box stores and suburban style supermarkets will do less to staunch the efflux of city shoppers than it will cannibalize sales from NYC's neighborhood shopping strips.

Which brings us back to the Bloomberg recycled five borough economic plan. It is simply a distraction from the fact that Mike Bloomberg, in his eight years governing this city has raised taxes across the board and increased regulations, all the while he was simultaneously growing the municipal work force and the size of government along with it.

It is amazing, given the mayor's record, that any one with a feel for the full spectrum of city business could tout the mayor's fiscal acumen as a rationale for a usurped third term in office. The city's economic troubles have been exacerbated by anti-business public policies engineered by a billionaire mayor who lacks the policy sophistication to properly address the roots of the current crisis. It is a triumph of public relations that will, retrospectively, expose the city's voters for the rubes they are if the mayor is able to garner his well purchased third term.

Morton Willams to the Defense

The following is a guest post by Morton Sloan and Avi Kaner, president and vice president of Morton Williams Supermarkets.

Morton Williams Supermarkets Defends Itself – A David vs. Goliath Story

The Village Voice recently ran a story based on a lobbying proposal that was written to Morton Williams Supermarkets. This unexecuted private proposal outlined the kind of grass roots lobbying and community organizing strategy needed to protect Morton Williams Supermarkets from an unfair attack by the Related Company, a multi-billion dollar developer subsidized by City and State government.

The story here is how the Related Company is using its favored nation status with the current administration, as well as financial subsidies, to destroy local tax-paying businesses like ours that have been loyal to the Bronx. Related’s plans for such a retail use would violate the terms of the city’s RFP which stated “proposed commercial and retail uses must expand and enhance the current mix of retail offerings in the area, and endeavor to not duplicate or directly compete with the existing retail uses.”

Suddenly, Related announced its intention to disregard this RFP requirement. Instead Related plans a mammoth 60,000 square foot supermarket in the armory that would have a catastrophic impact on Morton Williams Supermarkets and our company-wide hiring office across the street. Morton Williams is a good union employer that has been headquartered in the Kingsbridge community for over fifty years, employing over 450 Kingsbridge area residents with full-time union jobs, health care, and other benefits. Morton Williams Supermarkets and its workers have every right to defend ourselves against a billionaire developer that has been afforded special treatment in the form of rich subsidies because of his ties to people in power.

According to Morton Sloan, President of Morton Williams Supermarkets, “The Related Company has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists; lawyers, and consultants to advance its multi-billion dollar real estate portfolio. We are trying to fight back in the little way we can. This is a David vs. Goliath story.” Regarding the tens of millions of dollars of government subsidies and tax breaks to the Related Company, Morton Sloan states, “to destroy our business with government subsidies is simply an outrage. The fact that taxes paid by businesses like Morton Williams will be used to subsidize a giant retail competitor magnifies the unfairness.”

Avi Kaner, VP of Morton Williams Supermarkets, explains that, “given our history, investment and commitment no one should be surprised that we are opposed to the use of the Kingsbridge armory for supermarket/warehouse club use.” He continues, “it would, without a doubt, represent a lethal blow to our two Bronx stores which would positively close as a result. It will also be a lethal blow against the neighborhood with the eventual elimination of many hundreds of Morton Williams union jobs as our hiring and corporate office will be forced to move to a location outside of the Bronx.”

Morton Williams, as well as its many competitors, have hired new immigrants and neighborhood residents for decades – all without a penny of subsidies and tax incentives. We welcome fair competition, but will fight unfair massive government-subsidized competition to the best of our abilities. To this date, The Mayor’s office has not responded to a letter expressing our concerns.

Not Even a Rubber Stamp

Henry Stern once remarked-in reference to the lack of political meaning embodied in the old city council: "...that the New York City Council was less than a rubber stamp because a rubber stamp at least leaves an impression." And now there is the Panel for Educational Policy; as City Room explains: "If there was ever any question over the sway wielded by the Panel for Educational Policy — an enigmatic group of 13 charged with overseeing city education matters and often ridiculed as a rubber stamp — Friday morning appeared to clear things up. The Department of Education, it seems, forgot to get the state-mandated blessing of the panel before it submitted its $22.3 billion budget to the City Council."

But, as the blog points out, this panel has been the sticking point surrounding whether or not to renew the mayoral control regime over the NYC schools: "The meeting came as the panel’s exact duties, and to what extent it should serve as a hedge against the mayor’s authority over city education policy, have become a focal point of the debate in Albany over mayoral control of city schools."

And, as it turned out, the meeting was pro forma-with one exception: "At 10:30 a.m., the full flock of panelists shuffled inside the majestic Tweed Courthouse — a rare feat for a board that boasts an average 75 percent attendance rate for its mayoral appointees. The members emerged 40 minutes later, having given the budget an 11-1 voice of support. But that did not preclude the verbal fisticuffs. “The folks and parents of Manhattan do not expect me to be a rubber stamp,” Mr. Sullivan, the lone dissenter, told the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, who serves as the panel’s chairman. “The borough president didn’t send me here to be a potted plant.”

But clearly the panel was never briefed, and simply had no clue-which of course didn't prevent them from following instructions like the good pupils most of them are: "Another parent member, Dmytro Fedkowskyj of Queens, called for the creation of a budget subcommittee, saying panel members had not mastered enough of the ins and outs to give an informed vote.
“In the ninth inning, it’s very difficult,” Mr. Fedkowskyj said to the nods of other members. “A lot could have been dealt with before, so we’re not all looking like deer in the headlights.”

All of which underscores the fact that there is no credible parental oversight built into the current governance system-the one that is on life support and may expire on June 30th. And maybe that's a good thing.

A Hundred Bottles of Beer on the Wall

It looks like more hurry up and wait when it comes to resolving the state's expanded bottle bill. As the Politicker reports: "Lawyers representing both the state and an association of bottlers appeared today in Federal Court in Manhattan to reargue a decision which suspended the state's expanded bottle law until next year, but the case was adjourned for two weeks."

With the state senate in hibernation, and the legislative session about to end, it makes us wonder how this issue-or any issue that remains unresolved-will be addressed any time soon. And now, the legislators are starting to really fight among themselves.

As the NY Daily News reports: "State senators made a bold move Thursday to end their paralyzing stalemate: They packed up and went home. After yet another fruitless negotiating session - which almost came to blows - the battling pols got out of Dodge to enjoy their long weekend."

What happens next is any one's guess. But clearly the state senate has taken dysfunction to a new level. Can things get any worse?

Small First Step

We have been extremely critical of the mayor's, "five borough economic plan," because of the absence of any real effort to help small business-especially in the face of an economic crisis that has a disparate impact on the smallest entrepreneurs. Which is why we are somewhat buoyed by the efforts of Speaker Quinn-along with the mayor-to attempt to address some of the city's regulatory burdens, burdens that contribute to the bad city business climate.

As Crain's reports: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn unveiled an agreement with the Bloomberg administration Thursday morning on a trifecta of measures geared toward making it easier for small businesses in the city to launch and prosper. Legislation will be introduced later this month to create a three-month penalty-forgiveness period for businesses and individuals with outstanding fines owed to the Environmental Control Board—the city tribunal that hears cases on quality-of-life violations issued by agencies like the Department of Buildings, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Sanitation and the Fire Department."

In addition, the proposal looks to modify some fines, if and when the underlying problem is cured-a measure we've advocated for years: "Starting this fall, the city will waive interest and late fees for businesses that can prove they’ve corrected the underlying problems. Officials hope the measure will help small businesses weighed down by the debts and simultaneously boost revenue for the city, which has struggled to collect nearly $200 million in outstanding fines."

But, as our friend and small business advocate/lawyer tells us, the city could do a lot more; The fine forgiveness, by itself, he says, is nonsense. Why interest and penalty only? How about forgiving the fine if the issue has been corrected, he asks. Isn't that the public policy reason for a summons to force a violation to be corrected?

And he's right; but let's give credit where credit is due-as the NY Daily News does today in its editorial: "The city's small businesses loom large on payday, and that's why three measures aimed at nurturing and encouraging these vital enterprises are very welcome...Council Speaker Christine Quinn is aiming to ease the load. With Mayor Bloomberg's agreement, she'll back legislation for a three-month penalty-forgiveness period on quality-of-life summonses. Interest and fees will be waived when businesses correct the complaint and pay up."

The most significant proposal-at least if it's taken to its logical conclusion-is the review panel to examine the city's regulatory code. As Crain's points out: "Finally, Ms. Quinn formally announced the formation of a regulatory review panel charged with examining agency rules and regulations that affect small business, with the aim of stripping away those that are outdated or unnecessarily interfere with business operations. Council members, including David Yassky, D-Brooklyn, and James Oddo, R-Staten Island, will sit on the panel, along with representatives of the mayor’s office and heads of city agencies. They’ll issue a report to the mayor and council speaker by the end of the year. Mr. Yassky has said for the panel to be effective, members need to go one-by-one through rules and regulations and eliminate those that do not serve a legitimate public interest."

Another idea that we have been pushing for years, since the municipal code is larded with unnecessary-but revenue producing nonetheless-regulations. And, finally, there is a suggestion for a small business review panel: "Ms. Quinn suggested the panel examine the possibility of requiring a small-business impact statement before any new enforcement regulations are instituted. An estimated 70,000 small businesses spanning 55 categories are licensed by the city's Department of Consumer Affairs alone. And untold numbers of regulations affecting companies small and large are enforced by other agencies, ranging from the health department to the buildings department."

In all of this, however, we should realize that the elephant in the room-as the NY Post highlights in its editorial today-is the city's tax burden; one that is exacerbated by the sales tax hike in the latest budget: "Big mistake: At 8.375 percent, the tax already drives shoppers to stores in Jersey and elsewhere, costing the city business. Another bump surely won't help. Likewise, there's little in the plan to significantly reduce Gotham's other off-the-chart, broad-based levies -- which have long hurt employers and taxpayers and slowed the economy."

So, with stores going bankrupt in record numbers, the city is doing something-however mild-to try to help. Now if it could only reduce its tax addiction-and bring down the out of control costs of government-then the business climate would improve and more retailers, large and small, would thrive.

Kingsbridge Armory: Test Case fo CBAs

Lost somewhat in the supermarket controversy in the land use application for the re-development of the Kingsbridge Armory, is the fact that the current land use struggle here poses a test case for crafting a legitimate community benefits agreement. The debacles surrounding the Gateway Mall and Yankee Stadium CBAs have given KARA, the community based coalition fighting for real empowerment in this project, a great deal of ammunition in its fight for genuine community empowerment.

This is underscored by the Bronx News Network; and the news outlet points out that the local community board and KARA are in accord over this issue: "The Board and the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) are both pushing for a binding CBA/PLA that will include living wage jobs, local hiring preferences, more community space for local programming, environmental protection and affordable recreation space (i.e. not a 24-Hour Fitness Club)."

This policy position is dramatized by the fact that the developer is relying on millions of dollars in tax subsidies; much more than the $13 million we had originally cited. As the Norwood News has reported: "Last Wednesday, the city approved a proposal that could lead to $17.8 million in tax breaks for the Related Companies, the developer that plans to transform the massive landmarked Kingsbridge Armory into a shopping center."

Related, for its part, is dragging its feet; it's simply not use to any genuine kind of community agreement since it has been able,relying on the guile of Jesse James Masyr, to use its political clout to craft developer-friendly pacts that are passed off as CBAs. As the Norwood News points out: "KARA and the Board say they still hope to get these benefits in an agreement, but Masyr told them "no" on the living wage job front on April 24. (They're upset with the Norwood News' headline saying "Living Wage Hopes for Armory Dashed" and maintain their hopes are not dashed by a long shot.)Masyr and Related have not committed to sitting down and negotiating either a CBA or PLA with KARA or the Board."

The key thing to watch out for next week, is how the community board treats the entire issue. It took a lot of heat for writing a letter of support for Related in its quest for IDA funding: "Despite Thompson’s concerns and KARA’s protests, EDC Chairman and IDA board member Seth Pinsky pointed to Community Board 7’s approval of the project as proof that local residents support the tax breaks, even though the board never voted on whether to support them. CB7 Chair Greg Faulkner admitted there had not been a vote, but said he sent a letter to the IDA in support of the project on behalf of the board’s Executive Committee, which is made up of six of the board’s 32 members. [Usually, before a community board takes an action such as writing a letter of support, a quorum must be present and then a majority of members must vote in support of an action. Faulkner said that he now needed to get support for the project on the record.]"

We ran into this same kind of confusion over whether or not the board supported a supermarket in the Armory. Masyr told Crain's that Related only included the idea when it was encouraged to do so by the community board: "Both Community Board 7 and the mayor's office have requested that a supermarket be part of the project, to give consumers better access to fresh produce—a problem in many parts of the Bronx."

Yet board chair Faulkner never had a vote on this subject either; and he claims that his board supports the KARA agenda-which includes no supermarket at the armory: "Faulkner said the board agreed in principle on almost all of KARA’s demands and will continue to fight for community benefits. Faulkner hopes to create a negotiating committee that includes members of the community board, City Council, borough president’s office, and KARA."

But all of the area elected officials are supporting KARA's efforts; a fact that was made manifest at the IDA hearing: "Several elected officials came to voice support for KARA, including Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera, Councilman Oliver Koppell and Thompson. During the hearing, representatives of Congressman Jose Serrano and State Senator Pedro Espada urged the board to postpone its decision until Related met with KARA."

So now the real battle for community empowerment begins; and the KARA coalition, bolstered by the workers at MortonWilliams, are ready to do battle. The stage is set for next Wednesday's community board hearing.

Baez Supports MortonWilliams: More Needs to be Done

Crain's is reporting (subsc.) that local Bronx council member Maria Baez has come out in support of MortonWilliams Associated supermarket-the store directly across from the proposed Kingsbridge Armory development: "The Related Companies, which needs City Council approval for its city-subsidized Kingsbridge Armory project, says it added a supermarket to its proposal at Community Board 7’s request. But the board has yet to vote, and local Councilwoman Maria Baez says a new store would undercut an Associated across the street. The board will hold a public hearing Wednesday."

That's good news for the store and its workers, but a great deal more is needed, since the goals of the RWDSU-led KARA coalition include important things such as good jobs with living wages. The concept underlying this effort is that, where the city subsidizes development, it needs to insure that the end result produces the kinds of jobs that can really support families-and not the minimum wage level jobs that so many retailers are trying to get away with lately.

If you're gonna take the dough, then you need to provide decent employment for the folks in the neighborhoods that are impacted. It does little good to pump $13 million into an Armory project only to jeopardize existing union jobs; awhile at the same time attracting retail tenants who won't pay their workers at the proper wage levels for NYC. This is a very poor public policy, and shouldn't be part of any "five borough economic plan."

Coming Up Short

It's not only the state senate that's coming up short; the state also has its own shortfall when it comes to the revenue projected for balancing New York's out of whack budget. As City Room points out: "State tax revenue plunged 36 percent in May from the same period last year, according to a report Wednesday from the state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, providing little indication of a hoped-for turnaround in the state’s economy...“The General Fund is at historically low levels,” Mr. DiNapoli said in a statement. “The state needs to watch revenues and spending closely.”

What this means is that new revenues are going to be needed in order to insure that the budget stays balanced. As the NY Post reports: "The April and May shortfalls are from revenue projections made by Gov. Paterson's Budget Division in late March as the state adopted its new, record-high, $132 billion budget. DiNapoli said tax collections for June would be crucial, since substantial amounts of income and business taxes are normally paid at the end of the state's first budget quarter this month. Paterson warned last month that the new budget could already be out of balance by as much as $3 billion."

All of which means that the current government stalemate becomes even more crucial-the senate gridlock has real world consequences: "But amid all the absurdity, it can be easy to forget that real business does go on in Albany, and that the votes lawmakers take every day can mean the difference of tens of millions of dollars for local governments across the state."

And the smaller counties around the state really need the sales tax revenues that first must be authorized by the legislature: "The Assembly has passed dozens of bills in recent weeks that would allow counties to charge additional sales tax. But those bills have been bottled up in the Senate, which has not taken action on a single piece of legislation since June 8. “That’s the thing that I think is being missed by most people,” said Joanne M. Mahoney, county executive for Onondaga County, which includes Syracuse. “I don’t know if they realize this has very real consequences for us on the local level. This pays for our schools, our public safety. It’s $40 million for our budget.”

What this dramatizes is that the Abbot and Costello nature of the senate stalemate drama is no laughing matter for local folks who need to provide services-and even if the senate does figure out how to share power, additional funds must be found. Which means that little things like the unredeemed deposits that have been held up because of Judge Griesa's ruling; and the potential $140 million in wine license fees suddenly have even greater significance.

But first, we're going to need to solve the stalemate; and it's unlikely that the suggestion of Senator Espada that he's legally entitled to vote twice will prevail: "The stalemate has spawned some creative suggestions and legal theories. Senator Pedro Espada Jr., the other Democrat who sided with Republicans and was elected as the new Senate president in last week’s overthrow, said on Wednesday that the State Constitution allowed him to cast two votes in the case of a tie: one as senator, and one as acting lieutenant governor, who is empowered by the Constitution to cast a vote in the event of a tie. (Because the lieutenant governor’s office is vacant, that office’s powers fall to the Senate president.) The constitutional language in question is vague, and any such move would probably lead to litigation by Democrats. Mr. Espada also said that should the Democrats not return to the chamber on Thursday, his two votes, added to 30 votes from Republican senators, would be sufficient to provide the legal equivalent of a quorum. “We’re maintaining that if there are 31 members present, and ready to vote, those 31 members can ask for a tie-breaking vote to be cast,” Mr. Espada said."

Well, good luck with that. More likely a scenario is some kind of jerry-built temporary solution that gets the senate through the next few weeks-long enough to take care of the most important pending legislation. After that, a real compromise is needed as the state goes dialing for the dollars that it will need to remain solvent as revenues plummet.

Courting Redemption

Today's the day for the court review of Judge Griesa's decision to halt implementation of the amended-bigger and better?-deposit law. In our view, the court could limit the scope of the original ruling, but we're not sure what the rationale would be for doing that-the fact that the state needs the money?

But the Schenectady Daily Gazette feels differently: "It wasn’t quite what state Sen. Hiram Monserrate is alleged to have done to his girlfriend with a broken bottle, but U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa’s decision last month stopping implementation of the newly adopted Bigger, Better Bottle Bill until next year was a serious blow to the state’s environment and treasury. We are glad to see that a judge other than Griesa (who is on vacation) has agreed to rehear the case Thursday. There’s a good argument to be made that Griesa went too far in his decision, causing real hardship for the state."

Closed fire houses? Homeless on the streets? But the paper feels that the court wasn't fair: "After the beverage companies raised a fuss, the governor and legislative leaders made clear that they were willing to delay implementation, and perhaps even eliminate the state-specific bar code provision. But Griesa’s decision took it out of their hands, delaying implementation until next April. And that’s not all — he went beyond implementation and labeling to issues the beverage companies weren’t even contesting, like the handling fee for grocery stores and recycling centers and the state’s taking 80 percent of unclaimed water bottle deposits."

The governor and legislative leaders, "made it clear," that they were willing to amend the bill? Oh, please! Nothing was made clear-and Senator Kruger drafted a bill that would have done just what the Daily Gazette has asked; yet no movement on the legislation was seen. How clear is that?

The facts contradict, however inconveniently. Nestle's filed its lawsuit, and Griesa ruled precisely because there was no evidence that the state would take any action before the June 1st deadline. And now we reap the whirlwind-and the Daily Gazette avoids the due process issues that were also raised in the suit; an indication, perhaps, that the bill's defects were crippling.

So we don't believe that the judicial review of the bottle deposit law will be successful. Knowing what we do about the uncertainty of the court system, however, we suppose that any thing's possible.

End the Beer Monoploy!

For over twenty years the major brewers and their wholesaler lackeys have acted in concert to create and maintain a beer monopoly in New York State. This consolidation of market power has not only been a death blow to competition and to small business; but it has also been the beer consumers' worst enemy-as beer prices have skyrocketed in tandem with the disappearance of true competition. There has been, however, a legislative effort to alter this sad state of affairs.

As Crain's Insider reports (subscr): "While most of Albany remains focused on the state Senate circus, a drama unfolded in the Assembly this week in a battle over beer. The fight concerned the brewer’s sales practice. Big beer makers have a contracted distributor for each region of the state, which non contracted distributors say is anti-competitive. Unable to buy beer at the same price or in the same quantities, independents are steadily disappearing."

The slow consolidation of beer distribution was initiated in the 1980s when Anheuser-Busch promulgated its so-called equity contracts that carved out exclusive marketing areas for its anointed contracted wholesalers. This practice, soon replicated by the other brewers, slowly but surely closed off any hope that the New York beer market would remain price competitive.

But the consolidation and monopolization process had dire consequences for the state's independent beer wholesalers. These small distributors, holding the very same "C" license as the contracted wholesalers, had historically provided true competition and lower prices for New Yorkers through their ability to purchase beer-at the cheapest price-from all over the state.

This price competitiveness ended with the equity contracts; with disastrous results for the non-contracted independents: "About 130 have stopped operating in the past decade, but another 360 independents are struggling along. If they had equal access to brewers’ products, they say, beer would be less expensive for consumers. When Bob Abrams was attorney general two decades ago, he went to court trying to end territorial control. He failed, and the Legislature has remained more receptive to the beer lobby than to reform."

And let's not forget that the independents are truly representative of the healthy ethnic diversity of New York. Unlike the contracted wholesalers, who look like a gathering at the Augusta Country Club, independents are woman and minority-owned; and they reflect the low income neighborhoods of NYC where they have historically flourished. In effect, the equity agreement-led process of monopolization has been an ethnic cleansing operation; since over half of the independents who have been forced out in the city are minority owned businesses.

This assault on minority business has developed in spite of efforts, started over two decades ago, to pressure Anheuser-Busch to award at least one of its NYC franchises to a Hispanic operator; especially since a huge percentage of the Budweiser that is consumed in NY is purchased by Hispanics-often from Hispanic run grocery stores.

The NY Times highlighted this fight over a decade ago; when Carlos Nazario led the attack on the budding monopoly: "The local economy may be a mess, crime a constant threat and living costs still ruinous, but one of New York City's consolations has been some of the nation's kinder prices for beer. Now, the nation's largest beer producer is pitted against the city's independent beer distributors in a battle whose outcome, the distributors and city officials say, could create a wholesaling monopoly and raise prices by a dollar or more a case."

And the handwriting was on the wall back then: "Carlos D. Nazario, owner of Metro Beer and Soda Distributors in the South Bronx, sees a more sinister plan, to kill off entrepreneurs who built Budweiser's popularity. Mr. Nazario, president of the 325-member Empire State Beer Distributors Association, said businesses like his ventured into neighborhoods where major brewers had scant distribution. When his father, a Puerto Rican immigrant, founded Metro Beer 22 years ago, Budweiser was a minor presence, Mr. Nazario said. Now, it is so popular in the city's Hispanic neighborhoods that it accounts for 58 percent of his business, he said. From the warehouse and store he bought just last year, his view now includes the Major Deegan Expressway and a dark future. "I don't think I can survive," he said."

And Carlos didn't; he and the other 130 independents went by the wayside as the contracted wholesalers, aided and abetted by their brewer puppet masters, embarked on a discriminatory pricing scheme that eroded the ability of the independent wholesalers to service the retailers that they had been servicing since the end of prohibition.

And New York officials knew what was happening then: "The independent distributors do what anyone trying to keep down the costs of a beer blast would do: they comparison shop. Often, they buy beer from upstate wholesalers willing to undercut the wholesalers closer to the city.
Leslie Gersing, a spokeswoman for Robert Abrams, the state Attorney General, said Mr. Abrams has long fought Anheuser-Busch's practices in court. "It's just another example of their anti-competitive behavior," she said. Mark Green, the city's Consumer Affairs Commissioner, said he would urge the Justice Department to start an antitrust investigation of Anheuser-Busch. "It's a case of monopoly muscle," he said."

Making the situation worse in NYC is the fact that 80% of all the Budweiser distributed isn't even being sold by an independent wholesaler-not since the brewer itself bough three of the five local wholesalers and made them wholly owned subsidiaries of the parent-a parent that is now not even an American company; and, in fact, there isn't a major US brewer left-with Miller and Coors owned by South African Brewing. So we have a situation, where foreign beer monopolists are using their muscle to put local distributors out of business.

Which is why, as Crain's highlights, we have tried to introduce the kind of legislation that would maintain a degree of competitiveness in an other wise non competitive environment: "The independents made another bid this year. Assemblyman Vito Lopez, D-Brooklyn, introduced a bill, and a matching one had bipartisan support in the Senate. But Assemblyman Robin Schimminger, chair of the Committee on Economic Development, Job Creation, Commerce and Industry, objected. Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver’s staff watered down the bill substantially. With no other options, supporters of the original bill accepted the changes, and Schimminger voted for the revised measure."

So, what happened? "But his committee rejected it—a rare occurrence in Albany, especially when a measure is drafted by central staff and backed by the chairman. “That’s a first for me,” says Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist on the losing side. “It was thwarted by the concerted power of brewers and franchise wholesalers. They were burning up the phone lines. They were out in force.” The message, he concludes, is, “There can be no threat to territorial monopoly."

But the folks at the Empire Beer Distributors Association aren't going away so soon. With the number of brewers shrinking, and the number of their contracted wholesalers down to 24 from a high of around 85 less than 15 years ago, the beer market is rapidly becoming a threat to the health of not only independent wholesalers, but to the beer drinkers of New York.

Let's not forget the the recently passed bottle law, the one that took away the hundreds of millions of unclaimed deposits that these contracted wholesalers have been swigging for over the passed two decades, prompted these chazas to protest and threaten huge price increases: "Here's the franchised beer position: "But D. Bertoline & Sons in Peekskill, the distributor of Budweiser beer products in Westchester and Putnam, uses unredeemed deposits to pay the costs of shipping recycled products to Connecticut, Vice President of Administration John Bertoline said. That lost revenue, plus higher handling fees and a higher beer excise tax imposed by the law, will lead to price increases that get passed along to consumers, he said. That would depress sales, which in turn could reduce employment, he added."

Oh, really? But, as we have pointed out: "We were right there when the bottle bill first passed and went into effect in 1981; and the beer wholesalers wasted no time in raising the price of beer by at least $3.00 a case-all for the increased costs associated with implementing the collection and redemption of the empty containers. So now what?Well, now these very same wholesalers-insulated from real competition by territorial monopolies-want to once again meet the cost of redemption by jacking up the price of a case of beer by another $2! What about the millions of unredeemed deposits that these folks squirreled away over the past twenty seven years? If beer prices are raised, there should be an intervention and investigation by the AG's office into the anti-trust implications of the wholesalers' actions. Additional costs indeed!"

So, once the deposit law is finally implemented, and the nickels revert to the state, watch as the monopolists do what they can do because of the uncompetitive distribution system that NYS has allowed to grow and fester for far too long. The independent distributors need relief; but so too do the state's beleaguered beer consumers-victimized by a system run by folks, drunk with their own power, who have grown wealthy because they have been insulated from true market forces.

Albany and Costello

The two week old comedy act that has characterized the stalemate in the state senate shows no further evidence of resolution yesterday, as a federal court judge opted to avoid any entanglement in the legislative miasma-citing constitutionally mandated separation of powers: “A judicially imposed resolution would be an improvident intrusion into the internal workings of a co-equal branch of government,” Justice McNamara said in his ruling. “The question calls for a solution by the members of the State Senate, utilizing the art of negotiation and compromise. The failure of the Senate to resolve this issue in an appropriate manner will make them answerable to the electorate.”

So now, with the equal split in place, and no arbiter to break it, we're left with the need to devise some kind of power sharing arrangement;something that the Democrats have offered but the Republicans have rebuffed: "Late Tuesday, Democrats floated a power-sharing agreement of their own that would allow business in the Senate to continue through next Monday, the final scheduled day of session for the year. But it appeared to make little impression on Republicans, who said it was a nonstarter."

For their part, Republicans have floated the idea that Senator Espada could himself break the tie because, as the president pro tem, he has two votes: "Renegade Democratic Sen. Pedro Espada claimed yesterday he and his Republican allies are forging an explosive new plan to give him an unprecedented two votes to break the newly emerged deadlock in the state Senate. "I can have two votes," Espada boldly told The Post. "We're going to maintain that, as the president pro tempore of the Senate, I am also the acting lieutenant governor, and the lieutenant governor can vote when there's a tie."

This, no doubt, had the Democrats muttering that this new radical approach said more about their former colleagues split personality than it does about the state constitution. Regardless, it doesn't appear that this will fly any time soon-leaving the deadlock in place until, and if, a power sharing can be arranged; something that the NY Daily News advocates: "Now, we deserve an end. As McNamara so obviously put it, "The question calls for a solution by the members of the state Senate, utilizing the art of negotiation and compromise." That means 31 Democrats striking a deal with 30 Republicans plus one renegade Democrat (Espada) to share power. Today."

If this doesn't happen, a number of key legislative issues germane to the ability of local governance will be left unresolved: "The new city budget agreement, the one negotiated in professional comity by Mayor Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine Quinn? Gone, and here come big layoffs. The rickety financial plan crafted by Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi? Gone, and here come big layoffs. Mayoral control of the schools? Gone, and who the hell knows what happens after that."

So our suggestion is that the Senate Dems let the mayor know that he should begin to schedule school board elections for soon after July 1st-and see if Mayor Mike can use his considerable influence on the object of his major charitable donation. After all, no one gave more to the Republican campaign than Mike. Now's the time to really find out whether the mayor got his money's worth.

Who's On First?

Just when you thought things really couldn't get any worse, we have reached complete gridlock-with Republicans in the state senate stubbornly claiming the mantle of leadership; but with the 31-31 split in the chamber making the leadership ascension purely nominal (and rather meaningless). This peculiar situation was a result of Hiram's homecoming, as the NY Times explains: "A week after Republicans wrested power in the State Senate away from Democrats, their thin majority collapsed on Monday, leaving the chamber in a 31-31 tie with its leadership picture more confused than ever. The move came when Senator Hiram Monserrate, one of two Democrats who had sided with Republicans to give them a 32-to-30 majority, said he was switching his allegiance again and reaffirmed himself as a member of the Democratic caucus."

All of this has left New York State as a laughing stock-and the poster child of legislative dysfunction; as Clyde Haberman observes from a perch on Normandy Beach, maybe it's time for all of us to examine ourselves for culpability: "New Yorkers are running out of ways to describe Albany as a political version of clown school. Perhaps it is time, then, that they examine what the state of the state says about them. If one believes that people in a democracy get the government they deserve, then we in New York should be unable to look in the mirror without cringing."

But where can we go from here? Bill Hammond suggests power sharing; but those prospects, given the cuckoldery omnipresent in the senate, are as likely to happen-and function smoothly-as they are in an acrimonious divorce where the judge counsels cooperation for, "the sake of the children." But something needs to be done, since absent an agreement it's hard to see how any court can force cooperation.

All of which means that NYC may want to start scheduling school board elections, since come June 30th, the mayoral control scheme comes to an ignominious end if nothing gets done. And the new Democratic "leader" is no fan of Mike Bloomberg's stewardship. So as we head up to Albany today, we are suffused with a sense of the futile nature of the journey; with the Abbot and Costello refrain, "Who's on First?" echoing in our ears.

A Tale of Two Carts

The NY Post discovers another example of how the vaunted Bloomberg managerial expertise is, well. more myth than reality. This time it's the fact that permits for food carts are being auctioned off for big bucks: "The hot dog you just bought from a food cart may have been sold by a dead man. The city is investigating a racket where scammers pretend to be vendors who have died or left the country. The crooks pay $200 renewal fees for the lucrative permits -- which should have been returned to the city -- in the name of the vendors. And then they either operate the carts themselves or lease the permits for thousands of dollars."

Now we were under the impression that food carts were subject to strict regulation-courtesy of the mob crackdown during the Giuliani era. Now, under the uber-manager Bloomberg, however, corruption runs freely; undeterred by any oversight: "The hot dog you just bought from a food cart may have been sold by a dead man. The city is investigating a racket where scammers pretend to be vendors who have died or left the country. The crooks pay $200 renewal fees for the lucrative permits -- which should have been returned to the city -- in the name of the vendors. And then they either operate the carts themselves or lease the permits for thousands of dollars."

And make no mistake, this scam means big bucks: "In Long Island City, Queens, a man who gave his name as Mario and described himself as a broker was selling a brand-new food cart -- with attached permit -- for $26,000, "cash only." The permit, Mario said, could be renewed every two years for $10,000. But the papers would remain under the name of the original holder, whom he declined to identify. At a West Side garage, a four-year-old gyro cart with a permit was going for $46,000. A "broker," who declined to give his name, said: "Everything is in cash. Paid in full." His fee to renew the permit was also $10,000."

What this all underscores-aside from managerial cluelessness-is that when a genuine supply and demand equation exists, there is real competition for getting a cart permit-unlike the silly situation where the city is trying to promote green carts in poor neighborhoods. What's the clamor in that case? Well, the city is struggling to find enough veggie vendors to fill the 1,000 permit quota that the city council had set when it passed the misguided enabling legislation.

Where actual demand for a product exists, retailers move in quickly to fill the void. The central planners always feel that they can accomplish the allocation of goods better than the market. And they are always wrong.

Fit To Be Tied

Morning has broken, and it now appears as if State Senator Hiram Monserrate has spun back into the Democratic orbit. As Juan Gonzales of the NY Daily News reports: "Sen. Hiram Monserrate has switched sides - again. "I'm coming home," the Queens Democrat told the Daily News in an exclusive interview on Sunday.Monserrate stunned the state's political establishment and paralyzed the Legislature a week ago when he rebelled against his own party and voted with fellow Democrat Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx to hand control of the Senate to the Republican minority."

We have been saying all along that Monserrate would most likely return to the Democratic column because he, unlike Senator Espada, is much more attached to a constellation of constituencies and interests that rely on the Democrats to promote their agenda: "Monserrate also must realize that by throwing state politics into a convulsion and switching sides twice in the same week, he is committing political suicide. But according to those close to him, the immense pressure he received in the past few days from his closest supporters in organized labor and among tenant advocates has taken a toll on him."

Which brings us to the potential for the dreaded 31-31 stalemate that have commented on earlier. As Gonzales also points out: "His decision creates an astonishing 31-31 deadlock in the Senate and further muddles the question of which party controls that body."

The NY Daily News further underscores the kind of mess that still potentially awaits: "Sen. Hiram Monserrate's stunning return to the Democratic fold creates almost as much chaos as when he left. Monserrate's flip back to the Democrats means the 32-to-30 split the Republicans thought they had gained during last week's coup would be reduced to 31 to 31. It takes at least 32 votes to get anything done - and 32 lawmakers must be in the chamber to even hold a session. "This state is facing a historic constitutional standoff," a top Senate aide said. "[At 31-31] we can't function."

And then there's Speaker Silver's threat to adjourn the Assembly, since the senate gridlock makes it nonproductive for his members to stick around: "Shelly's mad as hell, and he isn't gonna take it anymore. Stepping into the power vacuum left by a weak governor, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told The Post yesterday that he and the rest of the Assembly will get out of Dodge next week unless the feuding clowns in the Senate get their act together. "At this point, there doesn't seem to be any reason to stay," said Silver (D-Manhattan)."

So we enter the new week with overtones of Laurel and Hardy threatening to seep into the Albany scene-giving new meaning and resonance to that duo's most famous phrase: "What a fine mess you got us into."

Bottle Busting

According to Daily Politics, NYS is challenging Judge Griesa's ruling on the bottle bill: "The state has obtained an emergency hearing next Thursday at 11:30 a.m. on its request to modify the preliminary injunction preventing the Bigger, Better Bottle Bill from being enacted until April 2010. Not only has the attorney general's office, (which is handling the case for the state), asked the court to allow the law, which was supposed to go into effect June 1, to be immediately implemented, but it has also asked for the plaintiff's security bond to be increased from $10,000 to $115 million."

The issue, of course, is the state's loss of revenue from the unredeemed deposits: "That just so happens to be the amount of revenue that expanding the 5-cent deposit to apply to bottled water was expected to generate for state coffers. (According to the state, the tab is $235,000 a day)." So what the AG is arguing here, is that the lawsuit was inappropriately expanded by the judge beyond the scope that Nestle's had asked for-so show us the money.

If the AG can extricate things, then the water issue and the UPC provision would be tabled, but the escheats regulation on the beer and soda would be reinstated. As Cuomo's spokesperson said: "The State's request for an increased bond, which is required by the law, is designed to approximate the revenues that will be lost to the State if it is ultimately found that the Court's injunction was granted in error. Indeed, it appears that the Court granted an injunction far broader than actually sought by Nestle."

So we await the court hearing on Thursday-and can this issue be any more confusing? With the senate in turmoil, and the governor's popularity waning, this becomes another testament to Albany's dysfunction. Can we stand many more of these?

"Which Way Will He Go, Which Way Will He Go?

Since the senate coup status increasingly resembles that of a cartoon, we thought that the title of this post would most appropriately reflect the current uncertainty over the direction that Hiram Monserrate will take when the sun rises tomorrow. But Monserrate, for his part, sees the situation more in terms of psychodrama: "As the man at the center of the chaotic storm in Albany, who is being fought over by Republicans and Democrats, Monserrate is walking a fine line. In the relatively brief phone call, he offered words of support for a Republican-dominated coalition majority in the Senate, while at the same time suggesting that he might return to the Democratic conference."

But who really knows what the mercurial Monserrate will do-even if he himself knows how he will move forward as we await the court's decision in the morning; although he did appear to be relatively sanguine about the expected ascension of John Sampson as the news Democratic leader: "“At this point, nothing has changed,” said Monserrate, who joined fellow Senate Democratic dissident Pedro Espada Jr. to overturn the Democratic majority in the chamber last week. “There will be a resolution very soon.”He seemed to be laying the groundwork to rejoin the Democrats, characterizing the turmoil he helped orchestrate as a catalyst for change among Democrats. “The Democrats today in the New York State Senate are more unified than they ever have been,” he said.

In the meantime, though, there is a feeling in the capitol that more chaos will reign before order is eventually restored. As the NY Times reports, there appears to be no political center that can hold so that further unraveling is more than likely: "Last week’s coup may signal the final breakdown of New York’s long-declining political order, in which governors and senators were once feared and powerful county leaders provided a check on ethnic feuds or individual ambition. Even veterans of New York’s rough-and-tumble political scene seemed shocked at the revolt, which left the balance of state power in the hands of two freshman senators, Pedro Espada Jr. and Hiram Monserrate, and a rogue billionaire, Tom Golisano, who helped organize their defection."

Which means that any tidy resolution of the leadership battle-let alone resolution for some important political issues-may not be imminent: "The Democratic Party is dominant here, but it lacks a strong central figure with the stature, authority or will to impose discipline. The Republican Party is cohesive, but shrinking. The result, some say, is a virtual free-for-all of opportunism and self-dealing. “It’s like feudal Japan,” said Blair Horner, legislative director of the New York Public Interest Research Group. “There’s a weak emperor and strong warlords.”

Which is precisely the kind of chaos that the Buffalo News' Tom Precious sees coming down the pike (via Liz): "If you thought the past week at the state Capitol was insane, buckle up. A nightmare scenario is developing in which the Senate could find itself in a 31-31 split between warring partisan factions with—thanks to Eliot Spitzer’s sexual liaisons—no lieutenant governor in office to break the tie. With one of two Democrats involved in this week’s GOP-led coup wavering under pressure to rejoin the Democratic conference, the sides are already quietly discussing among themselves how the business of government might get done if a deadlock is created."

As if it wasn't hard enough to get issues resolved in the previous 32-30 regime: "One veteran Senate staffer said there is no chance the sides could agree to a formal, long-term power sharing deal. “These guys would have knives out for each other at every turn,” the source said. “Everything would be on the short-term, emergency kind of power sharing. And the only way to make it work is to get two or four people in a room and agree to do x, y and z bills just for these coming weeks,” the source added."

But all that depends on what kind of decision Hiram Monserrate makes tomorrow. Imagine that; the fate of the state-as well as his own-is in Hiram's hands. Stay tuned.

Come Hell or Hiram-Water

The full focus of public attention is now squarely on our good friend Hiram Monserrate-with a NY Times feature on the tough, but mercurial state senator: "For much of this week, he has been a silent sidekick to Pedro Espada Jr., the Bronx Democrat who assumed the post of Senate president in a power-sharing deal with Republicans that seemed to give them a 32-to-30 voting advantage. Senators Espada and Monserrate bolted the Democratic caucus on Monday. But twice since then, the fragile new coalition government’s efforts to restart the legislative session have been thwarted by Mr. Monserrate, who says he wants more time to lure more Democrats."

But what's most interesting is how the Times captures the paradoxical nature of the public perceptions of Hiram-with the mainstream media excoriating him and convicting him before trial; but, at the same time, the Latino community lionizes him: "Yet through it all, State Senator Hiram Monserrate, a Queens Democrat, has maintained a durable popularity in the Corona and Elmhurst neighborhoods he represents, in part because of his attention to issues like immigration and tenants’ rights and in part because he retains an image as an independent outsider."

That's because Hiram has established a track record as a fighter-taking on the mayor in the "Pay to Pray" controversy that successfully forced the city to back down. And when no one would, Monserrate defended the beleaguered Bronx Terminal Market while other pols fed at the developer's trough. As the Times points out: "Mr. Monserrate was also, by many accounts, an effective Council member. In 2003, for example, he secured a compromise from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to maintain a longstanding policy prohibiting city employees from reporting illegal immigrants to the federal authorities. “Hiram has always been an absolute bulldog and champion of the underdog,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who has had Mr. Monserrate’s help in battling the mayor and Council on several issues."

Now, it's not surprising that Hiram finds himself in the eye of yet another storm. But his challenge is not to get caught in a political cul-de-sac; with his longstanding friends and allies left at the altar of an unexamined leap. Which is why we believe that Monserrate will try to find a way back home-and back to a place where his political brand can be re-established.

Perhaps the replacement of Malcolm Smith will offer the senator an opportunity to find a way back. But the road ahead is filled with more uncertainties; and the potential 31-31 gridlock could grind the wheels of government to a total halt. Which is why the Times editorializes today in favor of some kind of power sharing: "Other states, faced with a tie vote and the instability that goes with it, have created power-sharing agreements that are designed to stay in place until the next election. Legislatures in Michigan, Virginia, Washington State, Maine, Oklahoma, Montana, New Jersey and Florida have each come up with methods like co-leaders or shared control of committees. The idea is that people of good faith should be able to agree to govern."

Whatever happens, it is likely that Hiram Monserrate will find himself in the middle of-un lio; chaos does attract those who take little pleasure in the niceties of the status quo. He does, however, need to find his political loadstar from out of this chaos. We'll see if he manges to do so as the current controversy unfolds.

Bloomberg Gets a Pass!

Wayne Barrett deserves a great deal of credit for the following observation concerning the culpability of one Michael Bloomberg in the current state government meltdown: "Does anyone remember that the Democrats came within 500 votes last year of having a 33 to 29 majority in the New York State Senate, a margin that would have averted the current chaos and maybe even led to passage of the gay marriage bill?"

And then Barrett hones in on the deus ex machina in that race-Mike Bloomberg: "It took three months for the Board of Elections to certify that State Senator Frank Padavan, a Queens Republican, had actually defeated Democrat Jim Gennaro in the closest election in the state. Gennaro, who is currently running for re-election to the city council, refused to talk to the Voice about his "previous campaign," said his spokesman, and is focused instead on "the future." But his campaign spokesman in 2008, Shams Tarek, who now works for the Democrats in the senate, had no difficulty figuring out who played the decisive role in Gennaro's loss, giving the Democrats a perilous 32-30 majority: Mike Bloomberg, Padavan's biggest booster."

But it's a lot simpler-and less threatening-to place all of the opprobrium on the two Latinos: "If Gennaro were in the senate, renegade Democrats Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada would be one vote shy of shifting control of the senate to Republicans, as they tried to do on Monday."

And, as Barret points out, the mayor's support of Padavan made it possible for at least one anti marriage equality senator to beat back his opposition: "Bloomberg gave $1.2 million to the New York State Independence Party's housekeeping account last year -- a donation that wasn't reported until a 2009 filing by the party. Housekeeping accounts are supposed to pay for staff salaries, voter registration and party building. But Newsday reported that "the bulk" of Bloomberg's unprecedented donation "went to radio and television ads and direct mailings" for Republican and Independence Party candidates in four key senate races, including Padavan's."

Yet he is now able to posture as the biggest booster of gay marriage-throwing his earlier opposition to the measure down into the memory hole-with the collusion of the supine press here: "The remarkable media honeymoon for Bloomberg rarely holds him accountable for the political choices he's made, allowing him to position himself in the re-election campaign as a major champion of the gay marriage bill, even appearing at a pro-marriage rally. In fact, when he last ran in 2005, he announced his support for gay marriage at the same moment that he decided to appeal a ruling by a Manhattan Supreme Court judge that would have permitted it. Bloomberg's appeal blocked any marriages from going forward. The city's brief cited "this country's history and tradition" as the basis for overturning the lower court ruling, contending there was "a rational basis for the present statutory scheme's limitation of marriage to one male and one female."

Yet Morticia and Rupee have lockjaw on the mayor's culpability in all of these shenanigans. We await the News' bestowing to the mayor of the coveted Knucklehead Award; but we can't hold our breath for that length of time. Perhaps, as Johnny Mathis used to sing, "Until the twelfth of never and that's a long, long time."

Home, Home on the Mange

It looks as if we're finally getting into the endgame on the senate leadership fight-at least in regards to our friend Hiram. As the senate Dems caucus down at 250 Broadway, the likely result will be the gracious abdication of Malcolm Smith. As the Observer reports: "State Senate Democrats will be a meeting at 250 Broadway this afternoon, where they will attempt to consummate a deal that will bring defector Hiram Monserrate back across the aisle in support of a new conference leader. Whatever arrangement has been agreed upon so far is being described as "very fluid," Democratic sources kept repeating. This would bring about a 31-31 partisan split in the chamber, which has been crippled by a leadership struggle since Monday."

And then what happens? Well, it might be up to the courts, as Liz tells us: "It seems all-but inevitable at this point that Smith will be asked to step aside, despite the fact that he continues to fight in court to retain his hold on the leadership. The leading candidate to replace him as head of the Democratic conference is Sen. John Sampson. Keep in mind: Even if the Democrats dump Smith and get Monserrate back, the Senate will still be deadlocked, and the question about the legality of Monday's vote that restored Sen. Dean Skelos to the majority leader's post and made Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. temporary president of the Senate still stands."

Oy vey! But there are probably at least 20-30 different plausible scenarios that can be envisioned here-with some form of power sharing not out of the question: "Unless, of course, there's no majority. Maybe a power-sharing deal should be considered? Heck, it has worked in the past for Maine, the US Senate, Washington State, Virginia, Michigan and Florida, why not New York?"

So, while the clock ticks toward the end of Malcolm's rein, we are about to head into the abyss; and while will all fall down into the unknown we can at least be amused by the sideshow of the governor and Senator Espada calling out each other as purveyors of untruths. Can the clown car be far behind?

Bloomberg: Man Up!

The vaunted managerial expertise of the Bloomberg administration was on display recently when a jailed inmate was able to hold a Bar Mitzvah for his son-in jail! As the NY Times reports: "The city’s Department of Investigation has opened an inquiry into how a well-connected inmate was able to schedule, cater and host a bar mitzvah for his son — with 60 invited guests and live music — inside a jail in Lower Manhattan."

How about that-catering in the Tombs; an example of incarceration chic that is sure to catch on with all of the glitterati. But, as they say in New York, "Not for nothing" "Guests of the extraordinary jailhouse bar mitzvah, which featured a band and Yaakov Shwekey, a popular Orthodox singer, were allowed to bring their cellphones into the secure complex, and food was served on china with metal forks and knives — all violations of rules prohibiting communication devices and sharp objects that could be used by violent inmates. The New York Post reported details of the jailhouse party on Thursday. Several city officials on Thursday privately expressed near disbelief that any inmate, regardless of wealth or connections, would be allowed to turn a jail complex into a rollicking banquet hall for six hours."

Now, we know that Mayor Mike has been merchandising the city to the extent that we're sure to have the monikers of all of our famous landmarks turned into marketing devices, but we bet that even Mike hadn't thought about renting out the Tombs for Bar Mitzvahs and engagement parties.

But the NY Post, which broke the story this week, has the goods on the mayor's remake of Jailhouse Rock: "Move over, Goodfellas. The lower Manhattan lockup known as the Tombs was like a "private club" for a group of Orthodox Jewish jailbirds, whose politically connected prison-chaplain rabbi regularly treated them to feasts of roast beef, salmon and chicken with all the trimmings."

This is all way beyond mere outrage-and, "above special interests," Mike needs to act forcefully here since it appears that it's not only Albany where the inmates are running the asylum. Remember when Bloomberg, in a fit of pique, fired some lame-o employee for playing solitaire on an office computer? As the NY Post editorializes: "The jail's warden, George Okada, and two department chiefs, Peter Curcio -- who reportedly overrode the deputy warden's objections -- and Frank Squillante, also were in on the deal. So what did outgoing Corrections Commissioner Martin Horn do about it? Well, as The Post reports today, DOC Chief of Department Carolyn Thomas, who conducted an internal probe, recommended that Glanz be fired and that the others all be demoted or suspended. But Horn handed out a wrist-slap: Glanz got suspended for two weeks. The other four lost two weeks of vacation."

For real? Mike better do better: "Mayor Bloomberg wasn't saying much yesterday, other than that the parties "should [not] have taken place." Ya think? He's ordered a DOI investigation. That probe had better result in a smaller Corrections Department payroll." Corrections are certainly in order.

Yes, We Have No Bananas

In today's MY Daily News, the paper editorializes on the state senate stalemate-and compares the chaos to Woody Allen's film, Bananas: "They promised to be bipartisan. They delivered bipolar. Control of the state Senate now hangs on the veering whims of a violence-prone guy from Queens who doesn't know whether he's coming or going. We refer to Hiram Monserrate, a Democrat who backed the botched Republican coup but now says he will vote against everything - everything, even if he favors particular bills - until more Dems join his lonely ranks."

In fact, Hiram does hold the balance of power, and is clearly having some second thoughts about the power shift-particularly since he has yet to be joined by any other Democrats aside from his partner in coup, Pedro Espada. But the News' characterization of Montserrate, part of a long series of denigrations that have basically convicted the senator before trial, is totally unfair; and the senator's record of standing up for the underdog is ignored for the paper's facile thug narrative.

It leaves unanswered, for instance, as to why Hiram is esteemed in the Latino community at the same time he is gleefully being excoriated on the editorial pages of the tabloids. It ignores his lonely, but stout, defense of the evicted merchants up at the Bronx Terminal Market. While others, particularly the front running upperdog scions at the News, were fronting for Related and Deputy Dog Doctoroff in their scheme to transfer city property-without any bidding-for just beads and trinkets, Montserrate was aggressively defending the beleaguered wholesalers, many of whom who were Hispanic and had operated out of the market for decades.

Similarly, when the Willets Point eminent domain controversy raised its head, Hiram jumped right in; and while a deal was finally struck that we feel fell short of perfection, it was one that was infinitely better than what it would have been if the then councilman had simply gone with those who have no regard for private property. As usual, the News was shilling for the removal of the small and the powerless, so that a mega deal could be crafted.

Why? Because that's what Morticia does. He champions the powerful, and lampoons any one who defends the rights of the less well-heeled. So Montserrate needs to be denigrated and derided; while the billionaire mayor gets to be feted for overturning the will of the people; and featured as if he were ad copy for the next great cereal.

Hiram's dilemma? His problem is that he came to power by championing people and causes; and now these very same folks are feeling disillusioned by his actions-something that Juan Gonzales points out in his attempt to provide the News with fair and balanced coverage: "Monserrate, on the other hand, has always had a liberal voting record. People forget he was the first cop ever to sit on the board of the New York Civil Liberties Union. He is also the main sponsor of the bill to end vacancy decontrol."

So clearly this is a crisis of conscience for the senator-one that is also derided by the fair minded caricaturers over at the NY Post, where the two renegade senators are described as, "turncoats." Funny, but we have never seen all those good loyal Democrats who have followed the Bloomberg money described in anything like this fashion-are you reading this Ed Koch?

But the Post goes on to paint a shakedown narrative that fits their own jaundiced world view much better than it does Hiram's: "Monserrate's surprise move puts him in the catbird seat to cut the best deal for himself -- from either Republicans or Democrats. Insiders speculated that the Queens lawmaker could be seeking the highest bidder for pork projects, office space, staff, campaign cash -- and even money to pay for lawyers to help with his legal troubles."

So, now it looks as if its Hiram-and not Malcolm-in the middle. As the NY Times reports: "By day’s end, it was clear that the balance of power in the state’s upper house — and the very gears of state government — continued to rest in the hands of Mr. Monserrate, who was indicted in March on charges of slashing his female companion with a broken glass. As he was leaving the Senate chamber, a Republican staff member dashed after him, pleading, “Senator, we need you back in there.” But Mr. Monserrate said he was committed to recruiting more Democrats to join the coalition and would be holding meetings all day in hopes of doing so, even as those Democrats were simultaneously trying to woo him back to their side."

And if Hiram returns, what does a 31-31 vote stalemate mean for governance? We are headed straight for uncharted waters; the Bermuda Triangle of political navigation. With court battles still ahead, and the weekend for machination, this entire episode is far from finished. But the bleating from the tabloids drowns out any rational analysis of Monserrate's underlying motivations. And, while his decisions here can be criticized, the continual character assassination is unfair yet, at the same time, representative of the mindset of the prejudiced and the privileged that Morticia represents so well.

Slip Sliding Away

It appears as if there's some backtracking going on in Albany-and Hiram may be having second thoughts about his bungee jumping adventure. So, with apologies to Simon and Garfunkel, we can all sing together: "Slip sliding away, slip sliding away. You know the nearer your destination, the more you slip sliding away."

As the NY Times is reporting: "The coalition that joined two Democrats with 30 Republicans and took control of the State Senate earlier this week was in danger of collapsing on Thursday as one of the Democrats walked out of the Senate chamber, saying he needed more time to hold discussions with his colleagues. Hiram Monserrate, a Queens Democrat, held the Capitol in suspense as he refused to say whether he would support the coalition’s current leadership."

Which may lead to the dreaded 31-31 tie that was envisioned last winter when the initial Amigo rebellion was staged. What this means for the legislative agenda is any one's guess-and the final leadership resolution is equally as opaque: "As Senate Democrats prepared for Friday’s court hearing, they were nearing a consensus on the future leadership of their party. Senators were privately agreeing on Thursday morning that Malcolm A. Smith could no longer be their leader, Democrats said, speaking anonymously because the action was not yet official. John L. Sampson, a Brooklyn Democrat, is seen as a likely successor to Mr. Smith."

The governor, for what it's worth, seems quite sanguine about an extreme senate makeover-forsaking party loyalty for expedience, perhaps: "Gov. David A. Paterson weighed in on the matter, saying in an appearance on WNYC on Thursday morning that he doubted how successful the Democrats’ court challenge could be because they appeared to lack the votes needed to maintain a solid majority. He repeated his call for another leadership vote as a way to end the standoff...He also cast doubt on the Senate Democrats’ legal argument that Mr. Smith could not be forced out in the middle of the session because he was elected by his colleagues for a two-year term as Senate president and majority leader. “Power has been changed in legislative bodies for centuries,” Mr. Paterson said. “I think that’s well-heeled law.”

For our part, we've never heard of the law being well-heeled, a term that best fits Mr. Golisano. But it appears that Paterson simply wants to get on with things-and finds a non partisan approach convenient. Still, things could change even further is Hiram walks this back-and Espada's lonesome dove position could create a bit of second thought queasiness that leads to a total reversal of fortune. Quite a scene indeed!

Pity the Poor Lobbyists!

Is anyone in charge up at the capitol? All we've been able to see from our vantage point is a game of musical chairs-Russian Roulette style. And the timing couldn't be worse since the legislative session was winding down with major legislation hanging in the balance. But if there's a silver lining in all the chaos, it comes from an unlikely source-Governor David Paterson.

Paterson, decrying the mess as "diabolical," has at the same time pointed out the real crisis; the impact of all this on the state's most misunderstood class-lobbyists:

"Paterson said that an up-or-down vote on the leadership would also provide an opportunity for the Senate to act similarly on a host of outstanding and controversial issues - from gay marriage to a spending cap. He called on lawmakers to end this standoff and get back to the "people's business," adding: "Think about the advocates that came up here on issues," Paterson said. "Whether you agree with them or not, they rode the buses up here in January and February on Tuesday - the lobby days." Think of the lobbyists who have invested in themselves to try to persuade legislative leaders and legislators on issues, and think of all the people around the state who are waiting, they’re on their seats to see what is going to happen with property taxes."

We will admit that the current meltdown has caused my cohort a great deal of distress-not to mention the confusion that is always caused by not knowing exactly who's in charge. But you gotta admit that the governor's rachmones for lobbyists is very strange indeed. So, instead of the plight of the homeless, global warming, and the fate of NYC school children, we have the poor distressed lobbyists to worry about. Now, that's a platform to run on, and we imagine that it will help to quickly turn the governor's weak poll numbers around.

Fruits and Nuts

All of a sudden the city is trying to tout their green cart experiment-with a major boost from the credulous, non-reporting NY Times. Over a year and a half since the city council passed a law allowing for the placement of 1,000 veggie peddlers in so called underserved areas-"food deserts," if you will-the administration is now trying to claim success; with scant evidence, but a great deal of manufactured fanfare: "But will people buy them? Vegetables, that is. Certainly on Wednesday afternoon, an urgent line formed at a cheery new produce cart that had materialized at the corner of East Fordham Road and Decatur Avenue near Fordham University in the Bronx. “These strawberries look great, and they’re a bargain,” said Michelle Cruz, a 38-year-old graphic designer who lives nearby and found herself jostling other produce hounds under the cart’s jaunty green umbrellas."

A cart materialized-along with a line? Is this reporting? Has the Times bothered to investigate, or is it satisfied to comment on the Bloombergistas Potemkin Village-style dog and pony show? What about the cart that stays quiet in front of Montefiore Hospoital, while its fast food neighbor host a really "urgent line" for lunch?

Or, what about the cart on Gun Hill Road that the NY Daily News found to be sucking wind, with customers so few and far between that the proprietor was thinking of packing it in? All of this was beyond the great investigative acumen at the Times because, (a) they are supportive of the cockamamie concept; and, (b) they're too lazy to do their job of actually trying to report on the issue. That's why they talked to none of the critics of the carting experiment; or bothered to demonstrate any degree of skepticism beyond the flackery exhibited in the faux report today.

But, even without any real in-depth reporting, the paper manged to uncover the following truth: "Some of the vendors who hit the streets last year complained about low-traffic locations, and it will take a while to determine whether there is enough demand to keep all the vendors in business in neighborhoods where processed foods are dominant. And some local merchants could see the carts as competition."

Which underscores everything we've been saying. Either the demand isn't there-and the field of dreams theory doesn't hold up-or any business that is done comes at the expense of local merchants; in this case one of the minority-owned supermarkets that the city says are disappearing from "underserved" neighborhoods: "Fruits and vegetables were available, but the prices were higher, at the Compare Foods market at East 189th Street and Park Avenue, a few blocks away from the Green Cart. Bananas were 99 cents a pound instead of 50 cents, strawberries were $3.99 a container instead of $1.50 and peppers were $1.89 a pound instead of $1. “Maybe we’ll lose some customers to them,” said the manager, who gave his name only as Fabio V., adding that his produce cost more because “I have to pay utilities, high rent, employees — and he doesn’t.”

Which makes the observations of the city's food policy czar jarring to our ears: "In low-income neighborhoods, “we know that it takes more time to build supermarkets,” said Benjamin Thomases, the food-policy coordinator for the Bloomberg administration, “but we can get carts on the streets right now.”

The reality here is that the peddlers, where they actually do some business, will cannibalize the existing food markets-the ones that do pay rent and taxes. Another example, in our view, of how the city undermines neighborhood food retailers and has complicity in the demise of local small business. Under the mayor's watch we have lost 300 supermarkets, yet Thomasses can prattle on about. "it takes time," to build new supermarkets. It's taken only 8 years for the city to lose hundreds of these vital traffic builders in all kinds of local shopping strips; and we've yet to see any plan to prevent this trend from continuing.

What we get is more roadblocks to small business success-as non tax paying vendors are put out in the street in hopes that folks will eat the same veggies that are being sold a couple of blocks a way in a store with real overhead. The incongruity of this is lost on the Times, as the paper talks about cart "frenzy," as if there is a panicked run on green carts reminiscent of when McDonald's opened its first Moscow restaurant.

And what about this comment from a renowned inner city observer? "People working two jobs “are not going to get on a train, or two buses, to travel to get fresh vegetables,” said Laurie M. Tisch, president of the Illumination Fund, a charity that has donated $1.5 million over two years to provide capital for Green Cart micro-loans for basic purchases, like the $2,000 food carts, through Acción New York, a nonprofit organization that helps those who do not qualify for bank credit."

Dilettantes are apparently everywhere. The well meaning Tisch, with no knowledge of the city's neighborhoods-and the fact that there are scores of food stores in a ten block perimeter of the Fordham Road cart, believes that she is bring needed supplies to the stranded desert army of unnecessarily obese New Yorkers.

So let's by all means examine the impact of these carts; and do so with an independent eye that doesn't let the DOH mark its own test. Part of this exam would be evaluating whether the peddlers are needed in any number; but the most crucial variable to look at is the way in which the city, with no regard for food retailers, is setting up unfair competition for store owners who are struggling under the tax and regulatory burdens that the compassionate mayor and health commissioner have imposed with little regard for their negative impact.

What we don't need are adulatory puff pieces that sit up and beg when Master Bloomberg whistles. Unfortunately, that's what today's article does in too many ways. We await a real report-and a proper oversight hearing from the city council.

Go Tell It On The Mountain

Could things get any more messed up in Albany? With the legislative session winding down toward the June 22nd closure date, the state senate remains rudderless-and closed; locked up by the disgruntled-apparently-former majority leader: "Desperate Democrats trying to cling to power in the wake of a brazen Republican coup are threatening to lock down the Senate on Wednesday.A spokesman for ousted Majority Leader Malcolm Smith said the doors of the chamber will remain shut until Smith calls lawmakers back into session."

And Smith's days-or perhaps hours-even among his most loyal followers-are being recognized as numbered: "Tuesday night, a handful of key Senate Democrats met with Monserrate and Espada in a desperate effort to win their votes back for another Democrat. Everyone recognizes that Smith's brief reign as Democratic leader is over. Everyone, that is, except Smith, who was still refusing late Tuesday to step aside. For the Democrats, who just finished moving into bigger Senate offices and hiring more staff as the new majority party, the thought of giving all that up is almost too much to bear."

It's apparently all over for Malcolm but the name calling-with the former leaders' spokesperson calling two renegade Democratic senators, "a thief and a thug." Which doesn't as absolve Smith of his failure to keep track of what's going on in his chamber-something that Juan Gonzales zeroes in on this morning: "Malcolm Smith is today the ex-majority leader of the state Senate because he ignored two cardinal rules of politics. Rule No. 1: Count your votes - and do it every day. Rule No. 2: Keep your enemies close. Smith revealed himself as a bumbling bystander totally unprepared for prime time this week. Two disaffected and devious Democrats, Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate, pulled off a stunning revolt and handed majority control of the Senate back to the Republicans."

Can the situation be salvaged for the Democrats? Very hard to say; but, as Gonzales is reporting, last ditch efforts to do so-sans Smith-are still underway. Yet, the Reverend Dullard hasn't given up on Smith. We're puzzling this out: "The Rev. Al Sharpton worked Tuesday behind the scenes in support of Smith. To put pressure on Monserrate, Sharpton on Tuesday night announced he's holding an "emergency leadership summit" in Monserrate's district this morning. "Rev. Sharpton has spoken to Hiram Monserrate and he's very concerned, and he wants to talk to leaders in his Council district about what their positions are," said Sharpton spokeswoman Rachel Noerdlinger."

In all likelihood, however, Dean Skelos has, like the Phoenix, risen from the ashes to re-take control of the chamber. If nothing is done to make a new Democratic leader, than a number of the Democratic senators will surely assume chairmanships and a facsimile of bipartisanship will be constructed out of political papier-mâché." What happens to the big issues still unresolved? That's any one's guess, so stay tuned.

Even With All That Money

Mike Bloomberg has spent a load of money to convince New Yorkers the current economic crisis makes his re-election a dire necessity-but a funny thing has happened on the way to the coronation; the voters are not all that enthused over the prospect: "Despite generally broad approval for the job Michael R. Bloomberg has done as mayor, a majority of New Yorkers say that he does not deserve another term in office and that they would like to give someone else a chance, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Cornell University and NY1 News."

This is most unusual-striking in its counter-intuitiveness. While most seasoned observers anticipate a Bloomberg cakewalk-we've been in that cohort for a while-there is the beginning of what we believe could turn out to be a counter movement of average voters disillusioned by the mayor's spending, and disgusted by his engineering of the over turning of term limits.

And the dissatisfaction is generated by the question of Bloomberg's stewardship of the city's economy: "With anxiety rising over a difficult economy, few surveyed have a lot of confidence in Mr. Bloomberg’s ability to lead the city out of the recession, a troubling sign for a mayor who cited his financial acumen as the rationale for his undoing of the term limits law that otherwise would have forced him from office."

Which might mean that the mayor's vaunted "Five Borough Economic Plan," is laying the proverbial egg with jaded voters-and that their just waiting for a spark to jettison Third Term Mike. And New Yorkers aren't seeing the mayor's accomplishments very clearly-even with the million of dollars of image burnishing: "And though Mr. Bloomberg has sought to elevate his image nationally and internationally as a bold-thinking mayor with a record of innovation and results, New Yorkers in the survey struggle when asked to identify any particular achievement of his tenure. More than a third of those polled could not offer any answer when asked what was the best thing Mr. Bloomberg has done since he became mayor almost eight years ago."

All of this is understandable to us, since we have long argued that the mayor's achievements exist more in the minds of the real estate elite-and with the media toadies-than they do in reality. But, even more significantly, there appears to be a growing voter fatigue with Mike Bloomberg-something that is likely to be exacerbated by the media saturation bombing: “I think the city’s needs change as time goes on,” said Deborah Fantera, an architect who lives in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. “And I also think there’s a complacency that happens when someone has been in their position too long.”

All of which underscores the fact that, absent the money, Mike Bloomberg would be headed in the direction that Governor David Paterson has already hurried toward-poll purgatory. Which means, as Michael Wolff points out, that the mayor represents the purest example of a politician who has bought his office-fair and square: "Michael Bloomberg is in the most existential of political positions: Most voters, according to a recent poll, don’t want him, and yet are unable to defeat him. A majority believe New York City is going in the wrong direction, and a third of respondents could not name anything Bloomberg has done in his 8 years in office. Nevertheless, he faces no significant opposition in November’s election.This is, of course, because of his money. You can hardly find a purer example than Michael Bloomberg of a politician who bought his job."

The defining moment? The fact that Bloomberg used all of his upfront dough-as well as his behind the scenes cash and influence, to simply change the rules for his own benefit: "The first big thing against him is that he changed the rules. The law limited a New York City mayor to two terms. Michael Bloomberg used his financial muscle to make sure everybody who might have opposed his bid to change the law, would not. And they didn’t. He changed this law in such an extra-political fashion, without even a concern for democratic appearances, that he must have known he was going to lose some love. But he had to change the law to keep the job, so you take your lumps, I suppose he figured."

But some of the voters who are paying attention to all this really believe that there is a definite need for a change-dissatisfaction is in the air. If this trend continues, the expected Bloomberg blitz may actually fizzle; but whether a Bill Thompson can ride this wave is by no means a sure thing.

Coup d'état or Coup de grâce?

The events of the past twenty four hours are beyond shocking. Never in our thirty years of Albany watching has anything transpired even close to what happened yesterday; and what it all means is as uncertain: "Republicans apparently seized control of the New York State Senate on Monday, in a stunning and sudden reversal of fortunes for the Democratic Party, which controlled the chamber for barely five months. A raucous leadership fight erupted on the floor of the Senate around 3 p.m., with two Democrats, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens, joining the 30 Senate Republicans in a motion that would displace Democrats as the party in control."

And with the political tsunami comes the promise of bipartisan government:

"The new rules, as outlined via press release by Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and passed immediately in the wake of the coup, are fairly lengthy. The full list appears after the jump. A few highlights:

- Splits the majority leader and pro tempore posts. (The latter presides in the absence of an LG, is subject to a six-year term and appoints the vice president of Urban Policy and Planning (that has been Monserrate's) and the vice chair of Rules (reportedly, this is going to be Monserrate's, too).

- The majority leader also has a six-year term, coordinates the majority conference, appoints officers and employees of the Senate, subject to the pro tempore's approval and - here's a scary one - designates persons with access to the floor.

- Eight-year terms for committee chairs and rankers.

- No proxy voting, no ayes without recommendation.

- Equitable access to Senate supplies, print and media production, administrative services, and mailing.

- Staffing will be proportional, but will never be less than 33 percent for the minority."

Which takes us right back to last winter when the Three Amigos (Monseratte had bailed) had walked the partisan tightrope-with some indications that they would move to install Dean Skelos as the leader. And, at the time, reform was in the air; something that all too frequently dissipates when political air freshener (in the form of a power aphrodisiac) is applied.

So what happens next? The deal that was crafted gives 10 chairmanships to Democrats; but will there be ten takers? That's by no means certain, and may not be until the dust settles on this upheaval. It may not be for a while, since it could take some time for the shock to wear off on the coup.

And what about state government itself? Characterized by many as already a dysfunctional mess, we now add a bit more than,"un soupçon," of absolute chaos. With a governor struggling to find meaning and exert real influence, we now also are faced with an internal battle royal in the state senate; and remember, the new majority still needs 32 votes to pass anything-and that includes the issue of mayoral control which the new leader was confident he could now move.

Others, however, remain skeptical: "Republicans seized control of the State Senate, installing Pedro Espada (D-Bronx) as temporary president and Sen. Dean Skelos (R-Nassau) as majority and vice-chair in a move that, among other things, throws the reauthorization of mayoral control of schools in serious jeopardy. The current law is set to sunset on June 30—in a deal already facing trouble—and the inevitable political wrangling could result in the legislature now failing to take it up for a final vote before the end of session and that deadline. That would create a statutory crisis, with the public school system immediately reverting to its 2002 form."

So we now march into the unknown, unsure whether it is a brand new day of reform; or, perhaps, the valley of the shadow of death for good government. The next few days may clarify the situation-or not. This is all way beyond anything that any of us has ever seen.

Wacky Kornacki

Steve Kornacki opines in the Observer about the Espada and Monseratte defection and concludes that both senators are short termers: "But the new G.O.P. majority will be built on an absurdly flimsy foundation. Sure, Espada and Monserrate will provide the two crucial votes that will make Dean Skelos majority leader, a development that will severely complicate the budget process and, more broadly, the agenda of David Paterson and state Democrats. But by flipping to the G.O.P., Espada and Monserrate have almost certainly expedited their own exits from Albany—and the election of new, far more loyal Democrats to their seats."

"Almost certainly?" This doesn't strike us as prescient analysis; and looks to us more like wishful thinking: "The simple fact is that both men hail from staunchly Democratic districts: Espada from the 33rd in the Bronx and Monserrate from the 13th in Queens, where elections are decided by Democrats in primaries—not by the November electorate. Since billionaire Tom Golisano helped orchestrate their defections, Espada and Monserrate both are clearly banking on his financial support to help them overcome their districts’ partisan demographics in November 2010. It may not help much. With the 13th and the 33rd, we aren’t talking about reasonably competitive districts where a well-funded and organized candidate of either party can win. We’re talking about Democratic redoubts with powerful party machines."

Is the dude serious? Whatever one thinks about these senators' actions, their vulnerability isn't so cut and dry. In the Bronx, where once a strong and united party successfully punished Espada's apostasy, there now exists a significant split; and in all likelihood former chairman Rivera and his forces will rally against any effort to unseat Espada. The Senator's district is also right in the Rivera wheelhouse.

In Queens, we need to remember that the part supported Monseratte because they felt that his strength in the district was formidable. Clearly, defeating him will not be all that easy, and if-contra Kornacki-he beats the assault rap, he could achieve a hero's status in the community that will make him impregnable.

So while we do believe that this shift could be temporary, the impact of what happened yesterday is still uncertain. That it shakes Albany to its foundation is, however, the one certainty in all of what has transpired.

Making Food Deserts Bloom

The NY Daily News is reporting on the zoning plan being put forward by Manhattan BP Scott Stringer-and the plan looks to remedy the problem of a perceived deficit of supermarkets in certain areas of the city: "Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer is starting a food fight he hopes will spill over to targeted neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs. He wants to add the availability - make that, scarcity - of food markets in a neighborhood as another mandatory factor developers would have to study and address when they try to build in certain areas."

But what will this "mandatory factor" mean? "Most often, an EIS deals with traffic and parking conditions, air and noise pollution, impact on sewers and other utilities, the availability of schools and city services and the like. Stringer is urging the city's Planning Commission and the Mayor's Office of Environmental Coordination to add food availability to the EIS mix. If proposed development would further strain the food infrastructure, Stringer wants the the city to say, "Enough!"

OK, but if "enough's, enough," what will the developer be forced to do? Include a new market even if the economics for such a market might not exist? Or, contrarily, will this mean that the new supermarket will need to be subsidized?: "His proposal is likely to draw pie-in-the-sky criticisms. "In the intent of having flowers bloom in the food desert, do you destroy the foliage that's already planted there?" asked Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist whose clients include the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, an alliance of small supermarkets and food retailers. Lipsky fears that Stringer's proposal would result in additional city zoning and tax subsidies for developers to build big suburban-style supermarkets that would hurt existing markets."

Which, of course, raises the issue of just where these food deserts actually are: "As envisioned by Stringer, his new EIS requirement would apply to these "food desert" neighborhoods: Harlem and Washington Heights in Manhattan; the South Bronx, Williamsbridge/Wakefield and portions of Pelham Parkway in the Bronx; Jamaica and Far Rockway in Queens; Bushwick, Bedford-Stuyvesant, East New York and Sunset Park in Brooklyn, and St. George and Stapleton on Staten Island."


Here's how Stringer sees the issue: "Three million New Yorkers live in these so-called “food deserts,” areas of the city where there is no fresh supermarket within walking distance. The City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) process already measures the impact that proposed development would have on the surrounding neighborhood’s water and air quality – the same consideration should be given to local food resources in these nutritionally underserved communities."

This is flat out wrong. Even in the targeted neighborhoods there are numerous supermarkets that are in walking distance of most folks; and indication that we need to be more careful in our analysis of this issue. Something that Stringer reinforces with the following statement: "Last month, my office’s FoodStat analysis compared the food infrastructure in two Manhattan neighborhoods – East Harlem and the East Side – measuring the number of healthy food outlets in each neighborhood against the number of fast food restaurants. Our figures showed that in East Harlem the scarcity of supermarkets and other healthy food options was matched by exploding rates of obesity in the local population."

A startling confusion here of correlation with causation-a view that mischaracterizes the underlying causes of why poorer folks opt for fast food, while higher income people don't. Not to mention that the number of supermarkets in a neighborhood is also a factor of income levels; so that the comparison of East Harlem with the Upper East Side is frankly-and confusedly-invidious.


And, as we've seen with the veggie peddler controversy, one man's desert is another's oasis-and the assertion of the existence of a desert often leads to spectacular failures; as the Montefiore Hospital green cart experiment seems to exemplify. So, as always, the devil's in the details here; but any supermarket plan must put the retention cart ahead of the new market horse. Any other approach will, quite simply, do more harm than good.

Race Carding the Governor' Challenger

Charlie Rangel, who when last heard from was residing in three separate rent stabilized apartments and failing to report income on a luxury condo in the DR, has now weighed in on next years' governor's race; warning that any challenge to the stumbling David Paterson would cause a calamity for the Democratic Party: "Rep. Charles Rangel Friday warned of "racial polarization" if Attorney General Andrew Cuomo challenges Gov. Paterson in a primary next year. Rangel, who is close to the poll-challenged Paterson, ripped Cuomo on New York 1 last night for flatly not ruling out a run for governor next year. "You cannot support the governor, prepare for reelection and at the same time say that you're keeping your options open for a primary," Rangel said."

So let's get this straight. An unelected governor who has apparently lost the confidence of New York voters can't be challenged because...he's black? Perhaps Rangel has been in office a wee bit too long-and without any significant challenge in over three decades, he probably views electoral challenges in and of themselves as equivalent to the Bubonic Plague. What about the post racial era that we've supposedly ushered in with our first African American president?

To us, Rangel's warning is anachronistic, and condescending to African Americans at the same time. And perhaps he hasn't seen how Paterson is viewed by his own racial cohort: "In a sign of just how far Mr. Paterson’s fortunes have fallen, the governor now faces growing doubts from a group that has been among his most loyal: black elected officials, clergy members and voters. It is a remarkable turnaround for a man whose ascension to the governor’s office just over a year ago set off a swell of pride and joy in black communities. Mr. Paterson became New York’s first black governor and, along with Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, is one of only two in the country."

Of course, if the poll numbers continue to hover in the teens, Paterson will be shown the door by these very same folks who feted his rise. That's because if black voters are skeptical of the governor-and he doesn't get a challenge from within the party-the disaster that will befall the Democratic Party will come from the hapless Republican who will find someone barely breathing to beat the star of the revival of Weekend at Bernie's: "But Mr. Paterson must also take note of his potential competitors in a general election, like Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor. In the coming few months, the governor will be prodded by black lawmakers to take sides on controversial issues like prison reform, housing and mayoral control of the city’s public schools, and positions that resonate with black voters may prove less popular among the broader electorate."

So what's the governor doing? Well, he's surrounded himself with the core of African American leadership and has called for an investigation of the police shooting of a black officer. A needed boost from the base, but the Times could be right in that it may prop up black support, but further isolate Paterson from the general electorate-making the ascension of someone like a Giuliani possible.

We are more than a year away from the governor's race, but the fractious nature of this situation cries out for remedy-and quickly. If the Democrats have a hobbled standard bearer then its state senate majority may prove to be evanescent. Even the potential defection of just one of its members in order to run for congress, sends fear down the spins of the other senators.

So the retrograde Rangel probably needs to be less vocal here. His racialization of the loss of confidence in an appointed governor is counter productive politically, and is a throw back to less enlightened times-reflecting, perhaps, that the congressman is stuck in his own time warp; and is, at the same time, demonstrating his own obsolescent relevancy.

Tax and Rend-In all Five Boroughs

In Saturday's NY Post, the Manhattan Institute's Hope Cohen underscores the deleterious impact of the city's property tax on New York business: "If the city eases the burden on busi- nesses, fewer . . . will fold. New York City needs desperately to over haul its irrational property-taxation system now -- so as to stop feeding the vicious cycle of the economic downturn. To give homeowners a break, businesses have been carrying a disproportionate share of the city's real-property tax burden -- they pay 41 percent of the total collected, even though the real estate they occupy represents just 22 percent of the city's market value."

Of course, property taxes are just one of the nails in the coffin of the city's struggling small retailers-burdened as they are by an array of taxes and useless regulations. And the results are manifest: "When times are good, business suffers in silence, but when things hit the skids, the property tax can make a life-or-death difference. Just look around the city: Businesses are disappearing from every neighborhood."

So what Hope do we have? "New York must stop discouraging business investment. It needs to figure out how to restructure the property tax to treat residents and businesses fairly, in good times and bad." But, is that all? We think not. However, it would be a good first step towards making the city a bit less hostile to the entrepreneurship it desperately needs now that Wall Street is no longer the robust piñata that it once was.

And while we're at it, did you notice that in the five borough economic hoax that Mike Bloomberg is purveying in his third term coronation effort, there is no mention of lowering taxes or reducing the regulatory burden? Or anything substantive, for that matter-something that City Hall highlights: "The Bloomberg administration says the plan in its current form was developed as a response to the collapse of the financial markets and the economic downturn last year. But for all the promotion, there is no plan per se, and certainly not one as comprehensive as the graph- and chart-heavy 127-initiative PlaNYC. Instead, according to the administration, the five-borough plan is a vague, overarching system that includes all the economic development policies started or about to be started."

And, as we have also pointed out, there's a bit of Yogi Berra's déjà vu all over again here: "If New Yorkers thought the phrase rang a few bells, they were right. During the 2001 mayoral campaign, a much darker-haired Bloomberg appeared in several television ads talking about a “five-borough plan” to help New York rebuild and recover from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Four years later in the 2005 campaign, there was another election and another ad touting the five-borough plan."

Freddy Ferrar captures the same old, same old quality here; and, if so, where's the resonance to keeping the same guy in office for another term? "Ferrer added that the fact that Bloomberg has been pushing his plan for the past eight years undercuts his central argument for extending term limits and running for re-election: that he is the only one who can steer the city through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."

City Hall also questions the middle class mantra-underscoring how taxes are hurting these folks: "But some critics say Bloomberg’s policies are hurting the middle class. They point to the fact that property taxes have gone up 18 percent since the mayor took office, and to his proposal to raise the sales tax by half a percentage point to balance the budget. These are not the policies of a mayor who understands the middle class, they say."

And who might one of these critics be? “I call it ‘The Five-Borough Bunko Plan,’” said Richard Lipsky, lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Association, who successfully blocked efforts to build big-box stores like Wall-Mart in New York. He added: “Purely smoke and mirrors.”

So we have a reasonable call for lowering the property tax burden on local business juxtaposed to an economic plan that pointedly ignores the way in which taxes and over regulation strangles business growth. But the acolytes and toadies continue to shill for the Indispensable One. We'll give one the last word-but make sure this is subject to a saliva test, along with the proverbial grain of salt:

"Bloomberg supporters say the “plan” should be viewed as an umbrella term for all the mayor’s efforts to spur economic growth in the city over his time in office so far, with the addition of some new proposals to respond to the current crisis.“It’s really a summary of various initiatives that the city is undertaking to continue and expand on policies that have been put in place by the Bloomberg administration to diversify our economy, to expand our focus on entrepreneurial sectors and small business growth and development,” said Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City."

Contrasting Carts

Andrew Wolf sent us a little note about the now ignored green carts situation: "Passed this green cart near Montefiore Hospital today. Next to it a cart selling junk food. Hot dogs, chips, coke, etc. No customers at the green cart. Land office business for junk food." This is no surprise to us, since we told the city last year that its "field of schemes" peddler plan was not a great idea; and the results-not really reported with any thoroughness-bears us out.

For those of you with good memories because you do eat your veggies, the controversy last year over placing vegetable peddlers on the streets of neighborhoods where, according to the outgoing guru of good eating-Mother Tom Frieden-folks weren't getting their fruits and vegetables, was a major policy battle. The follow up?-not so much.

We now need the press-this is an election year, is it not?-to reexamine the issue because we believe it will demonstrate that the Bloomberg Nanny meddling is not only intrusive, but it wastes the tax payers money at the same time (another example of the less than frugal manager). And if we are debating a supermarket initiative that is premised on the lack of fresh produce in certain neighborhoods, than the revisiting of Frieden's fiasco is well worth the effort.

Home Sweet Home

We agree with the NY Daily News that housing the homeless in so-called luxury digs is nuts: "The shelter-shock triggered by housing homeless families in a luxury Brooklyn condo reveals nothing so much as the gargantuan lengths the city goes to in providing shelter to the dispossessed.It also shows why the city must have the authority to turn people away from shelter who are not truly homeless, as well as the power to force those in the system to get out and into their own apartments."

What the News fails to say, however, so consumed as they are with constantly editorializing against the excesses of municipal labor, is that the homeless provider system is simply another example of how New York government provides certain services that are too expensive and costly to the over burdened city tax payers: "Day in, day out, families turn to New York's $750 million-a-year shelter system. Many are in dire straits, but many see the chance of getting better living conditions by claiming homelessness. And what could be better than temporary digs in a building with marble bathrooms and walk-in closets? Designed to sell for $350,000 each before the economic meltdown, the units went begging. So the owner took in the homeless for the standard rate of $90 a night."

This is similar to the costly unwed mother housing, a $433 million a year bonanza that the city so nicely makes available to new young mothers looking to get out of the house and into nicer apartments of their own. As Heather McDonald pointed out last year: "To put that $433 million in perspective, it's nearly a third of the $1.5 billion in spending cuts that Bloomberg proposed last week and almost twice as much as the cost of the $400 dollar property-tax rebate that the mayor wants to eliminate. That property-tax rebate - costing $256 million annually - helps hundreds of thousands of hard-working New Yorkers. The $433 million for the "homeless" family-housing program goes to a mere 8,800 families, or .34 percent of the city population. On average, those 8,800 families cost taxpayers $31,000 annually per family"

And Bloomberg (the man who claims that we need his expertise in the midst of the current economic downturn) fights the city council over the homeowner rebate plan, with a tenacity that purports to represent fiscal discipline, but remains silent when it comes to these kinds of housing boondoggles that force more money from the beleaguered taxpayers-further evidence that his almost eight year tenure is one of a series of missed opportunities to trim the size and cost of New York's government.

So we applaud the News for pointing this particular government nuttiness out; but the obvious elephant in the room is left unnoticed by the sharp minds over on 33rd Street-the fact that it is their champion, the undisputed indispensable man, that continues to allow these kinds of outrageous municipal services to spawn and grow under his watch. No innovation from the mayor that would help save tax payers money. We've been waiting eight years for even a tiny whiff of this but, alas, the sign over at City Hall now reads: Big Government Business as Usual.

Unredeemable

The state's effort to collect unredeemed nickle deposits has hit the skids-thanks to the intervention of Judge Griesa: "The law would allow the state to begin collecting 80 percent of unclaimed deposits on all beverages that require deposits, including water. Bottlers have been keeping that money. The state budget assumed $115 million in revenue for the year, including $29 million from water, during the 2009-10 fiscal year."

But in spite of this reprieve, some deposit originators have decided to begin charging a "recycling tax" for all of the potentially lost nickels that the state had planned to grab-even through the law may not go into effect until next April. One large beer franchise, Manhattan Beer, is looking to up charge its customers 6 cents a container under the guise that this new fee would be devoted to picking up the cost of recycling.

The implication here, lacking in any degree of veracity, is that the unclaimed deposits were being used to defray the cost of the company's redemption system. The truth? At the inception of the deposit law, Manhattan Beer, along with all of the other beer franchises, raised the price of a case of beer by about $3 a case! The rationale? To pay for the cost of redemption.

In the interim 27 years, the Manhattan Beers of the world have pocketed hundreds of millions of a windfall profit in unredeemed cans and bottles. Yet now, having pocketed the cash and gouged New York's consumers, they have the temerity to tack on a fee so that the beer drinkers of the state pay the unredeemed nickels that the company's will lose-and do so upfront!

This is the same beer company that has been able to cadge millions in tax subsidies from NYC to build a Bronx warehouse that it would have, even absent the public money, built anyway. Which is why we believe that the NYS Attorney General should look into this latest beer increase-an indication of monopolistic behavior from an industry that lacks any real price competition because of its consolidation.

Still, even for Manhattan Beer, this latest move is outrageous. To charge beer drinkers an extra tax-as the state has done-in order to help balance the books, is one thing; to do do so in order to maintain a windfall profit is quite a different thing altogether.

Five Borough Plan?

There's an interesting story that ran on NY1 yesterday about a vacant shopping center in Queens: "Empty storefronts are becoming common in the current recession, but one Queens shopping center has had vacant stores for years and no sign of new tenants..."Before it was like 42nd Street around here, very busy," said local Olga Hill. Now residents call the center a ghost town, after more than a dozen stores closed in recent years with no other businesses taking their place."

This is the underlying reality behind the Mike Bloomberg misdirection on how he's going to revive the city's economy that cratered-particularly in the neighborhoods of the five boroughs-under his less than watchful eye. The reality? The mayor's tax and regulatory policies have exacerbated the problems of small business-and his current plans simply are palliatives that don't address the essence of the severity of the economic issues he himself has helped to create.

This relentless campaign barrage should be the next agenda item for a newly invigorated press corp. They will find, if they simply take the time to take a close look, that the Bloomberg five boro plan resembles the love instrument of the Master of the House in Les Miz:

"Cunning little brain, regular Voltaire,
Thinks he's quite a lover but there's not much there."

Stepping Up to the Mike

A funny thing appears to be happening on the way to the expected coronation of Mike Bloomberg this fall. The local media has apparently decided to challenge the peevish mayor on his haughty testiness, and not let him get away with deciding the terms of the city's political debate. Azi Paybarah, the reporter whose incisive question of His Holiness started this process, has an interesting take on what's happening:

"Over the past several days, Michael Bloomberg announced certain meaningful things.On May 28, it was that the city had received an additional $32 million from the federal government for job training. Later that day, it was that the state had picked up on the city's call for tighter gun control laws. On June 1, it was an endorsement from Representative Gary Ackerman, a Democrat. But the press wasn’t listening. Instead of receiving the news that the mayor intended for them to receive, members of the news-consuming public were treated to story after story about the mayor’s relationship with the press, the mayor’s controlling attitude, the mayor’s emotional stability."

What we are beginning to see, and this is indeed a hopeful sign that the lapdog is poised to emerge as the watchdog that the people so desperately need, is the deconstruction of the Bloomberg haughtiness: "The New York Times’ lead after the mayor announced the stimulus money: “He is the undisputed front-runner in November’s election. He is the richest man in the city. So why does Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg keep losing his temper?”

The media's new assertiveness came out after the Azi "disgrace" meltdown, but it was brewing for some time: "This might not have been a big deal if the press weren’t already seething about the mayor’s extraordinary unwillingness to answer questions he deemed political. Or if his brusque response hadn’t played so precisely to type. Or if his record-setting campaign spending hadn’t effectively ended the mayor’s race before it began, leaving reporters without any substantive debate to cover."

There is an angry undercurrent here from the fact that Mike Bloomberg has used money and power to bogart the democratic process-and, importantly, trivialize the local press as simple handmaidens of his own out sized ambition. And then there's the mayor's out of touch side, the one that underscores just how far Mike Bloomberg is from understanding the everyday concerns of New Yorkers. This was revealed when the mayor defended the president's visit to the city last weekend.

As Jim Dwyer pointed out: "As of Tuesday, the record for craziest remark of the week was surely held by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who announced that a weekend visit to New York by the first lady and the president showed that even people of modest means can enjoy a night of dinner and theater." Whatever one feels about the president's visit, surely someone who the people pay $400,000 a year-along with a decent expense budget-and who has made millions on two bestselling books, is not considered a modest wage earner by average folks.

What this indicates to us, is that the media is about to embark on some serious deconstruction of the mayor's carefully crafted-and thoroughly phony-political image. From now on nothing that the mayor-and his campaign-says will be taken without examination and dissection; all of which should be to the benefit of the people.

After all, Mike Bloomberg has used his considerable resources to change the electoral playing field to his advantage; and has done so by claiming that these are extraordinary times that demand political continuity and tested leadership, So, if that's the case, he should be continually tested, and his policy pronouncements and campaign bromides should be continually assayed for content and veracity. He wanted this third term, now it's up to the press to help usher in a new era of accountability for the erstwhile prince of the city.

"Eeny, meeny, miny, mike",

As Mike Bloomberg begins to describe NYC's economic turn around-undermining the rationale for his reelection bid-there is an undeniable move for the exit among all potential mayoral challengers. The movement is generated by the simple fact of gravity; with the playing field so badly tilted by the mayor's cash outlays, opponents are being hurtled down the political shaft and out the electoral door-with only the seemingly unaware Bill Thompson left to take the proverbial bullet. It's quite a sight to behold, but as they say in New York: "Money talks!"

This sad situation-one that will likely extinguish the potential for the lively debate over the city's direction that New York voters need-is well described in a Sam Roberts elegy for democracy this morning in the New York Times: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said last October that extending the city’s term limits law would provide voters with more choices. “I’m pleased the majority of the City Council voted to give the public a bigger choice, more people to select from,” Mr. Bloomberg said after the Council voted to amend the law, allowing him and other city elected officials to serve three four-year terms. “Anyone who wanted to run before can continue to run. I plan to run.” But the way this year’s mayoral race is shaping up, New York City voters may have fewer candidates to choose from than at any time since the modern nominating system began nearly a half century ago."

The provision of choice in politics, it turns out, is a variable that is determined when reasonable folks assay the existence of opportunity; and in the case of NYC, the willingness of the city's richest man to utilize an economic blitzkrieg intimidates almost anyone with the slightest degree of discretion; even the feisty Anthony Weiner: "Last week, Representative Anthony D. Weiner formally bowed out too, blaming, in part, the $80 million or more Mr. Bloomberg is expected to spend on his campaign. “With spending like that,” Mr. Weiner said, “regular debates about real issues will probably take a back seat to advertising.”

And it already has. You can't even watch a simple baseball or basketball game in May or June without being told about Mike Bloomberg's five borough economic plan that is designed to create jobs-along with some needed succor for the down and out small businesses-that will help the city recover from the recession that has, coincidentally under Blommberg's watch, caused a significant loss of employment.

Now in any normal electoral equation, the incumbent-no matter how much he or she may be culpable-is made to be the poster child of the bad news that is integral to the current events scene. The ability to do so, however, is contingent on the existence of a concomitant ability to get one's message out; something that is expunged by a Bloombucks advertising express that is looking to convince New Yorkers that the mayor, who was simply a helpless bystander to the economic collapse, is nonetheless the white knight that will dramatically and gallantly lift us from the doldrums.

So Bloomberg, as is his wont, is characterizing the creation of less choice as its opposite: "When Mr. Bloomberg was arguing to extend the limits to three terms from two, he argued in part that the legislation would give voters more choices — at least one more — rather than necessarily more challengers. “Nobody is taking away anybody’s opportunities, just giving the public another one,” he said before the Council voted on revising the term limits law...“Nobody has taken away anybody’s rights to run,” he added. “In fact, we have increased the pool from which candidates can come. If people decide not to run, that’s their option. You can’t force people to run.”

So what we have left here is what's known as a walkover, a contest where there is no contest and the one real contender becomes a shoo-in. And the end result, is that there will be no dialogue-not when the incumbent has a giant megaphone and editorial butt buddies to go with it; while the putative challenger has what amounts to a bad case of political laryngitis, with the disparity of funds rendering him just about mute.

Because, as McCluhan once said, "the medium is the message," and with Bloomberg's control of the medium, there simply is no alternative message. Which is too bad, since the mayor's tenure has not been the kind of triumphal resume that the ad men would like us all to believe-which Fred Siegal aptly lays out in the May edition of Commentary.

In particular, if you follow Siegal's analysis, we can see how the Bloomberg philosophy and governance style are major contributing factors to the crisis the city now faces: "During Michael Bloomberg's first six years as mayor (2002-07), city spending shot up almost 50 percent, from $41 to $62 billion. The overall budget in fiscal 2008, after adjusting for population change and inflation, was 22 percent larger than it had been at the height of the 1970s fiscal crisis. Salaries and benefits for the public-sector workforce grew at twice the rate of workers in the private sector. The average New York City employee cost the city $107,000 a year in wages, health insurance, pension, and other benefits in the 2008 fiscal year, an increase of 63 percent since 2000."

Very similar to that other faux Republican, California Governor Schwarzenegger. The only thing that saved the city, Wall Street's-and Mother Bloomberg's-cash cow, has now been lost in the economic fire. And it was Bloomberg himself who lit the match:

"Even in the midst of an unprecedented revenue boom, it turned out, Bloomberg was saddling the city with unprecedented levels of debt. Devoting 8 percent of a city budget to debt service is the maximum considered sustainable by fiscal experts. The constitution of New York State actually limits the city's debt service to 10 percent of its revenue. But through a variety of budgetary games, the city managed to increase its functional debt load to 14 percent. Now, with the distinct possibility that the Wall Street spigot will for years to come more resemble a trickle than a gush, the city will be contending with the impoverishment of its tax base just as the public-sector guarantees its politicians have made are bearing down upon New York like a tsunami. "The city's payments to the pension plans have grown at 25 percent annually since fiscal year 2001," Martin Davis of the city's Independent Budget Office has said. In 2000, city taxpayers contributed $615 million for pensions. By June 2008, the amount had climbed to $5.6 billion."

And Bloomberg has done almost nothing to trim this government edifice, while simultaneously taxing small businesses right out of the neighborhood-yes, in all five boroughs. We will, however, hear none of this because, as a result of the mayor's self serving disregard for discretion in political spending, NYC will be home, home, on the range; "Where Seldom is Heard a Discouraging Word,..." And the skies are all Bloomberg all day.

Journal Muses on Stymied Bottle Bill

In yesterday's Journal News, the paper editorially laments about the delay in implementing the expanded bottle bill: "It's not sunk, but the New York bill to require nickel deposits on water bottles is awash in political bile, industry self-interest and twisted priorities. Gov David Paterson and the Legislature need to fix the bill, which was supposed to become law today."

Well, this isn't the real issue that the paper should be focused on. The fact is that the law was poorly crafted, and as a result, was in violation of basic constitutional principles-something that the JN recognizes, but only in passing at the end of the editorial: "Plaintiffs, including the International Bottled Water Association, found an achilles heel in the law, arguing that labeling requirements in the measure violate the U.S. Constitution because the law seeks to regulate commerce among states - beverage makers and distributors must place a bar code on water bottles prohibiting their sale in other states. Wednesday, a federal judge agreed, issuing a temporary injunction. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Griesa ruled that the plaintiffs did not have enough time to comply with the law, and told the state and bottlers they needed to work out a reasonable time frame for the law to take effect."

And it does so by saying that the judge's ruling, "blurs the issues." But it is the paper itself that has blurry vision; first in its lack of knowledge over how the beverage law actually functions. Here is it's observation on unredeemed deposits: "And despite grumbling by the beverage and grocers industries about the original bill, they benefited from unclaimed deposits in the tens of millions of dollars each year; in 2006 they totaled an estimated $144 million."

Not exactly true. The grocery stores do not benefit from any of the unredeemed deposits-only those bottlers and beer wholesalers who initiate the deposits do. And the Journal News also misconstrues the facts about the handling fees: "And this year's bill did something else: It would send unclaimed deposits to the state, which faces a multi billion-dollar deficit, and use some of the revenue for environmental protection. To make the bottlers and distributors a little happier, it also increased the handling fee that they pay retailers and redemption centers from 2 cents per container to 3.5 cents."

Well, not true again. The bottlers are vehemently opposed to the increased handling fees-because they must pay them! That's why they've been lobbying the governor to decrease these levies, ones that they see as taxes on beverage consumers.

So, the Journal News is pontificating here without a sound factual foundation. The law came crashing down because of the flawed process that more or less excluded the same lobbyists that the paper excoriates. Any new bill will need to be cognizant of not only industry interests, but those of consumers as well; not to mention basic constitutional precepts.

From Wine Cellar to Wine Sellers

In this morning's NY Post, Assemblyman Joe Morelle lays out the case for allowing wine to be sold in grocery stores-while at the same time addressing some of the concerns raised by liquor stores over the new competition: "I believe a compromise is possible that preserves the health of liquor stores while permitting wine sales in supermarkets, and so last week I submitted legislation with 27 Assembly co-sponsors that I hope will renew this discussion and move us toward a mutually acceptable solution,"

And what does this new bill do? It gets liquor stores out from outdated rules that cripple their ability to be entrepreneurs: "In addition to putting wine in grocery venues, my bill would:

* Allow liquor-store entrepreneurs to own and operate multiple outlets, and provide limits for the total number of liquor-sale outlets in the state.

* Pave the way for smaller liquor stores to enter into cooperative-buying agreements, in order to achieve purchasing power commensurate with larger liquor and grocery stores.

* Free liquor stores to explore other economic opportunities through the sale of additional products related to alcohol consumption.

* Permit liquor stores to lengthen their business day.

* Grant liquor stores the ability to sell directly to small grocers, bars and restaurants (businesses with less than 1,000 square feet)."

In other words, the Morelle bill would amount to a complete overhaul of the liquor store business model, while, at the same time, putting cash in the depleted state treasury; it would also provide badly needed relief to the New York grape growers and wineries: "This plan would have added revenues to the state's coffers and created as many as 2,000 new jobs at a time of fiscal crisis and widespread layoffs. And New York's grape and wine producers, who are among the finest in the world but who have access to far too few sales outlets, would have received a significant boost."

The state has already lost over $100 million when Judge Griesa canned the bottle law expansion. With June tax revenue figures expected to be dismal, the wine fees would be welcome relief. All of which adds up to a piece of legislation that would be a winner for all impacted parties.

Same Old Tricks

The Related Company knows all about timing. As the NY Daily News reports today, local Community Board #7 is riled about the certification of the Kingsbridge Armory project that forces the local board to hold an emergency meeting in the summer: "Community Board 7 now has until July 27, under the Uniform Land Use Review Process, to vote on the $310 million proposal from The Related Cos. "We had initially asked that the ULURP certification be delayed," said Gregory Faulkner, chairman of Board 7, which, like all community boards, normally goes on hiatus in the summer. Faulkner expects to hold an emergency meeting of the full board in July after a public hearing he hopes to schedule for the end of June."

For its part Related acts as if this is all just a coincidence: "Related Cos. lawyer Jesse Masyr denied timing the start of the process with the board's hiatus as a way to limit its input, saying that the complexity of the multiagency process makes the timing impossible to game." Yet we know that the mayor's people wanted to make sure that the development would be fully reviewed and disposed of before the end of the calendar year-insuring that the current council had the final say over the matter. This reflects their close relationship with the current speaker, Chris Quinn, whose tenure ends at the end of this term, and is subject to a new vote of the council next January.

All of which makes the comments of Related's lawyer, well, shall we say disingenuous. As the News points out: "Masyr gave the same reasoning several years ago when the land-use process for another massive Related project, the Gateway Center mall, started just as Community Board 4 began its summer hiatus in 2005." The reality is, that the certification of any application, and moreover its timing, is fully discretionary. Anything said that implies simple chance is sheer nonsense. So as far as we're concerned, par for the course for Related.

So, Related starts this process with a number of questions-and the timing is only a relatively minor one indeed. The reliability of its EIS data is is on severely shaky ground; not to mention the fact that Related has the habit of replying falsely to the city's requests for proposals-saying one thing, but actually proposing to do something quite different when the actual development is crafted. In the application to develop the Armory, for instance, there was no mention of a 60,000 sq. ft. supermarket that now appears to be a centerpiece to the company's plan. This kind of bait and switch is a staple of consumer fraud bureau's all over the country.

And the supermarket will be a centerpiece of this dispute-much as Wal-Mart was in Vornado's development in Rego Park. The developer there was forced to jettison the Walmonster if it wanted to see overall success for the entire project. We anticipate a similar fate for the "neighborhood supermarket" at the Armory. Any development that is so heavily subsidized should not be a vehicle for the demise of hard working local businesses that have never gotten a dime from the city: "Board 7's Land Use Committee will discuss Related's proposal at its meeting tomorrow night, and one point of contention is likely to be plans for a 60,000-square-foot supermarket mentioned in Related's draft environmental impact statement. The owners of a Morton Williams supermarket just across the street say a supermarket at the Armory would be unfair competition subsidized by taxpayers."

And so, we enter this fight aware that the proffered words of the developer need to be taken with more than just a grain of salt. Any and all agreements must be made contractually binding. And the end result here must adhere to the principles that, KARA. the local community coalition, has laid out: no supermarket, and good living wage jobs that don't undermine the wage scales of contiguous union employers. This is going to be one big battle for the small businesses and workers of the Bronx!

"Sugar, Sugar"

The expanded bottle law, sidetracked by an injunction last week, may be getting a little sweeter. Part of the legal challenge, one that was bolstered by the presence of environmentalist RFK on the lawsuit, was that it was inequitable to put a deposit on bottled water but leave the sugared water out.

So, as the song says:

"Sugar, pour a little sugar on it, honey
Pour a little sugar on it, baby
I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah yeah yeah!
Pour a little sugar on it oh, yeah!"

At least it will, if yesterday's story in the NY Post is correct. The paper reports that prime bottle bill supporter, Senator Antoine Thompson is planning on adding the sugared waters to a revised bill: "The lawmaker also allowed that "we are rewriting the bottle bill to include Vitamin Water and all other waters with sugar in them. Nobody will be left out," he said. The bottle bill has faced stiff legal opposition from bottled-water manufacturers who claim the expense of changing packaging to comply with the law placed them at a disadvantage in the market. Following a court ruling in Manhattan on Friday, the new bill -- with Vitamin Water included -- looks set to go into effect next April 1."

Well, good luck Antoine-and get in line. The canning of the original bill will, in all likelihood, generate a feeding frenzy of clashing interests. And what emerges from all of this is any one's guess. But one thing is for sure-the bill will be sugar for these who represent the various impacted interests; a lobbyist full employment act if there was ever one. Which brings us back to the song referred to earlier. But, in this case, the "Candy Girl" is the expanded bottle law itself.

What's Not on the Menu: Good Sense

Governor Paterson, whose plunging poll numbers threaten to soon reach negative-buy a vowel-territory, is looking to boost his popularity by imitating the fool's errand of "Dr. Meddlesome" Frieden on menu labeling. The City Journal has an incisive article on the good doctor-and why the idea of calorie counting should be shelved:

"Frieden favors small, paternalistic measures, and for cash-strapped cities like New York, such measures seem like an inexpensive way to fight the war on obesity. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that they work. Consider the calorie listings at restaurants. In a study of more than 4,000 people published in The American Journal of Public Health, just 0.1 percent of the subjects actually looked at the calorie counts before deciding what to eat. Does anyone order a chocolate shake at McDonald’s and assume that it’s healthful? Undaunted by the results, researchers suggested that perhaps the signage needed to be larger.

It's always that way; undaunted by the failure of their efforts to force healthier eating, the nanny staters simply-kind of like the over eaters-come back to order more of the same: bigger and better in this case, The failure isn't in the concept itself, but in its implementation which always could use more amplification.

According to another public health researcher, doing sensitivity analysis of possible outcomes of menu labeling (Similar to game theory, and lacking in actual data collection): "In addition, simulations of a range of scenarios, suggest that the impact on population weight gain could be greatly enhanced if community education efforts, pricing incentives or other strategies were undertaken to increase the degree to which restaurant patrons use the posted information to select reduced calorie meals."

But, of course, more is needed because there's no evidence that this stuff will have a scintilla of impact-and, as the cited researcher suggests, it's more than likely that those who need the information least-the less weighty-will access the information, while the heavier patrons will not.
But that won't stop those, like the governor, who want to posture as the advance army in the war on obesity.

Which is why a Paterson program bill-A8506-is now circulating in the legislature. David is trying to fatten up his poll numbers by hectoring New Yorkers to lose their heft. It wasn't a good idea when Meddlesome put it forward on behalf of Dr. Bloomberg, and it's not gotten any better on implementation and review in NYC. If Paterson wants us to be healthier there are better ways to go about this, Menu labeling is an idea that is a waste of government effort and an undue burden on the businesses of New York.

Fallacies in "Going to Market"

In the recently certified city planning proposal that would incentivize the building of new supermarkets in "underserved" areas, the stated rationale was that these areas were lacking in a requisite number of food markets and, as a result, these neighborhoods were also lacking access to healthier products such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Therefore, the argument goes, we need to find ways to attract new markets into the underserved communities.

The rationale is pretty clear: "Three quarters of a million New Yorkers within high need neighborhoods do not have supermarkets within a comfortable walking distance (5 city blocks), making food shopping particularly problematic for households with no car. Low income households may be further adversely affected without competitively-priced fresh food available at the neighborhood level. The consequences include more time and money being budgeted for grocery shopping."

But what is missing, and we have been highlighting this deficiency for a while, is the acknowledgement that the absence of needed supermarkets in certain neighborhoods has been a result of the disappearance of existing stores from the areas in question. Examining the reasons for the egress of supermarkets, and evaluating policies that would counteract this trend, is noticeably missing from the DCP study and zoning proposal.

This is, as the Marxists might say, no accident. Because, to evaluate this aspect of the policy equation would force the Bloomberg administration to take a look at how some of their own policies-to the extent that they greatly increase the cost of doing business in the city-are a major contributing factor in the creation of the supermarket gap.

Which brings us to another important deficiency of the current supermarket policy proposal: the extent to which incentivizing new stores will exacerbate the loss of existing markets through the creation of an unlevel playing field-whereby new markets would be lavishly subsidized, while the older markets would be forced to do business without any public support.

This situation is worsened because the DCP analysis of underserved areas isn't a finely tuned instrument. The potential for cannibalizing existing stores by siting newcomers in the parts of the targeted districts that do have a decent complement of markets. Which brings us to the case of the development of the Kingsbridge Armory.

As we have already pointed out, the Related Company has examined the feasibility of putting a new 60,000 sq. ft. supermarket in the new development-a store that would be three times larger than its nearest competitor, and ten times bigger that most of the 20 or so other supermarkets that do business in this allegedly underserved neighborhood. Related, however, knows a good argument when it hits it right in the gob.

So the mega developer argues in its EIS, cribbing the rationale underlying the DCP report, that the area is insufficiently blessed by existing markets-and since it is so seriously "understored," the new market-one that is labeled incongruously a, "neighborhood supermarket," would not negatively impact the other 20 or so competitors in the trade area.

This is not an argument that could withstand even the most benignly independent analysis; not when you consider that the new market could gross up to $1,000,000 a week in sales. Certainly, not all of this business would be simply diverted from the efflux of shoppers to Westchester!

Which is why this project is going to be a major political battle, as Crain's pointed out last week: "The owners of Morton Williams Supermarkets are crying foul over a plan submitted to city officials by Related Cos. to open a 60,000-square-foot supermarket in the Northwest Bronx, right across the street from one of their grocery stores and a block away from another...Morton Williams, which owns 11 stores in the city, says it will be forced to close the two Bronx stores if Related is allowed to go forward with its plan. One of the stores also serves as Morton Williams’ headquarters, where it hires most of its 750-plus workers, the majority of whom live in the Bronx."

And co-owner Avi Kaner hits right at the central issue of subsidies: "“It’s hypocritical of the city to offer tax breaks to developers to expel supermarkets that have been in the city for decades,” said Avi Kaner, co-owner of Morton Williams. Related is expected to receive $13 million in tax breaks to build the $323 million shopping center."

So it's not only the Armory fight that's important by itself. It's also the flaws in the city's supermarket development plan that this fight illuminates in rather sharp detail. We need a policy that nurtures existing stores. The defeat of a supermarket for the Kingsbridge Armory is a necessary first step toward the development of a truly comprehensive supermarket retention and development policy for New York City.