If nothing productive is done soon, New Yorkers-now faced with a new $2.1 billion deficit-will soon be singing, "California Here I Come." As City Room reports: "The four-month-old state budget will face a $2.1 billion budget gap by the end of the fiscal year next March, the Paterson administration announced on Thursday, setting the stage for what will likely be a grueling special session of the Legislature in September as lawmakers debate what programs to cut."
And, as the NY Daily News editorializes, taxing the wealthy, with its been there, done that quality, is no longer an option: "Nor can the Legislature conceivably tax its way out of the hole. As Paterson said in a recent meeting with the Daily News Editorial Board: "The one thing that I feel about the personal income tax now is, now it's off the table . . . Every time you try to tell some of the groups that you're going to have to make cuts, their response was, well, you have to tax the rich. Well, you know what? We've done that. There's no further you could ever go in that process."
All this means is that real cutting is gonna need to be done: "So, the day has arrived for historic spending reductions that bring the state's revenues and costs into balance and bring both into line with the taxpayers' tapped-out ability to pay. The governor must challenge the Legislature to address New York's long-term needs rather than to craft short-term fixes bound to fail. He must think big and deliver big."
But, what about the possibility of new revenue? When the legislature returns in September, the issue of wine in grocery stores will have to be put squarely on the table since it is a $100 million or more revenue stream from fees that will not pickpocket tax payers. A no brainer? Not if your the Last Mope that's standing on Main Street-the phony coalition created by liquor stores that are expiring before our very eyes-unable and unwilling to adapt to modern economic realities.
So the Governor, who sponsored the money producing bill in the first place, must demonstrate real leadership-and insist that this revenue source be tapped; along with the budget cutting that appears to be all bu inevitable with the revenue losses concomitant with the hemorrhaging of jobs that New York has experienced: "All told, New York has lost 236,000 jobs since the official start of the recession last August, with further job losses expected through 2010. The state unemployment rate is now projected to peak at 9.1 percent in the first quarter of 2010."
And while the Albany leaders are at it, why not try to tap the uncollected Indian cigarette tax revenues that have been left on the table because of the timidity of the governor. As the NY Post editorialized last winter: "Who knew the special interests opposing Gov. Paterson's budget cuts had it so easy? All they need to do to stop the gov dead in his tracks is . . . threaten to sue. That, at least, is the message Paterson is sending with his latest punt over the scandalous flow of illicit cigarettes from New York's Indian reservations - a trade that's costing New York hundreds of millions in lost tax dollars."
So some tough choices lie ahead. But if Paterson really wants to demonstrate leadership in order to salvage any chance of retaining his seat, he must begin to, well, lead. Getting the wine issue across the finish line, and going after Indian scofflaws would be a step in the right direction.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Appelbaum to Bloomberg: "Make My Day!"
Well, at least there is someone out there in the political world of NYC who isn't intimidated by Bloombucks. As Daily Politics reports: "RWDSU President Stuart Appelbaum took on the attack dog role for Comptroller Bill Thompson today, picking up on some of the Democratic mayoral hopeful's main themes by slamming Mayor Bloomberg for his big spending ways and association with the GOP. "I think it's just amazing that all the money that has been spent in this race by the other candidate, the Republican, and the Republican has put in - Republican Mike Bloomberg has put in - tens of millions of dollars into this race, and the more money he puts in, the more, the worse he seems to do among the voters," Appelbaum said at a City Hall press conference where his union officially endorsed Thompson. "And I guess my message to the other side is: 'Spend it all! New York City can use the money!' But at the end of the day, Bill Thompson is going to be mayor."
But there is something to be said for Appelbaum's take on the Bloomberg spending. The other night on NY1 Curtis Sliwa-generally a supporter of the mayor-threw up his hands at the incessant commercial badgering coming out of Bloomberg's re-election camp. "Enough already," he cried. Thompson could certainly use Appelbaum's feistiness-and there's still the possibility that the public will begin to echo Sliwa's lament.
Even with all of the mayor's spending, the poll numbers are really soft. The opportunity is there for Thompson; now let's see if he can take advantage of the opening.
But there is something to be said for Appelbaum's take on the Bloomberg spending. The other night on NY1 Curtis Sliwa-generally a supporter of the mayor-threw up his hands at the incessant commercial badgering coming out of Bloomberg's re-election camp. "Enough already," he cried. Thompson could certainly use Appelbaum's feistiness-and there's still the possibility that the public will begin to echo Sliwa's lament.
Even with all of the mayor's spending, the poll numbers are really soft. The opportunity is there for Thompson; now let's see if he can take advantage of the opening.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Usual Suspects
It's really unsurprising that Mike Bloomberg would select a Wall Streeter-even a failed one-to be his new finance commissioner. When it comes to finding talent, the mayor is really a one trick pony. As City Room reports: "He is a casualty of Wall Street’s implosion: a managing director at the brokerage house Morgan Stanley forced out six months ago after the company merged with its ailing rival Citigroup. Now, David M. Frankel will be in charge of the New York City agency responsible for collecting taxes from those companies."
Now, to his credit and the mayor's as well, Frankel actually has some prior experience in government under the Koch administration. But the appointment underscores Bloomberg's narrow world views-and serves to further highlight the extent to which this view hasn't served the city.
The hard truth is that the Bloombergistas have no one on their team with any feel for, or real knowledge of, the reality of small neighborhood businesses. The folks at EDC live in a development laden cocoon-where huge real estate projects get the juices flowing and nurturing smaller existing firms lacks any career boosting glamour. Making a bad situation that much worse, is the role of Rob Walsh, the city's small business commissioner.
Over the span of seven years, Walsh has earned the enmity of scores of small business groups-with many calling for his resignation. Walsh, though, simply represents the mayor, and it is Mike Bloomberg who is tone deaf when it comes to the policies that are necessary to grow the city's neighborhood retail sector. That is why, we are facing the city's biggest economic crisis in decades-with vacant store fronts littering the shopping strips of every borough.
But you can't say that the Bloombergistas don't know how to appear-rather than to be-good. Here's how good they posture: "Twelve Organizations and Individuals are Honored for their Work to Revitalize New York City's Communities. Helping Neighborhoods Become More Inviting to Business and Residents is Part of the Bloomberg Administration's Five Borough Economic Opportunity Plan. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Small Business Services Commissioner Robert W. Walsh today presented the 2009 New York City Neighborhood Achievement Awards to 12 recipients in all five boroughs. Established in 2002, the awards honor organizations, businesses and individuals that have demonstrated excellence in enhancing New York City neighborhoods by fostering economic opportunity."
This is the equivalent of the orchestra playing on the Titanic. Giving some plaques out is no substitute for economic policies that nurture and grow the city's neighborhood retail shops. And some of the folks getting the coveted "Bloomy" awards have been successful in spite of, rather than because of what the city has done.
So, in abiding by a policy of greater honesty and transparency in government, Mike Bloomberg should be shaking the hands of the folks at Greene Grape Provisions and Greene Grape Wine Store; Hot Bread Kitchen, Ltd.; Pastosa Ravioli of Staten Island; and El Nuevo Delicoso Restaurant of the South Bronx-and thanking them for their perseverance and tenacity in the face of policies that the mayor himself has enacted to make it harder to succeed in the city's hostile business climate. Their success is a testimony to the drive that so many New Yorkers exhibit-a spirit that even an over burdening government can't stifle completely.
So congrats to our new finance commissioner-another place holder for the plutocrats. If Frankel wants to do some good for the city's small businesses he can find a way to insure that the black market in cigarettes doesn't completely eliminate all of the legitimate retail outlets that sell thew product. If he can do that, we will give him our own award.
Now, to his credit and the mayor's as well, Frankel actually has some prior experience in government under the Koch administration. But the appointment underscores Bloomberg's narrow world views-and serves to further highlight the extent to which this view hasn't served the city.
The hard truth is that the Bloombergistas have no one on their team with any feel for, or real knowledge of, the reality of small neighborhood businesses. The folks at EDC live in a development laden cocoon-where huge real estate projects get the juices flowing and nurturing smaller existing firms lacks any career boosting glamour. Making a bad situation that much worse, is the role of Rob Walsh, the city's small business commissioner.
Over the span of seven years, Walsh has earned the enmity of scores of small business groups-with many calling for his resignation. Walsh, though, simply represents the mayor, and it is Mike Bloomberg who is tone deaf when it comes to the policies that are necessary to grow the city's neighborhood retail sector. That is why, we are facing the city's biggest economic crisis in decades-with vacant store fronts littering the shopping strips of every borough.
But you can't say that the Bloombergistas don't know how to appear-rather than to be-good. Here's how good they posture: "Twelve Organizations and Individuals are Honored for their Work to Revitalize New York City's Communities. Helping Neighborhoods Become More Inviting to Business and Residents is Part of the Bloomberg Administration's Five Borough Economic Opportunity Plan. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Small Business Services Commissioner Robert W. Walsh today presented the 2009 New York City Neighborhood Achievement Awards to 12 recipients in all five boroughs. Established in 2002, the awards honor organizations, businesses and individuals that have demonstrated excellence in enhancing New York City neighborhoods by fostering economic opportunity."
This is the equivalent of the orchestra playing on the Titanic. Giving some plaques out is no substitute for economic policies that nurture and grow the city's neighborhood retail shops. And some of the folks getting the coveted "Bloomy" awards have been successful in spite of, rather than because of what the city has done.
So, in abiding by a policy of greater honesty and transparency in government, Mike Bloomberg should be shaking the hands of the folks at Greene Grape Provisions and Greene Grape Wine Store; Hot Bread Kitchen, Ltd.; Pastosa Ravioli of Staten Island; and El Nuevo Delicoso Restaurant of the South Bronx-and thanking them for their perseverance and tenacity in the face of policies that the mayor himself has enacted to make it harder to succeed in the city's hostile business climate. Their success is a testimony to the drive that so many New Yorkers exhibit-a spirit that even an over burdening government can't stifle completely.
So congrats to our new finance commissioner-another place holder for the plutocrats. If Frankel wants to do some good for the city's small businesses he can find a way to insure that the black market in cigarettes doesn't completely eliminate all of the legitimate retail outlets that sell thew product. If he can do that, we will give him our own award.
NY Post Gets Randi
If you wait long enough you just might get to see everything-like the NY Post praising a union leader. And in this morning's paper the shout out is to the UFT's Randi Weingarten: "Heaven knows we've had our differences with Weingarten -- who'll now devote her energies to heading the UFT's parent union, the American Federation of Teachers -- but we wish her well. For she's been an effective champion for her 228,000 members -- while remaining mindful of her obligations to the larger community."
Now, what obligations could the Post be referring to? Here's a hint. It just might have something to do with mayoral control of the schools-an issue that the paper has championed to an extent not seen since, well, the last commercial run by Mike Bloomberg (a couple of minutes ago?): "Her support was critical to passage of the 2002 law that lets City Hall run public schools. And its expected renewal this year would've had no chance had Weingarten seriously opposed it.
To her credit, she didn't. Though her union initially sought changes that would have gutted the law, Weingarten -- in a Post column at a critical moment in the debate -- made it clear that the UFT would accept more modest changes. And thank goodness, too."
The Post does manage a few discouraging words about the union's uber-role in raising the cost of schooling in NYC: "But Randi's top priority has always been her members: Since '98, teacher salaries have soared 58 percent -- and her members enjoy eye-poppingly generous fringe benefits. Accordingly, school spending has more than doubled during her tenure. Yes, the teachers' gains have often come at the expense of kids and taxpayers. But it's also true that Weingarten successfully demanded safer schools -- to everybody's benefit."
Safer schools aren't in the teachers' benefit as well? But you get the paper's drift here. The system may be spending money like there's no tomorrow-and the city's pension crisis can be traced in no small measure to this educational behemoth that Mike and Randi have collaborated on creating-but as long as the UFT played ball on governance, all is forgiven.
And not a single word on how this UFT about face came about. Here's a hint; in a sentence worth repeating: "Though her union initially sought changes that would have gutted the law, Weingarten -- in a Post column at a critical moment in the debate -- made it clear that the UFT would accept more modest changes.""
Let's be very clear. Mayoral control was effected because it was passed in the Assembly in spite of fairly strong opposition from city assembly members. The assembly has been lavishly funded by the UFT-and the union's thumb on the scale of mayoral control would have been its death knell, So, what happened? Put simply, a deal was made between Bloomberg and the union-something that will be revealed, like the proverbial player to be named later, when the teachers' contract is announced.
Anbd it will mean more teachers, better benefits-and, did we forget?-another nail in the city's pension coffin. Around the same time the national school tests will also be released; at which point we will be able to better see the cost/benefit equation of the current school governance regime. The wondrous gains that the Bloomberg/NY Post re-election campaign has been trumpeting may very well be seen-in the context of the exponentially increased spending-as picayune.
But if you really want to see a more honest glimpse of the less than praiseworthy aspects of the UFT's power, that you should go back to yesterday's NY Daily News and read Eva Moskowitz's critique of the union's successful effort to prevent middle class schools from employing teacher's aides: "The United Federation of Teachers has again put its members' interests above those of children by stopping parents from hiring teaching assistants at public schools with large class sizes.The practice takes place at many of our city's best schools. Schools in middle-class neighborhoods get far less funding than schools in poor neighborhoods. For example, upper East Side Public School 290, where my son went, gets $13,374 per child, while Harlem's PS 149 gets $19,834 - a difference of more than $6,000 per child. This disparity, although understandable, results in larger class sizes. Parent fund-raising helps ameliorate the problem. It is truly a win-win situation. The teaching assistants benefit because they are typically aspiring teachers: Working for a year or two at a top school is a great learning opportunity."
Now keeping middle class kids in the system should be seen as a high priority, for so many reasons. But the UFT insists that schools not hire these assistants, but instead hire less educated paras who just happen to be union members. And, so it goes.
What we had over the last six months or more was a mating dance between Randi, Mike Bloomberg and Shelly Silver. The result has been the passage of a mayoral control extension without any of the productive due diligence that we saw from the assembly over an even less crucial issue like congestion pricing.
When the national numbers finally come in, we'll be better able to see what spending about $20,000/pupil has gotten us. Our bet? The UFT and its members, along with a probably re-elected Mike Bloomberg, will have done a lot better than the city's school children.
Now, what obligations could the Post be referring to? Here's a hint. It just might have something to do with mayoral control of the schools-an issue that the paper has championed to an extent not seen since, well, the last commercial run by Mike Bloomberg (a couple of minutes ago?): "Her support was critical to passage of the 2002 law that lets City Hall run public schools. And its expected renewal this year would've had no chance had Weingarten seriously opposed it.
To her credit, she didn't. Though her union initially sought changes that would have gutted the law, Weingarten -- in a Post column at a critical moment in the debate -- made it clear that the UFT would accept more modest changes. And thank goodness, too."
The Post does manage a few discouraging words about the union's uber-role in raising the cost of schooling in NYC: "But Randi's top priority has always been her members: Since '98, teacher salaries have soared 58 percent -- and her members enjoy eye-poppingly generous fringe benefits. Accordingly, school spending has more than doubled during her tenure. Yes, the teachers' gains have often come at the expense of kids and taxpayers. But it's also true that Weingarten successfully demanded safer schools -- to everybody's benefit."
Safer schools aren't in the teachers' benefit as well? But you get the paper's drift here. The system may be spending money like there's no tomorrow-and the city's pension crisis can be traced in no small measure to this educational behemoth that Mike and Randi have collaborated on creating-but as long as the UFT played ball on governance, all is forgiven.
And not a single word on how this UFT about face came about. Here's a hint; in a sentence worth repeating: "Though her union initially sought changes that would have gutted the law, Weingarten -- in a Post column at a critical moment in the debate -- made it clear that the UFT would accept more modest changes.""
Let's be very clear. Mayoral control was effected because it was passed in the Assembly in spite of fairly strong opposition from city assembly members. The assembly has been lavishly funded by the UFT-and the union's thumb on the scale of mayoral control would have been its death knell, So, what happened? Put simply, a deal was made between Bloomberg and the union-something that will be revealed, like the proverbial player to be named later, when the teachers' contract is announced.
Anbd it will mean more teachers, better benefits-and, did we forget?-another nail in the city's pension coffin. Around the same time the national school tests will also be released; at which point we will be able to better see the cost/benefit equation of the current school governance regime. The wondrous gains that the Bloomberg/NY Post re-election campaign has been trumpeting may very well be seen-in the context of the exponentially increased spending-as picayune.
But if you really want to see a more honest glimpse of the less than praiseworthy aspects of the UFT's power, that you should go back to yesterday's NY Daily News and read Eva Moskowitz's critique of the union's successful effort to prevent middle class schools from employing teacher's aides: "The United Federation of Teachers has again put its members' interests above those of children by stopping parents from hiring teaching assistants at public schools with large class sizes.The practice takes place at many of our city's best schools. Schools in middle-class neighborhoods get far less funding than schools in poor neighborhoods. For example, upper East Side Public School 290, where my son went, gets $13,374 per child, while Harlem's PS 149 gets $19,834 - a difference of more than $6,000 per child. This disparity, although understandable, results in larger class sizes. Parent fund-raising helps ameliorate the problem. It is truly a win-win situation. The teaching assistants benefit because they are typically aspiring teachers: Working for a year or two at a top school is a great learning opportunity."
Now keeping middle class kids in the system should be seen as a high priority, for so many reasons. But the UFT insists that schools not hire these assistants, but instead hire less educated paras who just happen to be union members. And, so it goes.
What we had over the last six months or more was a mating dance between Randi, Mike Bloomberg and Shelly Silver. The result has been the passage of a mayoral control extension without any of the productive due diligence that we saw from the assembly over an even less crucial issue like congestion pricing.
When the national numbers finally come in, we'll be better able to see what spending about $20,000/pupil has gotten us. Our bet? The UFT and its members, along with a probably re-elected Mike Bloomberg, will have done a lot better than the city's school children.
Vaya Con Dios, Olga
Our dear friend Olga Mendez passed away yesterday, and we're gonna miss that raspy voice. Here's the details from the Borrero Report: "Sadly, The Borrero Report has confirmed the death of former State Senator Olga Méndez. According to her nephew, and primary caretaker for the past months, Eric Vazquez, “Titi [Auntie] died this morning at 1:10 AM in her East Harlem apartment.” There was a priest present, Padre Candido from East Harlem, who administered the last rites. Olga was a devout Roman Catholic."
Olga was a true original, and as City Room reports: "Olga A. Méndez, who was the first Puerto Rican woman elected to a state legislature in the continental United States, and represented East Harlem and parts of the Bronx in the New York State Senate from 1979 to 2004, died at her home in East Harlem on Wednesday morning. She was 84."
Olga paved the way-and in many ways the elevation of Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court was made possible by the path that Olga Mendez paved. There was no prouder Puerto Rican woman-and no one who defended the rights of Puerto Rican/Hispanic (that's the term she insisted we use) businesses like she did. In the mid-nineties, Olga joined forces with Antonio Pagan-who also was tragically taken from us this year-and fought against the Pathmark Super Center that was being proposed for East Harlem.
And she was a fierce fighter-taking on the Ford Foundation (whose arm LISC was sponsoring Pathmark) in a memorable confrontation on Third Avenue that those of us who were there will never forget. But even more than her fighting spirit, what distinguished Olga most was her kindness to those she cared about; and we remember with great affection her love and concern for Matthew and Rachele Lipsky.
So, vaya con Dios, Olga. We certainly hope that the heavenly host hasn't made the entire celestial area smoke free-because if they have, someone will just have to make an exception for a truly exceptional, one of a kind politician and a marvelous human being.
Olga was a true original, and as City Room reports: "Olga A. Méndez, who was the first Puerto Rican woman elected to a state legislature in the continental United States, and represented East Harlem and parts of the Bronx in the New York State Senate from 1979 to 2004, died at her home in East Harlem on Wednesday morning. She was 84."
Olga paved the way-and in many ways the elevation of Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court was made possible by the path that Olga Mendez paved. There was no prouder Puerto Rican woman-and no one who defended the rights of Puerto Rican/Hispanic (that's the term she insisted we use) businesses like she did. In the mid-nineties, Olga joined forces with Antonio Pagan-who also was tragically taken from us this year-and fought against the Pathmark Super Center that was being proposed for East Harlem.
And she was a fierce fighter-taking on the Ford Foundation (whose arm LISC was sponsoring Pathmark) in a memorable confrontation on Third Avenue that those of us who were there will never forget. But even more than her fighting spirit, what distinguished Olga most was her kindness to those she cared about; and we remember with great affection her love and concern for Matthew and Rachele Lipsky.
So, vaya con Dios, Olga. We certainly hope that the heavenly host hasn't made the entire celestial area smoke free-because if they have, someone will just have to make an exception for a truly exceptional, one of a kind politician and a marvelous human being.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Five Borough Fakery
The City's Economic Development Corporation keeps doing these silly deals-or, at times, wasteful ones-and then proceeds to trumpet them as part of the so-called five borough economic development plan. All of this horn tooting, it should be pointed out, is occurring simultaneously with horrific job loss and store closings; which makes you wonder what kind of good all of this planning is really doing.
The latest mega deal is as follows-according to the EDC's press release:"The Board of the New York City Industrial Development Agency (NYCIDA) today approved a sales, real estate, and mortgage recording tax incentive package to assist Best Mounting Corporation, a new company and an affiliate of AFC Industries, to locate their headquarters in Jamaica, Queens. Best Mounting will make a $3.65 million private investment to acquire and renovate a 55,000-square-foot facility in Jamaica to manufacture workstation fixtures primarily for the media, healthcare and security industries, creating 15 new jobs over the next three years. The project is expected to return about $3 million in new net tax revenues to the City over 25 years."
What tickles us even further is the sub-head on the release: "Helping industrial companies grow is a vital part of the City’s Five Borough Economic Opportunity Plan." Well now, let's see how the city really treats manufacturing. In 2005, the Bloombergistas drove a stake into the heart of the old Bronx Terminal Market where 23 companies were employing over 500 people without the aid of as single penny in city money.
And, if it were truly interested in really aiding manufacturing on that site, let's remember that there used to be over 100 wholesalers purveying their goods-mostly the kind of fresh produce that the mayor argues is needed to get New Yorkers healthier. As Tom Robbins wrote: "Although it's seen better days since its founding in 1935, the market remains the largest provider of ethnic and tropical produce on the East Coast. It supplies most of the city's bodegas and caters to the tastes of growing numbers of immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America who can't find the jasmine-scented Thai rice, cactus leaves, or Ghanaian yams they are seeking anywhere else."
When it comes to aggrandizing the Related Companies, however, no amount of manufacturing can be allowed to stand in the way: "Last year Michael Bloomberg announced a solution to what he called a "blight" and an "eyesore." His plan calls for wiping out the produce market and replacing it with 1 million square feet of retail shopping, most likely department stores like Target or Marshalls. The new $300 million mall would create 4,500 jobs, the mayor said. It would be built by the Related Companies, the developer of the new Time Warner Center on Columbus Circle and headed by Stephen Ross, a close friend and former business partner of Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff. As for the produce merchants, Bloomberg aides said they would work with them to develop a relocation plan."
How did that work out? The plan-does this sound eerily similar to Willets Point?-never was effected; and the merchants were essentially handed a bus ticket out of town-but not before being disparaged by the same EDC that postures today as the best friend a manufacturer could hope to have. As we said four years ago:
"In mind boggling fashion, ignoring all of the public attention focused on the need to preserve the market, EDC “senior counsel” Terri Feinstein Sasanow, has simply reiterated the original position of the city: “Here’s a few dollars to get out of town. Take it or leave it.” What’s incredible here is that the city has not seen it necessary to find a solution for the BTM in the face of a corrupt deal that is the closest thing possible to the theft of city property. The Sasanow letter is dripping with an arrogant disregard for fairness and an equally arrogant disregard for the truth. Sasanow says that “EDC will not consider construction of a new market” and erroneously argues that unlike with the Fulton Fish Market, “the city is not the landlords of the tenants at the BTM and has no obligation to provide relocation for them.” But Terri, the city is indeed the landlord and in its landlord capacity brokered the deal that brought Related into the market."
And then there is Willets Point where there are ten times the number of businesses and five times as many workers as there were at the BTM. Big retail developments, projects that will only really shift jobs from neighborhood stores to peripheral malls, are the linchpin of the phony five borough economic development strategy. Making a bad situation that much worse, is that these projects so often replace indigenous employment that is sui generis-unlike the retail cannibalization.
So excuse us if we're underwhelmed by the EDC hoopla-and what exactly has the city been doing to save the Stella D'oro factory? At least the city council has recognized the plight of the company workers; while the mayor's folks got no game when it comes to real job preservation in the face of adversity. So when we hear that the latest EDC deal will create 15 jobs in three years in a plant in Jamaica, all we can think is that, at this rate, it will only take 830 years to replace the jobs that Bloomberg wants to forcibly evict at Willets Point. Some strategic plan!
The latest mega deal is as follows-according to the EDC's press release:"The Board of the New York City Industrial Development Agency (NYCIDA) today approved a sales, real estate, and mortgage recording tax incentive package to assist Best Mounting Corporation, a new company and an affiliate of AFC Industries, to locate their headquarters in Jamaica, Queens. Best Mounting will make a $3.65 million private investment to acquire and renovate a 55,000-square-foot facility in Jamaica to manufacture workstation fixtures primarily for the media, healthcare and security industries, creating 15 new jobs over the next three years. The project is expected to return about $3 million in new net tax revenues to the City over 25 years."
What tickles us even further is the sub-head on the release: "Helping industrial companies grow is a vital part of the City’s Five Borough Economic Opportunity Plan." Well now, let's see how the city really treats manufacturing. In 2005, the Bloombergistas drove a stake into the heart of the old Bronx Terminal Market where 23 companies were employing over 500 people without the aid of as single penny in city money.
And, if it were truly interested in really aiding manufacturing on that site, let's remember that there used to be over 100 wholesalers purveying their goods-mostly the kind of fresh produce that the mayor argues is needed to get New Yorkers healthier. As Tom Robbins wrote: "Although it's seen better days since its founding in 1935, the market remains the largest provider of ethnic and tropical produce on the East Coast. It supplies most of the city's bodegas and caters to the tastes of growing numbers of immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America who can't find the jasmine-scented Thai rice, cactus leaves, or Ghanaian yams they are seeking anywhere else."
When it comes to aggrandizing the Related Companies, however, no amount of manufacturing can be allowed to stand in the way: "Last year Michael Bloomberg announced a solution to what he called a "blight" and an "eyesore." His plan calls for wiping out the produce market and replacing it with 1 million square feet of retail shopping, most likely department stores like Target or Marshalls. The new $300 million mall would create 4,500 jobs, the mayor said. It would be built by the Related Companies, the developer of the new Time Warner Center on Columbus Circle and headed by Stephen Ross, a close friend and former business partner of Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff. As for the produce merchants, Bloomberg aides said they would work with them to develop a relocation plan."
How did that work out? The plan-does this sound eerily similar to Willets Point?-never was effected; and the merchants were essentially handed a bus ticket out of town-but not before being disparaged by the same EDC that postures today as the best friend a manufacturer could hope to have. As we said four years ago:
"In mind boggling fashion, ignoring all of the public attention focused on the need to preserve the market, EDC “senior counsel” Terri Feinstein Sasanow, has simply reiterated the original position of the city: “Here’s a few dollars to get out of town. Take it or leave it.” What’s incredible here is that the city has not seen it necessary to find a solution for the BTM in the face of a corrupt deal that is the closest thing possible to the theft of city property. The Sasanow letter is dripping with an arrogant disregard for fairness and an equally arrogant disregard for the truth. Sasanow says that “EDC will not consider construction of a new market” and erroneously argues that unlike with the Fulton Fish Market, “the city is not the landlords of the tenants at the BTM and has no obligation to provide relocation for them.” But Terri, the city is indeed the landlord and in its landlord capacity brokered the deal that brought Related into the market."
And then there is Willets Point where there are ten times the number of businesses and five times as many workers as there were at the BTM. Big retail developments, projects that will only really shift jobs from neighborhood stores to peripheral malls, are the linchpin of the phony five borough economic development strategy. Making a bad situation that much worse, is that these projects so often replace indigenous employment that is sui generis-unlike the retail cannibalization.
So excuse us if we're underwhelmed by the EDC hoopla-and what exactly has the city been doing to save the Stella D'oro factory? At least the city council has recognized the plight of the company workers; while the mayor's folks got no game when it comes to real job preservation in the face of adversity. So when we hear that the latest EDC deal will create 15 jobs in three years in a plant in Jamaica, all we can think is that, at this rate, it will only take 830 years to replace the jobs that Bloomberg wants to forcibly evict at Willets Point. Some strategic plan!
Diaz to the Defense
We had a very nice and productive conversation with Bronx BP Ruben Diaz yesterday on his role in the Kingsbridge Armory fight. Diaz felt that we were a little bit too dismissive of the role that he has to play in the current ULURP process. Maybe we were-but the criticism was directed more at the diminished role that is assigned to BPs in the statute, rather than any personal critique of Diaz.
That being said, he does have a positive role he can play-and his previous criticisms of how Adolfo Carrion simply carried the water for developers should inform how he moves forward on crafting a position on the Armory. A truly empowering CBA is a phenomenon that has yet to be seen in the Bronx-or any where else in NYC-with Atlantic Yards, in our view, being the major exception. In similar fashion, Diaz can insure that KARA-and its major positions-becomes the center piece of the CBA; and, if the devloper balks he can send a single to the city council that the Bronx is going to be headed in a new progressive direction.
At the same time, Diaz-who has been a staunch defender of local business (see Key Food on Bruckner Blvd.)-can support the eight Bronx council members who have declared their opposition to the inclusion of a supermarket/big box food use at the Armory. And his opposition should be based on the same righteous views that he exemplified in the Bruckner battle, since an Armory-based large food use will diminish the number of Bronx supermarkets. And, by the way, Morton Williams deserves the same kind of support that Diaz, his father Ruben Diaz Sr., and Councilwoman Palma demonstrated on Bruckner.
So while the BP's role is only advisory, he does have a considerable bully pulpit-and should use it to send a message to the Bloombergistas. If the city's EDC issues an RFP that specifically excludes any competing food uses at the armory, than someone should stand up and simply hold them to the terms that they themselves laid out. If Diaz does all of this, his first real leadership test will be seen as a shining moment for Bronx County.
That being said, he does have a positive role he can play-and his previous criticisms of how Adolfo Carrion simply carried the water for developers should inform how he moves forward on crafting a position on the Armory. A truly empowering CBA is a phenomenon that has yet to be seen in the Bronx-or any where else in NYC-with Atlantic Yards, in our view, being the major exception. In similar fashion, Diaz can insure that KARA-and its major positions-becomes the center piece of the CBA; and, if the devloper balks he can send a single to the city council that the Bronx is going to be headed in a new progressive direction.
At the same time, Diaz-who has been a staunch defender of local business (see Key Food on Bruckner Blvd.)-can support the eight Bronx council members who have declared their opposition to the inclusion of a supermarket/big box food use at the Armory. And his opposition should be based on the same righteous views that he exemplified in the Bruckner battle, since an Armory-based large food use will diminish the number of Bronx supermarkets. And, by the way, Morton Williams deserves the same kind of support that Diaz, his father Ruben Diaz Sr., and Councilwoman Palma demonstrated on Bruckner.
So while the BP's role is only advisory, he does have a considerable bully pulpit-and should use it to send a message to the Bloombergistas. If the city's EDC issues an RFP that specifically excludes any competing food uses at the armory, than someone should stand up and simply hold them to the terms that they themselves laid out. If Diaz does all of this, his first real leadership test will be seen as a shining moment for Bronx County.
Bloomberg's Pension Poison Pill
We have been commenting for a while on the city's pension time bomb-basically cribbing from the great work done by E.J. McMahon. Now, Michael Barbaro at City Room weighs in to underscore that our concerns aren't simply right wing noise: "It’s a ticking time bomb in New York City’s budget: the cost of providing health care to retired city workers. By 2013, the price tag will grow to $96 billion, according to budget documents released at the annual meeting of the state’s Financial Control Board on Monday afternoon. That’s 50 percent bigger than the city’s entire budget for next year, which is $60 billion — and the cost is growing at the staggering rate of $6 billion a year."
And the FCB went right after the mayor for his fiscal legerdemain: "Starting a few years ago, federal accounting rules required New York City — and local governments across the country — to account for future health care costs, which are based on a variety of factors, like life expectancy and the growing cost of medical care. But it did not require the city to set aside money for the cost. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took the unusual step of doing that anyway. He set up a retiree health trust fund, and squirreled away more than $2 billion in it. With interest, that initial investment grew to $3.2 billion.So far, so good. But when the economy began to decline this year, City Hall decided to tap into trust fund to help pay for something else: pension costs. It plans to take $1.1 billion from the fund over the next three years, leaving $2.1 billion."
So, is Mike Bloomberg the new Abe Beame? The FCB certainly wasn't pleased: "And at Tuesday’s meeting of the Financial Control Board, a relic of the 1970s fiscal crisis that must approve the city’s budget, three members of the board, who had previously praised Mr. Bloomberg’s creation of the retiree health trust fund, scolded the city for taking money out of it: “Unfortunately, under the financial plan, resources are being drained from the trust fund,” they said, in prepared remarks. “Troubling to us is that many reports on the city’s fiscal condition treat the Health Benefit Trust fund like it is a budget reserve to be used to close deficits. While we understand the very difficult decisions the city has made and will continue to have to make concerning budget cuts and tax increases, we believe that if you take a long-term view, it is fiscally dangerous to allow the unfunded liability to continue to grow.”
Now can we agree that the pension situation has been exacerbated by a mayor who hasn't been as scrupulous as he should have been in controlling the growth of the municipal labor force? After all, as McMahon has pointed out, every new public sector hire is a pension knife in the tax payer's heart-not to mention the wallet.
To us this is, as we have said before, so Grasshopper and the Ant. The profligate Mike Bloomberg-unmindful of the coming fiscal winter-kept on adding payroll and raising taxes to pay for the additional workers. Now, as a result of his improvidence, he has placed the financial well-being of the city in great jeopardy. The cost of the tax and spend big government chickens has come home to roost.
Can someone remind us, once again, just why we need-in the midst of a recession and a budget crisis that Mike Bloomberg made worse-to over turn the will of the people to bring this fiscally imprudent guy back?
And the FCB went right after the mayor for his fiscal legerdemain: "Starting a few years ago, federal accounting rules required New York City — and local governments across the country — to account for future health care costs, which are based on a variety of factors, like life expectancy and the growing cost of medical care. But it did not require the city to set aside money for the cost. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took the unusual step of doing that anyway. He set up a retiree health trust fund, and squirreled away more than $2 billion in it. With interest, that initial investment grew to $3.2 billion.So far, so good. But when the economy began to decline this year, City Hall decided to tap into trust fund to help pay for something else: pension costs. It plans to take $1.1 billion from the fund over the next three years, leaving $2.1 billion."
So, is Mike Bloomberg the new Abe Beame? The FCB certainly wasn't pleased: "And at Tuesday’s meeting of the Financial Control Board, a relic of the 1970s fiscal crisis that must approve the city’s budget, three members of the board, who had previously praised Mr. Bloomberg’s creation of the retiree health trust fund, scolded the city for taking money out of it: “Unfortunately, under the financial plan, resources are being drained from the trust fund,” they said, in prepared remarks. “Troubling to us is that many reports on the city’s fiscal condition treat the Health Benefit Trust fund like it is a budget reserve to be used to close deficits. While we understand the very difficult decisions the city has made and will continue to have to make concerning budget cuts and tax increases, we believe that if you take a long-term view, it is fiscally dangerous to allow the unfunded liability to continue to grow.”
Now can we agree that the pension situation has been exacerbated by a mayor who hasn't been as scrupulous as he should have been in controlling the growth of the municipal labor force? After all, as McMahon has pointed out, every new public sector hire is a pension knife in the tax payer's heart-not to mention the wallet.
To us this is, as we have said before, so Grasshopper and the Ant. The profligate Mike Bloomberg-unmindful of the coming fiscal winter-kept on adding payroll and raising taxes to pay for the additional workers. Now, as a result of his improvidence, he has placed the financial well-being of the city in great jeopardy. The cost of the tax and spend big government chickens has come home to roost.
Can someone remind us, once again, just why we need-in the midst of a recession and a budget crisis that Mike Bloomberg made worse-to over turn the will of the people to bring this fiscally imprudent guy back?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Law of Diminishing Returns
The latest Q-Poll is fascinating. It seems that during the last couple of months, while the Thompson campaign has spent money like it has been shopping at a 99 cent store, and the Bloombergistas like Michael Jackson on steroids, the mayor's poll numbers have begun to sink: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg appears to be losing some ground in both his approval ratings and his probable race in November against City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. for a third term, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Tuesday."
The actual decline is around ten points: "But in a hypothetical matchup against Mr. Thompson, Mr. Bloomberg leads by 47 to 37 percent. Mr. Thompson, who is black, has made strides in particular among black voters, who support him by 56-30 percent, and Democrats, who narrowly support him by 45 to 42 percent."
Which leads us to speculate that this may very well be an example of the law of diminishing returns-and the more that the Bloomberg message gets repeated ad nauseum, the more the folks begin to simply pull their hair out: "More voters also say that Mr. Bloomberg, who has spent $36 million of his fortune on the campaign so far, is “a case of overkill,” according to the poll, with 61 percent saying so in July, and 56 percent saying so the previous month."
What is truly fascinating, however, is the disconnect between the mayor's personal approval rating and his electoral support. It will be interesting to see how this plays out-because if Thompson really begins to gain some traction this could become a horse race-and in a close contest, the mayor's money may actually become neutralized to a degree as the free media pounces on the day-to-day dramatics. But from this poll it would be hard to argue that, at least from Thompson's standpoint, the best thing that the mayor can do for him is to keep on spending money like a drunken stockbroker.
The actual decline is around ten points: "But in a hypothetical matchup against Mr. Thompson, Mr. Bloomberg leads by 47 to 37 percent. Mr. Thompson, who is black, has made strides in particular among black voters, who support him by 56-30 percent, and Democrats, who narrowly support him by 45 to 42 percent."
Which leads us to speculate that this may very well be an example of the law of diminishing returns-and the more that the Bloomberg message gets repeated ad nauseum, the more the folks begin to simply pull their hair out: "More voters also say that Mr. Bloomberg, who has spent $36 million of his fortune on the campaign so far, is “a case of overkill,” according to the poll, with 61 percent saying so in July, and 56 percent saying so the previous month."
What is truly fascinating, however, is the disconnect between the mayor's personal approval rating and his electoral support. It will be interesting to see how this plays out-because if Thompson really begins to gain some traction this could become a horse race-and in a close contest, the mayor's money may actually become neutralized to a degree as the free media pounces on the day-to-day dramatics. But from this poll it would be hard to argue that, at least from Thompson's standpoint, the best thing that the mayor can do for him is to keep on spending money like a drunken stockbroker.
Diaz: Armoryed and Dangerous?
The Bronx News Network puts Bronx BP Ruben Diaz front and center in the current Kingsbridge Armory fight: "The handling of the Armory project is Diaz's first major test as borough president, having taken over for Adolfo Carrion, following a special election in April. In his first few months, Diaz has been out attending events, cutting ribbons, giving speeches, marching in parades and starting up a few initiatives and programs. But now comes the hard part, trying to wring concessions (in the form of community benefits) out of a big development project like the one about to be undertaken at the Armory."
It appears to us that Diaz's challenge is to transcend the lap dog posture that his predecessor had when it came to development projects-from the Bronx Terminal Market to the building of the new Yankee Stadium: "Carrion's biggest critics, Diaz included, said the former B.P. didn't get enough back from huge projects like the New Yankee Stadium and Gateway Center Mall (another Related project) at the Bronx Terminal Market, which were heavily-subsidized with government funds and tax breaks. Diaz is now taking the lead on negotiating a community benefits agreement with Related, acting as a middle man between the developer and community stakeholders, which are mostly represented by the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) and Community Board 7."
This is a somewhat interesting take since the BP's role-unlike, say, that of the City Council's, is strictly advisory; which limits the kind of leverage he can bring to bear with Related. That being said, it would behoove Diaz to work in collaboration with the Bronx council delegation-something that we haven't seen him doing up to this point.
Which brings us to the supermarket imbroglio. The entire council delegation, led by its dean Maria Baez, has demanded the removal of any supermarket/big box food use from the Armory; a point that Baez's aide Sherman Browne made at the BP's hearing last evening. Will Diaz support the council's position? It is an interesting political situation, especially given the fractious nature of the current political scene in the Bronx.
In any case, if the delegation's position remains firm, then there's a better than decent chance that the supermarket issue can be laid to rest in the short term-which will leave the CBA negotiations to be resolved as the ULURP application wends its way towards the City Council this fall. By that time, the BP's role will in all likelihood be more secondary-that is unless he can craft a collaborative team that includes the borough's council members who will be charged with the ultimate decision-making responsibility.
Update
Bronx 12 News has a nice piece on last nights hearing.
It appears to us that Diaz's challenge is to transcend the lap dog posture that his predecessor had when it came to development projects-from the Bronx Terminal Market to the building of the new Yankee Stadium: "Carrion's biggest critics, Diaz included, said the former B.P. didn't get enough back from huge projects like the New Yankee Stadium and Gateway Center Mall (another Related project) at the Bronx Terminal Market, which were heavily-subsidized with government funds and tax breaks. Diaz is now taking the lead on negotiating a community benefits agreement with Related, acting as a middle man between the developer and community stakeholders, which are mostly represented by the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) and Community Board 7."
This is a somewhat interesting take since the BP's role-unlike, say, that of the City Council's, is strictly advisory; which limits the kind of leverage he can bring to bear with Related. That being said, it would behoove Diaz to work in collaboration with the Bronx council delegation-something that we haven't seen him doing up to this point.
Which brings us to the supermarket imbroglio. The entire council delegation, led by its dean Maria Baez, has demanded the removal of any supermarket/big box food use from the Armory; a point that Baez's aide Sherman Browne made at the BP's hearing last evening. Will Diaz support the council's position? It is an interesting political situation, especially given the fractious nature of the current political scene in the Bronx.
In any case, if the delegation's position remains firm, then there's a better than decent chance that the supermarket issue can be laid to rest in the short term-which will leave the CBA negotiations to be resolved as the ULURP application wends its way towards the City Council this fall. By that time, the BP's role will in all likelihood be more secondary-that is unless he can craft a collaborative team that includes the borough's council members who will be charged with the ultimate decision-making responsibility.
Update
Bronx 12 News has a nice piece on last nights hearing.
Willets Point: Evict Not!
In last Saturday's online edition of the Christian Science Monitor (there is no longer a print edition), the paper covers the presser that the Willets Point United Group held last week on the nomination of Judge Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The controversy surrounds the judge's very expansive views of the use of eminet domain: "Ralph St. John is well into his 70s, but his stocky arms show that he is a man accustomed to hard labor. In Willets Point in the New York borough of Queens, he founded a general contracting company 36 years ago. He hoped to leave it to his son. Now, however, Mr. St. John's business is one of 250 in an industrial zone that New York City has slated for redevelopment using eminent domain. "I can't develop my property. I can't sell it.... Would you want to buy it when you know the city wants to take it away?" he asks. With the Senate's expected confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, many small-business owners are fearful that the future court will make it that much easier for powerful developers to evict them for any reason."
The group's concerns about the judge's views were magnified by her decision in Didden v. Port Chester: "In 2005, the high court took on the eminent-domain case of Kelo v. New London. In a controversial decision, the justices said that local governments could use eminent domain to spur economic development that would benefit the public. But Kelo also reaffirmed that no property can be condemned and transferred to a private party under pretext of public benefit. Bart Didden thought that his suit against the Village of Port Chester, N.Y., was such a pretextual case. But in 2006, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which included Sotomayor, upheld the village's actions in a one-page opinion."
So it appears that we will have the eminent domain controversies roiling the SC for years to come-which makes local legislative action even more necessary; and in 46 states, the laws have been changed to make it more difficult for the abuse of eminent domain for a private benefit. The struggle in NY, however, is still uphill-with the statists who disdain private property firmly in control of the legislative process.
That does not mean that changes can't be made-and the folks at WPU are ready to escalate the public relations war in the weeks and months ahead. In particular, they will be resisting any attempt by the city to evict them from their land, especially since the needed traffic mitigation that serves as the linchpin for the city'e EIS, mandates that a Van Wyck off ramp be constructed in order to avoid any traffic catastrophe.
Until there is an assurance that such a ramp will be built-and until such time that the city can demonstrate it has the necessary funds to remediate the Iron Triangle site-no eviction should be contemplated. We need to remember the fiscal fiasco surrounding the use of eminent domain for the expansion of the NYSE:
"In January, 2001the NYC Economic Development Corp began the process of condemning the apartment building at 45 Wall Street. In support of its actions, the agency touted the “public benefit” the City would derive from enhancing Manhattan’s position as a worldwide financial center, and the theory that NYSE’s departure from the city’s financial district would be detrimental to the city and state economies. The tenants’ association of 45 Wall Street challenged the development agency’s public use determination, but in October 2001, a state appeals court agreed with the agency’s findings, citing the public benefit of increased tax revenue and economic development. Amazingly, the court found that the, 'proposed project will incidentally confer a public benefit,' even though the agency’s sole rationale for supporting the condemnation was to facilitate construction of NYSE's new facility..."
And how did this whole thing go? It didn't! The expansion was never implemented and the whole deal was aborted-but not before the city took a $109 bath. As the NY Times has reported: "Apartments are for rent again at 45 Wall Street. The reopening of the apartment house at that address near the New York Stock Exchange this weekend marks the formal burial of a proposed $1.4 billion project that Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani once called a Christmas present for New York...Even so, the city estimates that unwinding the ill-fated project will cost taxpayers about $109 million. The stock exchange spent about $10 million. ''It was a lose-lose for everybody,'' said Bettina Damiani, project director of Good Jobs New York, a longtime critic of the project."
So, we need to take the fate of 45 Wall Street as a cautionary tale for Willets Point. The eviction of the businesses at the Point, following an eminent domain proceeding, makes no sense until it is clear that all of the challenges we have mentioned have been clearly met. Until then, the city needs to keep its hands of the businesses and let them continue to employ the 2500 mostly immigrant workers who, absent these jobs, would be out of work and out of luck.
The group's concerns about the judge's views were magnified by her decision in Didden v. Port Chester: "In 2005, the high court took on the eminent-domain case of Kelo v. New London. In a controversial decision, the justices said that local governments could use eminent domain to spur economic development that would benefit the public. But Kelo also reaffirmed that no property can be condemned and transferred to a private party under pretext of public benefit. Bart Didden thought that his suit against the Village of Port Chester, N.Y., was such a pretextual case. But in 2006, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which included Sotomayor, upheld the village's actions in a one-page opinion."
So it appears that we will have the eminent domain controversies roiling the SC for years to come-which makes local legislative action even more necessary; and in 46 states, the laws have been changed to make it more difficult for the abuse of eminent domain for a private benefit. The struggle in NY, however, is still uphill-with the statists who disdain private property firmly in control of the legislative process.
That does not mean that changes can't be made-and the folks at WPU are ready to escalate the public relations war in the weeks and months ahead. In particular, they will be resisting any attempt by the city to evict them from their land, especially since the needed traffic mitigation that serves as the linchpin for the city'e EIS, mandates that a Van Wyck off ramp be constructed in order to avoid any traffic catastrophe.
Until there is an assurance that such a ramp will be built-and until such time that the city can demonstrate it has the necessary funds to remediate the Iron Triangle site-no eviction should be contemplated. We need to remember the fiscal fiasco surrounding the use of eminent domain for the expansion of the NYSE:
"In January, 2001the NYC Economic Development Corp began the process of condemning the apartment building at 45 Wall Street. In support of its actions, the agency touted the “public benefit” the City would derive from enhancing Manhattan’s position as a worldwide financial center, and the theory that NYSE’s departure from the city’s financial district would be detrimental to the city and state economies. The tenants’ association of 45 Wall Street challenged the development agency’s public use determination, but in October 2001, a state appeals court agreed with the agency’s findings, citing the public benefit of increased tax revenue and economic development. Amazingly, the court found that the, 'proposed project will incidentally confer a public benefit,' even though the agency’s sole rationale for supporting the condemnation was to facilitate construction of NYSE's new facility..."
And how did this whole thing go? It didn't! The expansion was never implemented and the whole deal was aborted-but not before the city took a $109 bath. As the NY Times has reported: "Apartments are for rent again at 45 Wall Street. The reopening of the apartment house at that address near the New York Stock Exchange this weekend marks the formal burial of a proposed $1.4 billion project that Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani once called a Christmas present for New York...Even so, the city estimates that unwinding the ill-fated project will cost taxpayers about $109 million. The stock exchange spent about $10 million. ''It was a lose-lose for everybody,'' said Bettina Damiani, project director of Good Jobs New York, a longtime critic of the project."
So, we need to take the fate of 45 Wall Street as a cautionary tale for Willets Point. The eviction of the businesses at the Point, following an eminent domain proceeding, makes no sense until it is clear that all of the challenges we have mentioned have been clearly met. Until then, the city needs to keep its hands of the businesses and let them continue to employ the 2500 mostly immigrant workers who, absent these jobs, would be out of work and out of luck.
Making Reservations-and Sticking it to the Tax Payers
As the NY Post editorialized yesterday, the proliferation of illegal Indian retail operations continues-along with a feckless government's refusal to take remedial action: "You may have missed it, but New York got a brand-new Indian reservation this month -- consisting entirely of two Upstate convenience stores. A state appellate court ruled that the outlets, owned and operated by the Cayuga Indian tribe on nonreservation land, count as a "qualified reservation" for taxing purposes, thus voiding local efforts to halt the Cayugas' illicit tobacco trade."
And this continued flouting of the law has been consequences for NY's tax payers-and state government that is bleeding red ink: "Cayuga County DA Jon Budelmann, who's moving to appeal the decision, says the two stores channel more than 6 million packs of untaxed cigs a year from the much larger Oneida reservation nearby. Yet fully 275 million packs of cigarettes flowed through New York's Indian reservations last year, depriving state and local governments of an estimated billion dollars in tax revenue -- and pushing law-abiding merchants out of business."
As if small retailers weren't hurting enough! But it's government inaction on this that really gets our blood boiling-as tax payers are hit with more levies to balance a budget whose revenues continue to sink. You'd think that the governor-the main obstacle to enforcement-would prefer to go after tax avoiders, rather than increase taxes on the state's law abiding folks. But, if you did think this fairly logical thought, you would be way wrong.
The governor is apparently afraid of his own shadow-and allows the illegality to flourish even after all of the court rulings that permit the state to tax tobacco sales from Indians to non-Indians: "The tribes argue, contrary to both state law and settled Supreme Court precedent, that such extracurricular commerce is fully within their sovereign treaty rights -- and, thus far, a weak executive and skittish judiciary have let them get away with it."
And what's even worse, is that the Indians are claiming sovereign immunity while continuing to-in adding insult to injury fashion-lap up all manner of government subsidy: "But it would be easier to take their claims to nationhood, and tax exemption, more seriously if they weren't already reliant on nontribal taxpayer dollars. Indeed, New York's Indian tribes have all the entitlements of regular state citizenship -- schools, roads, etc. -- except where those programs are superseded by even more generous federal handouts. The federal Indian Health Service, for instance, oversees a broad range of health grants and benefits on top of Medicare and Medicaid.
Federally recognized tribes can also qualify to receive welfare money directly from Washington."
So, let's get some action here. A billion dollars is still a great deal of money for this cash-strapped state. The only thing standing in the way is the pusillanimity of the acting governor.
And this continued flouting of the law has been consequences for NY's tax payers-and state government that is bleeding red ink: "Cayuga County DA Jon Budelmann, who's moving to appeal the decision, says the two stores channel more than 6 million packs of untaxed cigs a year from the much larger Oneida reservation nearby. Yet fully 275 million packs of cigarettes flowed through New York's Indian reservations last year, depriving state and local governments of an estimated billion dollars in tax revenue -- and pushing law-abiding merchants out of business."
As if small retailers weren't hurting enough! But it's government inaction on this that really gets our blood boiling-as tax payers are hit with more levies to balance a budget whose revenues continue to sink. You'd think that the governor-the main obstacle to enforcement-would prefer to go after tax avoiders, rather than increase taxes on the state's law abiding folks. But, if you did think this fairly logical thought, you would be way wrong.
The governor is apparently afraid of his own shadow-and allows the illegality to flourish even after all of the court rulings that permit the state to tax tobacco sales from Indians to non-Indians: "The tribes argue, contrary to both state law and settled Supreme Court precedent, that such extracurricular commerce is fully within their sovereign treaty rights -- and, thus far, a weak executive and skittish judiciary have let them get away with it."
And what's even worse, is that the Indians are claiming sovereign immunity while continuing to-in adding insult to injury fashion-lap up all manner of government subsidy: "But it would be easier to take their claims to nationhood, and tax exemption, more seriously if they weren't already reliant on nontribal taxpayer dollars. Indeed, New York's Indian tribes have all the entitlements of regular state citizenship -- schools, roads, etc. -- except where those programs are superseded by even more generous federal handouts. The federal Indian Health Service, for instance, oversees a broad range of health grants and benefits on top of Medicare and Medicaid.
Federally recognized tribes can also qualify to receive welfare money directly from Washington."
So, let's get some action here. A billion dollars is still a great deal of money for this cash-strapped state. The only thing standing in the way is the pusillanimity of the acting governor.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Any Other Port in a Storm
We have hammered away at the failure of the Port Authority-along with developer Larry Silverstein-to develop the sacred ground where the Trade Center once stood; but now we find that the Authority-adding insult to injury-is padding its payroll in a blatant example of how incompetency so often gets rewarded at these quasi-governmental pig pens: "Port Authority salaries have been cleared for takeoff. The payroll for the bloated bi-state agency that runs the three airports, the bus terminal and six bridges and tunnels saw the number of employees making six-figure salaries soar by 205 in 2008."
So what's the rationale for all of this largess? Well, according to the NY Post: "A PA spokeswoman said the raises were the result of an analysis conducted by a consultant last year. "The Port Authority operates some of the most sophisticated transportation projects," agency spokeswoman Candace McAdams said. "We benchmark our management positions against both public and private sectors to attract and retain talent."
Lots of comp from the private sector in retaining all of this "talent?" In the midst of the worst recession in over seven decades? Please, spare us! Which brings us to the Ground Zero fiasco-and hats off to the Staten Island BP for calling the PA out on this ""It's outrageous to give these people raises like that," said Staten Island Borough President James Molinaro. "They admit that they have problems they can't resolve at the World Trade Center. It's eight years since 9/11, and we don't have a memorial out there. It's outrageous. How do you reward yourself for incompetence? And there's no one to check on it," he lamented."
In our post last week we wondered why the state and city-and our two vaunted chief executives-didn't simply condemn the sacred space and devise a plan to make sure that the site was properly commemorative of what happened on 9/11. And, as far as the mayor is concerned, our wonder never ceases. This is, after all, the same cool guy who wields eminent domain like a machete whenever he sees a small business in the way of one of his grand schemes.
So, why not collaborate with the state and condemn the PA's stakehold-and Silverstein's lease along with it? Does the reason lie with the fact that Mr. Silverstein and the Port are big guys-those entities that are always, "too big to fail?" The building of a civic project at Ground Zero is precisely what eminent domain laws were passed for. The inaction-and silence-of our elected officials tells a profound story about the inequitable use of the taking clause of the US Constitution. Someone should call our leaders on this inequity.
So what's the rationale for all of this largess? Well, according to the NY Post: "A PA spokeswoman said the raises were the result of an analysis conducted by a consultant last year. "The Port Authority operates some of the most sophisticated transportation projects," agency spokeswoman Candace McAdams said. "We benchmark our management positions against both public and private sectors to attract and retain talent."
Lots of comp from the private sector in retaining all of this "talent?" In the midst of the worst recession in over seven decades? Please, spare us! Which brings us to the Ground Zero fiasco-and hats off to the Staten Island BP for calling the PA out on this ""It's outrageous to give these people raises like that," said Staten Island Borough President James Molinaro. "They admit that they have problems they can't resolve at the World Trade Center. It's eight years since 9/11, and we don't have a memorial out there. It's outrageous. How do you reward yourself for incompetence? And there's no one to check on it," he lamented."
In our post last week we wondered why the state and city-and our two vaunted chief executives-didn't simply condemn the sacred space and devise a plan to make sure that the site was properly commemorative of what happened on 9/11. And, as far as the mayor is concerned, our wonder never ceases. This is, after all, the same cool guy who wields eminent domain like a machete whenever he sees a small business in the way of one of his grand schemes.
So, why not collaborate with the state and condemn the PA's stakehold-and Silverstein's lease along with it? Does the reason lie with the fact that Mr. Silverstein and the Port are big guys-those entities that are always, "too big to fail?" The building of a civic project at Ground Zero is precisely what eminent domain laws were passed for. The inaction-and silence-of our elected officials tells a profound story about the inequitable use of the taking clause of the US Constitution. Someone should call our leaders on this inequity.
Baez to the Breach
The Bronx BP's hearing on the Kingsbridge Armory will be held to night at Lehman College, and the borough's council delegation, led by Maria Baez, has sent BP Diaz and the city a clear message: no supermarket in the development. As the NY Daily News reports: "Last Friday, all eight members of the City Council's Bronx delegation asked Mayor Bloomberg in a letter to reject the developer's supermarket proposal...With 45 markets already within a 2-mile radius of the armory, the council delegation argued the proposed 60,000-square-foot market would drive at least some of them out of business."
And Baez, in a press release, said: "As the Council Member representing the 14th Council District, I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of a supermarket/big box food use store in the Kingsbridge Armory development project. In these economic times of change and uncertainty, it is imperative that we take every measure necessary to insure that small businesses in our community are able to survive."
The issue of a living wage in the retail development-along with a strong and binding Community Benefits Agreement-will also be brought front and center by KARA-the coalition of local community organizations: "Related also faces opposition from a coalition of northwest Bronx community members, who last week asked Diaz to vote against the plan until the developer agrees to an enforceable Community Benefits Agreement. The coalition is, among other things, demanding that a living wage of $10 an hour be paid to workers when the project is finished, and for the developer to provide community space and affordable recreation for neighborhood youth."
All of which will make for a lively and contentious debate tonight-and throughout the rest of the land use review process. It is expected that the city council will get the Armory application in October; and with the delegation letter-along with the expected 10,000+ signatures opposing the supermarket/box store use-we believe that there's an excellent opportunity for Baez and the local businesses to prevail on behalf of the community. The other wider community demands present an even bigger challenge, but KARA is well organized and has strong labor and political support to see that a binding CBA is negotiated. It will be an interesting few months.
And Baez, in a press release, said: "As the Council Member representing the 14th Council District, I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of a supermarket/big box food use store in the Kingsbridge Armory development project. In these economic times of change and uncertainty, it is imperative that we take every measure necessary to insure that small businesses in our community are able to survive."
The issue of a living wage in the retail development-along with a strong and binding Community Benefits Agreement-will also be brought front and center by KARA-the coalition of local community organizations: "Related also faces opposition from a coalition of northwest Bronx community members, who last week asked Diaz to vote against the plan until the developer agrees to an enforceable Community Benefits Agreement. The coalition is, among other things, demanding that a living wage of $10 an hour be paid to workers when the project is finished, and for the developer to provide community space and affordable recreation for neighborhood youth."
All of which will make for a lively and contentious debate tonight-and throughout the rest of the land use review process. It is expected that the city council will get the Armory application in October; and with the delegation letter-along with the expected 10,000+ signatures opposing the supermarket/box store use-we believe that there's an excellent opportunity for Baez and the local businesses to prevail on behalf of the community. The other wider community demands present an even bigger challenge, but KARA is well organized and has strong labor and political support to see that a binding CBA is negotiated. It will be an interesting few months.
Was Joe the Plumber Right?
The well documented campaign dust up between Barack Obama and Joe the Plumber highlighted the concern that many people-particularly small business owners-had about the big government, "share the wealth," predilections of the Democratic candidate. Foe his outspokenness, Joe became a target of a national smear campaign to discredit the messenger; particularly because of the way his message resonated with so many Americans.
As we examine the president's health care plan, however, we can't help but feel that Joe's insights were extremely prescient; and that the small businesses that Joe the Plumber became the spontaneous spokesman for, are in the cross hairs of health care "reform." Which is why we were so put off by the president's claim on Saturday, that his reform plan would benefit the little guys.
As the NY Times reported: "The Congressional Budget Office said Saturday that a new agency proposed by President Obama as a way to cut health costs might save only $2 billion in its first four years, and that there was a high probability that “no savings would be realized.” The report came as Mr. Obama tried to build support for his health care plan, arguing that small-business owners would benefit because they could buy coverage through an insurance exchange and receive tax credits to help pay for employee health benefits."
Gee, why didn't we realize this-and why do all the organized small business groups demur from the president's avowed concern for the smallest firms? Can it be that a bit of misdirection on the president's part? Here's what Obama says: "In his weekly radio and Internet address on Saturday, Mr. Obama said that small businesses were being “crushed by skyrocketing health care costs. Because they lack the bargaining power that large businesses have and face higher administrative costs per person, small businesses pay up to 18 percent more for the very same health insurance plans — costs that eat into their profits and get passed on to their employees,” Mr. Obama said."
But sir, your plan makes things much worse: "In the weekly Republican address, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington State argued that the Democratic proposals were “bankrolled by a small-business tax.” She said that jobs would “evaporate” under the Democratic plan because businesses would not be able to afford to meet their payrolls. The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses, opposes the Democratic health care legislation under consideration in the House. “Now is not the time to burden our nation’s job creators with new, expensive mandates, punitive payroll taxes and a new government-run program,” said Brad Close, the association’s vice president for public policy."
Now it would have been nice if the Times had done a little more in depth analysis on this-and not buried the NFICB response at the tail end of the story; something that even the CBS evening News managed to do: "President Obama tried to regain momentum on health care today by claiming in his weekly address that his plan would benefit small business owners. He said small businesses now pay 18 percent more for health insurance than large businesses do. Just 48 percent of businesses with three to nine employees offer insurance, while nearly all businesses with 200 or more employees do. But do small business owners think they'd benefit from a change?"
And the answer totally rebuts the president's position: "Small business owner Tom Sawner runs an online education service in Arlington, Va. He believes his employees deserve health care coverage. But he doesn't want the government telling him he has to provide it, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier. "I think small business owners need to have the ability to make their own choices for their people and their company and their location," said Sawner, the CEO of Educational Options."
As Sawner goes on to point out: "I am very concerned about what might come down in a government program or how I'm going to be taxed an additional 8 percent of payroll if my plan doesn't fit with what Congress, in their infinite, wisdom says will be best for my business," Sawner said."
So, as we have said, if small business is the bedrock of the American economy-an economy that is really down in the dumps at the present-do we really want to impose new mandates that will tamp down expansion and job growth; and even redistribute the wealth in the process? The current health plans are too ambitious and too costly-and in our view could easily create a system even worse than the one we have now.
As we examine the president's health care plan, however, we can't help but feel that Joe's insights were extremely prescient; and that the small businesses that Joe the Plumber became the spontaneous spokesman for, are in the cross hairs of health care "reform." Which is why we were so put off by the president's claim on Saturday, that his reform plan would benefit the little guys.
As the NY Times reported: "The Congressional Budget Office said Saturday that a new agency proposed by President Obama as a way to cut health costs might save only $2 billion in its first four years, and that there was a high probability that “no savings would be realized.” The report came as Mr. Obama tried to build support for his health care plan, arguing that small-business owners would benefit because they could buy coverage through an insurance exchange and receive tax credits to help pay for employee health benefits."
Gee, why didn't we realize this-and why do all the organized small business groups demur from the president's avowed concern for the smallest firms? Can it be that a bit of misdirection on the president's part? Here's what Obama says: "In his weekly radio and Internet address on Saturday, Mr. Obama said that small businesses were being “crushed by skyrocketing health care costs. Because they lack the bargaining power that large businesses have and face higher administrative costs per person, small businesses pay up to 18 percent more for the very same health insurance plans — costs that eat into their profits and get passed on to their employees,” Mr. Obama said."
But sir, your plan makes things much worse: "In the weekly Republican address, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington State argued that the Democratic proposals were “bankrolled by a small-business tax.” She said that jobs would “evaporate” under the Democratic plan because businesses would not be able to afford to meet their payrolls. The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses, opposes the Democratic health care legislation under consideration in the House. “Now is not the time to burden our nation’s job creators with new, expensive mandates, punitive payroll taxes and a new government-run program,” said Brad Close, the association’s vice president for public policy."
Now it would have been nice if the Times had done a little more in depth analysis on this-and not buried the NFICB response at the tail end of the story; something that even the CBS evening News managed to do: "President Obama tried to regain momentum on health care today by claiming in his weekly address that his plan would benefit small business owners. He said small businesses now pay 18 percent more for health insurance than large businesses do. Just 48 percent of businesses with three to nine employees offer insurance, while nearly all businesses with 200 or more employees do. But do small business owners think they'd benefit from a change?"
And the answer totally rebuts the president's position: "Small business owner Tom Sawner runs an online education service in Arlington, Va. He believes his employees deserve health care coverage. But he doesn't want the government telling him he has to provide it, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier. "I think small business owners need to have the ability to make their own choices for their people and their company and their location," said Sawner, the CEO of Educational Options."
As Sawner goes on to point out: "I am very concerned about what might come down in a government program or how I'm going to be taxed an additional 8 percent of payroll if my plan doesn't fit with what Congress, in their infinite, wisdom says will be best for my business," Sawner said."
So, as we have said, if small business is the bedrock of the American economy-an economy that is really down in the dumps at the present-do we really want to impose new mandates that will tamp down expansion and job growth; and even redistribute the wealth in the process? The current health plans are too ambitious and too costly-and in our view could easily create a system even worse than the one we have now.
American Idle
Adam Lisberg makes a good point in yesterday's NY Daily New about Bloomberg's blatant hypocrisy when it comes to carbon foot printing: "Until last week, anyone walking into City Hall could see Mayor Bloomberg's SUVs parked for hours with the engine running - anyone, that is, but the mayor."They don't idle when I'm in the car - they drive when I'm in the car," he explained. After The Associated Press revealed the open secret, the environmentalist mayor told the NYPD to obey his months-old edict: engines off when the SUVs are parked."
All this hoo ha does is to point out how much the mayor is pretty much only a, do what I say kinda guy; and how his own personal behavior contradicts the edicts he peremptorily gives to others. We have already shown how is gun control mania doesn't prevent Bloomberg from employing a security team for his personal safety-not to mention the armed NYPD security team.
And then there is Bloomberg's own Sasquatchian-like carbon footprint. As the NY Post reported: "America's greenest mayor generates enough greenhouse gas to choke the Lincoln Tunnel.
Mayor Bloomberg - who has advocated everything from ditching incandescent light bulbs to taxing Midtown commuters to clean the air - produces 364 tons of smog-inducing carbon dioxide a year, according to a Post analysis of the billionaire's trans-Atlantic real estate portfolio and travel style."
So, as he did with congestion pricing, the mayor advocates for others to be frugal with the environment while he traipses all across the globe spewing forth carbon emissions to a fare thee well. Which brings us to another liberal do what I say kinda guy-the NY Times' Tom Friedman. Talk about Sasquatchian!
While Tom lectures us about how the newly passed cap and trade bill will assure that new homes will be more energy efficient-"this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we need to mitigate climate change. But it also contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming energy hogs, to make our appliances the most energy efficient in the world and to help preserve forests in places like the Amazon."-he lives in the kind of mansion that has the trees in the Amazon forest trembling with fear.
What this tells us, is that there is an entire class of rich environmentally conscious folks who-once they have gotten theirs-wants to restrict the kind of development that other may use to get wealthy: "Well, obviously, being a renowned expert, Thomas Friedman, like Al Gore and the Prince of Wales, needs a supersized carbon footprint. But you don't - you can get by beating your laundry on the rocks down by the river with the native women all day long. "Environmentalism" is a government restraint on economic advance and, therefore, social mobility. In other words, it's a way to ensure you'll never live like Tom Friedman."
Or, Mike Bloomberg, for that matter.
All this hoo ha does is to point out how much the mayor is pretty much only a, do what I say kinda guy; and how his own personal behavior contradicts the edicts he peremptorily gives to others. We have already shown how is gun control mania doesn't prevent Bloomberg from employing a security team for his personal safety-not to mention the armed NYPD security team.
And then there is Bloomberg's own Sasquatchian-like carbon footprint. As the NY Post reported: "America's greenest mayor generates enough greenhouse gas to choke the Lincoln Tunnel.
Mayor Bloomberg - who has advocated everything from ditching incandescent light bulbs to taxing Midtown commuters to clean the air - produces 364 tons of smog-inducing carbon dioxide a year, according to a Post analysis of the billionaire's trans-Atlantic real estate portfolio and travel style."
So, as he did with congestion pricing, the mayor advocates for others to be frugal with the environment while he traipses all across the globe spewing forth carbon emissions to a fare thee well. Which brings us to another liberal do what I say kinda guy-the NY Times' Tom Friedman. Talk about Sasquatchian!
While Tom lectures us about how the newly passed cap and trade bill will assure that new homes will be more energy efficient-"this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we need to mitigate climate change. But it also contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming energy hogs, to make our appliances the most energy efficient in the world and to help preserve forests in places like the Amazon."-he lives in the kind of mansion that has the trees in the Amazon forest trembling with fear.
What this tells us, is that there is an entire class of rich environmentally conscious folks who-once they have gotten theirs-wants to restrict the kind of development that other may use to get wealthy: "Well, obviously, being a renowned expert, Thomas Friedman, like Al Gore and the Prince of Wales, needs a supersized carbon footprint. But you don't - you can get by beating your laundry on the rocks down by the river with the native women all day long. "Environmentalism" is a government restraint on economic advance and, therefore, social mobility. In other words, it's a way to ensure you'll never live like Tom Friedman."
Or, Mike Bloomberg, for that matter.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Fire in the Hole
When the folks voted to install Mike Bloomberg as their mayor-and did it a second time-the prevailing wisdom was that, owing to the mayor's vast fortune, the public could count on a corruption-free mayoralty. What was not taken into consideration, was the Bloomberg old boys network that gave Dan Doctoroff and the Related Companies to NYC. As a result of this, we were able to bear witness to a whole series of sweetheart no-bid deals that left the city less well off than it should have been.
We have, of course, outlined a few of these deals-most notably the gifting of the Bronx Terminal Market by Docotroff to his old friend and business associate Steve Ross. On a lesser scale, Doctoroff stabbed the Fernandez brothers in the back over the development rights to a project in Harlem on Bradhurst Avenue-subsidizing the project with an additional $5 million after the Related folks, under the Giuliani regime, had been issued two non performance letters, and were on the verge of being de-designated.
But now comes something even more egregious-and coming from our vantage point, with our bug up the butt view of the Bronx Terminal deal, this says quite a lot. It involves the mayor's culpability in the Deutsche Bank fire; and the role played by sweetheart contractor Bovis.
Wayne Barrett has outlined the shamefulness of all that has transpired-a shame that is magnified by the failure of the local press to properly tar baby the mayor on this issue: "The Voice's cover story this week, "Bloomberg's Biggest Scandal--the Deutsche Bank Fire--Should Be His Downfall" -- examined the determination of top city officials, including Bloomberg's longtime top deputy Dan Doctoroff, to ignore the risk of installing Bovis Lend Lease and its prime subcontractor Galt at the demolition site of the bank building. Doctoroff brushed aside warnings from the city's investigations department about Galt in deference to Bovis' reckless desire to hire the mob-tainted firm."
Let's not forget that two firefighters were killed as a result of the city's actions here: "Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau has indicted Galt and two of its officials in the negligent homicide case involving the death of two firefighters, Robert Beddia and Joseph Graffagnino, at the bank site. He also charged one Bovis employee, but said he did not indict Bovis because it could have caused the collapse of a company that employs thousands."
And, as Barrett has told us, not a single paper has even bothered to call for the removal of the fire commissioner-an incompetent administrator with no fire fighting expertise, whose claim to fame involved a see no evil approach to child abuse when he was in charge of Administration for Children’s Services (ACS).
The question with all of this is why did the city promote Bovis-and who was responsible for the shilling of a failed company? As Barrett points out, Deputy Dan was in the middle of this mess as well: "At the very moment that Doctoroff and the LMDC went ahead with the Bovis contract at the bank site in 2005, the company was engaged in what city attorneys call now "repeated failures to perform in accordance" with "generally accepted professional standards" in the construction of the $275 million Bronx Hall of Justice, the 10-story courthouse that Bovis completed almost three years late. The lawsuit is still pending."
All of which underscores that the Bloomberg administration has been rife with incompetence and cronyism-and his billionaire brothers in the press have been covering for him. We have been particularly curious about why the Post's Murdoch has been such a mayoral toady-after all, the paper has an ideological view of the world that's diametrically opposed to the one espoused by the Nanny mayor.
In response to our query on this, Barrett referred us to his magnum opus of last year on Bloomberg: "In 2007, Bloomberg L.P. decided, apparently after some consideration, not to compete with Murdoch for The Wall Street Journal. Murdoch similarly decided this July not to compete with Bloomberg when he paid $4.5 billion to buy Merrill Lynch's 20 percent interest in Bloomberg L.P. In this walled-off billionaire playground, it's impossible to tell if any of these third-term mogul endorsements spring in part from a business motive."
Bloomberg's purchase of the Wall Street Journal would have given him a virtual monopoly over the financial news in this country-and would have been a great business move. His demurral in going after the WSJ was a god send to Murdoch; and saved him millions from having to match a competitive bid in the process. Gratitude can take many forms.
So we are left to blog flogging Bloomberg in the absence of any real credible journalistic accountability. After all, if the Post can obsessively call for mayoral control on a daily basis, how about banging away at the incompetence of Scoppetta-and the man who refuses to fire him? And while they're at it, let's see if the investigation of the Bloomberg/Bovis nexus is picked up by the intrepid NY Times investigating unit.
Don't hold your breathe. We have a one party town in NYC-and it ain't the Democratic Party that's in charge, it's the Plutocrats; and in the process, vital information necessary for an informed citizenry is being actively suppressed.
We have, of course, outlined a few of these deals-most notably the gifting of the Bronx Terminal Market by Docotroff to his old friend and business associate Steve Ross. On a lesser scale, Doctoroff stabbed the Fernandez brothers in the back over the development rights to a project in Harlem on Bradhurst Avenue-subsidizing the project with an additional $5 million after the Related folks, under the Giuliani regime, had been issued two non performance letters, and were on the verge of being de-designated.
But now comes something even more egregious-and coming from our vantage point, with our bug up the butt view of the Bronx Terminal deal, this says quite a lot. It involves the mayor's culpability in the Deutsche Bank fire; and the role played by sweetheart contractor Bovis.
Wayne Barrett has outlined the shamefulness of all that has transpired-a shame that is magnified by the failure of the local press to properly tar baby the mayor on this issue: "The Voice's cover story this week, "Bloomberg's Biggest Scandal--the Deutsche Bank Fire--Should Be His Downfall" -- examined the determination of top city officials, including Bloomberg's longtime top deputy Dan Doctoroff, to ignore the risk of installing Bovis Lend Lease and its prime subcontractor Galt at the demolition site of the bank building. Doctoroff brushed aside warnings from the city's investigations department about Galt in deference to Bovis' reckless desire to hire the mob-tainted firm."
Let's not forget that two firefighters were killed as a result of the city's actions here: "Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau has indicted Galt and two of its officials in the negligent homicide case involving the death of two firefighters, Robert Beddia and Joseph Graffagnino, at the bank site. He also charged one Bovis employee, but said he did not indict Bovis because it could have caused the collapse of a company that employs thousands."
And, as Barrett has told us, not a single paper has even bothered to call for the removal of the fire commissioner-an incompetent administrator with no fire fighting expertise, whose claim to fame involved a see no evil approach to child abuse when he was in charge of Administration for Children’s Services (ACS).
The question with all of this is why did the city promote Bovis-and who was responsible for the shilling of a failed company? As Barrett points out, Deputy Dan was in the middle of this mess as well: "At the very moment that Doctoroff and the LMDC went ahead with the Bovis contract at the bank site in 2005, the company was engaged in what city attorneys call now "repeated failures to perform in accordance" with "generally accepted professional standards" in the construction of the $275 million Bronx Hall of Justice, the 10-story courthouse that Bovis completed almost three years late. The lawsuit is still pending."
All of which underscores that the Bloomberg administration has been rife with incompetence and cronyism-and his billionaire brothers in the press have been covering for him. We have been particularly curious about why the Post's Murdoch has been such a mayoral toady-after all, the paper has an ideological view of the world that's diametrically opposed to the one espoused by the Nanny mayor.
In response to our query on this, Barrett referred us to his magnum opus of last year on Bloomberg: "In 2007, Bloomberg L.P. decided, apparently after some consideration, not to compete with Murdoch for The Wall Street Journal. Murdoch similarly decided this July not to compete with Bloomberg when he paid $4.5 billion to buy Merrill Lynch's 20 percent interest in Bloomberg L.P. In this walled-off billionaire playground, it's impossible to tell if any of these third-term mogul endorsements spring in part from a business motive."
Bloomberg's purchase of the Wall Street Journal would have given him a virtual monopoly over the financial news in this country-and would have been a great business move. His demurral in going after the WSJ was a god send to Murdoch; and saved him millions from having to match a competitive bid in the process. Gratitude can take many forms.
So we are left to blog flogging Bloomberg in the absence of any real credible journalistic accountability. After all, if the Post can obsessively call for mayoral control on a daily basis, how about banging away at the incompetence of Scoppetta-and the man who refuses to fire him? And while they're at it, let's see if the investigation of the Bloomberg/Bovis nexus is picked up by the intrepid NY Times investigating unit.
Don't hold your breathe. We have a one party town in NYC-and it ain't the Democratic Party that's in charge, it's the Plutocrats; and in the process, vital information necessary for an informed citizenry is being actively suppressed.
A Condemnation of a Massive Government Failure
Can you believe all of the endless negotiations between the Port Authority and Larry Silverstein over the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site? The site, which by all means should be considered sacred ground-and a place for a national memorial to remember those who lost their lives to the worst attack on American soil-has been allowed to lay fallow for eight years. This, in spite of the fact that Silverstein had barely gotten title to the property before the Towers were attacked.
Now, however, after all this time, everyone is bending over backwards to placate Silverstein. As the NY Daily News reports: "The Port Authority for the first time on Friday spelled out a scenario in which it could strip Larry Silverstein of the three iconic skyscrapers he plans to build at Ground Zero. Agency brass say that within the next two months, they'll turn over "construction-ready land" to the developer - and stop paying him $300,000-a-day in late fees they've paid for more than a year."
Now we don't believe that the developer is the only blameworthy participant in this dance of delay-how could Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg, for instance, allow the situation to deteriorate with no action on this iconic property? And, having failed to act, paying off Silverstein to the tune of millions of dollars? Here's a great example of the Bloomberg leadership expertise in action; simply unable to devise a solution to what should have been the biggest development priority for a new mayor.
Instead, Bloomberg went off to build a football stadium; deeded over the Bronx Terminal Market to a close friend; smoothed the way for the eminent domaining of West Harlem on behalf of Columbia; and, most egregiously of all, developed a plan to take the property of hundreds of small business owners in Willets Point. All the while Ground Zero remains a pit-a monument to the mayor's failure.
And the NY Post's Steve Cuozzo has been a beacon on the Ground Zero fiasco-and the recent flap over drunken construction workers, well, drove him to drink: "Just thinking about Ground Zero can drive you to drink. Look at the 16-acre site without even one completed project almost eight years after 9/11, and you want to slip into the Millenium Hotel's third-floor bar overlooking the pit and down a Slurry Wallbanger -- oops, Harvey Wallbanger -- to numb your brain. But it's not an option for construction workers. The hardhats' lunchtime boozing, observed and photographed by The Post, reflects the lack of accountability that plagues the whole downtown rebuilding effort. This outrage is much worse than when this newspaper found hundreds of pages of "confidential" rebuilding documents, including Freedom Tower architectural drawings, dumped in garbage cans last year. The Port Authority had trouble explaining that. But when it comes to construction workers getting smashed on their lunch hours, there must be no failure to identify and punish the guilty."
So while the Port Authority has been totally negligent-and the political will non existent-the ground remains undeveloped. But let's pose a question that no one is asking. Why hasn't the city and state coordinated an eminent domain proceeding to condemn the Port's property rights-and Silverstein's lease along with it? In Willets Point, so the argument goes, we can't allow this eyesore to be perpetuated-notwithstanding the fact that the so-called eyesore is economically productive for thousands of families.
Ground Zero, on the other hand, in spite of being the spot where a national memorial should have been up and running years ago, stands empty. In our understanding of the eminent domain laws, there are two rationales for taking property-one if the area is blighted; and second, if the land is going to be used for a "civic project."
So while the city and state moves with alacrity to take Nick Sprayregen's West Harlem
warehouses, and the Korean dry cleaners over on Second Avenue and 126th Street-not to mention the 250 Willets Point firms-they sit with the proverbial thumbs up their sphincters when it comes to the PA and Siverstein. Can anyone say, double standard?
And what has Bloomberg done to get the ball rolling? According to Cuozzo, he has thrown himself right in the middle: "But it's worth Bloomberg's trying. This is the mayor who took control of the city's public-education system despite howls from unions and their political stooges that he couldn't do it, just as Rudy Giuliani curbed crime against resistance from everywhere; to courageously establish a new agenda and see it through is called leadership. And if it takes a great leap of courage on the mayor's part to adjust the PA's Ground Zero agenda, so be it. Political courage has been sorely lacking at Ground Zero..."
And Speaker Silver recently called the inaction, "an embarrassment." Yet, the idea of simple condemnation is outside the scope of discussion-an example of what the political scientists Bachrach and Baratz called, "non-decisions," subjects that were so outside the world view of the decision makers that they never even make it to the negotiating table.
The failure to act forcefully at Ground Zero is, then, just another example of how eminent domain is used almost exclusively in reverse Robin Hood fashion-giving to the rich, and taking from the less wealthy. One thing we know for certain, as the governor lunches with the developer, and the mayor huddles with the speaker, is that the idea of simply condemning the site and opening up the development rights to someone with a true civic vision is not on the lunch menu. Apparently, it's too rich for their blood.
Now, however, after all this time, everyone is bending over backwards to placate Silverstein. As the NY Daily News reports: "The Port Authority for the first time on Friday spelled out a scenario in which it could strip Larry Silverstein of the three iconic skyscrapers he plans to build at Ground Zero. Agency brass say that within the next two months, they'll turn over "construction-ready land" to the developer - and stop paying him $300,000-a-day in late fees they've paid for more than a year."
Now we don't believe that the developer is the only blameworthy participant in this dance of delay-how could Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg, for instance, allow the situation to deteriorate with no action on this iconic property? And, having failed to act, paying off Silverstein to the tune of millions of dollars? Here's a great example of the Bloomberg leadership expertise in action; simply unable to devise a solution to what should have been the biggest development priority for a new mayor.
Instead, Bloomberg went off to build a football stadium; deeded over the Bronx Terminal Market to a close friend; smoothed the way for the eminent domaining of West Harlem on behalf of Columbia; and, most egregiously of all, developed a plan to take the property of hundreds of small business owners in Willets Point. All the while Ground Zero remains a pit-a monument to the mayor's failure.
And the NY Post's Steve Cuozzo has been a beacon on the Ground Zero fiasco-and the recent flap over drunken construction workers, well, drove him to drink: "Just thinking about Ground Zero can drive you to drink. Look at the 16-acre site without even one completed project almost eight years after 9/11, and you want to slip into the Millenium Hotel's third-floor bar overlooking the pit and down a Slurry Wallbanger -- oops, Harvey Wallbanger -- to numb your brain. But it's not an option for construction workers. The hardhats' lunchtime boozing, observed and photographed by The Post, reflects the lack of accountability that plagues the whole downtown rebuilding effort. This outrage is much worse than when this newspaper found hundreds of pages of "confidential" rebuilding documents, including Freedom Tower architectural drawings, dumped in garbage cans last year. The Port Authority had trouble explaining that. But when it comes to construction workers getting smashed on their lunch hours, there must be no failure to identify and punish the guilty."
So while the Port Authority has been totally negligent-and the political will non existent-the ground remains undeveloped. But let's pose a question that no one is asking. Why hasn't the city and state coordinated an eminent domain proceeding to condemn the Port's property rights-and Silverstein's lease along with it? In Willets Point, so the argument goes, we can't allow this eyesore to be perpetuated-notwithstanding the fact that the so-called eyesore is economically productive for thousands of families.
Ground Zero, on the other hand, in spite of being the spot where a national memorial should have been up and running years ago, stands empty. In our understanding of the eminent domain laws, there are two rationales for taking property-one if the area is blighted; and second, if the land is going to be used for a "civic project."
So while the city and state moves with alacrity to take Nick Sprayregen's West Harlem
warehouses, and the Korean dry cleaners over on Second Avenue and 126th Street-not to mention the 250 Willets Point firms-they sit with the proverbial thumbs up their sphincters when it comes to the PA and Siverstein. Can anyone say, double standard?
And what has Bloomberg done to get the ball rolling? According to Cuozzo, he has thrown himself right in the middle: "But it's worth Bloomberg's trying. This is the mayor who took control of the city's public-education system despite howls from unions and their political stooges that he couldn't do it, just as Rudy Giuliani curbed crime against resistance from everywhere; to courageously establish a new agenda and see it through is called leadership. And if it takes a great leap of courage on the mayor's part to adjust the PA's Ground Zero agenda, so be it. Political courage has been sorely lacking at Ground Zero..."
And Speaker Silver recently called the inaction, "an embarrassment." Yet, the idea of simple condemnation is outside the scope of discussion-an example of what the political scientists Bachrach and Baratz called, "non-decisions," subjects that were so outside the world view of the decision makers that they never even make it to the negotiating table.
The failure to act forcefully at Ground Zero is, then, just another example of how eminent domain is used almost exclusively in reverse Robin Hood fashion-giving to the rich, and taking from the less wealthy. One thing we know for certain, as the governor lunches with the developer, and the mayor huddles with the speaker, is that the idea of simply condemning the site and opening up the development rights to someone with a true civic vision is not on the lunch menu. Apparently, it's too rich for their blood.
Failing to Get an Education
Opponents of mayoral control gathered-300+ strong-on the steps of city hall to rail against re-issuing a blank check to the man who has already demonstrated that some controls over his unchecked power would be...a good thing. As the NY Daily News reports: "Democratic state senators brought the battle over school control to Mayor Bloomberg's doorstep on Thursday, denouncing him on the steps of City Hall for refusing to compromise. The lawmakers, who have been embroiled in a nasty public feud with Bloomberg over the lapsed law, refused to rule out starting the school year without a new bill. "There is no end to this debate," said Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada Jr. "It will be ongoing."
Fortunately, as we suggested yesterday, the senators hit away-not at the mayor personally-but at the disastrous results of allowing a system of unchecked power to continue. Instructively, neither of the two papers that have been assailing the senate for not rubber stamping the assembly-passed bill bothered to even try to cover the substance of the arguments that were put forward in detail yesterday; and not only by senators, but by parents and teachers as well.
This Three Blind Mice version of journalism continues to do a disservice to NY's voters who will be asked to pass judgment on the Bloomberg Era without any real scrutiny from papers whose function is supposedly to inform the folks about the strengths and weaknesses of their elected officials. In this vacuum created by nonfeasance-and in at least one case with the Post, malfeasance-all that any one's been able to hear is the relentless drumbeat of the mayor's well financed propaganda machine.
When serious criticism is finally being raised about the less than utopian governance structure, it's being lost-first in the back and forth of personal invective between the mayor and his senate adversaries-in the silence of the tabloids. Here's the NY Post on yesterday's rally-in a 122 word story: "Democrats in the do-nothing state Senate yesterday vowed to keep thwarting Mayor Bloomberg's bid to extend mayoral control of the schools unless City Hall agrees to empower parents and make other concessions. "We're going to be the bad guys," Sen. Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn) said at a press conference with parents outside City Hall."
Catchy lead, no? And what, pray tell, are those other concessions? Perhaps the rights to sell Snapple in their local schools? Or maybe they are somewhat more substantive-like eliminating hundreds of millions of dollars of no-bid contracts, as was suggested by Senator Kruger. But you'd never know, at least if you only read the NY Daily News and NY Post. On the other hand, the rally did get better coverage from NY1, but the other stations were more interested in fundraising scandals then in any substantive mayoral debate.
And, lost in the din on all this, is that there has been some real discussions between the mayor and the senate "clowns." Something that Wayne Barrett appears to be the ony one reporting on: "Senate Democrats and negotiators for the mayor have apparently worked out terms to settle the recent deadlock about extending the mayoral school control bill. Sources say the mayor has agreed to an amendment that would provide $1.6 million to the City University to oversee a parent training and exchange program, which was a key change sought by Senate Democratic Conference Chair John Sampson and other senators." Which means that the entire fiasco may soon be over-and any real independent evaluation put in the back of the sock drawer.
So we are left mostly with the sounds of silence-or, alternatively, the tawdry exchanges of woof ticket politics. Meanwhile the basis for the re-election of the mayor-a rationale built almost entirely on a solipsism-is not being effectively challenged; although Bill Thompson appears to have finally come out of his stupor. As the News does tell us: "Meanwhile, City Controller Bill Thompson challenged Bloomberg to an education debate, hammering him for the third day on one of the mayor's signature campaign issues. Bloomberg's campaign declined but said he looked forward to debates scheduled for October. Thompson is his likely Democratic rival."
Thompson needs to constantly bell the cat-and go after the mayor as aggressively as Bloomberg has with the state senate. Bloomberg's arrogant political bubble needs to be burst-and the only way that will be done (and actually reported) is if the comptroller whales away. Let's hope he does.
Fortunately, as we suggested yesterday, the senators hit away-not at the mayor personally-but at the disastrous results of allowing a system of unchecked power to continue. Instructively, neither of the two papers that have been assailing the senate for not rubber stamping the assembly-passed bill bothered to even try to cover the substance of the arguments that were put forward in detail yesterday; and not only by senators, but by parents and teachers as well.
This Three Blind Mice version of journalism continues to do a disservice to NY's voters who will be asked to pass judgment on the Bloomberg Era without any real scrutiny from papers whose function is supposedly to inform the folks about the strengths and weaknesses of their elected officials. In this vacuum created by nonfeasance-and in at least one case with the Post, malfeasance-all that any one's been able to hear is the relentless drumbeat of the mayor's well financed propaganda machine.
When serious criticism is finally being raised about the less than utopian governance structure, it's being lost-first in the back and forth of personal invective between the mayor and his senate adversaries-in the silence of the tabloids. Here's the NY Post on yesterday's rally-in a 122 word story: "Democrats in the do-nothing state Senate yesterday vowed to keep thwarting Mayor Bloomberg's bid to extend mayoral control of the schools unless City Hall agrees to empower parents and make other concessions. "We're going to be the bad guys," Sen. Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn) said at a press conference with parents outside City Hall."
Catchy lead, no? And what, pray tell, are those other concessions? Perhaps the rights to sell Snapple in their local schools? Or maybe they are somewhat more substantive-like eliminating hundreds of millions of dollars of no-bid contracts, as was suggested by Senator Kruger. But you'd never know, at least if you only read the NY Daily News and NY Post. On the other hand, the rally did get better coverage from NY1, but the other stations were more interested in fundraising scandals then in any substantive mayoral debate.
And, lost in the din on all this, is that there has been some real discussions between the mayor and the senate "clowns." Something that Wayne Barrett appears to be the ony one reporting on: "Senate Democrats and negotiators for the mayor have apparently worked out terms to settle the recent deadlock about extending the mayoral school control bill. Sources say the mayor has agreed to an amendment that would provide $1.6 million to the City University to oversee a parent training and exchange program, which was a key change sought by Senate Democratic Conference Chair John Sampson and other senators." Which means that the entire fiasco may soon be over-and any real independent evaluation put in the back of the sock drawer.
So we are left mostly with the sounds of silence-or, alternatively, the tawdry exchanges of woof ticket politics. Meanwhile the basis for the re-election of the mayor-a rationale built almost entirely on a solipsism-is not being effectively challenged; although Bill Thompson appears to have finally come out of his stupor. As the News does tell us: "Meanwhile, City Controller Bill Thompson challenged Bloomberg to an education debate, hammering him for the third day on one of the mayor's signature campaign issues. Bloomberg's campaign declined but said he looked forward to debates scheduled for October. Thompson is his likely Democratic rival."
Thompson needs to constantly bell the cat-and go after the mayor as aggressively as Bloomberg has with the state senate. Bloomberg's arrogant political bubble needs to be burst-and the only way that will be done (and actually reported) is if the comptroller whales away. Let's hope he does.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
ObamaCare and Small Business
Yesterday we were given an opportunity by Lou Young of WCBS TV to comment on the president's health care plan; and our position remains, that the plan will severely damage the already reeling small business sector because, as we said, there is no cost containment that will insulate small firms from additional-and expensive-mandates. The current plans simply make matters worse.
With record job losses piling up every month, and with no clear idea on just how the 40 million or more folks who are currently uninsured are going to get covered-and who will be forced to pay for their coverage-it is not the best time for the federal government to be engaged in a complex overhaul of 17% of the American economy. And, as we pointed out to Lou Young, we're currently experiencing record bankruptcies and foreclosures in the NYC small business sector, and any additional burdens-no matter how well intentioned-will further cripple an already hobbled economic sector.
This basic point was brought home by Lloyd Williams of the Greater Harlem Chamber of Commerce. Appearing with Domenic Carter on The Road to City hall on NY1, Mr. Williams described a bleak small business landscape above 96th Street-with a 37% store vacancy rate in some neighborhood shopping strips. This was brought home by another NY1's story: "One shuttered store after another along 125th Street means only one thing: Harlem is being hit hard by the recession. Many businesses have packed up for good, others moved to more viable locations. While there are stores still open for business, those merchants say things are very slow."
So clearly, this isn't the time to increase the burdens on small store owners. And when the president says, as he did in his press conference last night, that 14,000 people lose their health insurance every day, what he failed to mention was that these are predominately people who have lost their jobs-and the health benefits went away with it. The current health plan will lead to even further job loss, making the country's economic recovery that much more problematic-and small business owners will be especially hard hit.
The fact that the country's health care system needs to be reformed, doesn't mean that we should be forced to endorse plans that may make a bad situation worse. The current ones being bandied about in Washington are bad for small business, bad for the overall economy; but, worst of all, exacerbate the systemic problems of health care delivery in this country. In this case, doing nothing is actually preferable.
With record job losses piling up every month, and with no clear idea on just how the 40 million or more folks who are currently uninsured are going to get covered-and who will be forced to pay for their coverage-it is not the best time for the federal government to be engaged in a complex overhaul of 17% of the American economy. And, as we pointed out to Lou Young, we're currently experiencing record bankruptcies and foreclosures in the NYC small business sector, and any additional burdens-no matter how well intentioned-will further cripple an already hobbled economic sector.
This basic point was brought home by Lloyd Williams of the Greater Harlem Chamber of Commerce. Appearing with Domenic Carter on The Road to City hall on NY1, Mr. Williams described a bleak small business landscape above 96th Street-with a 37% store vacancy rate in some neighborhood shopping strips. This was brought home by another NY1's story: "One shuttered store after another along 125th Street means only one thing: Harlem is being hit hard by the recession. Many businesses have packed up for good, others moved to more viable locations. While there are stores still open for business, those merchants say things are very slow."
So clearly, this isn't the time to increase the burdens on small store owners. And when the president says, as he did in his press conference last night, that 14,000 people lose their health insurance every day, what he failed to mention was that these are predominately people who have lost their jobs-and the health benefits went away with it. The current health plan will lead to even further job loss, making the country's economic recovery that much more problematic-and small business owners will be especially hard hit.
The fact that the country's health care system needs to be reformed, doesn't mean that we should be forced to endorse plans that may make a bad situation worse. The current ones being bandied about in Washington are bad for small business, bad for the overall economy; but, worst of all, exacerbate the systemic problems of health care delivery in this country. In this case, doing nothing is actually preferable.
NY Post and Daily News Awediting
It's one thing to chide Bill Thompson's auditing of the DOE for its politicized aroma-as the NY Post and the NY Daily News both do. It's quite another thing to hang like school girls on every pronouncement that is emitted from the educational bureaucracy; a form of slavishness that is unbecoming for seasoned journalists.
Here's the Post's critique-and we're not bemused by the paper's blatant partisan failure to even cover the comptroller's audit in its news section: "Tuesday, he tried to cast doubt on city claims that graduation rates have risen; yesterday, he bashed testing methods. The city, Thompson says, "created an environment that both encourages cheating and allows the mayor to claim achievements that cannot be verified." Yet none of the attacks is backed up."
Unlike the mayor's official announcements and endless Big Lie propaganda campaign that the Post editors fawn over; this jaundiced narrative takes on the form of Papal infallibility for the Postmortems. Which is why we have suggested that the entire regime be put under the scrutiny of an Inspector General who could do what the Post-and we'll get to the News in just a bit-chooses not to do. Nothing must get in the way of its canonization of Mike Bloomberg.
Which brings us to the News-and at least this paper actually had the menschlichkeit to cover the story. The News awards Thompson its coveted Knucklehead prize for his audit of the DOE: "For being dumb enough to believe he could bamboozle New Yorkers with the most cynically fabricated accusations in many a political season ...For being foolish enough to think he could inject life into his dying-quail mayoral campaign by writing fictional press releases ...For being so out of touch as to assume no one would notice gross factual misrepresentations by the city's chief fiscal officer ..."
When we started to read this proclamation we first thought that it was the opening salvo of an incisive self criticism-because the words could be more aptly applied to the News' missives on behalf of mayoral control; especially the, "For being dumb enough to believe he could bamboozle New Yorkers..."
From the very start of the paper's vigorous promotion of mayoral control-starting about the same time the Morticia colluded with his richer colleague on overturning the popular will-the paper has eschewed analysis for flackery. In fact, given the P. T. Barnum nature of the faux coverage of the issue we are awarding the News the Alliance's first Muñeco Award-given to the person or business that most exemplifies sycophancy-and raises the behavior to its highest art form.
The reality here is that there is a great deal of smoke and mirrors in the Klein school regime-and the need for an independent audit is a compelling one; particularly when sycophants and toadies are breeding like rabbits in the city's news rooms. So, before we enshrine Mike Bloomberg as our Educator-in-Chief, let's get an informed second opinion; something we're as likely to get from the Post and the News as a critique of Kim Jong-il in a North Korean daily.
Here's the Post's critique-and we're not bemused by the paper's blatant partisan failure to even cover the comptroller's audit in its news section: "Tuesday, he tried to cast doubt on city claims that graduation rates have risen; yesterday, he bashed testing methods. The city, Thompson says, "created an environment that both encourages cheating and allows the mayor to claim achievements that cannot be verified." Yet none of the attacks is backed up."
Unlike the mayor's official announcements and endless Big Lie propaganda campaign that the Post editors fawn over; this jaundiced narrative takes on the form of Papal infallibility for the Postmortems. Which is why we have suggested that the entire regime be put under the scrutiny of an Inspector General who could do what the Post-and we'll get to the News in just a bit-chooses not to do. Nothing must get in the way of its canonization of Mike Bloomberg.
Which brings us to the News-and at least this paper actually had the menschlichkeit to cover the story. The News awards Thompson its coveted Knucklehead prize for his audit of the DOE: "For being dumb enough to believe he could bamboozle New Yorkers with the most cynically fabricated accusations in many a political season ...For being foolish enough to think he could inject life into his dying-quail mayoral campaign by writing fictional press releases ...For being so out of touch as to assume no one would notice gross factual misrepresentations by the city's chief fiscal officer ..."
When we started to read this proclamation we first thought that it was the opening salvo of an incisive self criticism-because the words could be more aptly applied to the News' missives on behalf of mayoral control; especially the, "For being dumb enough to believe he could bamboozle New Yorkers..."
From the very start of the paper's vigorous promotion of mayoral control-starting about the same time the Morticia colluded with his richer colleague on overturning the popular will-the paper has eschewed analysis for flackery. In fact, given the P. T. Barnum nature of the faux coverage of the issue we are awarding the News the Alliance's first Muñeco Award-given to the person or business that most exemplifies sycophancy-and raises the behavior to its highest art form.
The reality here is that there is a great deal of smoke and mirrors in the Klein school regime-and the need for an independent audit is a compelling one; particularly when sycophants and toadies are breeding like rabbits in the city's news rooms. So, before we enshrine Mike Bloomberg as our Educator-in-Chief, let's get an informed second opinion; something we're as likely to get from the Post and the News as a critique of Kim Jong-il in a North Korean daily.
Blight Makes Right?
So, here's the question. When is a blighted Willets Point business not blighted? Answer: When it is moved to College Point. As the NY Daily News points out: "City Councilman Tony Avella is ramping up his opposition to the city's plan to move five Willets Point businesses to the College Point Corporate Park...The Bloomberg administration's proposal would relocate an auto salvage yard, an ironworks, a plumbing supply company, a towing firm and a business that sells nonferrous metals. "The mayor called these businesses blighted and a detriment to the neighborhood - but then he can move them to another neighborhood?" said Avella (D-Bayside). "It's a disgrace."
But what's really funny to us, is the explanation of the EDC: "City Economic Development Corp. officials defended the relocation of the five businesses. They are "all family-owned, multigenerational industrial businesses that have long been an integral part of the Queens community," agency spokeswoman Janel Patterson said. "They will strengthen the corporate park."
And, in our view, Patterson is right-but the same goes true for the scores of other "all family-owned, multigenerational industrial businesses," that are still over at Willets Point fighting the city's effort to use eminent domain to remove them. The only reason that they're blighted? Because of the theft of services practiced by NYC for the better part of seven decades.
So, we want to thank Mr. Patterson and the EDC for dramatizing the inequity of the city's effort at Willets Point. The mayor's band of merry men and women should have come up with a redevelopment plan that would preserve the, "family-owned, multigenerational industrial businesses," at Willets Point. Instead, as is his want, the plan devised is an anti-small business land grad that will displace folks who have operated under duress for decades-another example of how the Bloomberg "five borough" economic plan is a dagger in the heart of the city's entrepreneurs.
And what's up with the illegal restriction that the city granted to the community board? "The board granted its advisory opinion, members said, after an EDC official pledged in writing that no Willets Point businesses would be relocated to the Flushing Airport, a defunct airfield included in the corporate park." Well, if these businesses-and the many others left behind-are, "an integral part of the Queens community," then why restrict others from making the move to a corporate park that, after all, is close by and would allow the other businesses to stay in close proximity to their customers?
All of this demonstrates how arbitrary and ad hoc the city's policy decisions are. Only in New York, couuld an administration devise an elaborate plan-in the middle of a recession, no less-that would threaten the survival of 250 firms and 2500 workers. But these businesses lack the right glamour-and a class bias is never far behind most of the big economic moves made by Mike Bloomberg. Whether its the wholesalers in the Bronx Terminal Market, a storage company in West Harlem, or auto supply businesses in Willets Point, all must make way for the bigger guys with political clout. Man of the people Bloomberg? We think not.
But what's really funny to us, is the explanation of the EDC: "City Economic Development Corp. officials defended the relocation of the five businesses. They are "all family-owned, multigenerational industrial businesses that have long been an integral part of the Queens community," agency spokeswoman Janel Patterson said. "They will strengthen the corporate park."
And, in our view, Patterson is right-but the same goes true for the scores of other "all family-owned, multigenerational industrial businesses," that are still over at Willets Point fighting the city's effort to use eminent domain to remove them. The only reason that they're blighted? Because of the theft of services practiced by NYC for the better part of seven decades.
So, we want to thank Mr. Patterson and the EDC for dramatizing the inequity of the city's effort at Willets Point. The mayor's band of merry men and women should have come up with a redevelopment plan that would preserve the, "family-owned, multigenerational industrial businesses," at Willets Point. Instead, as is his want, the plan devised is an anti-small business land grad that will displace folks who have operated under duress for decades-another example of how the Bloomberg "five borough" economic plan is a dagger in the heart of the city's entrepreneurs.
And what's up with the illegal restriction that the city granted to the community board? "The board granted its advisory opinion, members said, after an EDC official pledged in writing that no Willets Point businesses would be relocated to the Flushing Airport, a defunct airfield included in the corporate park." Well, if these businesses-and the many others left behind-are, "an integral part of the Queens community," then why restrict others from making the move to a corporate park that, after all, is close by and would allow the other businesses to stay in close proximity to their customers?
All of this demonstrates how arbitrary and ad hoc the city's policy decisions are. Only in New York, couuld an administration devise an elaborate plan-in the middle of a recession, no less-that would threaten the survival of 250 firms and 2500 workers. But these businesses lack the right glamour-and a class bias is never far behind most of the big economic moves made by Mike Bloomberg. Whether its the wholesalers in the Bronx Terminal Market, a storage company in West Harlem, or auto supply businesses in Willets Point, all must make way for the bigger guys with political clout. Man of the people Bloomberg? We think not.
On a Graduated Scale
Well, it seems as if it's not only Bill Thompson who has suspicions about the DOE's graduation claims. According to Anne Michaud at Newsday, some LI educators have weighed in on the controversy-and skepticism is the dominant mood: "A report out yesterday from City Comptroller Bill Thompson charges that the Bloomberg administration is inflating graduation rates for city schools. Leaving aside for the moment the incendiary politics of this report -- that Thompson is running for mayor, that Mayor Michael Bloomberg's bid to renew his control over city schools failed last week -- Long Island educators say they, too, have questions about claims of steadily improving graduation rates in city schools."
As they should; and their most cogent suggestion is to call for an independent audit of the data: "I'd like to see audits on how the city schools data is compiled," said Ronald Friedman, the recently retired superintendent of Great Neck schools and immediate past president of the Nassau Council of School Superintendents. "When you focus on an issue like [the graduation rate], the numbers should go up. I would certainly like to see corroborating data that I could feel more comfortable with." Friedman added that he would choose someone other than the city comptroller to make an independent assessment."
So would we-and the senators who are going to be gathering tomorrow over at city hall for a presser should focus on this key proposal; and do so almost to the exclusion of everything else. The reason is that everything that wrong with the current school regime comes from its total lack of transparency-and having an Inspector General for the DOE to monitor and audit the contracting, the school test scores, and the reality of the graduation rates is essential to the monitoring of the entire system.
All we have been given so far has been the preening and posturing of the chancellor and the mayor-with the Bloomberg Big Lie going out incessantly over the air waves. And along with the paid propaganda has come an absolutely shameful amen chorus from the tabloids-papers that have thoroughly abdicated any pretense of either impartiality or acumen on the school governance issue.
But isn't it nice that Bill Thompson has finally stood up to the mayor and little Joel? Calling for the head of Klein is fine; but the comptroller should offer to step aside for an independent IG. As Michaud affirms-and we'll give her the last word: "Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein have been insisting for years that their efforts are improving city schools, and they say the numbers tell the story. If that's true, maybe they would not decline to open their books to a third-party audit. For now, Thompson's audit is strengthening suspicions that something is amiss."
As they should; and their most cogent suggestion is to call for an independent audit of the data: "I'd like to see audits on how the city schools data is compiled," said Ronald Friedman, the recently retired superintendent of Great Neck schools and immediate past president of the Nassau Council of School Superintendents. "When you focus on an issue like [the graduation rate], the numbers should go up. I would certainly like to see corroborating data that I could feel more comfortable with." Friedman added that he would choose someone other than the city comptroller to make an independent assessment."
So would we-and the senators who are going to be gathering tomorrow over at city hall for a presser should focus on this key proposal; and do so almost to the exclusion of everything else. The reason is that everything that wrong with the current school regime comes from its total lack of transparency-and having an Inspector General for the DOE to monitor and audit the contracting, the school test scores, and the reality of the graduation rates is essential to the monitoring of the entire system.
All we have been given so far has been the preening and posturing of the chancellor and the mayor-with the Bloomberg Big Lie going out incessantly over the air waves. And along with the paid propaganda has come an absolutely shameful amen chorus from the tabloids-papers that have thoroughly abdicated any pretense of either impartiality or acumen on the school governance issue.
But isn't it nice that Bill Thompson has finally stood up to the mayor and little Joel? Calling for the head of Klein is fine; but the comptroller should offer to step aside for an independent IG. As Michaud affirms-and we'll give her the last word: "Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein have been insisting for years that their efforts are improving city schools, and they say the numbers tell the story. If that's true, maybe they would not decline to open their books to a third-party audit. For now, Thompson's audit is strengthening suspicions that something is amiss."
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Schooling the Naked Emperor
In this morning's NY Daily News, Michael Goodwin makes what we think is a valuable point-the name calling between Mike Bloomberg and the state senators only benefits the mayor; and, in our view, also takes away from the real substantive issues that undermine the inflated claims Bloomberg makes about school achievement:
"File this one under "The rich get richer." Mayor Bloomberg is set to reap a windfall from the chaos in Albany. Not a cash windfall - that's the last thing he needs - but a political one. His need there, while hardly desperate, is still real, with one poll showing a majority of New Yorkers think it's time for a new mayor. Against that backdrop, the buffoonery in Albany is tailor-made for an incumbent looking for a hot issue to ride. Legislators are giving Bloomy that and more. Besides serving him a big chance to convince voters he deserves four more years, the clowns are making themselves his punching bag."
Exactly so; and especially because the mayor has a bloodless, green eye shade kind of image that imparts a less than real persona: "One day he warned the Albany clowns might spark riots in the streets, linked them to the Soviet Union on another day and then to British appeaser Neville Chamberlain. He outdid himself Saturday, calling on Gov. Paterson to send troopers after state senators who gave themselves the summer off. "The governor can call back the state Legislature every single day in Albany, and he can send the state troopers to drag them back" Bloomberg said on his WOR radio show. "Enough, we're not going to take it anymore." And now he has launched TV and radio campaign ads tied to the battle, a sure sign his internal polls tell him the chaos is his friend."
Which is why our four amigos need to cease and desist that cathartic-like outbursts; and substitute a withering critique of the mayor's false claims for the pointless feel good bombast. And there's a lot to criticize in the deconstruction of the mayor's overblown "triumphs." In fact, there's an entire laundry list that goes like this:
(1) Watered down tests that give the false impression that learning has increased significantly;
(2) Flatlining on the national tests (NAEP) that are counter indicative to any real progress;
(3) A huge increase in the school bidget-from $13 billion to $21 billion-an increase that, given the flatlined national test scores indicate very lttle benefit to all of the increased costs;
(4) Misleading graduation rates that, even now, the comptroller is questioning for veracity: "The New York City comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., released a report on Tuesday suggesting that the city’s graduation rate was inflated, saying he had found instances where it appeared schools had wrongly changed student grades and improperly awarded credit." But even if the cooking of the books isn't as bad as Thompson says, the fact that the grads themselves can't do college work and must undergo intensive remediation in the community colleges, is indictment enough of the Bloomberg puffery;
(5) An outrageous $20,000/pupil expenditure that has bloated the school bureaucracy and added millions to the city's already bloated pension obligation;
(6) No bid contracting that Juan Gonzales has been tracking-that underscores just how little accountability exists in the current governance regime;
(7) The as yet undetermined financial windfall and giveaway that the UFT received for backing away from its opposition to the assembly mayoral control bill.
So, there's a lot to focus attention on that doesn't involve the kind of incoherent personal invective that is coming from the faux outraged Bloomberg. In fact, we think that the mayor-always guided by polling since, otherwise, he is totally tone deaf politically-is consciously picking this fight to focus attention away from the substantive issues.
Bloomberg needs to be thoroughly debunked on substance; this will demonstrate just how dishonest his claims are, and, at the same time, discredit his multi-million dollar ad campaign. If the amigos-and the rest of the senate dissenters-do this, the name calling mayor will look desperate and out of place-and, hopefully, out of office as well.
"File this one under "The rich get richer." Mayor Bloomberg is set to reap a windfall from the chaos in Albany. Not a cash windfall - that's the last thing he needs - but a political one. His need there, while hardly desperate, is still real, with one poll showing a majority of New Yorkers think it's time for a new mayor. Against that backdrop, the buffoonery in Albany is tailor-made for an incumbent looking for a hot issue to ride. Legislators are giving Bloomy that and more. Besides serving him a big chance to convince voters he deserves four more years, the clowns are making themselves his punching bag."
Exactly so; and especially because the mayor has a bloodless, green eye shade kind of image that imparts a less than real persona: "One day he warned the Albany clowns might spark riots in the streets, linked them to the Soviet Union on another day and then to British appeaser Neville Chamberlain. He outdid himself Saturday, calling on Gov. Paterson to send troopers after state senators who gave themselves the summer off. "The governor can call back the state Legislature every single day in Albany, and he can send the state troopers to drag them back" Bloomberg said on his WOR radio show. "Enough, we're not going to take it anymore." And now he has launched TV and radio campaign ads tied to the battle, a sure sign his internal polls tell him the chaos is his friend."
Which is why our four amigos need to cease and desist that cathartic-like outbursts; and substitute a withering critique of the mayor's false claims for the pointless feel good bombast. And there's a lot to criticize in the deconstruction of the mayor's overblown "triumphs." In fact, there's an entire laundry list that goes like this:
(1) Watered down tests that give the false impression that learning has increased significantly;
(2) Flatlining on the national tests (NAEP) that are counter indicative to any real progress;
(3) A huge increase in the school bidget-from $13 billion to $21 billion-an increase that, given the flatlined national test scores indicate very lttle benefit to all of the increased costs;
(4) Misleading graduation rates that, even now, the comptroller is questioning for veracity: "The New York City comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., released a report on Tuesday suggesting that the city’s graduation rate was inflated, saying he had found instances where it appeared schools had wrongly changed student grades and improperly awarded credit." But even if the cooking of the books isn't as bad as Thompson says, the fact that the grads themselves can't do college work and must undergo intensive remediation in the community colleges, is indictment enough of the Bloomberg puffery;
(5) An outrageous $20,000/pupil expenditure that has bloated the school bureaucracy and added millions to the city's already bloated pension obligation;
(6) No bid contracting that Juan Gonzales has been tracking-that underscores just how little accountability exists in the current governance regime;
(7) The as yet undetermined financial windfall and giveaway that the UFT received for backing away from its opposition to the assembly mayoral control bill.
So, there's a lot to focus attention on that doesn't involve the kind of incoherent personal invective that is coming from the faux outraged Bloomberg. In fact, we think that the mayor-always guided by polling since, otherwise, he is totally tone deaf politically-is consciously picking this fight to focus attention away from the substantive issues.
Bloomberg needs to be thoroughly debunked on substance; this will demonstrate just how dishonest his claims are, and, at the same time, discredit his multi-million dollar ad campaign. If the amigos-and the rest of the senate dissenters-do this, the name calling mayor will look desperate and out of place-and, hopefully, out of office as well.
Kingsbridge Malling
In this week's Village Voice, Tom Robbins critiques the city's plan to mall the Kingsbridge community without any provision for living wage jobs-and finds another example of why, in spite of Mike Bloomberg's obscene spending spree, many New Yorkers are not enamored with his continued rule:
"Michael Bloomberg remains an overwhelming favorite for re-election, even as polls keep finding that most New Yorkers would just as soon someone else took over at City Hall. It's the riddle of Campaign 2009. Chalk it up to uninspiring opponents, the advantages of incumbency, and the results of $36 million worth of electoral carpet-bombing by an incumbent taking no chances. Whatever the reasons, despite all that costly self-promotion, scratch any surface and you'll find voters who are less than thrilled with Mayor Mike's performance, but who don't see the obvious alternative. Take, for example, those involved in the nasty development battle now being waged in the Kingsbridge Heights section of the Bronx.
And last week the opposition to the malling of the Kingsbridge Armory took to the streets-and was joined by mayoral hopeful Bill Thompson who, while he took some time to get revved up, finally found his voice: "Last Wednesday night, Bloomberg's top Democratic challenger, Bill Thompson, stood in front of a standing-room-only crowd of more than 400 local residents and union members gathered at Our Lady of Refuge on East 196th Street. Thompson got only polite applause when he was introduced by Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter, leader of a coalition of community and labor organizations calling itself Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance. But the city comptroller pulled a deafening roar as soon as he said that he wouldn't vote for Bloomberg's proposal for a new city-subsidized shopping mall at the huge old armory on West Kingsbridge Road, unless the developer agrees that new jobs there will pay decent wages."
And the comptroller is right; but left out another important reason for why the mall is a bad idea. As we pointed out yesterday, we are experiencing an incredible assault on the viability of all neighborhood businesses-with store vacancy rates approaching 15% in the outer boroughs. Much of this can be attributed to, not only the national recession, but to Mike Bloomberg's tax and regulatory policies that are epitomized by his willingness to raise the sales tax in the middle of this neighborhood retail disaster.
Another reason, is that the mayor, always ready and willing to promote large retail development, has successfully advocated a permissive policy of mall development that has sucked the life out of those neighborhood stores that are the lifeblood of a community. Here's why the advocates-as well as the comptroller-are dead on when it comes to their living wage battle. If you're going to continue to promote mall development-with its concomitant chain store proliferation-than minimally, these stores must provide the kind of living wages that families can live on. Otherwise, we have simply replaced the locally owned neighborhood business-ones that circulate dollars through the community-with a chain that removes revenue, and whose dollars fail to circulate in as healthy a manner.
Which gets us to the plan for the inclusion of a supermarket at the armory-and the bait and switch that the developer has attempted to pull off:
"This time around, City Hall's new request for developer proposals included language aimed at discouraging big-box stores...When Bloomberg's team finally settled on a developer it liked for the project, lo and behold, it was an administration favorite: Steve Ross and his Related Companies. The builder counts both Bloomberg and former deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff (now running the mayor's mighty corporation, Bloomberg LP) among his close pals and has been chosen to handle several other development projects by Bloomberg's administration, including the redevelopment of the old Bronx Terminal Market, for which he didn't even have to compete against anyone else.Still, Related is a union contractor, and it would have been fine with everyone if not for another bait and switch. After initially describing the components of what it quaintly dubbed "The Shops at the Armory," the developer quietly let it be known that it would seek a 50,000-square-foot supermarket for the site. Such a mega-market, enjoying its share of the project's $18 million in city tax breaks, would have a strong, competitive edge over a pair of long-standing nearby family-owned supermarkets that have contracts with the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union covering some 150 workers."
So the mall, which originally was encouraged to provide living wage and non-competing box stores, is now proposing the opposite; and, as regards to the supermarket, Bloomberg is actually threatening to worsen the plight of access to fresh food in low income neighborhoods by allowing for the inclusion of a mega food store that will drain the local dollars and lead to to loss of four or five of the local supermarkets.
This, at a time when New York's junior senator has reported that the Bronx is the most obese of all the boroughs-and one major reason is the dearth of supermarket access: "Andrew G. Rundle, an epidemiologist at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health and an authority on obesity, said that at the neighborhood level, socioeconomic and demographic factors were the strongest predictors of obesity rates...Dr. Rundle, who has written several papers on neighborhood environments and obesity, has found that even when adjusting for poverty and race, at least three factors are associated with lowering obesity: proximity to supermarkets and groceries where fresh produce is sold; proximity to parks; and access to public transportation, which reduces reliance on cars."
So who's being a fathead here? The mayor has stated policy goals of promoting healthy eating, yet has oversaw the loss of more than 300 neighborhood supermarkets because his economic policies run counter to the his professed health goals. And by the way, getting people to eat healthier doesn't only mean that they need to have decent supermarket access; they also need to be able to earn enough money to be able to afford to eat well-hence the living wage arguments.
So the fight over the Kingsbridge Armory is an important symbol of what's wrong with the Bloomberg reign. He has failed to promote and protect local stores-particularly the vital supermarket/fresh produce nexus-and has even exacerbated the problem by making it more difficult to do business in the city's neighborhoods. A policy of higher taxes and more regulations, when combined with the continued malling of the city, has generated a severe economic crisis-one that the nimble chief executive now argues needs his expertise-and his alone-to solve.
In out view, the best thing Bloomberg can do is to step aside, since his re-election would be a classic example of a Pyrrhic victory. As General Pyrrhus said, after beating the Romans in a particularly bloody battle: "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined." And, in similar fashion, so will NYC-and neighborhood retailers- be ruined should Bloomberg prevail on this third term quest.
"Michael Bloomberg remains an overwhelming favorite for re-election, even as polls keep finding that most New Yorkers would just as soon someone else took over at City Hall. It's the riddle of Campaign 2009. Chalk it up to uninspiring opponents, the advantages of incumbency, and the results of $36 million worth of electoral carpet-bombing by an incumbent taking no chances. Whatever the reasons, despite all that costly self-promotion, scratch any surface and you'll find voters who are less than thrilled with Mayor Mike's performance, but who don't see the obvious alternative. Take, for example, those involved in the nasty development battle now being waged in the Kingsbridge Heights section of the Bronx.
And last week the opposition to the malling of the Kingsbridge Armory took to the streets-and was joined by mayoral hopeful Bill Thompson who, while he took some time to get revved up, finally found his voice: "Last Wednesday night, Bloomberg's top Democratic challenger, Bill Thompson, stood in front of a standing-room-only crowd of more than 400 local residents and union members gathered at Our Lady of Refuge on East 196th Street. Thompson got only polite applause when he was introduced by Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter, leader of a coalition of community and labor organizations calling itself Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance. But the city comptroller pulled a deafening roar as soon as he said that he wouldn't vote for Bloomberg's proposal for a new city-subsidized shopping mall at the huge old armory on West Kingsbridge Road, unless the developer agrees that new jobs there will pay decent wages."
And the comptroller is right; but left out another important reason for why the mall is a bad idea. As we pointed out yesterday, we are experiencing an incredible assault on the viability of all neighborhood businesses-with store vacancy rates approaching 15% in the outer boroughs. Much of this can be attributed to, not only the national recession, but to Mike Bloomberg's tax and regulatory policies that are epitomized by his willingness to raise the sales tax in the middle of this neighborhood retail disaster.
Another reason, is that the mayor, always ready and willing to promote large retail development, has successfully advocated a permissive policy of mall development that has sucked the life out of those neighborhood stores that are the lifeblood of a community. Here's why the advocates-as well as the comptroller-are dead on when it comes to their living wage battle. If you're going to continue to promote mall development-with its concomitant chain store proliferation-than minimally, these stores must provide the kind of living wages that families can live on. Otherwise, we have simply replaced the locally owned neighborhood business-ones that circulate dollars through the community-with a chain that removes revenue, and whose dollars fail to circulate in as healthy a manner.
Which gets us to the plan for the inclusion of a supermarket at the armory-and the bait and switch that the developer has attempted to pull off:
"This time around, City Hall's new request for developer proposals included language aimed at discouraging big-box stores...When Bloomberg's team finally settled on a developer it liked for the project, lo and behold, it was an administration favorite: Steve Ross and his Related Companies. The builder counts both Bloomberg and former deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff (now running the mayor's mighty corporation, Bloomberg LP) among his close pals and has been chosen to handle several other development projects by Bloomberg's administration, including the redevelopment of the old Bronx Terminal Market, for which he didn't even have to compete against anyone else.Still, Related is a union contractor, and it would have been fine with everyone if not for another bait and switch. After initially describing the components of what it quaintly dubbed "The Shops at the Armory," the developer quietly let it be known that it would seek a 50,000-square-foot supermarket for the site. Such a mega-market, enjoying its share of the project's $18 million in city tax breaks, would have a strong, competitive edge over a pair of long-standing nearby family-owned supermarkets that have contracts with the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union covering some 150 workers."
So the mall, which originally was encouraged to provide living wage and non-competing box stores, is now proposing the opposite; and, as regards to the supermarket, Bloomberg is actually threatening to worsen the plight of access to fresh food in low income neighborhoods by allowing for the inclusion of a mega food store that will drain the local dollars and lead to to loss of four or five of the local supermarkets.
This, at a time when New York's junior senator has reported that the Bronx is the most obese of all the boroughs-and one major reason is the dearth of supermarket access: "Andrew G. Rundle, an epidemiologist at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health and an authority on obesity, said that at the neighborhood level, socioeconomic and demographic factors were the strongest predictors of obesity rates...Dr. Rundle, who has written several papers on neighborhood environments and obesity, has found that even when adjusting for poverty and race, at least three factors are associated with lowering obesity: proximity to supermarkets and groceries where fresh produce is sold; proximity to parks; and access to public transportation, which reduces reliance on cars."
So who's being a fathead here? The mayor has stated policy goals of promoting healthy eating, yet has oversaw the loss of more than 300 neighborhood supermarkets because his economic policies run counter to the his professed health goals. And by the way, getting people to eat healthier doesn't only mean that they need to have decent supermarket access; they also need to be able to earn enough money to be able to afford to eat well-hence the living wage arguments.
So the fight over the Kingsbridge Armory is an important symbol of what's wrong with the Bloomberg reign. He has failed to promote and protect local stores-particularly the vital supermarket/fresh produce nexus-and has even exacerbated the problem by making it more difficult to do business in the city's neighborhoods. A policy of higher taxes and more regulations, when combined with the continued malling of the city, has generated a severe economic crisis-one that the nimble chief executive now argues needs his expertise-and his alone-to solve.
In out view, the best thing Bloomberg can do is to step aside, since his re-election would be a classic example of a Pyrrhic victory. As General Pyrrhus said, after beating the Romans in a particularly bloody battle: "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined." And, in similar fashion, so will NYC-and neighborhood retailers- be ruined should Bloomberg prevail on this third term quest.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Mikey Oakely-Not!
So Mike Bloomberg's against the Thune amendment that would allow licensed gun owners from one state to carry their concealed weapons across state lines. As Daily Politics reports: "Mayor Bloomberg did not mince words today in bashing the US Senate for being poised to vote on an amendment that would make it easier to take concealed weapons across state lines. The measure, known as the "Thune Amendment" because it was proposed by South Dakota Republican John Thune, has been attached to a Defense Authorization bill that would provide funding for troops overseas and thus be difficult for senators to vote down. In a conference call this afternoon with fellow members of his Mayors Against Illegal Guns group, Bloomberg called the amendment "anti-police" and "pro-gun trafficker".
Now this doesn't make a lot of sense to us-but perhaps we're just confused on this gun issue. But isn't the amendment directed at legally licensed owners? So what's this riff by Mikey on gun traffickers? Nothing in the amendment, it seems to us, makes it easier for these malefactors to transport illegal weapons anywhere. And, as one commenter to the post suggests: "Bloomberg's group is "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." Go figure ... now they are against legal guns, too. I should have figured this wasn't about illegal guns, after all, but about their desire to ban ALL guns."
And this is from a man who undoubtedly has an armed contingent of protectors to insure the safety of Mike Bloomberg. Once again, one standard for Mike Bloomberg-and a different one altogether for the shlubs. Kind of like the Global Warming thing and the Bloomberg effort to appear to be Kermit the Mayor.
With the CO2 emissions deal, you know, the congestion pricing idea and the carbon footprint phoniness, we have the mayor looking to reduce the abilty of middle class drivers and delivery folks to get to work; while at the same time occupying all by his lonesome a carbon footprint that would put Yeti to shame.
Please, enough of the elitist social engineering. Imagine, taking life lessons and health prescriptions from someone who is really just another politician with an out sized ego; with an over eagerness to remake the world in his own image as well.
Now this doesn't make a lot of sense to us-but perhaps we're just confused on this gun issue. But isn't the amendment directed at legally licensed owners? So what's this riff by Mikey on gun traffickers? Nothing in the amendment, it seems to us, makes it easier for these malefactors to transport illegal weapons anywhere. And, as one commenter to the post suggests: "Bloomberg's group is "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." Go figure ... now they are against legal guns, too. I should have figured this wasn't about illegal guns, after all, but about their desire to ban ALL guns."
And this is from a man who undoubtedly has an armed contingent of protectors to insure the safety of Mike Bloomberg. Once again, one standard for Mike Bloomberg-and a different one altogether for the shlubs. Kind of like the Global Warming thing and the Bloomberg effort to appear to be Kermit the Mayor.
With the CO2 emissions deal, you know, the congestion pricing idea and the carbon footprint phoniness, we have the mayor looking to reduce the abilty of middle class drivers and delivery folks to get to work; while at the same time occupying all by his lonesome a carbon footprint that would put Yeti to shame.
Please, enough of the elitist social engineering. Imagine, taking life lessons and health prescriptions from someone who is really just another politician with an out sized ego; with an over eagerness to remake the world in his own image as well.
Making the Eminent Domain Point
Yesterday, the Willets Point United folks stepped up at city hall to express concern over the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court-and urge that the judge moderate her views on the use and abuse of eminent domain: " Willets Point community group is denouncing Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s record on eminent domain. About 20 representatives from Willets Point United gathered in front of City Hall Monday to voice the detriments of misusing eminent domain.“The city’s trying to take our land and give it to a rich developer,” said Alfredo Franza, 39, who owns a small business that manufactures security gates in Willets Point. Franza said he came to “fight for our land.”
The WPU group is fighting the city's effort to evict them on two fronts. In the first place, they're arguing that the environmental review that led to the rezoning of the Willets Point area was seriously flawed-and is totally dependent on the building of an off ramp off the Van Wyck that may never happen. If it doesn't, however, then there is simply no way for the city to mitigate the traffic that the development it plans for the vacated site would cause. Put simply, it would be the kind of traffic nightmare that happens when a couple of lanes are closed on the Whitestone Bridge.
Secondly, WPU is fighting the eminent domain abuse that the city is planning in order to remove the 250 businesses from the Willets Point site. In order to do so, the city has to demonstrate that the area is "blighted." Given the fact that the so-called blight is directly related to the city's conscious neglect for the better part of seven decades, well, you can see where this is going.
All of which out the way in which eminent domain-as contentious an issue as you can find-is made worse by the cavalier methods employed by municipalities all over. In the case of Willets Point, where neglect has been legendary, the idea that the city could use blight as an excuse is, well, mindboggling.
And that is why WPU was out in force yesterday at City Hall-as this video clip from NY1 highlights. Those gathered know that the Supreme Court is often the final destination for all ED cases-and the folks from the Iron Triangle are hoping that once Judge Stomayor is confirmed, she will become more sensitive to the issue.
As we told Epoch Times: "Currently, when a property is condemned, only the value of the property is compensated at rates designated by the developer while costs of unemployment, loss of business revenue, and inconvenience for long-time customers are not accounted for, said Richard Lipsky, Willets Point United spokesperson. “[Sotomayor’s] decision (about eminent domain) made us very nervous,” said Lipsky. The group hopes that Sotomayor realizes that the small property owners that are here today are exactly the kind of people—the underprivileged—she has fought to protect in her early career."
And we're also hoping that NYS joins the 46 other states that have reformed their eminent domain laws-making them more equitable for property owners, and more protective of the basic constitutional right to avoid seizure of one's home and business for things that aren't truly public purposes. We hope Sonya Sotomayor and the state legislatutre got the message.
The WPU group is fighting the city's effort to evict them on two fronts. In the first place, they're arguing that the environmental review that led to the rezoning of the Willets Point area was seriously flawed-and is totally dependent on the building of an off ramp off the Van Wyck that may never happen. If it doesn't, however, then there is simply no way for the city to mitigate the traffic that the development it plans for the vacated site would cause. Put simply, it would be the kind of traffic nightmare that happens when a couple of lanes are closed on the Whitestone Bridge.
Secondly, WPU is fighting the eminent domain abuse that the city is planning in order to remove the 250 businesses from the Willets Point site. In order to do so, the city has to demonstrate that the area is "blighted." Given the fact that the so-called blight is directly related to the city's conscious neglect for the better part of seven decades, well, you can see where this is going.
All of which out the way in which eminent domain-as contentious an issue as you can find-is made worse by the cavalier methods employed by municipalities all over. In the case of Willets Point, where neglect has been legendary, the idea that the city could use blight as an excuse is, well, mindboggling.
And that is why WPU was out in force yesterday at City Hall-as this video clip from NY1 highlights. Those gathered know that the Supreme Court is often the final destination for all ED cases-and the folks from the Iron Triangle are hoping that once Judge Stomayor is confirmed, she will become more sensitive to the issue.
As we told Epoch Times: "Currently, when a property is condemned, only the value of the property is compensated at rates designated by the developer while costs of unemployment, loss of business revenue, and inconvenience for long-time customers are not accounted for, said Richard Lipsky, Willets Point United spokesperson. “[Sotomayor’s] decision (about eminent domain) made us very nervous,” said Lipsky. The group hopes that Sotomayor realizes that the small property owners that are here today are exactly the kind of people—the underprivileged—she has fought to protect in her early career."
And we're also hoping that NYS joins the 46 other states that have reformed their eminent domain laws-making them more equitable for property owners, and more protective of the basic constitutional right to avoid seizure of one's home and business for things that aren't truly public purposes. We hope Sonya Sotomayor and the state legislatutre got the message.
Bloomberg Plans, and New Yorkers Laugh
Just how good is that Bloomberg five borough economic plan working? Well, if you read the NY Times this morning, not so good. According to the Times, the mayor's plan-one that he has now unveiled for the third time since 2001-isn't making a dent in the closing of retail stores all over the city: "But as New Yorkers have drastically cut back, the shops that line the streets, from chain outlets to family-run shops, have started to disappear. The storefront vacancy rate in Manhattan is now at its highest point since the early 1990s — an estimated 6.5 percent — and is expected to exceed 10 percent by the middle of next year, according to data gathered by Marcus & Millichap Research Services, a national real estate investment brokerage based in Encino, Calif."
Even the most expensive shopping streets have been hard hit: "And those numbers do not capture the full story. Some of the more desirable shopping districts are littered with empty storefronts. For example, Fifth Avenue between 42nd Street and 49th Street, the stretch just south of Saks Fifth Avenue, has a vacancy rate of 15.3 percent, according to the brokerage Cushman & Wakefield."
The recession, of course, has been the underlying cause of the current vacancy surge, but missing from the Times' analysis-which focuses on high, unaffordable rents-are the factors that have accelerated the NY trend: high taxes and an onerous regulatory regime. And the retail vacancies aren't limited to Manhattan: "The outlook is even worse in other boroughs. Hessam Nadji, managing director of research services at Marcus & Millichap, estimates that vacancy rates in Brooklyn and Queens, currently at 7 to 10 percent, will rise to 12 to 15 percent by year’s end. He said some neighborhoods have been ravaged by vacancy rates of 25 to 40 percent."
The retail crisis has hit newer Hispanic-owned businesses particularly hard-prompting the call for some form of government intervention: "But as jobs disappear and neighborhoods suffer, the tide of opinion is growing that the government may need to step in. While data on the challenges of small business owners is limited, a survey of 937 Hispanic small business owners conducted by the U.S.A. Latin Chamber of Commerce between November 2008 and January 2009 found that most of them said they would not stay in the city because their rents had become so high."
Which is why a coalition of local groups have been advancing a rent arbitration measure sponsored by Councilman Robert Jackson: "The City Council is weighing in, too, considering a Small Business Survival Act that would require businesses to have the option of 10-year leases, renewals and the right to mediation if they cannot reach an agreement."
The Bloomberg administration, however, is sticking to its own formula: "The legislation does not have the support of the Bloomberg administration, which argues that tracking lease negotiations would be too costly because of expenses like hiring staff, and that the need for such a law has “greatly dissipated” because rents have declined."
And perhaps they're right-but their own solutions beg the question: "The problem is so bad that the city has become involved. It has offered grants for worker training, and it held a session last Wednesday on how to negotiate leases." But this is all simply a non sequitor; and the high tax environment-exacerbated once again by the mayor's promotion of another sales tax hike-remains the variable that is sacrosanct. We hear absolutely nothing-either in the mayor's campaign blurbs, or in his policy statements-that address the need to lower taxes on neighborhood businesses. The "T" word has become worse than the "N" word for Bloomberg.
All of which undermines, in our view, any effort to promote Mike Bloomberg as a fiscal maven; a leader whose expertise is invaluable and must be retained for a third term if we are going to be led out of the current recession. It is under the mayor's watch that the store vacancies and small business closures have reached epidemic proportions-a fact that we have been tracking for some time.
In the midst of a severe retail meltdown, when neighborhood shopping strips are being ravaged by a store closing epidemic, only Mike Bloomberg-along with his claque of council clowns-could successfully propose raising the sales tax; and then come up with a cockamamie "worker training" plan to address the horrendous results of his eight year reign of small business error.
In order to reverse the current downword spiral, we need a municipal leader who understands that it is the cost of doing business in the city-a cost that has been escalated under the mayor's misguided stewardship-that needs to be lowered; along with the concomitant high cost of government that has been pumped up on steroids by Big Government Mike. Another four years of the same policies is, as the mayor might say, simply meshuga.
Even the most expensive shopping streets have been hard hit: "And those numbers do not capture the full story. Some of the more desirable shopping districts are littered with empty storefronts. For example, Fifth Avenue between 42nd Street and 49th Street, the stretch just south of Saks Fifth Avenue, has a vacancy rate of 15.3 percent, according to the brokerage Cushman & Wakefield."
The recession, of course, has been the underlying cause of the current vacancy surge, but missing from the Times' analysis-which focuses on high, unaffordable rents-are the factors that have accelerated the NY trend: high taxes and an onerous regulatory regime. And the retail vacancies aren't limited to Manhattan: "The outlook is even worse in other boroughs. Hessam Nadji, managing director of research services at Marcus & Millichap, estimates that vacancy rates in Brooklyn and Queens, currently at 7 to 10 percent, will rise to 12 to 15 percent by year’s end. He said some neighborhoods have been ravaged by vacancy rates of 25 to 40 percent."
The retail crisis has hit newer Hispanic-owned businesses particularly hard-prompting the call for some form of government intervention: "But as jobs disappear and neighborhoods suffer, the tide of opinion is growing that the government may need to step in. While data on the challenges of small business owners is limited, a survey of 937 Hispanic small business owners conducted by the U.S.A. Latin Chamber of Commerce between November 2008 and January 2009 found that most of them said they would not stay in the city because their rents had become so high."
Which is why a coalition of local groups have been advancing a rent arbitration measure sponsored by Councilman Robert Jackson: "The City Council is weighing in, too, considering a Small Business Survival Act that would require businesses to have the option of 10-year leases, renewals and the right to mediation if they cannot reach an agreement."
The Bloomberg administration, however, is sticking to its own formula: "The legislation does not have the support of the Bloomberg administration, which argues that tracking lease negotiations would be too costly because of expenses like hiring staff, and that the need for such a law has “greatly dissipated” because rents have declined."
And perhaps they're right-but their own solutions beg the question: "The problem is so bad that the city has become involved. It has offered grants for worker training, and it held a session last Wednesday on how to negotiate leases." But this is all simply a non sequitor; and the high tax environment-exacerbated once again by the mayor's promotion of another sales tax hike-remains the variable that is sacrosanct. We hear absolutely nothing-either in the mayor's campaign blurbs, or in his policy statements-that address the need to lower taxes on neighborhood businesses. The "T" word has become worse than the "N" word for Bloomberg.
All of which undermines, in our view, any effort to promote Mike Bloomberg as a fiscal maven; a leader whose expertise is invaluable and must be retained for a third term if we are going to be led out of the current recession. It is under the mayor's watch that the store vacancies and small business closures have reached epidemic proportions-a fact that we have been tracking for some time.
In the midst of a severe retail meltdown, when neighborhood shopping strips are being ravaged by a store closing epidemic, only Mike Bloomberg-along with his claque of council clowns-could successfully propose raising the sales tax; and then come up with a cockamamie "worker training" plan to address the horrendous results of his eight year reign of small business error.
In order to reverse the current downword spiral, we need a municipal leader who understands that it is the cost of doing business in the city-a cost that has been escalated under the mayor's misguided stewardship-that needs to be lowered; along with the concomitant high cost of government that has been pumped up on steroids by Big Government Mike. Another four years of the same policies is, as the mayor might say, simply meshuga.
"Money Can't Buy Me Love"
Mike Bloomberg thinks that the ballot lines he has secured is all a result of his good looks and charm. How else to explain this demurral from Mr. Charming in an exchange with the NY Daily News' Adam Lisberg: "Mayor Bloomberg today rejected the notion that the $500,000 he dropped on the city Independence Party and five GOP county committees was in any way connected to their decision to endorse him - yet again - for re-election...Here's the mayor's exchange this afternoon with the DN's Adam Lisberg:
Q: "What would you say to people who say that you essentially bought..."
Bloomberg: "I don't have to say. Nobody's said that to me, so I don't have to answer that. Whatever the numbers are, the numbers are. I mean, you know, you create these hypothetical things. We're not going to play the game."
Q: "Not hypothetical, then. Didn't the money help you get their support?"
Bloomberg: "I don't think so. I don't think so. I mean, I, you know, by that argument, you're telling me you believe that everybody that ever gives money expects support? I don't, not sure you're not wrong in many cases, but don't be ridiculous."
Here's a guy who has constantly alleged that he is above the tawdry pay to play of traditional politics because he doesn't need to take anyone's cash to make a decision on what's supposedly best for the people. This insulation from influence peddling-and its more malevolent manifestation in outright bribery-while a good thing, elides the extent to which Bloomberg, because of his mad money, is able to invert the tawdry cash nexus.
In the mayor's enviable situation, the cash is used to insure political party support-or in the case of all of the NGOs, policy backing to create the impression that certain of the mayor's policies are really in the public interest. In the process-follow the $235 million money trail-the mayor corrupts the true nature of democratic debate as surely as bribery offering lobbyists do when looking for favors.
And what about the disingenuousness of Bloomberg saying that, "you're telling me you believe that everybody that ever gives money expects support? I don't, not sure you're not wrong in many cases, but don't be ridiculous." Clearly, the mayor is unequivocally a hypocrite; since he knows full well what he has bought-and the price of the transaction that, if he didn't negotiate it directly himself, must have surely signed off on.
Mike Bloomberg comes directly from the world of quid pro quo-and he has the kind of quid that attracts all sorts of strange bedfellows. The Bloomberg menagerie includes the likes of Spinner Wolfson, Laura Fulani, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, Esther Fuchs, Mitch Moss, and the entire Republican Party; a party that would be hard pressed to name more than one of two Bloomberg initiatives that they could tolerate, let alone endorse with any enthusiasm.
And speaking of political trade offs, what about the NYC equivalent of the Louisiana Purchase-the suborning of the city council to extend term limits? As Liz dramatizes, the quid keeps on giving here; as term limits flip flopper Sara Gonzales can attest: "It's good to have friends in high places - especially if those friends have extra cash on hand and are suggestible as to whose campaign account they might drop it in. Martin Geller, an Upper East Side resident, has maxed out to Councilwoman Sara Gonzalez's campaign, contributing $2,750 to the Brooklyn Democrat on June 15, according to state Board of Elections records." Of course, Geller has a longstanding involvement with the affairs of Sunset Park.
So here stands Mike Bloomberg, The Uniter! There are Bloomberg preachers, Bloomberg not-for-profits, Bloomberg Democrats, Bloomberg editorialists, and even Bloomberg anti-Semites. In fact, in respect to his protean collecting ability, Mike Bloomberg is the single most powerful unifying force in the City of New York. All that is missing is the mayor's outright display of an acknowledged pride of ownership.
Q: "What would you say to people who say that you essentially bought..."
Bloomberg: "I don't have to say. Nobody's said that to me, so I don't have to answer that. Whatever the numbers are, the numbers are. I mean, you know, you create these hypothetical things. We're not going to play the game."
Q: "Not hypothetical, then. Didn't the money help you get their support?"
Bloomberg: "I don't think so. I don't think so. I mean, I, you know, by that argument, you're telling me you believe that everybody that ever gives money expects support? I don't, not sure you're not wrong in many cases, but don't be ridiculous."
Here's a guy who has constantly alleged that he is above the tawdry pay to play of traditional politics because he doesn't need to take anyone's cash to make a decision on what's supposedly best for the people. This insulation from influence peddling-and its more malevolent manifestation in outright bribery-while a good thing, elides the extent to which Bloomberg, because of his mad money, is able to invert the tawdry cash nexus.
In the mayor's enviable situation, the cash is used to insure political party support-or in the case of all of the NGOs, policy backing to create the impression that certain of the mayor's policies are really in the public interest. In the process-follow the $235 million money trail-the mayor corrupts the true nature of democratic debate as surely as bribery offering lobbyists do when looking for favors.
And what about the disingenuousness of Bloomberg saying that, "you're telling me you believe that everybody that ever gives money expects support? I don't, not sure you're not wrong in many cases, but don't be ridiculous." Clearly, the mayor is unequivocally a hypocrite; since he knows full well what he has bought-and the price of the transaction that, if he didn't negotiate it directly himself, must have surely signed off on.
Mike Bloomberg comes directly from the world of quid pro quo-and he has the kind of quid that attracts all sorts of strange bedfellows. The Bloomberg menagerie includes the likes of Spinner Wolfson, Laura Fulani, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, Esther Fuchs, Mitch Moss, and the entire Republican Party; a party that would be hard pressed to name more than one of two Bloomberg initiatives that they could tolerate, let alone endorse with any enthusiasm.
And speaking of political trade offs, what about the NYC equivalent of the Louisiana Purchase-the suborning of the city council to extend term limits? As Liz dramatizes, the quid keeps on giving here; as term limits flip flopper Sara Gonzales can attest: "It's good to have friends in high places - especially if those friends have extra cash on hand and are suggestible as to whose campaign account they might drop it in. Martin Geller, an Upper East Side resident, has maxed out to Councilwoman Sara Gonzalez's campaign, contributing $2,750 to the Brooklyn Democrat on June 15, according to state Board of Elections records." Of course, Geller has a longstanding involvement with the affairs of Sunset Park.
So here stands Mike Bloomberg, The Uniter! There are Bloomberg preachers, Bloomberg not-for-profits, Bloomberg Democrats, Bloomberg editorialists, and even Bloomberg anti-Semites. In fact, in respect to his protean collecting ability, Mike Bloomberg is the single most powerful unifying force in the City of New York. All that is missing is the mayor's outright display of an acknowledged pride of ownership.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Trust me!
We did get a kick out of one independent observer of the mayoral control kerfuffle-the always fair minded and unbiased Bill Cunningham. Billy the Kid said this about the balking state senators: "The irony of calls for civility from senators like Parker, who is under indictment for striking a news photographer, and Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens), who allegedly slashed his girlfriend's face with broken glass, had some Bloomberg loyalists rolling their eyes. "This group calling for civility is like Bernie Madoff calling for better accounting standards," said Bill Cunningham, a longtime Bloomberg adviser."
Unlike asking the disingenuous Cunningham to be a straight shooter when it comes to his once and future patron. There's an old saying that the way to say, "screw you," in a certain vernacular is, "Trust me!" Cunnigham fits right into there; and his analysis is, well, totally Horn and Hardart-or, to explain for those too young to remember: self serving.
Unlike asking the disingenuous Cunningham to be a straight shooter when it comes to his once and future patron. There's an old saying that the way to say, "screw you," in a certain vernacular is, "Trust me!" Cunnigham fits right into there; and his analysis is, well, totally Horn and Hardart-or, to explain for those too young to remember: self serving.
Mayoral Control Freakout
The impasse over school governance took a turn for the hyperbolic last Friday when Mike Bloomberg-that acknowledged master of Yiddishkeit-let loose on some state senators who won't join with his well paid laundry list of loyal retainers in support of total mayoral control over the city's schools: "Using some of his strongest language to date, Mayor Bloomberg gave the Senate Democrats a tongue-lashing this morning - even calling some of them out by name - for failing yet again to pass a bill reauthorizing his control over the public school system. During his weekly WOR radio show, Bloomberg told host John Gambling Gov. David Paterson should force the Senate to return to Albany "every single day" for the rest of the summer until they pass a mayoral control bill, even employing the State Police to "drag them back" if necessary. "This is what he should do," Bloomberg said of Paterson, noting that he has been "defending" the governor throughout the Senate stalemate. "Giving them the summer off is as we say in Gallic, ‘Meshugenah'".
Bloomberg, unsatisfied with this simple brief outburst, then went even further in his castigation. As the NY Post reported on Saturday: "Bloomberg went after five senators by name for voting in favor of an alternate bill that would have gutted mayoral control -- a measure that failed but was widely seen as a public rebuke of the mayor -- and called it "bull." Bloomberg said he wouldn't appease them the way Neville Chamberlain caved in to Hitler."
So, we guess, Mike Bloomberg is right up there in the pantheon of heroic anti-Nazi freedom fighters-placing the issue of mayoral control on the same level with ridding the world of a genocidal maniac. Talk about megalomania!
But yesterday the senators themselves took the fight right to city hall. As the NY Times reports: "In the increasingly acrimonious battle over mayoral control of New York City’s public schools, 10 senators, all of them Democrats, held an hourlong news conference, ostensibly to demand that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg make some concessions before they consider extending his control. All of the senators spoke, and they proclaimed the issue too important to be sidetracked by political rhetoric. Then some proceeded to vilify the mayor, calling him everything from a dictator to a yenta to a plantation owner."
What we now have, it seems, is a staged battle between two sides-both of whom feel that the escalating rhetoric serves their political purpose. Lost in this rhetorical miasma, however, is the fact that the schools haven't been rescued from damnation since Bloomberg ascended to the role of Philosopher King; and that the out of control spending increases-both the public's and his own-along with watered down tests and media collusion, have allowed Mike to paint a misleading picture of the current public school reality.
In fact, listening to Mike Bloomberg on schools is like listening to the Reverend Ike talk about salvation and the Kingdom of the Lord. So what we need now, is for the political critics of the mayor to chill out a bit-and come back with an incisive critique of the current educational situation. Nothing will deconstruct the mayor's mythos more than a sober evaluation of Bloomberg's blatant misrepresentation of school accomplishments under his lavish stewardship.
Bloomberg, unsatisfied with this simple brief outburst, then went even further in his castigation. As the NY Post reported on Saturday: "Bloomberg went after five senators by name for voting in favor of an alternate bill that would have gutted mayoral control -- a measure that failed but was widely seen as a public rebuke of the mayor -- and called it "bull." Bloomberg said he wouldn't appease them the way Neville Chamberlain caved in to Hitler."
So, we guess, Mike Bloomberg is right up there in the pantheon of heroic anti-Nazi freedom fighters-placing the issue of mayoral control on the same level with ridding the world of a genocidal maniac. Talk about megalomania!
But yesterday the senators themselves took the fight right to city hall. As the NY Times reports: "In the increasingly acrimonious battle over mayoral control of New York City’s public schools, 10 senators, all of them Democrats, held an hourlong news conference, ostensibly to demand that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg make some concessions before they consider extending his control. All of the senators spoke, and they proclaimed the issue too important to be sidetracked by political rhetoric. Then some proceeded to vilify the mayor, calling him everything from a dictator to a yenta to a plantation owner."
What we now have, it seems, is a staged battle between two sides-both of whom feel that the escalating rhetoric serves their political purpose. Lost in this rhetorical miasma, however, is the fact that the schools haven't been rescued from damnation since Bloomberg ascended to the role of Philosopher King; and that the out of control spending increases-both the public's and his own-along with watered down tests and media collusion, have allowed Mike to paint a misleading picture of the current public school reality.
In fact, listening to Mike Bloomberg on schools is like listening to the Reverend Ike talk about salvation and the Kingdom of the Lord. So what we need now, is for the political critics of the mayor to chill out a bit-and come back with an incisive critique of the current educational situation. Nothing will deconstruct the mayor's mythos more than a sober evaluation of Bloomberg's blatant misrepresentation of school accomplishments under his lavish stewardship.
In Sickness and in Health!
As the NY Times is reporting, there are growing concerns that the Charlie Rangel-sponsored House health care bill would not only fail to curb the growth of the sector's costs-it would likely increase them-but would also cripple the country's small business: "The director of the Congressional Budget Office warned Thursday that the legislative proposals so far would not slow the growth of health spending, a crucial goal for Mr. Obama as he also tries to extend insurance to more than 45 million Americans who lack it."
Of course, when this was breaking news on Friday, the Times-unlike the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal-buried the shocker, while the other papers headlined it on the front page: "It's says quite a bit that the editors at the two other largest and most influential papers in the country found the story to be front page news but the editors at the Times did not." And the Times elides the real bad news in their more accurate follow up analysis the next day, by simply saying that the CBO director pointed out that the health plans will not, "slow the growth," of health spending, when he really warned that they would increase it.
And the NY Post gets right to the essence of the tax payer rip off with all of this reform: "Because the long-term effects of what the president is trying to ram through Congress without adequate scrutiny will be disastrous. As CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes [to reduce spending] that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in health costs that would result. "On the contrary," he said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal [financial] responsibility for health-care costs."
But the Times does point out that the disastrous small business impact has a number of more moderate Democrats very worried: "Representative Jared Polis, a freshman Democrat from Colorado who voted against the bill approved Friday in the Education and Labor Committee, said he worried that the new taxes “could cost jobs in a recession.” To help finance coverage of the uninsured, the House bill would impose a surtax on high-income people and a payroll tax — as much as 8 percent of wages — on employers who do not provide health insurance to workers. Mr. Polis said these taxes, combined with the scheduled increase in tax rates resulting from the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts, would have a perverse effect. “Some successful family-owned businesses would be taxed at higher rates than multinational corporations,” he said."
Speaker Pelosi-always on the look out it appears for measures that will retard the economy-made the following observation in last week's NY Post: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the new taxes on the rich as Democrats' way of ensuring "that middle-income people in our country are not touched" by levies to finance health-care reform." As if hurting the job generators in the country wouldn't hurt these middle class folks that the Speaker claims to want to protect. There's simply no concept of economic cause and effect from those people who seem driven to grow the size of government at all cost.
But another major hurdle that the Times points out, is the lack of any bipartisan support for the health care overhaul; and while some feel that bipartisanship shouldn't override the search for a "good: bill, other Democrats in swing districts worry that a purely partisan measure that raises taxes will allow their Republican opponents to bell the Democratic cat as an irresponsible big spender:
"In a letter to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Polis and 20 other freshman Democrats said they were “extremely concerned that the proposed method of paying for health care reform will negatively impact small businesses, the backbone of the American economy.”
And in the latest sign of lawmakers’ chafing at Mr. Obama’s ambitious timetable, a bipartisan group of six senators, including two members of the Finance Committee, sent a letter to Senate leaders pleading with them to allow more time. “While we are committed to providing relief for American families as quickly as possible,” they wrote, “we believe taking additional time to achieve a bipartisan result is critical for legislation that affects 17 percent of our economy and every individual in the United States.”
The Times does manage to finally get to the most salient cost aspects of all of this-but once again at the tail end of the news analysis: "But the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas W. Elmendorf, testified on Thursday that doing so would come at a steep cost and that the proposals would not curb the rise in health spending by the federal government, which he called “unsustainable.” A budget office analysis released Friday said the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion” over 10 years, partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors."
A little bit more serious than simply, "slowing the growth," of health spending, no? So, with cap and trade liable to tax all Americans for simply turning on their light bulbs, and health care "reforms" being proposed that will give us tax rates that the Europeans are wisely shunning in their effort to return to economic competitiveness, the Obama administration is driving the US economy right off the rails-or, as Joe Biden hilariously told us : "Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
Where; Jay Leno, John Stewart and David Letterman when you really need them. Oh, right, they're busy mocking Sarah Palin for her stupidity-while the country spends itself into oblivion courtesy of all the best and brightest folks currently at the helm in the nation's capitol. Guess the real joke's on us.
Of course, when this was breaking news on Friday, the Times-unlike the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal-buried the shocker, while the other papers headlined it on the front page: "It's says quite a bit that the editors at the two other largest and most influential papers in the country found the story to be front page news but the editors at the Times did not." And the Times elides the real bad news in their more accurate follow up analysis the next day, by simply saying that the CBO director pointed out that the health plans will not, "slow the growth," of health spending, when he really warned that they would increase it.
And the NY Post gets right to the essence of the tax payer rip off with all of this reform: "Because the long-term effects of what the president is trying to ram through Congress without adequate scrutiny will be disastrous. As CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes [to reduce spending] that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in health costs that would result. "On the contrary," he said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal [financial] responsibility for health-care costs."
But the Times does point out that the disastrous small business impact has a number of more moderate Democrats very worried: "Representative Jared Polis, a freshman Democrat from Colorado who voted against the bill approved Friday in the Education and Labor Committee, said he worried that the new taxes “could cost jobs in a recession.” To help finance coverage of the uninsured, the House bill would impose a surtax on high-income people and a payroll tax — as much as 8 percent of wages — on employers who do not provide health insurance to workers. Mr. Polis said these taxes, combined with the scheduled increase in tax rates resulting from the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts, would have a perverse effect. “Some successful family-owned businesses would be taxed at higher rates than multinational corporations,” he said."
Speaker Pelosi-always on the look out it appears for measures that will retard the economy-made the following observation in last week's NY Post: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the new taxes on the rich as Democrats' way of ensuring "that middle-income people in our country are not touched" by levies to finance health-care reform." As if hurting the job generators in the country wouldn't hurt these middle class folks that the Speaker claims to want to protect. There's simply no concept of economic cause and effect from those people who seem driven to grow the size of government at all cost.
But another major hurdle that the Times points out, is the lack of any bipartisan support for the health care overhaul; and while some feel that bipartisanship shouldn't override the search for a "good: bill, other Democrats in swing districts worry that a purely partisan measure that raises taxes will allow their Republican opponents to bell the Democratic cat as an irresponsible big spender:
"In a letter to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Polis and 20 other freshman Democrats said they were “extremely concerned that the proposed method of paying for health care reform will negatively impact small businesses, the backbone of the American economy.”
And in the latest sign of lawmakers’ chafing at Mr. Obama’s ambitious timetable, a bipartisan group of six senators, including two members of the Finance Committee, sent a letter to Senate leaders pleading with them to allow more time. “While we are committed to providing relief for American families as quickly as possible,” they wrote, “we believe taking additional time to achieve a bipartisan result is critical for legislation that affects 17 percent of our economy and every individual in the United States.”
The Times does manage to finally get to the most salient cost aspects of all of this-but once again at the tail end of the news analysis: "But the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas W. Elmendorf, testified on Thursday that doing so would come at a steep cost and that the proposals would not curb the rise in health spending by the federal government, which he called “unsustainable.” A budget office analysis released Friday said the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion” over 10 years, partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors."
A little bit more serious than simply, "slowing the growth," of health spending, no? So, with cap and trade liable to tax all Americans for simply turning on their light bulbs, and health care "reforms" being proposed that will give us tax rates that the Europeans are wisely shunning in their effort to return to economic competitiveness, the Obama administration is driving the US economy right off the rails-or, as Joe Biden hilariously told us : "Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
Where; Jay Leno, John Stewart and David Letterman when you really need them. Oh, right, they're busy mocking Sarah Palin for her stupidity-while the country spends itself into oblivion courtesy of all the best and brightest folks currently at the helm in the nation's capitol. Guess the real joke's on us.
Eminent Domain and Judge Sotomayor
On the steps of City Hall at 1:00 PM today, the business owners and workers of Willets Point will be joined by Councilman Tony Avella, Public Advocate candidate Norman Siegal, and a host of other local community activists, in a press conference that will express concern over Judge Sotomayor's views of eminent domain; and the future of property rights at the Supreme Court.
Across the country states and municipalities have begun to recognize the dangers in the widespread abuse of eminent domain laws-and have begun to take steps to change them In New York, however, laws that give almost unrestrained power to the state to seize property remain on the books; and allow for the permissive, and some would say promiscuous taking of private property for just about any reason.
In variably, property is being seized-or proposed to be seized-from small home owners or small businesses, and transferred to larger economic entities; with the underlying rationale that the new use would be, "more productive." This is the kind of rationale that can justify almost any government taking of property-and renders the entire notion of private property, and its constitutional protection, almost obsolete.
Such is the case with the Willets Point businesses and the city. For decades, the city has neglected the so-called Iron Triangle; failing to provide the area with basic services such as paved roads and functioning sewers. In spite of this negligence, the area has thrived as an economic engine for a wide range of small businesses-but particularly for immigrant workers and small business owners. Estimates suggest that there are over 250 local businesses employing approximately 2500 workers.
The classic definition of blight, no? But if the area is blighted-and Willets Point wouldn't be anyone's definition of upscale-it is the city that has created the blight through its conscious neglect. The situation reminds of of the apocryphal story of the two Germans who were passing by the Jewish ghetto during the Nazi regime. One of the Germans turned to his companion and said, "Don't these Jews smell." His companion replied, "That's not the Jews who smell, it's Nazism."
So we acknowledge that Willets Point could use a face lift; but the extreme makeover planned by the Bloombergistas is an unnecessary assault on small business, something that has become a hallmark of the current administration. Which brings us to the larger eminent domain issue, and the role that Judge Sotomayor will play when she does become the new SC justice.
Up until now, Sotomayor has been tone deaf on the fundamental property rights issue inherent in eminent domain cases. What she seems to lack-at least until now-is a sense that the protection of property is a bedrock constitutional issue. After all, as Myron Magnet has astutely pointed out: "It’s worth recalling that when the Founding Fathers led the American colonists in revolt against British oppression, they weren’t rebelling against torture on the rack or being chained in galleys or having to let aristocrats deflower their daughters. They were rebelling against taxes. To them, having to pay duties they hadn’t voted for themselves was a tyrannical taking of property—theft—and, in true Lockean fashion, they concluded that since government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, a regime that does the opposite renders itself illegitimate."
In the Didden v. Port Chester case, Sotomayor simply punted on the ED issue and, as Ilya Somin has opined, it is, “perhaps the worst federal court property rights decision in recent memory.” This decision, as well as Sotomayor’s equivocal responses to the questions on eminent domain posed in her hearing last week, is what is causing real concerns among the local New York groups; and the reason why they will be out in force on Monday.
So the Willets Point United group will be out in force to ask Judge Sotomayor, now that she will be taking on a new judicial role-and is back in NYC to visit, to take a fresh look the eminent domain question-and to look at how the abuse of eminent domain has really hurt the little guys that she has fought her whole life to protect. We'll give Jerry Antonacci of WPU the last word here:
“Property rights used to be sacred, but local governments, with the collusion of the Supreme Court in the Kelo case, have eroded this right-and it needs to be restored to its honored constitutional status. If they can take our businesses away than no one’s home is safe in this country from the reach of greedy developers and corrupt local elected officials. Our fight is the kind of fight that Sonya Sotomayor would have led when she worked for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund a few decades ago. We are calling on her to remember her roots and treat our rights with the respect they deserve.”
Across the country states and municipalities have begun to recognize the dangers in the widespread abuse of eminent domain laws-and have begun to take steps to change them In New York, however, laws that give almost unrestrained power to the state to seize property remain on the books; and allow for the permissive, and some would say promiscuous taking of private property for just about any reason.
In variably, property is being seized-or proposed to be seized-from small home owners or small businesses, and transferred to larger economic entities; with the underlying rationale that the new use would be, "more productive." This is the kind of rationale that can justify almost any government taking of property-and renders the entire notion of private property, and its constitutional protection, almost obsolete.
Such is the case with the Willets Point businesses and the city. For decades, the city has neglected the so-called Iron Triangle; failing to provide the area with basic services such as paved roads and functioning sewers. In spite of this negligence, the area has thrived as an economic engine for a wide range of small businesses-but particularly for immigrant workers and small business owners. Estimates suggest that there are over 250 local businesses employing approximately 2500 workers.
The classic definition of blight, no? But if the area is blighted-and Willets Point wouldn't be anyone's definition of upscale-it is the city that has created the blight through its conscious neglect. The situation reminds of of the apocryphal story of the two Germans who were passing by the Jewish ghetto during the Nazi regime. One of the Germans turned to his companion and said, "Don't these Jews smell." His companion replied, "That's not the Jews who smell, it's Nazism."
So we acknowledge that Willets Point could use a face lift; but the extreme makeover planned by the Bloombergistas is an unnecessary assault on small business, something that has become a hallmark of the current administration. Which brings us to the larger eminent domain issue, and the role that Judge Sotomayor will play when she does become the new SC justice.
Up until now, Sotomayor has been tone deaf on the fundamental property rights issue inherent in eminent domain cases. What she seems to lack-at least until now-is a sense that the protection of property is a bedrock constitutional issue. After all, as Myron Magnet has astutely pointed out: "It’s worth recalling that when the Founding Fathers led the American colonists in revolt against British oppression, they weren’t rebelling against torture on the rack or being chained in galleys or having to let aristocrats deflower their daughters. They were rebelling against taxes. To them, having to pay duties they hadn’t voted for themselves was a tyrannical taking of property—theft—and, in true Lockean fashion, they concluded that since government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, a regime that does the opposite renders itself illegitimate."
In the Didden v. Port Chester case, Sotomayor simply punted on the ED issue and, as Ilya Somin has opined, it is, “perhaps the worst federal court property rights decision in recent memory.” This decision, as well as Sotomayor’s equivocal responses to the questions on eminent domain posed in her hearing last week, is what is causing real concerns among the local New York groups; and the reason why they will be out in force on Monday.
So the Willets Point United group will be out in force to ask Judge Sotomayor, now that she will be taking on a new judicial role-and is back in NYC to visit, to take a fresh look the eminent domain question-and to look at how the abuse of eminent domain has really hurt the little guys that she has fought her whole life to protect. We'll give Jerry Antonacci of WPU the last word here:
“Property rights used to be sacred, but local governments, with the collusion of the Supreme Court in the Kelo case, have eroded this right-and it needs to be restored to its honored constitutional status. If they can take our businesses away than no one’s home is safe in this country from the reach of greedy developers and corrupt local elected officials. Our fight is the kind of fight that Sonya Sotomayor would have led when she worked for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund a few decades ago. We are calling on her to remember her roots and treat our rights with the respect they deserve.”
Friday, July 17, 2009
Speak Up Mike!
Earlier, we commented on the relative silence of the mayor on the proposed federal health care overhaul. To be fair, Bloomberg did comment to the NY Post this morning-and he did manage to avoid sounding too strident: "Mayor Bloomberg demurred when asked about how to pay for the plan, which is aimed at providing health coverage for people who can't afford it. "Throwing more money every time at the problem is not necessarily the right solution. And where that money comes from, that's something that will take a long time to be worked out between the House and the Senate," the billionaire mayor told CNN. "
How about a simple, "This plan sucks for NYC-as well as for the rest of the country." After all, the fact the Bloomberg has $100 million to lay out for his own campaign and doesn't need to be beholden to the special interests, should free him up for a little cold water tossing when a hair brained scheme to have the government micromanage health care is cooked up by the redistributors in Washington. Right?
And, while we're at it, how about the mayor taking the esteemed chair of the House Ways and Means to task for his cavalier foisting of even greater tax burdens on already over taxed New Yorkers? Here's Choo Choo Charlie's policy acumen on display: "The bill's top sponsor, Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel, asked whether the tax hike would squeeze New York's wealthy, replied, "New York [also] has a lot of poor people."
But the impoverished congressman isn't one of them-and, of course, insures his owm exemption from some of the plan's more cockamamie ideas that Betsy McCaughey outlines in the Post: "President Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests."
But it gets worse: "Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time."
But not Charlie; he and his colleagues, utilizing their exemption from the bill's mandates, will be able to continue to choose the Gold Plate Special. But Rangel should lead by example, as his colleague Congressman Fleming suggests: "As a physician, I am amazed at the number of my colleagues in Congress who are quick to claim a government-run health-care plan is the reform this country needs. So I've offered a bill, HR 615, to give them a chance to put their "health" where their mouth is: My resolution urges members of Congress who vote for this legislation to lead by example and enroll themselves in the public plan that their bill would create."
Charlie's queuing up as we speak. Right? And Rangel's allusion to New York's poor is patently offensive-as he continues to occupy multiple housing designed for moderate income folks. What about the city's tax base, Charlie? The workers in Paul Fernandez's supermarkets who may get laid off if your plan goes through certainly don't look forward to all of your misguided government "help."
Now, as many of you know, we've been beating up on the NY Post for quite a while on the mayoral control issue. But on health care, the paper has stepped up-something that the NY Times and the NY Daily News have not done. In fact the News buried the health care story yesterday in the middle of the paper and didn't mention the small business impacts-and neither did the Times, for that matter.
The NY Post, however, gets it right in their lead editorial today: "New clues emerged yesterday showing just how much damage the Democrats' health-care plans will do to America's economy. (Warning: This subject may make you, uh, sick -- and good luck finding a doctor if the plans pass.) Start with comments from Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office: The Senate's plan "significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs" -- even though President Obama and his fellow Dems claim to want to reduce costs. The CBO puts its price tag at some $600 billion over the next 10 years. The House scheme could run to $1.5 trillion."
Now, if only the Post-and the other local papers as well-would ratchet up the pressure on our elected officials to put the kibosh on this anti-New York City, anti-small business scheme. And the best place to start is with "Above Politics" Mike. If he is going to claim the mantle of leadership in these tough economic times, then he also must speak truth to the powers in the nation's capitol. Hey Mike, a little hint, this just may be a more important issue than continuing mayoral control of the schools.
How about a simple, "This plan sucks for NYC-as well as for the rest of the country." After all, the fact the Bloomberg has $100 million to lay out for his own campaign and doesn't need to be beholden to the special interests, should free him up for a little cold water tossing when a hair brained scheme to have the government micromanage health care is cooked up by the redistributors in Washington. Right?
And, while we're at it, how about the mayor taking the esteemed chair of the House Ways and Means to task for his cavalier foisting of even greater tax burdens on already over taxed New Yorkers? Here's Choo Choo Charlie's policy acumen on display: "The bill's top sponsor, Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel, asked whether the tax hike would squeeze New York's wealthy, replied, "New York [also] has a lot of poor people."
But the impoverished congressman isn't one of them-and, of course, insures his owm exemption from some of the plan's more cockamamie ideas that Betsy McCaughey outlines in the Post: "President Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests."
But it gets worse: "Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time."
But not Charlie; he and his colleagues, utilizing their exemption from the bill's mandates, will be able to continue to choose the Gold Plate Special. But Rangel should lead by example, as his colleague Congressman Fleming suggests: "As a physician, I am amazed at the number of my colleagues in Congress who are quick to claim a government-run health-care plan is the reform this country needs. So I've offered a bill, HR 615, to give them a chance to put their "health" where their mouth is: My resolution urges members of Congress who vote for this legislation to lead by example and enroll themselves in the public plan that their bill would create."
Charlie's queuing up as we speak. Right? And Rangel's allusion to New York's poor is patently offensive-as he continues to occupy multiple housing designed for moderate income folks. What about the city's tax base, Charlie? The workers in Paul Fernandez's supermarkets who may get laid off if your plan goes through certainly don't look forward to all of your misguided government "help."
Now, as many of you know, we've been beating up on the NY Post for quite a while on the mayoral control issue. But on health care, the paper has stepped up-something that the NY Times and the NY Daily News have not done. In fact the News buried the health care story yesterday in the middle of the paper and didn't mention the small business impacts-and neither did the Times, for that matter.
The NY Post, however, gets it right in their lead editorial today: "New clues emerged yesterday showing just how much damage the Democrats' health-care plans will do to America's economy. (Warning: This subject may make you, uh, sick -- and good luck finding a doctor if the plans pass.) Start with comments from Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office: The Senate's plan "significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs" -- even though President Obama and his fellow Dems claim to want to reduce costs. The CBO puts its price tag at some $600 billion over the next 10 years. The House scheme could run to $1.5 trillion."
Now, if only the Post-and the other local papers as well-would ratchet up the pressure on our elected officials to put the kibosh on this anti-New York City, anti-small business scheme. And the best place to start is with "Above Politics" Mike. If he is going to claim the mantle of leadership in these tough economic times, then he also must speak truth to the powers in the nation's capitol. Hey Mike, a little hint, this just may be a more important issue than continuing mayoral control of the schools.
Unhealthy Supermarket Plan
By now we all know that NYC is hemorrhaging supermarkets-having lost around 300 stores over the past eight years; and the Bloomberg administration, in office during the period of this mass exodus, is now looking for ways to attract news stores. But, as we have said over and over, the administration lacks any policy ideas that will stem the loss of the existing markets.
Why is this loss so important? Well, it speaks to the "food desert" concept that sees the dearth of supermarkets as a public health crisis because of the lack of access to fresh produce that people have in neighborhoods where supermarkets and green grocers are few and far between. The linkage here, of course, is between the city's obesity epidemic and this lack of access.
And in this context, along comes ObamaCare-a plan to enable, we suppose, Americans to have greater access to health care; an access to care that looks to insure healthier outcomes for all, but does so by taxing the life out of small businesses. But the road to Hell, well, you know the rest; because if the effort to insure greater access also accelerates the loss of small supermarkets and other neighborhood food stores, than we'll have what looks like great health coverage but, at the same time, even more expansive food deserts-along with a concomitant loss of neighborhood jobs. Salud!
Much of this analysis can be seen highlighted in this morning's NY Post, as the paper focuses in on the impact that the ObamaCare plan would have on the supermarkets of our good friend Paul Fernandez: "For grocer Paul Fernandez, a congressional plan to pay for health care by raising taxes will cost him so much bread he's not sure he'd be able to stay in business. "As it is, we're struggling to keep up with the cost of doing business, especially in the city of New York. This just simply adds to the cost, especially with rising rents and the commercial rent tax," said Fernandez."
Fernadez hits the nail on the head here, because it is the already high cost of doing business in NYC that lies directly behind the supermarket exodus in the first place-and why we have called the Bloomberg supermarket promotion plan, at best, a good answer to the wrong question. But the federal plan here-really an additional taxing of small business-will exacerbate our local problem of supermarket loss: "If they get their legislation through, Fernandez said lawmakers will create a new problem by forcing small firms to shut down or lay off workers. "The reality is that they are looking for a way to finance this, which I think is needed," Fernandez said of the push for health-care reform. "But to do something that will put a lot of businesses out of business is a very dangerous way to do it."
Which is why Mike Bloomberg needs to come out from under his desk on this health plan scheme. After all, he is so quick to proclaim the attributes of Judge Sotomayor. But will he have the menschlicheit to oppose ObamaCare? We'd be surprised since-post election 2008-the mayor has been acting as if he was the president's most enthusiastic supporter. But if he has any integrity, he needs to tell Charlie Rangel that his soak the small business health scheme is a disaster for New York.
And Bloomberg needs to state loud and clear that, if legislators like Rangel think a mandatory public health plan is the way to go, than the plan must also make it mandatory for all the members of Congress to enroll-something that Representative Fleming suggests in this morning's Post. Otherwise, Rangel and his band of merry bandits needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a health care proposal that leaves the city's small businesses alone and by doing so, follows the Hippocratic Oath: "Above all, do no harm"
Why is this loss so important? Well, it speaks to the "food desert" concept that sees the dearth of supermarkets as a public health crisis because of the lack of access to fresh produce that people have in neighborhoods where supermarkets and green grocers are few and far between. The linkage here, of course, is between the city's obesity epidemic and this lack of access.
And in this context, along comes ObamaCare-a plan to enable, we suppose, Americans to have greater access to health care; an access to care that looks to insure healthier outcomes for all, but does so by taxing the life out of small businesses. But the road to Hell, well, you know the rest; because if the effort to insure greater access also accelerates the loss of small supermarkets and other neighborhood food stores, than we'll have what looks like great health coverage but, at the same time, even more expansive food deserts-along with a concomitant loss of neighborhood jobs. Salud!
Much of this analysis can be seen highlighted in this morning's NY Post, as the paper focuses in on the impact that the ObamaCare plan would have on the supermarkets of our good friend Paul Fernandez: "For grocer Paul Fernandez, a congressional plan to pay for health care by raising taxes will cost him so much bread he's not sure he'd be able to stay in business. "As it is, we're struggling to keep up with the cost of doing business, especially in the city of New York. This just simply adds to the cost, especially with rising rents and the commercial rent tax," said Fernandez."
Fernadez hits the nail on the head here, because it is the already high cost of doing business in NYC that lies directly behind the supermarket exodus in the first place-and why we have called the Bloomberg supermarket promotion plan, at best, a good answer to the wrong question. But the federal plan here-really an additional taxing of small business-will exacerbate our local problem of supermarket loss: "If they get their legislation through, Fernandez said lawmakers will create a new problem by forcing small firms to shut down or lay off workers. "The reality is that they are looking for a way to finance this, which I think is needed," Fernandez said of the push for health-care reform. "But to do something that will put a lot of businesses out of business is a very dangerous way to do it."
Which is why Mike Bloomberg needs to come out from under his desk on this health plan scheme. After all, he is so quick to proclaim the attributes of Judge Sotomayor. But will he have the menschlicheit to oppose ObamaCare? We'd be surprised since-post election 2008-the mayor has been acting as if he was the president's most enthusiastic supporter. But if he has any integrity, he needs to tell Charlie Rangel that his soak the small business health scheme is a disaster for New York.
And Bloomberg needs to state loud and clear that, if legislators like Rangel think a mandatory public health plan is the way to go, than the plan must also make it mandatory for all the members of Congress to enroll-something that Representative Fleming suggests in this morning's Post. Otherwise, Rangel and his band of merry bandits needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a health care proposal that leaves the city's small businesses alone and by doing so, follows the Hippocratic Oath: "Above all, do no harm"
Fruitless Reporting
The Gotham Gazette has a post on what it describes as, the "drought" in the outer boroughs in regards to the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables: "Fruit stands are Manhattan's new hot dog vendor, minus the mustard and ketchup. Their street corner takeover has sparked some New Yorkers, like Upper East Sider Jamie Kayam, to carp that their neighborhood is oversaturated with apples, bananas and overly ripe white cherries. "In NYC, buying fruits and vegetables has never been easier!" Kayam wrote in an e-mail to Gotham Gazette and The Huffington Post. "When recently discussing life in the city with some friends, a key complaint that came up was that there are too many fruit stands in Manhattan!"
So, given the saturation of such vendors in Manhattan, did the GG think it might be wise to examine how these low overhead scavengers are: (1) Causing extreme congestion and overrunning certain neighborhoods; and, (2) Having a deleterious impact on the stores whose taxes keep the city budget balanced?
Apparently not, since the objective here is to, once again, hammer home the fact that, outside of Manhattan, veggie peddlers are scarce-as are the produce carrying supermarkets and other such food stores: "But out of Manhattan, greens get elusive. In the South Bronx, residents have about half of that supermarket space. In Brooklyn's Bedford Stuyvesant, 82 percent of retailers are unlikely to sell fresh fruits and vegetables, and in some areas of Upper Manhattan that number increases to 90 percent, according to city planning."
In the outer boroughs, over relying on stats from the Department of City Planning, the GG finds a, "produce desert." So, what's the underlying reason for this phenomenon? The authors of the post don't bother to explore any of the reasons for the neighborhood disparity. But, how about letting us do it for them?
Number one, is the question of demand. Where demand is high, peddlers flood an area in pursuit of the paying customers-and check out this confirmation from a recent NY Times story. And, in the process, they cannibalize business from stores that are paying exorbitant rents and confiscatory taxes. In addition, the level of health awareness in the produce deserts is lower-along with the incomes necessary to support a greater number of retail outlets.
Number two, is the income levels themselves. It's quite silly to compare supermarket density of low income and high income areas-and anyway, we are losing many of those markets from Manhattan as the cost of doing business-courtesy of the "luxury product" Bloomberg-continues to rise.
So, let's be clear here. Both the abundance, as well as the dearth of peddlers in certain nabes, has policy implications. But to see the issue solely through the lens of health, and not from a larger macro perspective, only will lead to silly initiatives like the Green Carts legislation. More care needs to be given to nurturing the health of the city's small business; or else we will end up-something accelerated by ObamaCare-with a fully health insured out of work populace.
So, given the saturation of such vendors in Manhattan, did the GG think it might be wise to examine how these low overhead scavengers are: (1) Causing extreme congestion and overrunning certain neighborhoods; and, (2) Having a deleterious impact on the stores whose taxes keep the city budget balanced?
Apparently not, since the objective here is to, once again, hammer home the fact that, outside of Manhattan, veggie peddlers are scarce-as are the produce carrying supermarkets and other such food stores: "But out of Manhattan, greens get elusive. In the South Bronx, residents have about half of that supermarket space. In Brooklyn's Bedford Stuyvesant, 82 percent of retailers are unlikely to sell fresh fruits and vegetables, and in some areas of Upper Manhattan that number increases to 90 percent, according to city planning."
In the outer boroughs, over relying on stats from the Department of City Planning, the GG finds a, "produce desert." So, what's the underlying reason for this phenomenon? The authors of the post don't bother to explore any of the reasons for the neighborhood disparity. But, how about letting us do it for them?
Number one, is the question of demand. Where demand is high, peddlers flood an area in pursuit of the paying customers-and check out this confirmation from a recent NY Times story. And, in the process, they cannibalize business from stores that are paying exorbitant rents and confiscatory taxes. In addition, the level of health awareness in the produce deserts is lower-along with the incomes necessary to support a greater number of retail outlets.
Number two, is the income levels themselves. It's quite silly to compare supermarket density of low income and high income areas-and anyway, we are losing many of those markets from Manhattan as the cost of doing business-courtesy of the "luxury product" Bloomberg-continues to rise.
So, let's be clear here. Both the abundance, as well as the dearth of peddlers in certain nabes, has policy implications. But to see the issue solely through the lens of health, and not from a larger macro perspective, only will lead to silly initiatives like the Green Carts legislation. More care needs to be given to nurturing the health of the city's small business; or else we will end up-something accelerated by ObamaCare-with a fully health insured out of work populace.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Linares Redux?
Well, well, right on the heels of Michael Jackson's demise-with all of the replaying of the great " "Thriller" video-comes the news that our old nemesis Guillermo Linaris is being resurrected from his political graveyard. Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat captures the ghoulishness of the disinterment: "Peace treaty or no, the assemblyman couldn't help himself from taking a few backhanded swipes and his old foe. "To recycle and go back is not the thing to do," Espaillat said during a telephone interview this afternoon...." Espaillat continued. "He served with distinction. I just think this is step backward for him. You left; you should continue to move forward instead of going backward."
And being Miguel Marinez's replacement part isn't a step forward in our view-and does the substitution choice count as an endorsement from the soon to be disgraced pol? But it gets worse when we read that Linaris himself isn't returning to elective politics with clean hands. As the NY Daily News reports: "The handpicked successor to disgraced City Councilman Miguel Martinez has ties to another scandal, the Daily News has learned. As Martinez prepares to plead guilty to corruption charges today, former Councilman Guillermo Linares plans to run for his Washington Heights seat with his blessing. Linares quit his job Wednesday as a top aide to Mayor Bloomberg to run. Earlier this year, a nonprofit group Linares organized to help immigrants, the Community Association of Progressive Dominicans, was found to have given a no-show job to a crony of Bronx state Sen. Efrain Gonzalez, records show."
And who was the director of the tarnished group? None other than Linares' own daughter: "The crony, Miguel Castanos, was on the payroll from 2004 through April 2006. He pleaded guilty to fraud charges this past April; Gonzalez followed suit in May. During the time Castanos was on the payroll, Linares' daughter Mayra was on the group's board of directors, 2005 tax forms show. She has since become the board's chairwoman. An employee of the Community Association of Progressive Dominicans said Wednesday the group had no comment."
When you have nothing good to say...well, you get what we're pointing out. But our real problem lies with Linares' history of betrayal. Back in 1995, Linares lead the opposition on behalf of dozens of Dominican-owned supermarkets to a tax subsidized Pathmark in East Harlem. Juan Gonzales captured this betrayal at the time: "In the middle of a sleepless night early Thursday morning, Guillermo Linares, the city councilman from Washington Heights, made the toughest decision of his life to become a politician. A few hours later, he walked into a meeting of the Manhattan Borough Board and shocked his closest supporters, the Dominican business community, by switching sides and casting the deciding vote for a $12 million Pathmark supermarket in East Harlem."
Benedicto Arnold: "Linares says he got concessions from Pathmark, including a fund of $150,000 over four years to assist East Harlem small businessmen. This made it worthwhile for him to switch sides. Killing it might have sparked boycotts against Dominican stores on the scale of the anti-Korean protests a few years back. To prevent further division, Linares claimed, he made a last-minute switch. To some, he is a hero. To others, he is just another lying politician."
The vote, of course, wasn't the main issue-it was the complete lack of honesty on the part of the first Dominican elected official in the United States; and the selling out of his own folks after pledging loyalty to small business owners who had revived the economies of East and Central Harlem. His return-under a cloud, no less-is no service to the good people of Washington Heights.
And being Miguel Marinez's replacement part isn't a step forward in our view-and does the substitution choice count as an endorsement from the soon to be disgraced pol? But it gets worse when we read that Linaris himself isn't returning to elective politics with clean hands. As the NY Daily News reports: "The handpicked successor to disgraced City Councilman Miguel Martinez has ties to another scandal, the Daily News has learned. As Martinez prepares to plead guilty to corruption charges today, former Councilman Guillermo Linares plans to run for his Washington Heights seat with his blessing. Linares quit his job Wednesday as a top aide to Mayor Bloomberg to run. Earlier this year, a nonprofit group Linares organized to help immigrants, the Community Association of Progressive Dominicans, was found to have given a no-show job to a crony of Bronx state Sen. Efrain Gonzalez, records show."
And who was the director of the tarnished group? None other than Linares' own daughter: "The crony, Miguel Castanos, was on the payroll from 2004 through April 2006. He pleaded guilty to fraud charges this past April; Gonzalez followed suit in May. During the time Castanos was on the payroll, Linares' daughter Mayra was on the group's board of directors, 2005 tax forms show. She has since become the board's chairwoman. An employee of the Community Association of Progressive Dominicans said Wednesday the group had no comment."
When you have nothing good to say...well, you get what we're pointing out. But our real problem lies with Linares' history of betrayal. Back in 1995, Linares lead the opposition on behalf of dozens of Dominican-owned supermarkets to a tax subsidized Pathmark in East Harlem. Juan Gonzales captured this betrayal at the time: "In the middle of a sleepless night early Thursday morning, Guillermo Linares, the city councilman from Washington Heights, made the toughest decision of his life to become a politician. A few hours later, he walked into a meeting of the Manhattan Borough Board and shocked his closest supporters, the Dominican business community, by switching sides and casting the deciding vote for a $12 million Pathmark supermarket in East Harlem."
Benedicto Arnold: "Linares says he got concessions from Pathmark, including a fund of $150,000 over four years to assist East Harlem small businessmen. This made it worthwhile for him to switch sides. Killing it might have sparked boycotts against Dominican stores on the scale of the anti-Korean protests a few years back. To prevent further division, Linares claimed, he made a last-minute switch. To some, he is a hero. To others, he is just another lying politician."
The vote, of course, wasn't the main issue-it was the complete lack of honesty on the part of the first Dominican elected official in the United States; and the selling out of his own folks after pledging loyalty to small business owners who had revived the economies of East and Central Harlem. His return-under a cloud, no less-is no service to the good people of Washington Heights.
E.J.Ecting ObamaCare
In this morning's NY Post, E. J. McMahon excoriates the health care overhaul plan winding its way through the halls of Congress: "NEW YORK'S economy and tax base, already sagging in a deep recession, would take another huge hit under Rep. Charles Rangel's plan to impose a surtax on high-income households to finance a new government-run health plan."
Echoing many of the things we have already said about the plan's small business impacts-but with greater expertise and detail-McMahon tells us: "For New York City residents, it would be closer to 59 percent, the highest in the nation. The impact wouldn't be limited to Park Avenue swells. Much of the taxable income in the highest brackets is reported by owners of and investors in small businesses. Higher income taxes will drain the working capital of small firms, sapping the resources they'll have to add jobs and recover from the recession. And small businesses who fail to offer health insurance to their employees will be slapped with another tax -- an 8 percent payroll tax -- under the House plan."
The question here is, how come Charlie Rangel-already under an ethical cloud-hasn't been run out of town on a rail? The Rangel mindset-frozen in stone in the Mesozoic Era-is the Kiss of Death for New York's already fragile economy: "While Rangel says his surtax on top brackets would represent "the least amount of pain on the least amount of people," the ripple effect of a shrinkage in the state and city tax base would be felt by many more New Yorkers. Because the Empire State is home to such a large concentration of successful and wealthy investors and business owners, its entire economy benefits when federal tax policy is focused on economic growth and wealth creation. By the same token, a policy geared to income redistribution will drain the resources needed to rebuild our own economy. By the middle of the next decade, many more New Yorkers may be receiving free subsidized health coverage -- while wondering what happened to their jobs."
Rangel's betrayal of New York is breathtaking in extremis; underscoring the perils of a seniority system that rewards placeholders without any real acumen. Perhaps Rangel was simply too busy seeking funds for his own City College memorial to ponder the dire impacts of what will-if passed-henceforth be known as "Rangel's Folly."
Echoing many of the things we have already said about the plan's small business impacts-but with greater expertise and detail-McMahon tells us: "For New York City residents, it would be closer to 59 percent, the highest in the nation. The impact wouldn't be limited to Park Avenue swells. Much of the taxable income in the highest brackets is reported by owners of and investors in small businesses. Higher income taxes will drain the working capital of small firms, sapping the resources they'll have to add jobs and recover from the recession. And small businesses who fail to offer health insurance to their employees will be slapped with another tax -- an 8 percent payroll tax -- under the House plan."
The question here is, how come Charlie Rangel-already under an ethical cloud-hasn't been run out of town on a rail? The Rangel mindset-frozen in stone in the Mesozoic Era-is the Kiss of Death for New York's already fragile economy: "While Rangel says his surtax on top brackets would represent "the least amount of pain on the least amount of people," the ripple effect of a shrinkage in the state and city tax base would be felt by many more New Yorkers. Because the Empire State is home to such a large concentration of successful and wealthy investors and business owners, its entire economy benefits when federal tax policy is focused on economic growth and wealth creation. By the same token, a policy geared to income redistribution will drain the resources needed to rebuild our own economy. By the middle of the next decade, many more New Yorkers may be receiving free subsidized health coverage -- while wondering what happened to their jobs."
Rangel's betrayal of New York is breathtaking in extremis; underscoring the perils of a seniority system that rewards placeholders without any real acumen. Perhaps Rangel was simply too busy seeking funds for his own City College memorial to ponder the dire impacts of what will-if passed-henceforth be known as "Rangel's Folly."
Supermarket Kerfluffle
The battle over the fate of the Kingsbridge Armory goes into its next phase-and we're hopeful that a more rational venue awaits as the community, along with beleaguered supermarket owners and their workers concerned about a possible mega food mart in the development, proceed to the upcoming hearing at the office of Bronx BP Ruben Diaz on July 27th.
And in this morning's NY Daily News, Albor Ruiz frames the problem from the vantage of two of the workers at Morton Williams Supermarkets: "From the time Giuliani was mayor to this day, the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx has elicited many different - and strong - opinions on what it should look like. But for Virginia Tribelli, there is one issue that is crystal-clear. "We don't want a big-box supermarket in the armory. We don't need it, and we are hoping that the community board votes against it," Tribelli said, referring to the nonbinding, largely symbolic vote by Bronx Community Board 7 that took place on Tuesday."
Tribelli, along with her co-worker Orlando Olave, have worked at the local store for years and have been-after being hired locally-promoted up the ranks into supervisory positions: "I did not know any English when I started," said Tribelli, an immigrant from Italy. "But this is a good company to work for and I worked my way up. I wouldn't know where to go if the store closes." She would not be the only one. Seventy workers from the store where she works would quickly find themselves without jobs. Sixty more who make their living at another Morton Williams a few blocks away would be unemployed soon after, she said. "Most of these people are from the community, they have roots in the community. It would be a nightmare," Tribelli said. "And not only for us; hundreds of other people would be affected, too."
And Olave, for his part, sees how such a mega store intrusion wouldn't just hurt Morton Williams: "Olave is certain that a big-box supermarket in the armory would wreak havoc with the neighborhood's already fragile economy. A father of three, he has worked for Morton Williams for 26 years, during which he moved up from floor-cleaner to supervisor."
But we're buoyed by the support from the area's local elected officials-particularly Council member Maria Baez who is gathering signatures on a petition opposing any big box food use in the Armory. And the community coalition rallied against the redevelopment scheme yesterday, attracting Bill Thompson as well as numerous other electeds. Given the growing groundswell of support the local businesses are hopeful that a more rational development plan emerges in the months ahead.
Update
Unfortunately, the Ruiz column got truncated in its on-line version; and left out the meat of his observations on the unfairness of the current proposed redevelopment scheme. Here's his citation of Olave's incisive remarks: ""We don't need a big box store," a concerned Olave said. It's not only us and the other supermarkets. I don't even want to think about what will happen to the mom-and-pop stores, the bodegas, the 99 cent discounts. Fordham Road businesses would be killed."
And then Ruiz finished with a flourish-getting to the heart of the inequity of using tax payer money for this plan: "The question people like Tribelli and Olave keep asking is why should the city give millions in subsidies to a project that, according to them, will compete with the community businesses and will result in greater unemployment and more "For Rent" signs in the neighborhood?"
This is the challenge facing the City Council. We're optimistic that they will be up to it.
And in this morning's NY Daily News, Albor Ruiz frames the problem from the vantage of two of the workers at Morton Williams Supermarkets: "From the time Giuliani was mayor to this day, the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx has elicited many different - and strong - opinions on what it should look like. But for Virginia Tribelli, there is one issue that is crystal-clear. "We don't want a big-box supermarket in the armory. We don't need it, and we are hoping that the community board votes against it," Tribelli said, referring to the nonbinding, largely symbolic vote by Bronx Community Board 7 that took place on Tuesday."
Tribelli, along with her co-worker Orlando Olave, have worked at the local store for years and have been-after being hired locally-promoted up the ranks into supervisory positions: "I did not know any English when I started," said Tribelli, an immigrant from Italy. "But this is a good company to work for and I worked my way up. I wouldn't know where to go if the store closes." She would not be the only one. Seventy workers from the store where she works would quickly find themselves without jobs. Sixty more who make their living at another Morton Williams a few blocks away would be unemployed soon after, she said. "Most of these people are from the community, they have roots in the community. It would be a nightmare," Tribelli said. "And not only for us; hundreds of other people would be affected, too."
And Olave, for his part, sees how such a mega store intrusion wouldn't just hurt Morton Williams: "Olave is certain that a big-box supermarket in the armory would wreak havoc with the neighborhood's already fragile economy. A father of three, he has worked for Morton Williams for 26 years, during which he moved up from floor-cleaner to supervisor."
But we're buoyed by the support from the area's local elected officials-particularly Council member Maria Baez who is gathering signatures on a petition opposing any big box food use in the Armory. And the community coalition rallied against the redevelopment scheme yesterday, attracting Bill Thompson as well as numerous other electeds. Given the growing groundswell of support the local businesses are hopeful that a more rational development plan emerges in the months ahead.
Update
Unfortunately, the Ruiz column got truncated in its on-line version; and left out the meat of his observations on the unfairness of the current proposed redevelopment scheme. Here's his citation of Olave's incisive remarks: ""We don't need a big box store," a concerned Olave said. It's not only us and the other supermarkets. I don't even want to think about what will happen to the mom-and-pop stores, the bodegas, the 99 cent discounts. Fordham Road businesses would be killed."
And then Ruiz finished with a flourish-getting to the heart of the inequity of using tax payer money for this plan: "The question people like Tribelli and Olave keep asking is why should the city give millions in subsidies to a project that, according to them, will compete with the community businesses and will result in greater unemployment and more "For Rent" signs in the neighborhood?"
This is the challenge facing the City Council. We're optimistic that they will be up to it.
Here's Not to Your Health
As if the plight of small business in New York wasn't severe enough, along comes President Obama and this Congressional cohort to make things worse-and they claim they're doing it all for your health! As the NY Post reports this morning-making Joe the Plumber into a prophet: "Congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul could have a job-killing effect on New York, creating a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for the state's top earners and possibly pressuring small-business owners to shed workers."
And, if small businesses are the engine that drives the economy, than the economy is about to be sent right off the rails. As we told the Post: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small stores and businesses in New York City, warned that "in the middle of a recession, it's a very strange way to legislate." According to what we've read, the House health-insurance plan would have a job-crippling impact on neighborhood stores and other small businesses because they put mandates on these businesses that would prevent them from hiring people because of the cost of the plan," Lipsky said."
How sick is that? It seems to us that Washington has failed to read the handwriting on the wall; and has anyone seen the unemployment rate in NYC, that has risen into the middle teens for the hardest hit minority groups? What Obama and his cohort of lemmings fails to realize is that the health of Americans encompasses the health of the businesses that keep folks employed and spending. With stimulation all the rage in Washington, few of the stimulators are taken cognizance of the impact of their schemes.
Higher taxes and more small business mandates are the death knell of a truly vibrant economy: "New York would become the third-most-hostile place for top earners to live under the proposed new surtaxes supported by House Democrats and championed by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). Also hit would be individuals earning $280,000 annually and families making $350,000 a year. The profits from small businesses would also be taxed on the back end."
The end result? A compelling invitation for the enterprising to get the hell out of New York in search of a less taxing environment to live and do business. And the Washington shenanigans has even got us right on the same page with the Partnership's Kathy Wylde: "If the House plan passes, Wylde said, "There literally, at this point, is very strong reason to relocate your family and your business outside New York."
But it's NY's small businesses that are really in the eye of this storm-and the House bill in particular is pernicious; and a good reason for Charlie Rangel to resign from office. How can this guy still claim to represent New York? We'll give the Business Council's Michael Moran the final word on this: "A lot of small businesses would be hit with the penalties for not insuring workers and get hit with the surtaxes, Moran warned. "Many small businesses file their business taxes under personal income," he said. "That's the way the tax law is written. Small business, which is really where most of the job creation takes place, could be hit hard."
And, if small businesses are the engine that drives the economy, than the economy is about to be sent right off the rails. As we told the Post: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small stores and businesses in New York City, warned that "in the middle of a recession, it's a very strange way to legislate." According to what we've read, the House health-insurance plan would have a job-crippling impact on neighborhood stores and other small businesses because they put mandates on these businesses that would prevent them from hiring people because of the cost of the plan," Lipsky said."
How sick is that? It seems to us that Washington has failed to read the handwriting on the wall; and has anyone seen the unemployment rate in NYC, that has risen into the middle teens for the hardest hit minority groups? What Obama and his cohort of lemmings fails to realize is that the health of Americans encompasses the health of the businesses that keep folks employed and spending. With stimulation all the rage in Washington, few of the stimulators are taken cognizance of the impact of their schemes.
Higher taxes and more small business mandates are the death knell of a truly vibrant economy: "New York would become the third-most-hostile place for top earners to live under the proposed new surtaxes supported by House Democrats and championed by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). Also hit would be individuals earning $280,000 annually and families making $350,000 a year. The profits from small businesses would also be taxed on the back end."
The end result? A compelling invitation for the enterprising to get the hell out of New York in search of a less taxing environment to live and do business. And the Washington shenanigans has even got us right on the same page with the Partnership's Kathy Wylde: "If the House plan passes, Wylde said, "There literally, at this point, is very strong reason to relocate your family and your business outside New York."
But it's NY's small businesses that are really in the eye of this storm-and the House bill in particular is pernicious; and a good reason for Charlie Rangel to resign from office. How can this guy still claim to represent New York? We'll give the Business Council's Michael Moran the final word on this: "A lot of small businesses would be hit with the penalties for not insuring workers and get hit with the surtaxes, Moran warned. "Many small businesses file their business taxes under personal income," he said. "That's the way the tax law is written. Small business, which is really where most of the job creation takes place, could be hit hard."
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Freddy Ferrer: Hypocrite
In a story in this week's Village Voice, Tom Robbins goes after Pedro Espada for his alleged avidity in the pursuit of member items for his district: "Freddy Ferrer, who served as Bronx borough president from 1987 to 2001, said Espada's recent antics didn't surprise him. "He always struck me as a Ramon Velez wannabe," said Ferrer. In fact, Espada singled out Velez, the late Bronx anti-poverty kingpin regularly cited for corruption, as a role model in the New York magazine article. "That's his thing," said Ferrer. "He has so distinguished himself with his lack of character, it's really stunning. I'm betting he'll flip back again. He says this is about empowerment? Come on."
What chutzpah! Here's someone whose entire career was built on the original promotional activity of one Ramon Velez-the person whose support was the impetus for Ferrer's appointment to a vacant city council seat. So now he's disparaging his mentor, and posturing as a good government notable?
One last point. Ferrer, once he was elevated to the council, proceeded to spit in his mentor's face; telling the fabled Fat Man-according to how we heard the exchange went, "Ramon, now I must represent all of the people." Ferrer's comments on Espada are tasteless, even for him.
What chutzpah! Here's someone whose entire career was built on the original promotional activity of one Ramon Velez-the person whose support was the impetus for Ferrer's appointment to a vacant city council seat. So now he's disparaging his mentor, and posturing as a good government notable?
One last point. Ferrer, once he was elevated to the council, proceeded to spit in his mentor's face; telling the fabled Fat Man-according to how we heard the exchange went, "Ramon, now I must represent all of the people." Ferrer's comments on Espada are tasteless, even for him.
Bill of Goods
According to our thesaurus, a bill of goods, is described as; "communication (written or spoken) that persuades someone to accept something untrue or undesirable; "they tried to sell me a bill of goods about a secondhand car" Which brings us to the selling of mayoral control of the schools-and the Abbot and Costello role that is being by Mike Bloomberg and the NY Post.
As the NY Daily News reports, all is not seashells and balloons when it comes to the performance of the schools under the mayor's watch. In particular, those vaunted test scores-as we have been arguing ad infinitum-need to be given a saliva test: "An apple for teacher? Mayor Bloomberg's controversial end to social promotion is being undermined by low testing standards."
Which is why, according to the News, the mayor's decision to end social promotion probably has been undermined: "To earn a promotion this year, however, elementary and middle school students in every grade needed fewer points on both the state math and reading exams than they did in 2006. "What appears to be happening in the last four years [is] the hurdle is getting lower," said Fred Smith, a Bloomberg administration critic and former testing analyst for the Board of Education."
Put in more simple and graphic terms, the tests are watered down, and all of the hoo ha over the "Bloomberg Miracle," needs to be given a cold shower: "In 2006, for example, third-graders had to get 44% of points on the math tests to earn a promotion, compared with 28% this year..."I have kids who really struggle as readers," said Claudia de Luna Castro, who teaches fourth and fifth grades at Harlem's Central Park East II and had no students who scored at level one. "It always makes me wonder when I see data that doesn't match my experience of my kids."
Which brings us to the NY Post's best seller, "The Selling of Mayoral Control." The paper has never bothered, unlike the Daily News, to ever examine the data that it-and eager partner Bloomberg-uncritically disseminates. These two vaudevillians are simply selling us, a bill of goods-and it's the people of New York that are suffering from this disinformation campaign. And we haven't even mentioned the fact that education spending has risen by billions of dollars; cost-benefit anyone?
Merryl Tisch hits it on the head: "State Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch said the tests were not rigorous enough. "You can equate tests," she said, "but if you're not demanding a high enough standard, what you're equating is a low-level test." "Ultimately, these children will struggle because they will find themselves in high school or somewhere they are not ready for," said Carol Boyd, a parent leader with the New York City Coalition for Educational Justice. "We're moving them along, but we're setting them up to fail."
All this for $20,000 a year per pupil? Where do we go to ask for our money back?
As the NY Daily News reports, all is not seashells and balloons when it comes to the performance of the schools under the mayor's watch. In particular, those vaunted test scores-as we have been arguing ad infinitum-need to be given a saliva test: "An apple for teacher? Mayor Bloomberg's controversial end to social promotion is being undermined by low testing standards."
Which is why, according to the News, the mayor's decision to end social promotion probably has been undermined: "To earn a promotion this year, however, elementary and middle school students in every grade needed fewer points on both the state math and reading exams than they did in 2006. "What appears to be happening in the last four years [is] the hurdle is getting lower," said Fred Smith, a Bloomberg administration critic and former testing analyst for the Board of Education."
Put in more simple and graphic terms, the tests are watered down, and all of the hoo ha over the "Bloomberg Miracle," needs to be given a cold shower: "In 2006, for example, third-graders had to get 44% of points on the math tests to earn a promotion, compared with 28% this year..."I have kids who really struggle as readers," said Claudia de Luna Castro, who teaches fourth and fifth grades at Harlem's Central Park East II and had no students who scored at level one. "It always makes me wonder when I see data that doesn't match my experience of my kids."
Which brings us to the NY Post's best seller, "The Selling of Mayoral Control." The paper has never bothered, unlike the Daily News, to ever examine the data that it-and eager partner Bloomberg-uncritically disseminates. These two vaudevillians are simply selling us, a bill of goods-and it's the people of New York that are suffering from this disinformation campaign. And we haven't even mentioned the fact that education spending has risen by billions of dollars; cost-benefit anyone?
Merryl Tisch hits it on the head: "State Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch said the tests were not rigorous enough. "You can equate tests," she said, "but if you're not demanding a high enough standard, what you're equating is a low-level test." "Ultimately, these children will struggle because they will find themselves in high school or somewhere they are not ready for," said Carol Boyd, a parent leader with the New York City Coalition for Educational Justice. "We're moving them along, but we're setting them up to fail."
All this for $20,000 a year per pupil? Where do we go to ask for our money back?
PostWatch
Yesterday we outlined the connection between the city's high black unemployment rate and Mike Bloomberg's fiscal and governing philosophy-and took the mayor to task for raising the salaries of city workers while so many others in the private sector were struggling. As we pointed out: "The city's vaunted Fiscal Steward has once again treated the city work force with great generosity-offering nice fat raises to scores of workers in the middle of what the NY Post...calls a "tax revenue meltdown."
At the same time we critiqued the manner in which the NY Post covered this story-or didn't cover it, as the case may be. We were particularly perturbed by the fact that public sector spending and bloated municipal budgets are normally a pet peeve of the paper. With Mike Bloomberg at the helm, however, the Poat's editorialists have contracted lockjaw.
So, when we opened the paper up this morning, we were pleasantly surprised to see an editorial on the city's job loss-with a reference to the mayor's opponent-the infrequently mentioned Bill Thompson-in the lead paragraph. We did though, quickly recover our lost balance when the editorial went in a completely different, and sadly predictable, direction.
Instead of making some of the Old Post-like linkages we had made yesterday, the paper linked the Thompson job report to, what else, mayoral control of the schools: "It's not definitively clear why the recession would hit blacks harder. But clues may lie in high-school graduation rates: Typically, whites finish school in higher percentages than blacks, even as employers increasingly demand a high-school diploma (at the very least). In 2005, just 40.1 percent of black kids made it through high school in four years, compared to 64 percent of whites. Some 18.5 percent of blacks dropped out; only 12.3 percent of whites did. Surely this black-white gap must have something to do with jobless trends. But here's some good news: While graduation rates have risen for kids of all races under mayoral control, it's climbed faster for blacks than for whites."
Now let's be clear, we do believe that a discussion of the city's disparate graduation rates along side of the reported high minority unemployment is definitely appropriate. But to elevate the graduation component to what amounts to an independent variable-and to leave out some more important factors that can be placed right at the mayor's door step-is to mislead the public and whitewash the Bloomberg Factor.
As we highlighted yesterday: "The fact remains, that the city is hemorrhaging private sector jobs-with minority unemployment at its worst in decades-and Mike Bloomberg fails to see the correlation between public sector bloat, higher taxes, and concomitant job loss in the private sector. And this is the fiscal genius we need to steward us through a recession?"
And, if you read the NY Times story on the unemployment struggles of minority workers, the central feature is the job loss experienced by people who held jobs already but who had been laid off-indicating the extent to which current economic variables are at play: "Economists said they were not certain why so many more blacks were losing their jobs in New York, especially when a large share of the layoffs in the city have been in fields where they are not well represented, like finance and professional services. But in those sectors, the economists suggested that blacks may have had less seniority when layoffs occurred. And black workers hold an outsize share of the jobs in retailing and other service industries that have been shrinking as consumers curtail their spending."
To the last point, the Post might have used this fact to link retail job loss with the city's high tax rate-and taken the opportunity to blast Bloomberg for his statement that he could afford to raise the salaries of city workers at this time because of the state senate's passage of the increase in the city's sales tax: "Now that it's passed, I feel a little more comfortable about our ability to pay..."
All of which is elided by the Post in what certainly looks like part of a massive cover up of the mayor's fiscal imprudence and incompetence. Graduating from high school is important if you're gonna have a better opportunity to find work-and it's good that more blacks and Hispanic students are doing so-leaving out for now that there's a massive remediation effort underway at the city's community colleges to improve the basic skills of the graduates of Mike Bloomberg's high schools.
But NYC's "tax revenue meltdown," while partially a consequence of larger national and global trends, is even more directly related to the fact that the city has one of the worst-if not the worst-climates for doing business. The NY Post knows this very well; and that it has decided to give it the under the rug treatment is shameful. The $15 billion question-pop quiz-that remains is, why has the Post strayed so far away from its core values?
At the same time we critiqued the manner in which the NY Post covered this story-or didn't cover it, as the case may be. We were particularly perturbed by the fact that public sector spending and bloated municipal budgets are normally a pet peeve of the paper. With Mike Bloomberg at the helm, however, the Poat's editorialists have contracted lockjaw.
So, when we opened the paper up this morning, we were pleasantly surprised to see an editorial on the city's job loss-with a reference to the mayor's opponent-the infrequently mentioned Bill Thompson-in the lead paragraph. We did though, quickly recover our lost balance when the editorial went in a completely different, and sadly predictable, direction.
Instead of making some of the Old Post-like linkages we had made yesterday, the paper linked the Thompson job report to, what else, mayoral control of the schools: "It's not definitively clear why the recession would hit blacks harder. But clues may lie in high-school graduation rates: Typically, whites finish school in higher percentages than blacks, even as employers increasingly demand a high-school diploma (at the very least). In 2005, just 40.1 percent of black kids made it through high school in four years, compared to 64 percent of whites. Some 18.5 percent of blacks dropped out; only 12.3 percent of whites did. Surely this black-white gap must have something to do with jobless trends. But here's some good news: While graduation rates have risen for kids of all races under mayoral control, it's climbed faster for blacks than for whites."
Now let's be clear, we do believe that a discussion of the city's disparate graduation rates along side of the reported high minority unemployment is definitely appropriate. But to elevate the graduation component to what amounts to an independent variable-and to leave out some more important factors that can be placed right at the mayor's door step-is to mislead the public and whitewash the Bloomberg Factor.
As we highlighted yesterday: "The fact remains, that the city is hemorrhaging private sector jobs-with minority unemployment at its worst in decades-and Mike Bloomberg fails to see the correlation between public sector bloat, higher taxes, and concomitant job loss in the private sector. And this is the fiscal genius we need to steward us through a recession?"
And, if you read the NY Times story on the unemployment struggles of minority workers, the central feature is the job loss experienced by people who held jobs already but who had been laid off-indicating the extent to which current economic variables are at play: "Economists said they were not certain why so many more blacks were losing their jobs in New York, especially when a large share of the layoffs in the city have been in fields where they are not well represented, like finance and professional services. But in those sectors, the economists suggested that blacks may have had less seniority when layoffs occurred. And black workers hold an outsize share of the jobs in retailing and other service industries that have been shrinking as consumers curtail their spending."
To the last point, the Post might have used this fact to link retail job loss with the city's high tax rate-and taken the opportunity to blast Bloomberg for his statement that he could afford to raise the salaries of city workers at this time because of the state senate's passage of the increase in the city's sales tax: "Now that it's passed, I feel a little more comfortable about our ability to pay..."
All of which is elided by the Post in what certainly looks like part of a massive cover up of the mayor's fiscal imprudence and incompetence. Graduating from high school is important if you're gonna have a better opportunity to find work-and it's good that more blacks and Hispanic students are doing so-leaving out for now that there's a massive remediation effort underway at the city's community colleges to improve the basic skills of the graduates of Mike Bloomberg's high schools.
But NYC's "tax revenue meltdown," while partially a consequence of larger national and global trends, is even more directly related to the fact that the city has one of the worst-if not the worst-climates for doing business. The NY Post knows this very well; and that it has decided to give it the under the rug treatment is shameful. The $15 billion question-pop quiz-that remains is, why has the Post strayed so far away from its core values?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Fruity Fighting
The fruit is flying over on Ninth Avenue-and that's not the only thing that's rotten there. Here's the City Room report: "Bulent Unal, 45, has piled his table high with apples, bananas and mangoes on the same bustling stretch of 9th Avenue for years now, weighing and bagging fruit at a frenetic pace for the tourists heading to Times Square and the office workers crowding the sidewalks between 42nd and 43rd Streets. Then, and he gets angry just thinking about it, that guy — he gestures with clenched fists and steaming eyes a short distance away — opened another fruit stand around the corner and down the block, on 43rd Street between 9th and 10th Avenues."
What this fight signifies is the fact that there appears to be little or no enforcement of any of the existing vending rules-and the need for a dramatic overhaul of the regulatory regime must be done soon; or the fists and not the fruit will be flying. But City Room ignores an even more salient fact.
While the vendors continue to duel, a Food Emporium a little more than two blocks away is having its business siphoned off by non rent paying peddlers who have none of the overhead that supermarkets must take care of. And what to make of the following? "In his opinion it violates every tenet of street vending decency. More importantly it was cutting into his business. So he demanded, first politely and then decidedly less so, that the new guy, Eyup Durmus, move on. Mr. Durmus refused, arguing that the two stands were out sight and almost on different avenues. And so the Midtown fruit battle escalated: Mr. Unal opened yet another fruit stand right next to the new guy."
Totally out of control-with one guy-or his family in this case-able to obtain a new cart and go to war with his etiquette violating neighbor: "While some street vendors have worked on the same corner going back decades, any claims to asphalt real estate are actually informal. On blocks open to street vending –- many are not –- the official restrictions are limited to the size of the table, blocking street traffic or standing too close to the entrance of a building or a fire hydrant. There are no prohibitions on setting up near another vendor, indeed even in their spot, though such conflicts are relatively rare."
And all are basically unenforced; and, of course, the street vendors see nothing wrong with setting up directly in front of a supermarket or green grocer-etiquette doesn't extend to the tax paying businesses: "Mr. Durmus, who struggled to generate enough business in previous locations in Greenwich Village, Chelsea and Columbus Circle, said that he was not going to move and was not responsible for the conflict. “All the time he wants to make trouble for us,” he said.
When he found the current spot six weeks ago -– a quieter stretch just off 10th Avenue in front of a Food Emporium — he finally started making good money, he said, until the new stand was set up. (The manager of the Food Emporium, Calvin Dixon, said he had filed a complaint with the city about the location of the new fruit stand, which he said was causing a mess and siphoning customers.)"
No outrage here apparently; but Durmas is nothing if not ironic: "“I’m staying here,” Mr. Durmus said. “I came here first. He came here to bother me.” And as the city's tax receipts continue to free fall, we wonder what the city is going to do to protect its tax base. If history is a guide, nothing at all. The supermarket owners and green grocers are left to wonder: "How do we get included in the Five Borough Economic Plan?"
What this fight signifies is the fact that there appears to be little or no enforcement of any of the existing vending rules-and the need for a dramatic overhaul of the regulatory regime must be done soon; or the fists and not the fruit will be flying. But City Room ignores an even more salient fact.
While the vendors continue to duel, a Food Emporium a little more than two blocks away is having its business siphoned off by non rent paying peddlers who have none of the overhead that supermarkets must take care of. And what to make of the following? "In his opinion it violates every tenet of street vending decency. More importantly it was cutting into his business. So he demanded, first politely and then decidedly less so, that the new guy, Eyup Durmus, move on. Mr. Durmus refused, arguing that the two stands were out sight and almost on different avenues. And so the Midtown fruit battle escalated: Mr. Unal opened yet another fruit stand right next to the new guy."
Totally out of control-with one guy-or his family in this case-able to obtain a new cart and go to war with his etiquette violating neighbor: "While some street vendors have worked on the same corner going back decades, any claims to asphalt real estate are actually informal. On blocks open to street vending –- many are not –- the official restrictions are limited to the size of the table, blocking street traffic or standing too close to the entrance of a building or a fire hydrant. There are no prohibitions on setting up near another vendor, indeed even in their spot, though such conflicts are relatively rare."
And all are basically unenforced; and, of course, the street vendors see nothing wrong with setting up directly in front of a supermarket or green grocer-etiquette doesn't extend to the tax paying businesses: "Mr. Durmus, who struggled to generate enough business in previous locations in Greenwich Village, Chelsea and Columbus Circle, said that he was not going to move and was not responsible for the conflict. “All the time he wants to make trouble for us,” he said.
When he found the current spot six weeks ago -– a quieter stretch just off 10th Avenue in front of a Food Emporium — he finally started making good money, he said, until the new stand was set up. (The manager of the Food Emporium, Calvin Dixon, said he had filed a complaint with the city about the location of the new fruit stand, which he said was causing a mess and siphoning customers.)"
No outrage here apparently; but Durmas is nothing if not ironic: "“I’m staying here,” Mr. Durmus said. “I came here first. He came here to bother me.” And as the city's tax receipts continue to free fall, we wonder what the city is going to do to protect its tax base. If history is a guide, nothing at all. The supermarket owners and green grocers are left to wonder: "How do we get included in the Five Borough Economic Plan?"
Eminently Qualified?
The controversy surrounding the nomination of Judge Sonya Sotomayor has focused on some of her remarks made out of court-as well as her decision in the New Haven firefighter case. But there's another issue that's more germane to many people in NYC; the use and abuse of eminent domain, and the SC's Kelo decision.
As the NY Times reported a few days ago: "Judge Sonia Sotomayor will doubtless be questioned about Kelo at her confirmation hearings next month. But her answers will be complicated by her participation in a 2006 decision applying and extending Kelo. Bart Didden, the property owner on the losing side of that decision, Didden v. Village of Port Chester, said in an interview that he had been contacted by aides to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who seemed eager to explore Judge Sotomayor’s views on property rights."
Now the Portchester case is something that we know a little about, since we represented a plastics manufacturer who-after moving his business to the Port Chester renewal area at the behest of the town's local development corporation-was told that his property would be condemned to make way for a redevelopment scheme. The irony here, at least as it pertains to Sotomoyar as the "Wise Latina," is that the plastics factory was wall to wall Latino-something which the diverse-adverse village didn't like all that much.
But the factory owner, unlike Didden, didn't want to fight-and sold his plant to Mexican firm; but the Didden case-and Stomayor's decision-is grist for the Judiciary Committee's mill: "The ruling in Didden is not popular among some property rights and constitutional law professors. Eight of them filed a brief in 2006 unsuccessfully urging the Supreme Court to hear an appeal. “This is the worst federal court takings decision since Kelo,” said Ilya Somin, who teaches property law at George Mason University and helped write the brief. “It’s very extreme, and it is significant as a window into Judge Sotomayor’s attitudes toward private property.”
But, of course, we have our own ED issues here in NYC that would benefit from a little disinfecting sunlight; and our friends at Willets Point are right there in the forefront. The Willets Point United group, with its capable attorney Michael Rikon, are challenging the city's efforts to remove them from their properties.
The key issue here-and the one that the senate should be questioning Stotomayor on-is when is a public use not a public use. Bart Didden certainly has some ideas on this:
"The case arose from a meeting in 2003 between Mr. Didden, who owned property in Port Chester, N.Y., and an executive of a company that had been designated by the village to develop a 27-acre urban renewal area that included part of the property. What happened at that meeting, Mr. Didden said, amounted to extortion. Mr. Didden had made arrangements to put a CVS drug store on his lot. At the meeting, the executive, Gregg Wasser, demanded $800,000 as the price for permission to proceed with that project, Mr. Didden said in court papers. The alternative, Mr. Wasser said, according to the papers, was to have the village condemn Mr. Didden’s property so that Mr. Wasser’s company could put a Walgreen’s in the same place. “Here is a private person standing in the shoes of the government with the power to condemn or not condemn,” Mr. Didden said. “The $800,000 wasn’t going to rehabilitate a public park or build a soccer stadium. It was going into his pocket.”
We hope that the senate probes this issue thoroughly. There's a great deal at stake.
As the NY Times reported a few days ago: "Judge Sonia Sotomayor will doubtless be questioned about Kelo at her confirmation hearings next month. But her answers will be complicated by her participation in a 2006 decision applying and extending Kelo. Bart Didden, the property owner on the losing side of that decision, Didden v. Village of Port Chester, said in an interview that he had been contacted by aides to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who seemed eager to explore Judge Sotomayor’s views on property rights."
Now the Portchester case is something that we know a little about, since we represented a plastics manufacturer who-after moving his business to the Port Chester renewal area at the behest of the town's local development corporation-was told that his property would be condemned to make way for a redevelopment scheme. The irony here, at least as it pertains to Sotomoyar as the "Wise Latina," is that the plastics factory was wall to wall Latino-something which the diverse-adverse village didn't like all that much.
But the factory owner, unlike Didden, didn't want to fight-and sold his plant to Mexican firm; but the Didden case-and Stomayor's decision-is grist for the Judiciary Committee's mill: "The ruling in Didden is not popular among some property rights and constitutional law professors. Eight of them filed a brief in 2006 unsuccessfully urging the Supreme Court to hear an appeal. “This is the worst federal court takings decision since Kelo,” said Ilya Somin, who teaches property law at George Mason University and helped write the brief. “It’s very extreme, and it is significant as a window into Judge Sotomayor’s attitudes toward private property.”
But, of course, we have our own ED issues here in NYC that would benefit from a little disinfecting sunlight; and our friends at Willets Point are right there in the forefront. The Willets Point United group, with its capable attorney Michael Rikon, are challenging the city's efforts to remove them from their properties.
The key issue here-and the one that the senate should be questioning Stotomayor on-is when is a public use not a public use. Bart Didden certainly has some ideas on this:
"The case arose from a meeting in 2003 between Mr. Didden, who owned property in Port Chester, N.Y., and an executive of a company that had been designated by the village to develop a 27-acre urban renewal area that included part of the property. What happened at that meeting, Mr. Didden said, amounted to extortion. Mr. Didden had made arrangements to put a CVS drug store on his lot. At the meeting, the executive, Gregg Wasser, demanded $800,000 as the price for permission to proceed with that project, Mr. Didden said in court papers. The alternative, Mr. Wasser said, according to the papers, was to have the village condemn Mr. Didden’s property so that Mr. Wasser’s company could put a Walgreen’s in the same place. “Here is a private person standing in the shoes of the government with the power to condemn or not condemn,” Mr. Didden said. “The $800,000 wasn’t going to rehabilitate a public park or build a soccer stadium. It was going into his pocket.”
We hope that the senate probes this issue thoroughly. There's a great deal at stake.
Pay As You Go
The city's vaunted Fiscal Steward has once again treated the city work force with great generosity-offering nice fat raises to scores of workers in the middle of what the NY Post (not here, but elsewhere) calls a "tax revenue meltdown." As the NY Times reports: "New York City’s top fiscal watchdog attacked Mayor R. Bloomberg on Monday for giving City Hall aides raises of up to $18,000 in the middle of the worst recession in decades, calling it “bad government” and “bad policy.”
And when did the city do this? Well, they announced the news last Friday, at the beginning of a summer weekend-not quite like the pride the mayor shows when a reading score goes up one tenth of a percent: "A little before 5 p.m. on Friday, when much of the City Hall press corps was headed home for the weekend, the Bloomberg administration disclosed the raises — 4 percent retroactive to March 3, 2008, and another 4 percent raise effective this past March 3."
The mayor's response, cited by Daily Politics, underscores the bankruptcy of his governing philosophy-note that he even tries to riff that the raises are helping middle class folks: "I didn’t give them the raises the last time, simply because the economy was so unknown or our tax revenues and we didn’t have the sales tax legislation pass," Bloomberg said. "Now that it's passed, I feel a little more comfortable about our ability to pay. And if we’re gonna have good people - remember most of these people, these 6,000, you know middle class people, they make from $45,000 on up - but you know in the middle price range of city workers, and they have to get the raises at the same time or you’ll not be able to attract good people and the amount of the raises is exactly the same. In fact, in some cases less than some of the union contracts that we negotiated that cover this period."
Two things to be noted here. First, the idea that you need to give raises to government workers in order to attract good people-and do so when the private sector is shedding jobs like Circuit City before declaring bankruptcy-is foolish. To have to do so in order to keep them on a par with the sweet union contracts he negotiated, is adding insult to injury. As Nicole Gelinas told the Times: "Financial watchdog groups, which have long criticized the mayor for giving generous pay increases to unionized city workers, said they were equally frustrated by his raises to nonunion workers. “They are not justified,” said Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative policy group. “Most people in the private sector, especially in New York City, are not expecting a 4 percent increase this year. They are happy to keep their jobs."
Second, note what the mayor is saying. He held off last fall because of budgetary uncertainty; but now that the budget is settled-and the sales tax revenue has passed-Bloomberg feels free to raise the payroll. Okay, so it's all right to whack New Yorkers with a regressive sales tax while many are out of work trying, in some cases, to keep hold of their homes, so we can hike the pay of city workers? Thompson is right to call Bloomberg out of touch; in fact, he's lost all tactile sense.
Which brings us to the Bloomberg Post. In the editorial cited above, the paper expresses some umbrage at the city council's profligacy. What is bothering them? Purchases like digital cameras and swivel chairs. And they end with this flourish: "We wonder: Has Council Speaker Christine Quinn told her members about the tax-revenue meltdown?"
So the NY Post, the paper that has been in the forefront of condemning public pension benefits and bloated municipal payrolls, avoids the opportunity to hold Bloomberg's hand to the fire so that it can excoriate what amounts to the council's nickle and dimming? And, of course, its lead editorial is another chapter in the Mayoral Control series. The Post did, however, cover this issue extensively in the so-called news sections-giving the honor to the AP-with an 83 word! blurb on the Thompson complaint.
The fact remains, that the city is hemorrhaging private sector jobs-with minority unemployment at its worst in decades-and Mike Bloomberg fails to see the correlation between public sector bloat, higher taxes, and concomitant job loss in the private sector. And this is the fiscal genius we need to steward us through a recession? Adding real high comedy to all of this, is that the Bloomberg campaign is seeking another party line called, get this, "Jobs and Education Party." Don't any of those high price consultants have a sense of irony?
What Bill Thompson needs to do now is connect the dots. It's not just that Mike Bloomberg is out of touch; it's also that he doesn't have a good grasp of how to govern prudently and enable the real economy to grow. There's a cause and effect embedded in the raises handed out and the accompanying reports of job loss. The purpose of a campaign is to dramatize this-and bell the Bloomberg cat.
And when did the city do this? Well, they announced the news last Friday, at the beginning of a summer weekend-not quite like the pride the mayor shows when a reading score goes up one tenth of a percent: "A little before 5 p.m. on Friday, when much of the City Hall press corps was headed home for the weekend, the Bloomberg administration disclosed the raises — 4 percent retroactive to March 3, 2008, and another 4 percent raise effective this past March 3."
The mayor's response, cited by Daily Politics, underscores the bankruptcy of his governing philosophy-note that he even tries to riff that the raises are helping middle class folks: "I didn’t give them the raises the last time, simply because the economy was so unknown or our tax revenues and we didn’t have the sales tax legislation pass," Bloomberg said. "Now that it's passed, I feel a little more comfortable about our ability to pay. And if we’re gonna have good people - remember most of these people, these 6,000, you know middle class people, they make from $45,000 on up - but you know in the middle price range of city workers, and they have to get the raises at the same time or you’ll not be able to attract good people and the amount of the raises is exactly the same. In fact, in some cases less than some of the union contracts that we negotiated that cover this period."
Two things to be noted here. First, the idea that you need to give raises to government workers in order to attract good people-and do so when the private sector is shedding jobs like Circuit City before declaring bankruptcy-is foolish. To have to do so in order to keep them on a par with the sweet union contracts he negotiated, is adding insult to injury. As Nicole Gelinas told the Times: "Financial watchdog groups, which have long criticized the mayor for giving generous pay increases to unionized city workers, said they were equally frustrated by his raises to nonunion workers. “They are not justified,” said Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative policy group. “Most people in the private sector, especially in New York City, are not expecting a 4 percent increase this year. They are happy to keep their jobs."
Second, note what the mayor is saying. He held off last fall because of budgetary uncertainty; but now that the budget is settled-and the sales tax revenue has passed-Bloomberg feels free to raise the payroll. Okay, so it's all right to whack New Yorkers with a regressive sales tax while many are out of work trying, in some cases, to keep hold of their homes, so we can hike the pay of city workers? Thompson is right to call Bloomberg out of touch; in fact, he's lost all tactile sense.
Which brings us to the Bloomberg Post. In the editorial cited above, the paper expresses some umbrage at the city council's profligacy. What is bothering them? Purchases like digital cameras and swivel chairs. And they end with this flourish: "We wonder: Has Council Speaker Christine Quinn told her members about the tax-revenue meltdown?"
So the NY Post, the paper that has been in the forefront of condemning public pension benefits and bloated municipal payrolls, avoids the opportunity to hold Bloomberg's hand to the fire so that it can excoriate what amounts to the council's nickle and dimming? And, of course, its lead editorial is another chapter in the Mayoral Control series. The Post did, however, cover this issue extensively in the so-called news sections-giving the honor to the AP-with an 83 word! blurb on the Thompson complaint.
The fact remains, that the city is hemorrhaging private sector jobs-with minority unemployment at its worst in decades-and Mike Bloomberg fails to see the correlation between public sector bloat, higher taxes, and concomitant job loss in the private sector. And this is the fiscal genius we need to steward us through a recession? Adding real high comedy to all of this, is that the Bloomberg campaign is seeking another party line called, get this, "Jobs and Education Party." Don't any of those high price consultants have a sense of irony?
What Bill Thompson needs to do now is connect the dots. It's not just that Mike Bloomberg is out of touch; it's also that he doesn't have a good grasp of how to govern prudently and enable the real economy to grow. There's a cause and effect embedded in the raises handed out and the accompanying reports of job loss. The purpose of a campaign is to dramatize this-and bell the Bloomberg cat.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Mayor and the Ant
Everyone knows the fable, attributed to Aesop, about the grasshopper and the ant. As Wikepedia tells us: "The fable concerns a grasshopper who has spent the warm months singing away while the ant (or ants in some editions) worked to store up food for winter. When winter arrives, the grasshopper finds itself dying of hunger, and upon asking the ant for food is only rebuked for its idleness. The story is used to teach the virtues of hard work and saving, and the perils of improvidence."
Mr. Grasshopper, meet cousin Mike Bloomberg. Mike, the same guy that has used all of his financial and political clout to hijack a third term has been idling away, spending, more and more of Wall Street's and the tax payer's hard earned money while, at the same time, growing the size of the government money pit.
Alas, Mr. Grasshopper-we mean Mr. Mayor-winter will be soon upon us, as the NY Daily News' Adam Lisberg warns: "When New York lost $60 million last week because of the Senate stalemate, Mayor Bloomberg's first reaction was to freeze city hiring. So what will be his reaction to plug the $5 billion deficit on the horizon? It's tough to imagine Bloomberg announcing big layoffs before Nov. 3, when he's up for re-election. If he wins, though, lots of people expect the sharp knives to come out. "The large options are associated with labor in various ways, because that's where the money is," said Ronnie Lowenstein, head of the Independent Budget Office."
But what has our keen fiscal steward been doing for the past eight years? And where is the incisive media analysis to act as a companion to the Lisberg story-you know the one about how Bloomberg padded the city's payroll like some frivolous grasshopper; with all of the attendant crippling pension consequences on top. This media silence is crucial because it bolsters-by om mission-the mayor's claim that the current fiscal crisis necessitates his continuation in office.
But Bloomberg continues to blithely pursue the same policies-acutely aware that the $5 billion winter shortfall will soon be upon us; as the Daily News reports: "Mayor Bloomberg's decision to dole out millions in raises to his top commissioners and staff proves he just doesn't get what the average New Yorker is going through, rival William Thompson said Saturday...On Friday, the mayor quietly authorized raises worth $69 million over two years for 6,692 of his managers and nonunion employees. The hikes match union workers' raises."
But it's not really about this recent decision to raise salaries=it's more about a governing philosophy that has exacerbated the current problems. This statement from a Bloomberg spokesman epitomizes this mindset: "Bloomberg spokesman Jason Post said the mayor "did the responsible thing" by aligning the raises of supervisors and their subordinates. "It's revealing that the comptroller is more interested in playing politics than making sure that the city government is functioning smoothly," Post said."
Ah, the smooth functioning of government, high up on the concerns of New Yorkers at a time when worries about home foreclosures and job losses-particularly among minority New Yorker-are preoccupying the multitudes. Mike Blomberg's concerns, however, have always been about the smooth functioning of an ever larger government; and the profligate tax and spend policies of his administration reflect that.
But Lisberg speaks the truth when he reports: "After the election, he's going to have to look at really serious workforce reductions unless the unions agree to freeze their 4% wage increases," said Carol Kellermann, head of the business-backed Citizens Budget Commission.
"Wait until after the election. Then hard decisions are going to have to be made."
But how come we haven't heard any of this sober analysis in the Bloomberg ad blitz? Nah, nah, nah-not now! Feed the populace hope and change-and use your own millions to run against your own failures. Quite a winning formula-as long as the Thompson campaign, aided and abetted by a supine commentariat-remains somnambulent.
The handwriting is on the wall-and it has the cursive signature of our own grasshopping chief executive. Just remember, we warned you. The sh#t gonna hit the fan come January-and the cool guy in the campaign ad will be transformed into our own less than lovable Mr. Hyde. At least we'll be able to get our first glimpse of the real Mike Bloomberg. Can't say we're looking forward to it.
Mr. Grasshopper, meet cousin Mike Bloomberg. Mike, the same guy that has used all of his financial and political clout to hijack a third term has been idling away, spending, more and more of Wall Street's and the tax payer's hard earned money while, at the same time, growing the size of the government money pit.
Alas, Mr. Grasshopper-we mean Mr. Mayor-winter will be soon upon us, as the NY Daily News' Adam Lisberg warns: "When New York lost $60 million last week because of the Senate stalemate, Mayor Bloomberg's first reaction was to freeze city hiring. So what will be his reaction to plug the $5 billion deficit on the horizon? It's tough to imagine Bloomberg announcing big layoffs before Nov. 3, when he's up for re-election. If he wins, though, lots of people expect the sharp knives to come out. "The large options are associated with labor in various ways, because that's where the money is," said Ronnie Lowenstein, head of the Independent Budget Office."
But what has our keen fiscal steward been doing for the past eight years? And where is the incisive media analysis to act as a companion to the Lisberg story-you know the one about how Bloomberg padded the city's payroll like some frivolous grasshopper; with all of the attendant crippling pension consequences on top. This media silence is crucial because it bolsters-by om mission-the mayor's claim that the current fiscal crisis necessitates his continuation in office.
But Bloomberg continues to blithely pursue the same policies-acutely aware that the $5 billion winter shortfall will soon be upon us; as the Daily News reports: "Mayor Bloomberg's decision to dole out millions in raises to his top commissioners and staff proves he just doesn't get what the average New Yorker is going through, rival William Thompson said Saturday...On Friday, the mayor quietly authorized raises worth $69 million over two years for 6,692 of his managers and nonunion employees. The hikes match union workers' raises."
But it's not really about this recent decision to raise salaries=it's more about a governing philosophy that has exacerbated the current problems. This statement from a Bloomberg spokesman epitomizes this mindset: "Bloomberg spokesman Jason Post said the mayor "did the responsible thing" by aligning the raises of supervisors and their subordinates. "It's revealing that the comptroller is more interested in playing politics than making sure that the city government is functioning smoothly," Post said."
Ah, the smooth functioning of government, high up on the concerns of New Yorkers at a time when worries about home foreclosures and job losses-particularly among minority New Yorker-are preoccupying the multitudes. Mike Blomberg's concerns, however, have always been about the smooth functioning of an ever larger government; and the profligate tax and spend policies of his administration reflect that.
But Lisberg speaks the truth when he reports: "After the election, he's going to have to look at really serious workforce reductions unless the unions agree to freeze their 4% wage increases," said Carol Kellermann, head of the business-backed Citizens Budget Commission.
"Wait until after the election. Then hard decisions are going to have to be made."
But how come we haven't heard any of this sober analysis in the Bloomberg ad blitz? Nah, nah, nah-not now! Feed the populace hope and change-and use your own millions to run against your own failures. Quite a winning formula-as long as the Thompson campaign, aided and abetted by a supine commentariat-remains somnambulent.
The handwriting is on the wall-and it has the cursive signature of our own grasshopping chief executive. Just remember, we warned you. The sh#t gonna hit the fan come January-and the cool guy in the campaign ad will be transformed into our own less than lovable Mr. Hyde. At least we'll be able to get our first glimpse of the real Mike Bloomberg. Can't say we're looking forward to it.
Above Politics: And Lost in a Cloud of Hypocrisy
We have heard, ad nauseum, how Mike Bloomberg's wealth allows him to remain above the tawdriness of politics; in particular, the pernicious influence of all of those nasty special interests. So what exactly was the mayor doing wheeling and dealing for the endorsement of the WFP the other night? In our view, the panoply of interests around that party are as special as any others (which underscores our view that the concept itself has little explanatory value).
And not only that, we got to witness the spectacle of the billionaire Bloomberg threatening the leader of a major union in the city-endorse, or face the consequences. So, here's Tom Robbins' version of Truth or Dare: "Just how ticked off was Team Bloomberg at losing last night's endorsement vote at the Working Families Party? Consider: One of those casting a crucial vote to give the party's nomination to city comptroller Bill Thompson was Stuart Appelbaum... president of the powerful Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union which represents some 40,000 workers here in the city. Appelbaum said he woke up this morning to a message from City Hall canceling a long-planned meeting in Washington that Bloomberg's office had arranged with Obama administration members to discuss ways to end international boycotts of Israel."
So Mike Bloomberg, in a fit of pique, uses the good folks of Israel as his sacrificial lamb: "No reason. Not postponed. Not delayed. Cancelled." said Appelbaum. "This is the morning after the vote." The labor leader said that when his staff checked, Obama administration officials told them that Bloomberg's office had called to say that the meeting "was no longer necessary."
Did the Bloombergistas man up? What do you think? "Bloomberg spokesmen said they knew nothing about it. "I didn't know we controlled the White House schedule," said one who said he'd look into the matter. Appelbaum, a top labor supporter for Israel, said the move is misdirected payback. "This is just punishing the people of Israel," he said. "It is outrageous."
Now this is the same Mike Bloomberg who, according to our sources, had never even visited Israel prior to his election; nor had he ever marched in the Israeli Day Parade that passed right by his window on Fifth Avenue. Now, however, we have visits to the country and large charitable contributions to Israeli medical facilities and hospitals-one of the few benefits, in our view, of the mayor's tenure.
So here's a guy waste deep in the big muddy of political special interest pandering-and getting numerous so-called progressive unions like the UFT and 32 BJ to vote to not endorse the Democrat Thompson against the patrician mayor dramatizes this observation. And, as an aside, have you noticed how the NY Post-the UFT's most strident critic-has toned down its rhetoric once Princess Randi endorsed mayoral control?
There's an expensive quid pro quo in that deal, for sure; but the Post has abdicated on that front even though the city spends four out of every ten dollars on education-not including the crippling pension obligations that accrue. So intent on the mayoral control fixation, the paper avoids the obvious-there's a teacher's contract to be negotiated; and a big chunk of the $20,000 per pupil expenditure goes to support the teacher cohort that has expanded to almost double the size it was in years passed.
So, as late as today, we get the Post editorializing for Randi the Magnificent to weigh in with Democratic state senators on mayoral control; with a pension warning from E.J. McMahon right along side as an Op-Ed. And the Post without even the decency to feel a little cognitive dissonance. No wonder the mayor is able to go full bore in his own obsessive quest-he's in good company.
But we digress. The entire education square dance does more to highlight how deft and nimble the mayor's political do-si-doing has become than any other recent phenomenon. But it also manifests itself along the entire spectrum of the mayor's tenure. Just ask Stuart Appelbaum.
And not only that, we got to witness the spectacle of the billionaire Bloomberg threatening the leader of a major union in the city-endorse, or face the consequences. So, here's Tom Robbins' version of Truth or Dare: "Just how ticked off was Team Bloomberg at losing last night's endorsement vote at the Working Families Party? Consider: One of those casting a crucial vote to give the party's nomination to city comptroller Bill Thompson was Stuart Appelbaum... president of the powerful Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union which represents some 40,000 workers here in the city. Appelbaum said he woke up this morning to a message from City Hall canceling a long-planned meeting in Washington that Bloomberg's office had arranged with Obama administration members to discuss ways to end international boycotts of Israel."
So Mike Bloomberg, in a fit of pique, uses the good folks of Israel as his sacrificial lamb: "No reason. Not postponed. Not delayed. Cancelled." said Appelbaum. "This is the morning after the vote." The labor leader said that when his staff checked, Obama administration officials told them that Bloomberg's office had called to say that the meeting "was no longer necessary."
Did the Bloombergistas man up? What do you think? "Bloomberg spokesmen said they knew nothing about it. "I didn't know we controlled the White House schedule," said one who said he'd look into the matter. Appelbaum, a top labor supporter for Israel, said the move is misdirected payback. "This is just punishing the people of Israel," he said. "It is outrageous."
Now this is the same Mike Bloomberg who, according to our sources, had never even visited Israel prior to his election; nor had he ever marched in the Israeli Day Parade that passed right by his window on Fifth Avenue. Now, however, we have visits to the country and large charitable contributions to Israeli medical facilities and hospitals-one of the few benefits, in our view, of the mayor's tenure.
So here's a guy waste deep in the big muddy of political special interest pandering-and getting numerous so-called progressive unions like the UFT and 32 BJ to vote to not endorse the Democrat Thompson against the patrician mayor dramatizes this observation. And, as an aside, have you noticed how the NY Post-the UFT's most strident critic-has toned down its rhetoric once Princess Randi endorsed mayoral control?
There's an expensive quid pro quo in that deal, for sure; but the Post has abdicated on that front even though the city spends four out of every ten dollars on education-not including the crippling pension obligations that accrue. So intent on the mayoral control fixation, the paper avoids the obvious-there's a teacher's contract to be negotiated; and a big chunk of the $20,000 per pupil expenditure goes to support the teacher cohort that has expanded to almost double the size it was in years passed.
So, as late as today, we get the Post editorializing for Randi the Magnificent to weigh in with Democratic state senators on mayoral control; with a pension warning from E.J. McMahon right along side as an Op-Ed. And the Post without even the decency to feel a little cognitive dissonance. No wonder the mayor is able to go full bore in his own obsessive quest-he's in good company.
But we digress. The entire education square dance does more to highlight how deft and nimble the mayor's political do-si-doing has become than any other recent phenomenon. But it also manifests itself along the entire spectrum of the mayor's tenure. Just ask Stuart Appelbaum.
PostWatch
We have always enjoyed the ongoing series of NY Post editorials labeled, "TimesWatch"-and the website of the same name that keeps tabs on the foibles and hypocrisies of the Grey Lady. But, given the NY Post's shameless shilling for the Billionaire Bloomberg, perhaps someone should start a PostWatch.
Our trigger for this public service need, has been the ongoing serialization of Educator Bloomberg-a lachrymose, and fictionalized account of the great strides that our educator-in-chief has made in uplifting NYC's poor school children. The ongoing saga, titled Keep Mayoral Control, has been running for over a year with at least 100 episodes in both editorial and news formats; the latest episode ran Saturday (check that, today)-and far outpaces anything that the Times has fixated on-like, for instance, gay marriage.
What's disturbing about all of this hoohah is that, aside from the mendacity of the continually unrebutted school claims, is that Mike Bloomberg is the kind of elected official who should be considered as the antithesis of what the Post usually sees as worthy of approbation. You know, higher taxes, bigger government and a Nanny State philosophy.
So with all of the cheer leading going on for the liberal statist mayor, you really need to ask: "What's up with that? Is this some kind of devil's bargain? What else can explain the paper's silence over that past year-post term limits extension that the Post endorsed with enthusiasm?
In that period it's been all home, home, on the range-and nary a discouraging word for the mayor; even while he spends record amounts of money on his re-election campaign, drowning out any potential countervailing information. This spending orgy and media blitzing is the kind of environment in desperate need of critique. Instead, in Saturday's Post the story on the mayor's spending runs two scant paragraphs-buried on the bottom of the second page, beneath the bigger piece on mayoral control.
And the story on the mayor's finances, and his vast fortune? Not worthy of the Post's attention. Even this nugget: "Despite his stock market losses, Mr. Bloomberg’s charitable donations increased over the last year, the documents showed. In 2007, he gave $205 million to 1,135 groups. In 2008, he gave $235 million to 1,221 organizations." Do you think that tracking these funds isn't newsworthy? Is there any correlation perhaps, between the mayor's generosity and his own personal political aggrandizement?
So, in our view, the NY Post needs to get a restraining order on itself, go on an introspective retreat-and refrain from the snarky coverage of the foibles of its competitors. The stones are too large, and the glass house way too delicately constructed.
Our trigger for this public service need, has been the ongoing serialization of Educator Bloomberg-a lachrymose, and fictionalized account of the great strides that our educator-in-chief has made in uplifting NYC's poor school children. The ongoing saga, titled Keep Mayoral Control, has been running for over a year with at least 100 episodes in both editorial and news formats; the latest episode ran Saturday (check that, today)-and far outpaces anything that the Times has fixated on-like, for instance, gay marriage.
What's disturbing about all of this hoohah is that, aside from the mendacity of the continually unrebutted school claims, is that Mike Bloomberg is the kind of elected official who should be considered as the antithesis of what the Post usually sees as worthy of approbation. You know, higher taxes, bigger government and a Nanny State philosophy.
So with all of the cheer leading going on for the liberal statist mayor, you really need to ask: "What's up with that? Is this some kind of devil's bargain? What else can explain the paper's silence over that past year-post term limits extension that the Post endorsed with enthusiasm?
In that period it's been all home, home, on the range-and nary a discouraging word for the mayor; even while he spends record amounts of money on his re-election campaign, drowning out any potential countervailing information. This spending orgy and media blitzing is the kind of environment in desperate need of critique. Instead, in Saturday's Post the story on the mayor's spending runs two scant paragraphs-buried on the bottom of the second page, beneath the bigger piece on mayoral control.
And the story on the mayor's finances, and his vast fortune? Not worthy of the Post's attention. Even this nugget: "Despite his stock market losses, Mr. Bloomberg’s charitable donations increased over the last year, the documents showed. In 2007, he gave $205 million to 1,135 groups. In 2008, he gave $235 million to 1,221 organizations." Do you think that tracking these funds isn't newsworthy? Is there any correlation perhaps, between the mayor's generosity and his own personal political aggrandizement?
So, in our view, the NY Post needs to get a restraining order on itself, go on an introspective retreat-and refrain from the snarky coverage of the foibles of its competitors. The stones are too large, and the glass house way too delicately constructed.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Hail, Hail, The Gang's All Here
Apparently, what goes around comes around-and we have, in Yogi Berra's words, "déjà vu all over again." The Gang of Four reigns supreme-after a month of turmoil and uncertainty. As the Politicker reports: "Malcolm Smith spoke first at a press conference announcing Democrats had regained control of the fractured State Senate, but the amigos spoke the longest. And the message was clear: They're in charge. "The four amigos stand here once again today, proud and tough, supporting our communities, but most importantly, in friendships that didn't even exist before Election Day," Senator Carl Kruger, the old ringleader of the renegade Democratic faction, said. "They've been strengthened, they've been hardened, they've been galvanized and they've been solidified. So today is a day when we can claim victory for all New Yorkers."
For how long, though? We been so battered and bruised by the tumult that we're getting gun shy. Imagine how the principals must feel? Maybe, just maybe, we can all get back to governing-and wasn't it fascinating last night to see a bill come to the floor, and be defeated? As Daily Politics tells us: "There was a rare occurrence in the Senate chamber late last night - something akin to an Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting. A bill was defeated. Yes, you read that right. Flat out defeated. Voted down, 28-34, with cooperation from senators on both sides of the aisle. The bill, as EJ McMahon described it, would have allowed local governments to amortize a potentially large portion of their pension contributions for six consecutive years, starting in 2011, as a means of off-setting what is expected to be a big hit."
So, maybe we get reform out of necessity; and a more open governing process that empowers more of the rank-and-file. As Senator George Winner commented: "I do think that's potentially a new state of events here," Winner said. "(The Democrats) have been talking about that all along in the new era of so-called reform, that when it comes to bringing bills to the floor it really shouldn't matter if something is guaranteed to pass or not."
But we'll see if this new day turns out to be something different when the majority gets its second wind. But right now we appreciate any semblance of normalcy-and even the strange sighting of the unusual. But who can predict what will happen next?
For how long, though? We been so battered and bruised by the tumult that we're getting gun shy. Imagine how the principals must feel? Maybe, just maybe, we can all get back to governing-and wasn't it fascinating last night to see a bill come to the floor, and be defeated? As Daily Politics tells us: "There was a rare occurrence in the Senate chamber late last night - something akin to an Ivory-billed Woodpecker sighting. A bill was defeated. Yes, you read that right. Flat out defeated. Voted down, 28-34, with cooperation from senators on both sides of the aisle. The bill, as EJ McMahon described it, would have allowed local governments to amortize a potentially large portion of their pension contributions for six consecutive years, starting in 2011, as a means of off-setting what is expected to be a big hit."
So, maybe we get reform out of necessity; and a more open governing process that empowers more of the rank-and-file. As Senator George Winner commented: "I do think that's potentially a new state of events here," Winner said. "(The Democrats) have been talking about that all along in the new era of so-called reform, that when it comes to bringing bills to the floor it really shouldn't matter if something is guaranteed to pass or not."
But we'll see if this new day turns out to be something different when the majority gets its second wind. But right now we appreciate any semblance of normalcy-and even the strange sighting of the unusual. But who can predict what will happen next?
Supermarket Spat Continues at the Armory
As the final CB#7 vote on the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory approaches, the question of whether the project will include a 60,000 square foot supermarket remains unresolved; and the Norwood News covers this quite well this week: "Avi Kaner, vice president and part owner of the Morton Williams supermarket chain, picks up a box of Driscoll’s brand strawberries off the produce rack in the company’s Kingsbridge Road store and says, “Look, same as you get at Whole Foods in Manhattan.” Quality produce is just one reason why Kaner believes the city should do something to save Morton Williams from being crushed by an incoming big box supermarket at the redeveloped Kingsbridge Armory."
Not every one agrees, of course; and even though the board's land use committee did no include a recommendation for a supermarket, there's always a chance that the resolution could be amended at the full board meeting this Tuesday. Which would, in our view, be a mistake: "Kaner and Morton Williams President Morton Sloan say a new, giant supermarket, working with the help of city subsidies, would force them to close the two supermarkets they operate on Jerome Avenue — one just across the street from the Armory, the other just a few blocks down the road, closer to Fordham Road. Combined, the two stores are only about 50,000 square feet, Sloan says. “They would destroy us,” Sloan added."
And the Morton Williams stores wouldn't be the only ones impacted. There's a large green grocer right across the street from the Armory-and a C-Town and Pioneer Supermarket right down the block in both directions. In all, there are 45 supermarkets in the two mile trade area. But not to worry, the developer's environmental review tells us that the large market in the Armory would have no impact on any existing supermarket.
Kind of makes you wonder what else they have gotten wrong in their review. But, we were intrigued by a rebuttal comment to the Norwood News by our old friend Masyr: "But Lipsky says Morton Williams main position is that it’s unfair for a developer to use city tax breaks (which add up to almost $100 million total) to put them out of business, especially if the RFP explicitly says new businesses at the Armory shouldn’t compete with existing businesses.
If they were to follow that request to the letter, Masyr said the Armory would remain empty. “I can promise you that virtually everything we hope to sell, is probably going to be available somewhere else in Kingsbridge area,” he said."
Right on Jesse! Which is precisely why it is just bad public policy to use tax payer dollars to subsidize retail developments. Inevitably, it involves very little real job growth-and simply shifts jobs from existing local-and mostly minority owned-small business-to out of town chain stores. Exacerbating this poor policy push, is the fact that the developer and the city are resisting-to the point of the mayor standing firm at the endorsement session of the WFP on this issue-any living wage component in the proposed community benefits agreement.
We will undoubtedly hear the mayor soon crowing about the "job creation" at the Armory-but the real end result of this bait and switch is that locally owned retail stores will be further pushed into dire economic straights in the middle of a recession-and the proliferation of, "For Rent" signs, will be another indication of the success of Bloomberg five borough economic plan.
And a final point in surrebuttal to Masyr. There is a difference between supermarkets and other retailers. In the first place, the city has a policy of encouraging supermarket growth-something that the mega-market in the armory would actually stifle. Secondly, and as importantly, putting supermarkets at risk of closing has a ripple effect on all of the surrounding commercial strips where these markets attract customers to all the other neighborhood retailers.
The Armory project is flawed on a number of levels; and there is a growing recognition of this on the part of the entire Bronx delegation. As we have said in our action memo that has caused considerable stir: “We expect to have the support of the entire [Bronx] delegation which will put us in the right political position to insure the supermarket use [at the Armory] is excluded..."
The support of loyal local businesses and good living wages may be an anathema to the current administration; but the city council and, hopefully, a young and progressive new Bronx BP will take a different tack. If they do, this battle will be a real win for the Kingsbridge community.
Not every one agrees, of course; and even though the board's land use committee did no include a recommendation for a supermarket, there's always a chance that the resolution could be amended at the full board meeting this Tuesday. Which would, in our view, be a mistake: "Kaner and Morton Williams President Morton Sloan say a new, giant supermarket, working with the help of city subsidies, would force them to close the two supermarkets they operate on Jerome Avenue — one just across the street from the Armory, the other just a few blocks down the road, closer to Fordham Road. Combined, the two stores are only about 50,000 square feet, Sloan says. “They would destroy us,” Sloan added."
And the Morton Williams stores wouldn't be the only ones impacted. There's a large green grocer right across the street from the Armory-and a C-Town and Pioneer Supermarket right down the block in both directions. In all, there are 45 supermarkets in the two mile trade area. But not to worry, the developer's environmental review tells us that the large market in the Armory would have no impact on any existing supermarket.
Kind of makes you wonder what else they have gotten wrong in their review. But, we were intrigued by a rebuttal comment to the Norwood News by our old friend Masyr: "But Lipsky says Morton Williams main position is that it’s unfair for a developer to use city tax breaks (which add up to almost $100 million total) to put them out of business, especially if the RFP explicitly says new businesses at the Armory shouldn’t compete with existing businesses.
If they were to follow that request to the letter, Masyr said the Armory would remain empty. “I can promise you that virtually everything we hope to sell, is probably going to be available somewhere else in Kingsbridge area,” he said."
Right on Jesse! Which is precisely why it is just bad public policy to use tax payer dollars to subsidize retail developments. Inevitably, it involves very little real job growth-and simply shifts jobs from existing local-and mostly minority owned-small business-to out of town chain stores. Exacerbating this poor policy push, is the fact that the developer and the city are resisting-to the point of the mayor standing firm at the endorsement session of the WFP on this issue-any living wage component in the proposed community benefits agreement.
We will undoubtedly hear the mayor soon crowing about the "job creation" at the Armory-but the real end result of this bait and switch is that locally owned retail stores will be further pushed into dire economic straights in the middle of a recession-and the proliferation of, "For Rent" signs, will be another indication of the success of Bloomberg five borough economic plan.
And a final point in surrebuttal to Masyr. There is a difference between supermarkets and other retailers. In the first place, the city has a policy of encouraging supermarket growth-something that the mega-market in the armory would actually stifle. Secondly, and as importantly, putting supermarkets at risk of closing has a ripple effect on all of the surrounding commercial strips where these markets attract customers to all the other neighborhood retailers.
The Armory project is flawed on a number of levels; and there is a growing recognition of this on the part of the entire Bronx delegation. As we have said in our action memo that has caused considerable stir: “We expect to have the support of the entire [Bronx] delegation which will put us in the right political position to insure the supermarket use [at the Armory] is excluded..."
The support of loyal local businesses and good living wages may be an anathema to the current administration; but the city council and, hopefully, a young and progressive new Bronx BP will take a different tack. If they do, this battle will be a real win for the Kingsbridge community.
Meaning of the WFP Endorsement
According to Daily Politics, the WFP has thrown Bill Thompson a critical lifeline for his mayoral campign: "Comptroller Bill Thompson has landed the endorsement of the labor-backed Working Families Party - a significant victory for the Democratic mayoral hopeful's long-shot bid to unseat Mayor Bloomberg."
But this certainly wasn't easy by any means: "The WFP's coordinating council meeting lasted for more than two hours and was at times contentious. I'm told the vote was very close and turned on a few key unions, including the Teamsters (who have endorsed Bloomberg), RWDSU and PEF. Both sides had pushed very hard to get Row E. Team Bloomberg had hoped at the very least for a repeat of 2005 when the mayor blocked his Democratic opponent, Freddy Ferrer, from reaching the 2/3 threshold required for a full WFP endorsement."
Still, after leading the fight against the term limits extension-and given the mayor's haughtiness over his lavish spending-it would have been quite a sell out to see these folks do anything but endorse Thompson. That the fight was so contested speaks to, well, the power of the purse; and says less about Thompson than it does about the corrosive influence of the cash nexus.
We did get a tickle out of the comments from the Lead Vocalist of the Spinners, the falsetto-toned Howard Wolfson:"Today's outcome is hardly a surprise given that Bill Thompson ran on the WFP line in 2001 and 2005. What is a surprise is how hard Mr. Thompson had to work to get the line and how close the vote was. Hardly a show of strength for Mr. Thompson."
Perhaps not; but, as they say, a win is a win. And with this win, Thompson now has the resources and the energy of a very dedicated crew of folks to rely on. The hope here is that this will invigorate his laggard campaign effort since, in spite of all Bloomberg's spending, Thompson remains in striking distance; and Bloomberg is one major gaffe-or crisis-away from finding himself in a dog fight.
But this certainly wasn't easy by any means: "The WFP's coordinating council meeting lasted for more than two hours and was at times contentious. I'm told the vote was very close and turned on a few key unions, including the Teamsters (who have endorsed Bloomberg), RWDSU and PEF. Both sides had pushed very hard to get Row E. Team Bloomberg had hoped at the very least for a repeat of 2005 when the mayor blocked his Democratic opponent, Freddy Ferrer, from reaching the 2/3 threshold required for a full WFP endorsement."
Still, after leading the fight against the term limits extension-and given the mayor's haughtiness over his lavish spending-it would have been quite a sell out to see these folks do anything but endorse Thompson. That the fight was so contested speaks to, well, the power of the purse; and says less about Thompson than it does about the corrosive influence of the cash nexus.
We did get a tickle out of the comments from the Lead Vocalist of the Spinners, the falsetto-toned Howard Wolfson:"Today's outcome is hardly a surprise given that Bill Thompson ran on the WFP line in 2001 and 2005. What is a surprise is how hard Mr. Thompson had to work to get the line and how close the vote was. Hardly a show of strength for Mr. Thompson."
Perhaps not; but, as they say, a win is a win. And with this win, Thompson now has the resources and the energy of a very dedicated crew of folks to rely on. The hope here is that this will invigorate his laggard campaign effort since, in spite of all Bloomberg's spending, Thompson remains in striking distance; and Bloomberg is one major gaffe-or crisis-away from finding himself in a dog fight.
El Cacique!
He never ceases to both amaze us and confound us at the same time. There's simply no way that we expected Pedro Espada to be able to withstand the kind of withering pressure that he has been under for the past month-and to emerge with the majority leadership! Here's Daily Politics take: "A source who has been involved in the ongoing negotiations to end the Senate stalemate called in to report that a deal has been reached and Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. has agreed to return to the Democratic fold. "He's coming back," was all the source would say."
And to be able to overcome the intense enmity in his own conference? Kind of reminds us why Bob Kapstadter calls him the Wascally Wabbit-with everyone else left saying; "Which way did he go? Which way did he go?" As the NY Post reports: "Several Democratic senators have repeatedly insisted they would not accept Espada's return to their Conference because of a series of allegations of improper or illegal activities that his political opponents have leveled against him."
Still, Espada rises. And, after the dust settles, Espada reins as the El Cacique of the state senate: "Under the deal, Malcolm Smith will be the Senate president, several senators said. Espada (D-Bronx) would be majority leader and Democrat John Sampson will be leader of the Democratic conference. The deal was struck for Espada to return around midnight Thursday."
Or, as one commenter to the Daily Politics story said, disbelievingly: "...looks to me like Espada won after all." And he did, confounding all expectations. All of which leaves Juan Gonzales bitter, as well as dumbfounded: "Pedro Espada has back-stabbed his way to the top. Let's see how long it lasts. The turncoat senator from the South Bronx, whose defection to the Republican minority paralyzed action in the Senate on a raft of bills for an entire month, landed an even bigger reward yesterday with his sudden return to the Democratic fold. Meet Senate Majority Leader Espada."
Will reform be part of Pedro's resurrection? His comments to the Post would cast some doubt on that possibility: "Espada said, "Unfortunately, Dean rejected an opportunity to reach a compromise under which Republicans would have had equal access to all the resources of the Senate." Here's Liz's take: "Sampson said he has talked with Sen. Tom Libous about unspecified reforms that might be put in place by tomorrow. However, he also said "everything's under review" at this moment, and it could take as long as 60 days before real changes are made."
And, of course, all of the amigos were in the thick of this; with Carl Kruger and Hiram Monsrrate apparently the linchpins: "Espada said the "compromise" would have kept him as Senate president and made Democratic Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn the Senate majority leader, with Skelos "able to have whatever other title he would have liked." With Skelos' demurral, the way back to the fold was paved for Espada.
But, as the NY Times reports, Hiram's closeness to Espada helped keep the lines of communication open: "Senator Hiram Monserrate, a Queens Democrat who initially sided with the Republicans along with Mr. Espada, played a key role in persuading his colleagues to allow Mr. Espada to return."
All of this reminds us of what the political sociologist Roberto Michels once said: "The socialists may conquer, but socialism never will." Parties will continue to take advantage of their power, and principle will always be subordinated to that axiom. So, given these realities, Espada understood how to use his guile to position himself as indispensable-and those who abhorred his tactics, and defamed his character, had to meekly accept his return; along with his ascension to leadership.
And to be able to overcome the intense enmity in his own conference? Kind of reminds us why Bob Kapstadter calls him the Wascally Wabbit-with everyone else left saying; "Which way did he go? Which way did he go?" As the NY Post reports: "Several Democratic senators have repeatedly insisted they would not accept Espada's return to their Conference because of a series of allegations of improper or illegal activities that his political opponents have leveled against him."
Still, Espada rises. And, after the dust settles, Espada reins as the El Cacique of the state senate: "Under the deal, Malcolm Smith will be the Senate president, several senators said. Espada (D-Bronx) would be majority leader and Democrat John Sampson will be leader of the Democratic conference. The deal was struck for Espada to return around midnight Thursday."
Or, as one commenter to the Daily Politics story said, disbelievingly: "...looks to me like Espada won after all." And he did, confounding all expectations. All of which leaves Juan Gonzales bitter, as well as dumbfounded: "Pedro Espada has back-stabbed his way to the top. Let's see how long it lasts. The turncoat senator from the South Bronx, whose defection to the Republican minority paralyzed action in the Senate on a raft of bills for an entire month, landed an even bigger reward yesterday with his sudden return to the Democratic fold. Meet Senate Majority Leader Espada."
Will reform be part of Pedro's resurrection? His comments to the Post would cast some doubt on that possibility: "Espada said, "Unfortunately, Dean rejected an opportunity to reach a compromise under which Republicans would have had equal access to all the resources of the Senate." Here's Liz's take: "Sampson said he has talked with Sen. Tom Libous about unspecified reforms that might be put in place by tomorrow. However, he also said "everything's under review" at this moment, and it could take as long as 60 days before real changes are made."
And, of course, all of the amigos were in the thick of this; with Carl Kruger and Hiram Monsrrate apparently the linchpins: "Espada said the "compromise" would have kept him as Senate president and made Democratic Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn the Senate majority leader, with Skelos "able to have whatever other title he would have liked." With Skelos' demurral, the way back to the fold was paved for Espada.
But, as the NY Times reports, Hiram's closeness to Espada helped keep the lines of communication open: "Senator Hiram Monserrate, a Queens Democrat who initially sided with the Republicans along with Mr. Espada, played a key role in persuading his colleagues to allow Mr. Espada to return."
All of this reminds us of what the political sociologist Roberto Michels once said: "The socialists may conquer, but socialism never will." Parties will continue to take advantage of their power, and principle will always be subordinated to that axiom. So, given these realities, Espada understood how to use his guile to position himself as indispensable-and those who abhorred his tactics, and defamed his character, had to meekly accept his return; along with his ascension to leadership.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Observing a Malaise
The Mike Bloomberg express, trying to spin the impression of its inevitability even further, is planning an ambitious third term agenda to avoid the kind of malaise that typically envelops these less than charming thirds. And the Observer's Jason Horowitz obliges the campaign nicely with a story that, well, is less than incisive and probing about the underlying assumptions of the campaign.
As the Observer tells us: "Dispensing with any elaborate pretense about being in a competitive re-election contest, Mr. Bloomberg’s handlers have begun to use the mayor’s public appearances to address what happens after 2009. Their political task: to figure out a way of avoiding the historic curse of the complacent, unfocused and regrettable third term."
Of course, what's left out here by the obliging reporting, is the underlying rationale for this kind of future gazing-it not only presents the re-election as inevitable, but it also helps to obfuscate the fact that the previous eight years are certainly not above reproach. And the lead vocalist of the Spinners is nothing if not also obliging: “But that’s not why the mayor is running for a third term. There is still unfinished business, and then there is more that the mayor wants to accomplish in the third that will be new and innovative."
Like continuing with his tax and regulate wrecking ball that he's taken to the local economy? Of course, he's big on new initiatives that sound great-after all, with the kind of money he has to spend he can claim title to being the King of the Three Color Glossy. Yet to claim that your initiative to diversify the economy will somehow create 8,000 jobs (while the city invests around three million dollars, nice deal, huh?)-and wean us off of Wall Street dependence, elides the fact that the mayor's own policies, as Wall Street dependent as you can get, are prime sources of the economic predicament that we find ourselves in.
In Horowitz's long "analysis" we don't here any mention of taxes and regulations. Now, why is that? Do we need to be experts in semiotics to evaluate the following? "Of course, given the state of the economy—to say nothing of the malaise—the mayor’s greatest challenge in a third term may simply be to see to it that the city doesn’t fall to pieces on his watch. But the mayor’s campaign says that they intend to defy that script."
By adding more government workers and increasing the property and sales tax? How has that worked out for the city's expiring middle class? The campaign response? Non sequitors drenched in lavish brochures: " Mr. Bloomberg will focus on pre-Kindergarten programs and post high-school community colleges and trade schools in an effort to expand city-funded education. He’ll mandate that some employers provide their employees with sick-day benefits, and try, again, to wean the five boroughs off of cars by expanding public transportation to areas mostly ignored by bus, train and ferry. He’ll propose aggressive measures, both in the city and Albany, to fight foreclosures and keep people in their homes."
And do all this, with what tax base? We need to have more seasoned and skeptical folks stepping up to the plate when confronted with all of the Bloomberg bombast. And, you know, for all this malaising that needs to be addressed after November, there is still a campaign to run. But Wolfson's smart enough to try to get our attention focused elsewhere. A focus on the campaign is inevitably a focus on the Bloomberg record-one whose accomplishments are more than offset by policies that don't merit any third term coronation.
Correction
We inadvertently attributed the article to our good buddy Kornacki but, as Jason Horowitz reminds us, he's the culprit-so we regret the confusion.
As the Observer tells us: "Dispensing with any elaborate pretense about being in a competitive re-election contest, Mr. Bloomberg’s handlers have begun to use the mayor’s public appearances to address what happens after 2009. Their political task: to figure out a way of avoiding the historic curse of the complacent, unfocused and regrettable third term."
Of course, what's left out here by the obliging reporting, is the underlying rationale for this kind of future gazing-it not only presents the re-election as inevitable, but it also helps to obfuscate the fact that the previous eight years are certainly not above reproach. And the lead vocalist of the Spinners is nothing if not also obliging: “But that’s not why the mayor is running for a third term. There is still unfinished business, and then there is more that the mayor wants to accomplish in the third that will be new and innovative."
Like continuing with his tax and regulate wrecking ball that he's taken to the local economy? Of course, he's big on new initiatives that sound great-after all, with the kind of money he has to spend he can claim title to being the King of the Three Color Glossy. Yet to claim that your initiative to diversify the economy will somehow create 8,000 jobs (while the city invests around three million dollars, nice deal, huh?)-and wean us off of Wall Street dependence, elides the fact that the mayor's own policies, as Wall Street dependent as you can get, are prime sources of the economic predicament that we find ourselves in.
In Horowitz's long "analysis" we don't here any mention of taxes and regulations. Now, why is that? Do we need to be experts in semiotics to evaluate the following? "Of course, given the state of the economy—to say nothing of the malaise—the mayor’s greatest challenge in a third term may simply be to see to it that the city doesn’t fall to pieces on his watch. But the mayor’s campaign says that they intend to defy that script."
By adding more government workers and increasing the property and sales tax? How has that worked out for the city's expiring middle class? The campaign response? Non sequitors drenched in lavish brochures: " Mr. Bloomberg will focus on pre-Kindergarten programs and post high-school community colleges and trade schools in an effort to expand city-funded education. He’ll mandate that some employers provide their employees with sick-day benefits, and try, again, to wean the five boroughs off of cars by expanding public transportation to areas mostly ignored by bus, train and ferry. He’ll propose aggressive measures, both in the city and Albany, to fight foreclosures and keep people in their homes."
And do all this, with what tax base? We need to have more seasoned and skeptical folks stepping up to the plate when confronted with all of the Bloomberg bombast. And, you know, for all this malaising that needs to be addressed after November, there is still a campaign to run. But Wolfson's smart enough to try to get our attention focused elsewhere. A focus on the campaign is inevitably a focus on the Bloomberg record-one whose accomplishments are more than offset by policies that don't merit any third term coronation.
Correction
We inadvertently attributed the article to our good buddy Kornacki but, as Jason Horowitz reminds us, he's the culprit-so we regret the confusion.
After You My Dear Richard,
Well, you have to at least know that the governor really had nothing to lose here. With approval ratings approaching those of serial killers and child molesters, David Paterson threw a Hail Mary pass; which if it passes the constitutional test, will have a chance to restore some of the luster that a series of missteps and blunders have almost scrubbed clean from his tarnished image. As the NY Times reports: "Gov. David A. Paterson named Richard Ravitch, a Democratic lawyer with a career in government dating back a half century, as the state’s lieutenant governor on Wednesday. Mr. Paterson said Mr. Ravitch, 76, would bring stability to the capital and help him end what he called the “crisis in governance” that for more than a month has paralyzed the Senate during its 31-to-31 split."
Now comes the court test; because no one really knows if the move will be accepted as constitutional: "Mr. Paterson’s move was intended to end the turmoil in the capital, but it seemed chiefly to intensify it, drawing threats of legal challenges even before the governor announced his decision on television at 5 p.m. The lieutenant governor’s office has been vacant since Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned last year and Mr. Paterson succeeded him; the State Constitution does not provide for filling the office in the event of a vacancy."
So, it gets complicated, and rather than get bogged down in the minutia we will simply say to the governor that this better pan out; because if it doesn't, with apologies to Jimmy Breslin, Paterson-all by himself-will take on the persona of the, Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight. Our bet is that, given the governor's string of goofiness, this is all gonna blow right up in his face.
Already the long knives are out, and Gerson Borrerro is reporting that Pedro Espada and Dean Skelos have a temporary restraining order to halt Ravitch from stepping in to the vacant LG spot: "State Senator’s Pedro Espada, Jr. and Dean Skelos have just been informed by their attorney, John Ciampioli, Counsel for the New York State Senate Republican Campaign Committee, that a restraining order against Governor David A. Paterson and Richard Ravitch has been granted.“Not prom night yet for them,” Espada told The Borrero Report in a 1:25 AM telephone call."
So now we potentially have an even bigger snafu in Albany-with Paterson at the wheel of the clown car. And why would Ravitch do this? Shouldn't both he and the governor had waited-simply asked the courts before leaping-until a legal ruling was issued? All in all, an Laurel and Hardy moment in the making here; because even if the new LG can be seated, there's doubt that he could function to break ties in normal legislative procedures: "Perhaps most important, the Senate’s rules indicate that the lieutenant governor cannot be counted as part of a quorum, a key issue since neither faction has the 32 votes needed to constitute a quorum. “If he can’t vote on that, then the rest becomes moot,” said Gerald Benjamin, a professor of political science at the State University of New York at New Paltz."
And if he can't, the ball really hasn't advanced beyond the fact that it removes the possibility that Espada would be next in line to succeed the governor if he no longer was around. But, perhaps that would be enough to get the warring sides to agree to a power sharing arrangement. We'll see. But no one should be holding their breathe on this.
The one thing we know for sure is that we don't believe that the governor's stated rationale for taking this bold leap is credible. As the NY Daily News reports: "Paterson said he took the uncharted step because the ongoing paralysis in the Senate was starting to hurt localities dealing with the tanking economy. He cited Mayor Bloomberg's decision this week to enact a hiring freeze on police and firefighter jobs because the Senate did not pass a bill to authorize a hike in the city sales tax. Paterson also said that with state revenue having dropped by 36% over projections the past three months, the Senate and Assembly will soon be needed to make further cuts to the budget. "We cannot allow for any further exposure to uncertainty [and] risk at a time of unparalleled fiscal difficulties," he said."
No, Paterson did this to hopefully rescue his own slim chances of holding on to the office. The fact that the legislature is out-and unable to further damage the economy-is actually a plus for the citizens. Because when it was in session, all it did was make things worse-and the governor's lack of leadership saw taxes rise-with very little of the trimming that the governor claims will be necessary in the near term.
So while it is embarrassing to watch all of the hijinks in the state capitol, this isn't quite the crisis that Paterson claims it is. What it does underscore, is that the state is rudderless; and if the courts strike down the governor's latest gambit-clueless will be added to leaderless.
Now comes the court test; because no one really knows if the move will be accepted as constitutional: "Mr. Paterson’s move was intended to end the turmoil in the capital, but it seemed chiefly to intensify it, drawing threats of legal challenges even before the governor announced his decision on television at 5 p.m. The lieutenant governor’s office has been vacant since Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned last year and Mr. Paterson succeeded him; the State Constitution does not provide for filling the office in the event of a vacancy."
So, it gets complicated, and rather than get bogged down in the minutia we will simply say to the governor that this better pan out; because if it doesn't, with apologies to Jimmy Breslin, Paterson-all by himself-will take on the persona of the, Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight. Our bet is that, given the governor's string of goofiness, this is all gonna blow right up in his face.
Already the long knives are out, and Gerson Borrerro is reporting that Pedro Espada and Dean Skelos have a temporary restraining order to halt Ravitch from stepping in to the vacant LG spot: "State Senator’s Pedro Espada, Jr. and Dean Skelos have just been informed by their attorney, John Ciampioli, Counsel for the New York State Senate Republican Campaign Committee, that a restraining order against Governor David A. Paterson and Richard Ravitch has been granted.“Not prom night yet for them,” Espada told The Borrero Report in a 1:25 AM telephone call."
So now we potentially have an even bigger snafu in Albany-with Paterson at the wheel of the clown car. And why would Ravitch do this? Shouldn't both he and the governor had waited-simply asked the courts before leaping-until a legal ruling was issued? All in all, an Laurel and Hardy moment in the making here; because even if the new LG can be seated, there's doubt that he could function to break ties in normal legislative procedures: "Perhaps most important, the Senate’s rules indicate that the lieutenant governor cannot be counted as part of a quorum, a key issue since neither faction has the 32 votes needed to constitute a quorum. “If he can’t vote on that, then the rest becomes moot,” said Gerald Benjamin, a professor of political science at the State University of New York at New Paltz."
And if he can't, the ball really hasn't advanced beyond the fact that it removes the possibility that Espada would be next in line to succeed the governor if he no longer was around. But, perhaps that would be enough to get the warring sides to agree to a power sharing arrangement. We'll see. But no one should be holding their breathe on this.
The one thing we know for sure is that we don't believe that the governor's stated rationale for taking this bold leap is credible. As the NY Daily News reports: "Paterson said he took the uncharted step because the ongoing paralysis in the Senate was starting to hurt localities dealing with the tanking economy. He cited Mayor Bloomberg's decision this week to enact a hiring freeze on police and firefighter jobs because the Senate did not pass a bill to authorize a hike in the city sales tax. Paterson also said that with state revenue having dropped by 36% over projections the past three months, the Senate and Assembly will soon be needed to make further cuts to the budget. "We cannot allow for any further exposure to uncertainty [and] risk at a time of unparalleled fiscal difficulties," he said."
No, Paterson did this to hopefully rescue his own slim chances of holding on to the office. The fact that the legislature is out-and unable to further damage the economy-is actually a plus for the citizens. Because when it was in session, all it did was make things worse-and the governor's lack of leadership saw taxes rise-with very little of the trimming that the governor claims will be necessary in the near term.
So while it is embarrassing to watch all of the hijinks in the state capitol, this isn't quite the crisis that Paterson claims it is. What it does underscore, is that the state is rudderless; and if the courts strike down the governor's latest gambit-clueless will be added to leaderless.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Wolf Tickets
The just released Marist Poll is quite fascinating. As Daily Politics points out: "Today's Marist poll finds the race between Comptroller Bill Thompson and Mayor Bloomberg has tightened somewhat, with the mayor slipping under the 50 percent mark to lead his likely Democratic opponent 48-35 compared to 51-35 in May...Fifty-one percent of voters polled think it's time to oust Bloomberg from office and give someone else a chance. That's up from 48 percent in May."
51%! think it's time for a change-even after the, it's gotta be up to at least $25 million, obscene level of spending on behalf of the mayor's race against himself. What a colossal waste of money-or, maybe not. After all, if Bloomberg wasn't spending the money, where would he be today?
And Thompson, for his part, should be buoyed by the fact that he's only 13 point down-and in spite of being outspent by, say, around $25 million. Clearly, in spite of what the lead vocalist from the Spinners says, this is much closer than it should be.
As The Politicker reports: "The competitiveness of a race is, to some degree, a subjective notion, one which operatives on both sides try to manipulate. Case in point: Bloomberg's spokesman Howard Wolfson and today's Marist poll. Here's Wolfson on the poll results: “We continue to be pleased with a double-digit lead over both of our opponents and the fact that a large majority of New Yorkers approve of the mayor's leadership."We look forward to watching this competitive Democratic primary with interest."
And Azi responds, unwilling to be spun: "That "competitive primary" between Thompson and Avella is not so close. In a head-to-head match-up, Thompson leads Avella 47 to 18. Which is considerably less close than the head-to-head match-up between Bloomberg and Thompson: Bloomberg leads 48 to 35."
The question remaining here, is can Thompson capitalize on what is clearly a large cohort of voters who are simply tired of Bloomberg-even among those who think he's been okay? And will the saturation media bombing validate the economic law of diminishing returns? Something that is well described in the following definition: "The tendency for a continuing application of effort or skill toward a particular project or goal to decline in effectiveness after a certain level of result has been achieved."
All is food for thought-and why Howard continues to spew out expensive woof tickets. Baffle them with BS; and deflect attention from the fact that, like the love engine of the Master of the House in Les Miz; "there's not much there." All the spending and all of the taxing hasn't made Mike Bloomberg an incumbent that is deserving of re-election-let alone the overturning of the will of the people expressed in two referenda.
51%! think it's time for a change-even after the, it's gotta be up to at least $25 million, obscene level of spending on behalf of the mayor's race against himself. What a colossal waste of money-or, maybe not. After all, if Bloomberg wasn't spending the money, where would he be today?
And Thompson, for his part, should be buoyed by the fact that he's only 13 point down-and in spite of being outspent by, say, around $25 million. Clearly, in spite of what the lead vocalist from the Spinners says, this is much closer than it should be.
As The Politicker reports: "The competitiveness of a race is, to some degree, a subjective notion, one which operatives on both sides try to manipulate. Case in point: Bloomberg's spokesman Howard Wolfson and today's Marist poll. Here's Wolfson on the poll results: “We continue to be pleased with a double-digit lead over both of our opponents and the fact that a large majority of New Yorkers approve of the mayor's leadership."We look forward to watching this competitive Democratic primary with interest."
And Azi responds, unwilling to be spun: "That "competitive primary" between Thompson and Avella is not so close. In a head-to-head match-up, Thompson leads Avella 47 to 18. Which is considerably less close than the head-to-head match-up between Bloomberg and Thompson: Bloomberg leads 48 to 35."
The question remaining here, is can Thompson capitalize on what is clearly a large cohort of voters who are simply tired of Bloomberg-even among those who think he's been okay? And will the saturation media bombing validate the economic law of diminishing returns? Something that is well described in the following definition: "The tendency for a continuing application of effort or skill toward a particular project or goal to decline in effectiveness after a certain level of result has been achieved."
All is food for thought-and why Howard continues to spew out expensive woof tickets. Baffle them with BS; and deflect attention from the fact that, like the love engine of the Master of the House in Les Miz; "there's not much there." All the spending and all of the taxing hasn't made Mike Bloomberg an incumbent that is deserving of re-election-let alone the overturning of the will of the people expressed in two referenda.
Goodwin Gets Albany
Michael Goodwin, following up on our stalemate kudos of yesterday, looks at the bright side of a sidelined legislature: "The pols want a judge to end the Albany stalemate, but a shrink would be my choice. And not just to treat the buffoons in the Legislature. The public is acting crazy, too.
It's in the grip of an epidemic of Stockholm syndrome, a malady that causes hostages to identify with their captors. Since millions of New Yorkers are suffering, we're changing the name to Gotham Syndrome. The major symptom is a failure to recognize what's good for you. In this case, it means a failure to recognize that the first thing Albany will do when it gets back to work is raise the sales tax in the city by half a percent, to 8.875%. What's your hurry, folks? Can't wait to pay $900 million more in taxes? Now that's insane."
And Goodwin gets it exactly right-every day the senate stays out is money in our pockets-even if the mayor sees the "crisis" just like any three card monte dealer might-lost revenue from the marks: "Mayor Bloomberg, by saying the stalemate is "costing" the city $60 million a month and getting the public angry at Albany, has taken the art of the con to a dazzling new level. Any taxpayer in his right mind would realize that every day Albany dawdles is another day his taxes can't be raised. The $60 million the delay is "costing" the city is actually $60 million that stays in our pockets. That's a good thing."
Which gets us to the heart of the matter-something that we have already posted on this morning; the apparatus of government has grown way too large: "Never mind that the bloated government bureaucracies have hardly been scratched. All that matters is that fewer working people must pay higher taxes to keep them safe from the recession. "Any less revenues mean fewer employees, because the city's budget is basically hiring 300,000 of the best people that anybody's ever put together and paying them," Bloomberg said. Apparently we absolutely need every one of them, even though we're paying an average of $107,000 a year each in salary and benefits."
Bloomberg must be on crack! So, when he complains about pension costs that are mandated and out of the city's control, he wants us to ignore the fact that the more folks he hires, the greater is our already unmanageable pension liability. Oh, but look how well the schools are doing.
Sure, if you believe the watered down state test results-and the mayor's brutally honest campaign spots-we're on the right road to educational nirvana; with 80,000 teachers-up from the 40,000 we used to make do with-serving a school population that has decreased from the 1.1 million kids of a few years ago. Oh, and did we mention that the school budget is up 80% to a cool 23 billion dollars? That's about $20,000 per pupil. But, you get what you pay for, don't you?
So, Goodwin is right. We are suffering from a Gotham Syndrome. And pretty soon we will all be singing:
"California, here I come right back where I started from.
Where Bowers of flowers bloom in the spring.
Each morning at dawning, birdies sing an' everything.
A sunkist miss said, "Don't be late" that's why I can hardly wait.
Open up that Golden Gate,
California here I come."
It's in the grip of an epidemic of Stockholm syndrome, a malady that causes hostages to identify with their captors. Since millions of New Yorkers are suffering, we're changing the name to Gotham Syndrome. The major symptom is a failure to recognize what's good for you. In this case, it means a failure to recognize that the first thing Albany will do when it gets back to work is raise the sales tax in the city by half a percent, to 8.875%. What's your hurry, folks? Can't wait to pay $900 million more in taxes? Now that's insane."
And Goodwin gets it exactly right-every day the senate stays out is money in our pockets-even if the mayor sees the "crisis" just like any three card monte dealer might-lost revenue from the marks: "Mayor Bloomberg, by saying the stalemate is "costing" the city $60 million a month and getting the public angry at Albany, has taken the art of the con to a dazzling new level. Any taxpayer in his right mind would realize that every day Albany dawdles is another day his taxes can't be raised. The $60 million the delay is "costing" the city is actually $60 million that stays in our pockets. That's a good thing."
Which gets us to the heart of the matter-something that we have already posted on this morning; the apparatus of government has grown way too large: "Never mind that the bloated government bureaucracies have hardly been scratched. All that matters is that fewer working people must pay higher taxes to keep them safe from the recession. "Any less revenues mean fewer employees, because the city's budget is basically hiring 300,000 of the best people that anybody's ever put together and paying them," Bloomberg said. Apparently we absolutely need every one of them, even though we're paying an average of $107,000 a year each in salary and benefits."
Bloomberg must be on crack! So, when he complains about pension costs that are mandated and out of the city's control, he wants us to ignore the fact that the more folks he hires, the greater is our already unmanageable pension liability. Oh, but look how well the schools are doing.
Sure, if you believe the watered down state test results-and the mayor's brutally honest campaign spots-we're on the right road to educational nirvana; with 80,000 teachers-up from the 40,000 we used to make do with-serving a school population that has decreased from the 1.1 million kids of a few years ago. Oh, and did we mention that the school budget is up 80% to a cool 23 billion dollars? That's about $20,000 per pupil. But, you get what you pay for, don't you?
So, Goodwin is right. We are suffering from a Gotham Syndrome. And pretty soon we will all be singing:
"California, here I come right back where I started from.
Where Bowers of flowers bloom in the spring.
Each morning at dawning, birdies sing an' everything.
A sunkist miss said, "Don't be late" that's why I can hardly wait.
Open up that Golden Gate,
California here I come."
The Party's Over
The NY Times does a real public service this morning with its report on the pension black hole facing the State of New York in the coming years-obligations sharply on the rise, while revenues are swiftly shrinking: " Local governments in New York State face an unprecedented increase in pension costs that will force them to triple their contributions to the state pension system over the next six years, according to an analysis prepared by the comptroller’s office.By 2015, pension costs borne by local governments upstate, on Long Island and in New York City’s suburbs will exceed $8 billion a year, compared with $2.6 billion last year, under the analysis, which was circulated to legislative and county leaders and obtained by The New York Times this month."
So, where exactly will the new money be coming from? Hold on to your wallets everyone: “It is staggering,” said Peter Baynes, executive director of the New York Conference of Mayors. “The only way they’re going to deal with it is through property taxes and reductions in the work force.” Put that "fair share" in your pipe and smoke it!
The reality here is that the public payroll-and the concomitant pension benefits-have been spiralling out of control for years; and that holds true for NYC, the surrounding counties, and all of the towns throughout the state. All of this was brought home in a brilliant analysis given in a lecture we heard yesterday by E.J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute-riffing on his article in the latest City Journal (forthcoming).
The days of wine and roses are certainly over-and the dependence on an annual 8% return on investment (who doesn't wish for that?) has left public pension obligations seriously underfunded. But, in NYC, the situation was exacerbated by the fact that Mike Bloomberg kept hiring more workers; and each of the new hires is immediately integrated into the pension system and becomes an unavoidable obligation for the shlubs who foot the bill-the already beleaguered tax payers.
"Tax the wealthy," goes the cry of the WFP. How's that working out in California, where the state relies heavily on about 144,000 high net worth individuals who are-guess what?-out migrating to avoid getting hosed for a state work force that is unsustainable. But the out migration there is dwarfed by our own. We have lost over one and one half million higher taxed individuals over the past decade-with an accompanying drop of about one billion dollars in revenue.
In NYC, the shrewed businessman mayor-who has padded the city's payroll every year he's been in office-presides over a city whose tax obligations are 90% higher than any other municipality in the country; and Bloomberg has, thankfully, stopped smugly talking about how New York is some kind of "luxury item."
McMahon captured this last month in the following NY Post Op-Ed: "Because public pensions are guaranteed by the state constitution, they are a risk-free proposition for the employees who collect them. But these pensions are financed by investments that expose taxpayers to substantial financial risk -- as was illustrated vividly by the two sharp downturns in this decade. As recently as 1984, two-thirds of New York’s pension funds were invested in less-risky fixed-income investments -- bonds, commercial mortgages and cash. By 2008, the proportions had more than reversed. As the meltdown began, nearly 72 percent of the state’s pension-fund assets were in equities, including stocks, private equity and hedge-fund holdings. This was typical of the investment mix in public-pension systems across the country -- which is why they’re all about to dump bigger bills on taxpayers."
Funny, we didn't hear Mike Bloomberg's warning cry on this. But, Mr. Indispensable, is now needed to get us out of the mess that he bears a great degree of responsibility for-including the 80% increase in the education budget that now accounts for 4 out of every ten dollars the city spends. Is it any wonder that Randi Weingarten and the mayor were dancing cheek to cheek in last month's press conference on mayoral control? If your Weingarten, Mike Bloomberg has meant more teachers and more revenue for-why the UFT, of course.
And getting out won't be easy-especially when we are continuing to, "let it ride," on rising stock market fortune. As the Times tells us, our state comptroller has it all under control-perhaps not: "Mr. DiNapoli’s office cautioned that the figures it circulated represented only one possible chain of events, and depend in part on a healthy stock market recovery in the first half of the next decade. The analysis envisions a market rebound similar to the one after the crash of 1987, with a return of 1.5 percent in the current fiscal year, annual returns in excess of 13 percent in the next two years and more than 10 percent in the succeeding three years."
Don't we all wish. But the real elephant in the room here is the WFP-and the fact that the public employees are the majority faction that Madison warned us about. Although the Times hits us with this knee slapper: "If there is any silver lining, the trends appear to have somewhat curbed Albany’s appetite for extending pension enhancements to public employees to placate labor unions, which wield enormous clout and lobbying dollars in the capital. “I’m alarmed,” said Assemblyman Peter J. Abbate Jr., a Brooklyn Democrat and the chairman of the Assembly’s Labor Committee, who is one of the capital’s more reliable union allies. “Bluntly,” he said, “I’ve spoken to a lot of the union leaders and their lobbyists and said I don’t want to see bills that will cost the counties and the state millions of dollars.”
Yeah, sure. Before last year's crash, Wall Street accounted for 20% of the state's revenues-and that's much higher for the city. This year on the state level, we glommed about six billion dollars of federal stimulus money; something that McMahon rightfully calls the, "fiscal bridge to nowhere." The money was supposed to allay the need for any new local taxes. How did that turn out? $6.1 billion in new state taxes and fess were added by the legislature-and Bloomberg hiked up the city's sales tax.
Our pension obligations are simply symptoms of an even more serious malady. The belief that we can continue to grow government and keep forcing New Yorkers to pony up more. Now, with the Feds looking to expand health care and tax energy use-watch out! We are all heading down the California path-with New York City and State seemingly in the biggest rush to catch the bankrupt Golden State.
So, where exactly will the new money be coming from? Hold on to your wallets everyone: “It is staggering,” said Peter Baynes, executive director of the New York Conference of Mayors. “The only way they’re going to deal with it is through property taxes and reductions in the work force.” Put that "fair share" in your pipe and smoke it!
The reality here is that the public payroll-and the concomitant pension benefits-have been spiralling out of control for years; and that holds true for NYC, the surrounding counties, and all of the towns throughout the state. All of this was brought home in a brilliant analysis given in a lecture we heard yesterday by E.J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute-riffing on his article in the latest City Journal (forthcoming).
The days of wine and roses are certainly over-and the dependence on an annual 8% return on investment (who doesn't wish for that?) has left public pension obligations seriously underfunded. But, in NYC, the situation was exacerbated by the fact that Mike Bloomberg kept hiring more workers; and each of the new hires is immediately integrated into the pension system and becomes an unavoidable obligation for the shlubs who foot the bill-the already beleaguered tax payers.
"Tax the wealthy," goes the cry of the WFP. How's that working out in California, where the state relies heavily on about 144,000 high net worth individuals who are-guess what?-out migrating to avoid getting hosed for a state work force that is unsustainable. But the out migration there is dwarfed by our own. We have lost over one and one half million higher taxed individuals over the past decade-with an accompanying drop of about one billion dollars in revenue.
In NYC, the shrewed businessman mayor-who has padded the city's payroll every year he's been in office-presides over a city whose tax obligations are 90% higher than any other municipality in the country; and Bloomberg has, thankfully, stopped smugly talking about how New York is some kind of "luxury item."
McMahon captured this last month in the following NY Post Op-Ed: "Because public pensions are guaranteed by the state constitution, they are a risk-free proposition for the employees who collect them. But these pensions are financed by investments that expose taxpayers to substantial financial risk -- as was illustrated vividly by the two sharp downturns in this decade. As recently as 1984, two-thirds of New York’s pension funds were invested in less-risky fixed-income investments -- bonds, commercial mortgages and cash. By 2008, the proportions had more than reversed. As the meltdown began, nearly 72 percent of the state’s pension-fund assets were in equities, including stocks, private equity and hedge-fund holdings. This was typical of the investment mix in public-pension systems across the country -- which is why they’re all about to dump bigger bills on taxpayers."
Funny, we didn't hear Mike Bloomberg's warning cry on this. But, Mr. Indispensable, is now needed to get us out of the mess that he bears a great degree of responsibility for-including the 80% increase in the education budget that now accounts for 4 out of every ten dollars the city spends. Is it any wonder that Randi Weingarten and the mayor were dancing cheek to cheek in last month's press conference on mayoral control? If your Weingarten, Mike Bloomberg has meant more teachers and more revenue for-why the UFT, of course.
And getting out won't be easy-especially when we are continuing to, "let it ride," on rising stock market fortune. As the Times tells us, our state comptroller has it all under control-perhaps not: "Mr. DiNapoli’s office cautioned that the figures it circulated represented only one possible chain of events, and depend in part on a healthy stock market recovery in the first half of the next decade. The analysis envisions a market rebound similar to the one after the crash of 1987, with a return of 1.5 percent in the current fiscal year, annual returns in excess of 13 percent in the next two years and more than 10 percent in the succeeding three years."
Don't we all wish. But the real elephant in the room here is the WFP-and the fact that the public employees are the majority faction that Madison warned us about. Although the Times hits us with this knee slapper: "If there is any silver lining, the trends appear to have somewhat curbed Albany’s appetite for extending pension enhancements to public employees to placate labor unions, which wield enormous clout and lobbying dollars in the capital. “I’m alarmed,” said Assemblyman Peter J. Abbate Jr., a Brooklyn Democrat and the chairman of the Assembly’s Labor Committee, who is one of the capital’s more reliable union allies. “Bluntly,” he said, “I’ve spoken to a lot of the union leaders and their lobbyists and said I don’t want to see bills that will cost the counties and the state millions of dollars.”
Yeah, sure. Before last year's crash, Wall Street accounted for 20% of the state's revenues-and that's much higher for the city. This year on the state level, we glommed about six billion dollars of federal stimulus money; something that McMahon rightfully calls the, "fiscal bridge to nowhere." The money was supposed to allay the need for any new local taxes. How did that turn out? $6.1 billion in new state taxes and fess were added by the legislature-and Bloomberg hiked up the city's sales tax.
Our pension obligations are simply symptoms of an even more serious malady. The belief that we can continue to grow government and keep forcing New Yorkers to pony up more. Now, with the Feds looking to expand health care and tax energy use-watch out! We are all heading down the California path-with New York City and State seemingly in the biggest rush to catch the bankrupt Golden State.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Senate Stalemate Generates Good News
According to the Daily Politics, Mike Bloomberg is instituting a hiring freeze-and blaming it on warring state senators: "Mayor Bloomberg today again slammed the warring state senators for blowing the June 30 mayoral control deadline and is poised to announce their failure to pass the sales tax increase the city needs to balance its budget has pushed him to institute an immediate hiring freeze."
Well, hooray for the stalled senate; its gridlock has been able to achieve what Mike Bloomberg has been unable to do for seven years-begin to rein in the size of city government. Maybe the NY Post will get off of its mayoral butt mooching and take the time to offer kudos to the accidentally tax resistant body. Ah, we spoke too soon it appears.
Instead of seeing this as a golden opportunity to do more with less-or to simply let the shoppoers keep more of their own money, the Post uses this bogus freeze as another chance to praise Bloomberg and excoriate the state senators: "Mayor Mike yesterday ordered an immediate freeze of virtually all city hiring until the state Senate ends its unseemly civil war and passes legislation needed to keep Gotham on an even fiscal keel. Good for him. Sure, hiring freezes could escalate the tension. But that's a good thing. Something has to break the deadlock; fomenting a crisis could be just the ticket."
And no mention of the obvious tactics in play here. In typical city hall fashion, the proposed cuts targeted are for apple pie things like the 250 member police cadet class; as well as for 150 firefighters-all in an attempt to create a citizen outrage over the senate's stalemate. Nothing on all of the sundry extraneous crap that the city wastes the tax payers' money on; like housing the homeless in luxury digs.
Here's how Mayor Mike mischaracterizes the issue: "I urge Senators in both parties to put aside their political differences and approve the City’s revenue plan so we can move forward with providing the core services that New Yorkers rely on,” Bloomberg said in a public statement."
Core, as in, "rotten to..."
And, as the NY Times points out, the Bloomberg world view is on full display: "We’re losing roughly a couple million bucks a day,” he said. A statement that the mayor’s office issued later Monday said the city would resort to further spending reductions if the impasse continued." Of course, the city's loss in this case is the tax payers' gain-and Bloomberg effortlessly has glommed on to the concept that the city's lost revenue is his money.
But even Speaker Quinn, in as passive of voice as possible, gets the tactics and questions its necessity: "The Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, said that “our first responders are literally paying the price” for the impasse and that “stopping the police class would be completely at the bottom of my list” if it had been left to her." Ouch! Don't hit the mayor that hard, Chris.
Peter Vallone is more on point: "Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr., the chairman of the Public Safety Committee, said the freeze was painful and should not have been necessary. “Our first responders should never be first on the chopping block,” he said." But, he too, doesn 't want to pin this tale on the right donkey, saying: “Police recruits preparing to enter the academy this week are now being held hostage by the pathetic ineptitude in Albany.”
But maybe this will be the start of a beneficent trend; and the public, if not certain supine elected officials, will come to realize that the continual assault on their wallets isn't made necessary by the need to preserve, "essential services." And another potential collateral benefit here, is that New Yorkers can be made more aware of Bloomberg's expansionist philosophy; a tax and spend approach to governance that has dug the city into the deep hole that it currently finds itself in.
Well, hooray for the stalled senate; its gridlock has been able to achieve what Mike Bloomberg has been unable to do for seven years-begin to rein in the size of city government. Maybe the NY Post will get off of its mayoral butt mooching and take the time to offer kudos to the accidentally tax resistant body. Ah, we spoke too soon it appears.
Instead of seeing this as a golden opportunity to do more with less-or to simply let the shoppoers keep more of their own money, the Post uses this bogus freeze as another chance to praise Bloomberg and excoriate the state senators: "Mayor Mike yesterday ordered an immediate freeze of virtually all city hiring until the state Senate ends its unseemly civil war and passes legislation needed to keep Gotham on an even fiscal keel. Good for him. Sure, hiring freezes could escalate the tension. But that's a good thing. Something has to break the deadlock; fomenting a crisis could be just the ticket."
And no mention of the obvious tactics in play here. In typical city hall fashion, the proposed cuts targeted are for apple pie things like the 250 member police cadet class; as well as for 150 firefighters-all in an attempt to create a citizen outrage over the senate's stalemate. Nothing on all of the sundry extraneous crap that the city wastes the tax payers' money on; like housing the homeless in luxury digs.
Here's how Mayor Mike mischaracterizes the issue: "I urge Senators in both parties to put aside their political differences and approve the City’s revenue plan so we can move forward with providing the core services that New Yorkers rely on,” Bloomberg said in a public statement."
Core, as in, "rotten to..."
And, as the NY Times points out, the Bloomberg world view is on full display: "We’re losing roughly a couple million bucks a day,” he said. A statement that the mayor’s office issued later Monday said the city would resort to further spending reductions if the impasse continued." Of course, the city's loss in this case is the tax payers' gain-and Bloomberg effortlessly has glommed on to the concept that the city's lost revenue is his money.
But even Speaker Quinn, in as passive of voice as possible, gets the tactics and questions its necessity: "The Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, said that “our first responders are literally paying the price” for the impasse and that “stopping the police class would be completely at the bottom of my list” if it had been left to her." Ouch! Don't hit the mayor that hard, Chris.
Peter Vallone is more on point: "Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr., the chairman of the Public Safety Committee, said the freeze was painful and should not have been necessary. “Our first responders should never be first on the chopping block,” he said." But, he too, doesn 't want to pin this tale on the right donkey, saying: “Police recruits preparing to enter the academy this week are now being held hostage by the pathetic ineptitude in Albany.”
But maybe this will be the start of a beneficent trend; and the public, if not certain supine elected officials, will come to realize that the continual assault on their wallets isn't made necessary by the need to preserve, "essential services." And another potential collateral benefit here, is that New Yorkers can be made more aware of Bloomberg's expansionist philosophy; a tax and spend approach to governance that has dug the city into the deep hole that it currently finds itself in.
Monday, July 06, 2009
ECT For The Mayor?
The City Journal's Steve Malanga has a piece, excerpted in this morning's NY Post, on what Mike Bloomberg needs to do for the city's budget shortfall. In our view, what Malanga proposes to the mayor could only happen if Bloomberg underwent political ECT; it's simply not in the mayor's genetic make up to pursue the prudent path recommended: "MAYOR Bloomberg says that balancing the city's budget in tough times requires "shared sacrifice" -- meaning combined tax hikes and spending cuts. Yet (as is so often the case in New York), it's the taxpayers who get stuck with the lion's share of the sacrifice -- this time, nearly $1 billion in tax hikes on top of what is already the heaviest tax burden among major cities in the nation."
But what about Bloomberg's view of, "fair share?" "The city's budget-cutting, by contrast, is exceedingly modest. In fact, Bloomberg isn't really cutting the city's budget in the new fiscal year; he's merely slowing (slightly) its rate of growth. According to the Independent Budget Office, city-funded spending to provide services will grow $1.6 billion, to $46.9 billion, in the new year. That's a 3.3 percent rise, once you include outlays that the city has already paid with surplus funds from the Wall Street boom."
It is, what we have been saying for some time-Mike Bloomberg came into the job of mayor with little experience; and was also limited by a philosophy that viewed large government as a benign phenomenon. We are paying for his failings now: "Of course, city spending has grown significantly faster than inflation throughout the Bloomberg era. But this year is different: Facing the possibility of a long-term Wall Street decline, the mayor will need to consider real budget-cutting and restructuring of city services."
Which bring us to the ECT speculation. As sound as Malanga's analysis and prescriptions are-and we believe he's definitely on the right track-it's still hard to see Bloomberg going heavily into this kind of course correction; not with the mayor's penchant for payroll padding: "SINCE 2003, the city payroll has grown by some 41,000 workers, including over 16,000 paraprofessionals made full-timers at the Department of Education and the Department of Parks. At an average cost of more than $100,000 per worker in salaries and benefits, workforce size matters."
And even more unlikely to be considered is the Malanga reinvention of government suggestion: "In refusing to consider competitive bidding for services now handled by public employees, the mayor has removed a valuable bargaining chip with the unions -- which is one reason he's struggled to win productivity gains when negotiating contracts. In his first year in office, Giuliani used the threat of privatizing residential-garbage collection to gain productivity concessions that saved the city $300 million a year. Bloomberg has achieved nothing to compare."
Upon entering office, Mike Bloomberg immediately demonstrated that he was little more than a richer version of John V. Lindsay-raising taxes immediately; and embracing an expansive government ethos that would better enable him to implement his health conscious behavior modification plans. To expect him to change now is pretty silly.
What the Malanga article does suggest, however, is that Mike Bloomberg's failures do not merit being rewarded with re-election. Not when the current fiscal meltdown can be seen to have been exacerbated by Bloomberg's, "Grasshopper and the Ant," nonfeasance; a tenure that has left the city over burdened by taxes-and run by a politically sclerotic mind ill-equipped to take up the current challenges.
But what about Bloomberg's view of, "fair share?" "The city's budget-cutting, by contrast, is exceedingly modest. In fact, Bloomberg isn't really cutting the city's budget in the new fiscal year; he's merely slowing (slightly) its rate of growth. According to the Independent Budget Office, city-funded spending to provide services will grow $1.6 billion, to $46.9 billion, in the new year. That's a 3.3 percent rise, once you include outlays that the city has already paid with surplus funds from the Wall Street boom."
It is, what we have been saying for some time-Mike Bloomberg came into the job of mayor with little experience; and was also limited by a philosophy that viewed large government as a benign phenomenon. We are paying for his failings now: "Of course, city spending has grown significantly faster than inflation throughout the Bloomberg era. But this year is different: Facing the possibility of a long-term Wall Street decline, the mayor will need to consider real budget-cutting and restructuring of city services."
Which bring us to the ECT speculation. As sound as Malanga's analysis and prescriptions are-and we believe he's definitely on the right track-it's still hard to see Bloomberg going heavily into this kind of course correction; not with the mayor's penchant for payroll padding: "SINCE 2003, the city payroll has grown by some 41,000 workers, including over 16,000 paraprofessionals made full-timers at the Department of Education and the Department of Parks. At an average cost of more than $100,000 per worker in salaries and benefits, workforce size matters."
And even more unlikely to be considered is the Malanga reinvention of government suggestion: "In refusing to consider competitive bidding for services now handled by public employees, the mayor has removed a valuable bargaining chip with the unions -- which is one reason he's struggled to win productivity gains when negotiating contracts. In his first year in office, Giuliani used the threat of privatizing residential-garbage collection to gain productivity concessions that saved the city $300 million a year. Bloomberg has achieved nothing to compare."
Upon entering office, Mike Bloomberg immediately demonstrated that he was little more than a richer version of John V. Lindsay-raising taxes immediately; and embracing an expansive government ethos that would better enable him to implement his health conscious behavior modification plans. To expect him to change now is pretty silly.
What the Malanga article does suggest, however, is that Mike Bloomberg's failures do not merit being rewarded with re-election. Not when the current fiscal meltdown can be seen to have been exacerbated by Bloomberg's, "Grasshopper and the Ant," nonfeasance; a tenure that has left the city over burdened by taxes-and run by a politically sclerotic mind ill-equipped to take up the current challenges.
Unhealthy Cart Regime
Well, as we have already posted today, it does seem as if the city's Department of Health has been much too preoccupied with its quixotic efforts to transform the life styles and behaviors of New Yorkers-at the expense of its core mission of insuring health safety. The NY Post captures this in a follow up story on food carts: "The Health Department wants to yank the permits of more than 500 street food vendors after undercover investigators found widespread fraud. Acting at the urging of the Department of Investigation, health officials said they're reviewing "a list of possible illegal permits."
But the fraud went right to the core mission: "Suspicions at the Health Department were aroused in 2006, when workers at its Maspeth, Queens, facility began noticing that an unusually high number of carts were being brought in for inspection by the same small group of vendors and middlemen. Investigators discovered that unscrupulous vendors were gaming the system by using clean carts as stand-ins for those that couldn't pass inspection."
Can we get any more compelling evidence that the food cart oversight regime is badly in need of an extreme makeover-and that the DOH has been as badly distracted from doing its job of making sure that the food sold in the city was, if not trans fat free and calorie posted-at least safe from food borne pathogens? Perhaps now, we can get the city council to take effective action to insure that the enforcement of peddling laws will be possible; and that the inspection regime is simplified so that this important task can be easily accomplished.
But the fraud went right to the core mission: "Suspicions at the Health Department were aroused in 2006, when workers at its Maspeth, Queens, facility began noticing that an unusually high number of carts were being brought in for inspection by the same small group of vendors and middlemen. Investigators discovered that unscrupulous vendors were gaming the system by using clean carts as stand-ins for those that couldn't pass inspection."
Can we get any more compelling evidence that the food cart oversight regime is badly in need of an extreme makeover-and that the DOH has been as badly distracted from doing its job of making sure that the food sold in the city was, if not trans fat free and calorie posted-at least safe from food borne pathogens? Perhaps now, we can get the city council to take effective action to insure that the enforcement of peddling laws will be possible; and that the inspection regime is simplified so that this important task can be easily accomplished.
Court Jesters
The NY Post has been having a great deal of fun ridiculing the state senate for its frustrating gridlock of New York State's government over the past month. But, if the senators are the clowns that the Post depicts them as, what does that make Rupert Murdoch and the paper's editorial staff, who have spent the better part of a year shamelessly shilling for Mike Bloomberg and mayoral control of the city schools? In our view, simply court jesters.
Over and over, ad infinitum, the paper's news pages and editorials have kept up a drumbeat of amen choral support for the re-authorization of mayoral control of the school; never bothering to even provide a soupçon of proper balance. The Post even was able to bury its animus against Randi Weingarten and the UFT-providing her Op-Ed space-when she clearly indicated her support for the Bloomberg scheme.
But, nothing underscores this shameless parody of reporting, as much as the story (on page 2, no less) that the Post ran this past Saturday that "reported" on the mayor's new ad campaign-on, what else, his incredible success with the mayoral control experiment: "Mayor Bloomberg yesterday took his fight for control of city schools to the airwaves. Bloomberg -- seeking re-election to a third term this fall -- released two new campaign ads touting progress in improving student performance since he took charge of the school system in 2002."
What a farce! Bloomberg, with 80 million dollars or more to spend getting out, "my message," now has the added asset of an unscrupulous amen chorus, "reporting on" the mayor's ads. Bloomberg, whose re-election messages are so incessant and ubiquitous that you'd have to live in Wasila to miss them, now has an exclusive free media outlet that will help repeat and inculcate this one-sided charade-and remember that Bloomberg once defended his spending excess by saying that he couldn't depend on the media to accurately depict his record. Even he must be a little taken aback by the slavisness of the Post's cheerleading.
This lack of journalistic integrity is dramatized today by two companion stories on school governance-one in the NY Times; the other in the Post. The Times story gives us insight into the problems that the mayor may have getting his version of the legislation passed: "More than two weeks later, however, the idea that the bill will sail, unchanged, through the Senate appears more doubtful. In the strange world of Albany politics, the Senate’s 31-to-31 deadlock could mean the mayor would have to concede more than he would care to, even though the Assembly bill would most likely have enough support to pass if it were brought to a vote today."
In the Post's story, on the other hand: "Democrats in the state Senate tentatively agreed to pass legislation extending the mayor's authority to run city schools -- as soon as a power-sharing deal with the GOP is reached, sources said last night." Yet, a bit later in the piece, way below the headline and lede: "But the fragile accord could still be upended by a blow-up in the fractious Democratic conference or sniping with City Hall." Which story accurately reflects the reality in Albany? Hard to say, but, given the Post's advocacy, we'll bet on the Times here.
If we didn't know better, we'd have to assume that there is some kind of tawdry deal between Murdoch and Bloomberg; or else, we suppose, the elder newspaperman is experiencing the kind of thrill up the leg that transfixed Chris Matthews with The One. Hard to see, though, how the charisma deficient Bloomberg would be thrilling to anyone not receiving a charitable donation.
What we're seeing from the NY Post, the Washington Post, Newsweek, MSNBC, ABC, and an entire pantheon of supposedly independent journalistic outlets, is the death of news as we know it. If Mike Bloomberg, with all of his millions to spend, has an entire newspaper at his disposal to mimic his point of view-with the other local print media (particularly the editorial pages) not too far behind the Post's flackerry, than where can a citizenry expect to get an honest depiction of what's going on?
In NYC, the possibility of a truly open democratic debate has been hopelessly suborned; first by Blomberg's free spending, and now by wanton abdication by journalists totally uninterested in providing any degree of truth to power. Shame on the lot of them!
Over and over, ad infinitum, the paper's news pages and editorials have kept up a drumbeat of amen choral support for the re-authorization of mayoral control of the school; never bothering to even provide a soupçon of proper balance. The Post even was able to bury its animus against Randi Weingarten and the UFT-providing her Op-Ed space-when she clearly indicated her support for the Bloomberg scheme.
But, nothing underscores this shameless parody of reporting, as much as the story (on page 2, no less) that the Post ran this past Saturday that "reported" on the mayor's new ad campaign-on, what else, his incredible success with the mayoral control experiment: "Mayor Bloomberg yesterday took his fight for control of city schools to the airwaves. Bloomberg -- seeking re-election to a third term this fall -- released two new campaign ads touting progress in improving student performance since he took charge of the school system in 2002."
What a farce! Bloomberg, with 80 million dollars or more to spend getting out, "my message," now has the added asset of an unscrupulous amen chorus, "reporting on" the mayor's ads. Bloomberg, whose re-election messages are so incessant and ubiquitous that you'd have to live in Wasila to miss them, now has an exclusive free media outlet that will help repeat and inculcate this one-sided charade-and remember that Bloomberg once defended his spending excess by saying that he couldn't depend on the media to accurately depict his record. Even he must be a little taken aback by the slavisness of the Post's cheerleading.
This lack of journalistic integrity is dramatized today by two companion stories on school governance-one in the NY Times; the other in the Post. The Times story gives us insight into the problems that the mayor may have getting his version of the legislation passed: "More than two weeks later, however, the idea that the bill will sail, unchanged, through the Senate appears more doubtful. In the strange world of Albany politics, the Senate’s 31-to-31 deadlock could mean the mayor would have to concede more than he would care to, even though the Assembly bill would most likely have enough support to pass if it were brought to a vote today."
In the Post's story, on the other hand: "Democrats in the state Senate tentatively agreed to pass legislation extending the mayor's authority to run city schools -- as soon as a power-sharing deal with the GOP is reached, sources said last night." Yet, a bit later in the piece, way below the headline and lede: "But the fragile accord could still be upended by a blow-up in the fractious Democratic conference or sniping with City Hall." Which story accurately reflects the reality in Albany? Hard to say, but, given the Post's advocacy, we'll bet on the Times here.
If we didn't know better, we'd have to assume that there is some kind of tawdry deal between Murdoch and Bloomberg; or else, we suppose, the elder newspaperman is experiencing the kind of thrill up the leg that transfixed Chris Matthews with The One. Hard to see, though, how the charisma deficient Bloomberg would be thrilling to anyone not receiving a charitable donation.
What we're seeing from the NY Post, the Washington Post, Newsweek, MSNBC, ABC, and an entire pantheon of supposedly independent journalistic outlets, is the death of news as we know it. If Mike Bloomberg, with all of his millions to spend, has an entire newspaper at his disposal to mimic his point of view-with the other local print media (particularly the editorial pages) not too far behind the Post's flackerry, than where can a citizenry expect to get an honest depiction of what's going on?
In NYC, the possibility of a truly open democratic debate has been hopelessly suborned; first by Blomberg's free spending, and now by wanton abdication by journalists totally uninterested in providing any degree of truth to power. Shame on the lot of them!
Toward a New Food Cartology
The articles in the NY Times on food vending, and the exposés on the subject in the NY Post, dramatize the compelling need to completely overhaul the food vendor regime; a need that we had envisioned for some time as a result of our frustration with the lack of oversight over the veggie peddlers. The NY Times captures one aspect of the problem: "Under the current system, the permits are so inexpensive and the inspection process is so loose that it creates an opportunity for fraud,” she said in an interview. “The City of New York should get the money that’s on the table, not black marketeers.”
The other problem is the diffuse nature of the oversight responsibility: "Of all the gray areas for food vendors — who are regulated by a cluster of agencies including the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Police Department and the New York State sales tax authority — permits are the murkiest." Still, the idea of increasing their number amidst all of the acknowledged chaos is simply nuts: "The Health Department set the number of full-time food vending permits at 3,100, in 1979. (In the fall, the City Council will vote on a proposal that would increase the number of permits to 25,000.)"
In our view, the current chaos offers the city an opportunity for devising a system that actually works; where the rules are laid out clearly, and enforcement is delegated to one agency. But, of course, no matter how much sympathy we may have for the street vendor concept, some sense of equity for the tax paying and rent paying retailers needs to be built right into the heart of the regulatory system.
It's one thing to want more fruit peddlers in certain neighborhoods to address health issues; it's quite another to simply allow these peddlers to set up shop-literally-right in front of the tax paying food retailers who are trying to sell the same produce. The current administration appears to have almost no allegiance to the neighborhood retailers-and the Bloomberg commercials add insult to injury in this regard. But, if the goal is to stem the disappearance of supermarkets in the city, then what sense does it make to allow competitors with almost no comparable overhead to siphon off business from retailers deemed vital to the city's overall public health?
So, it's high time for an extreme makeover of the vendor regulations-and the city council and the mayor's office needs to get started right away on this so that hearings on the matter can proceed with proper due speed. The crooks and racketeers need to be rooted out, and that goes for the veggie vendors who own wholesale businesses, and run multiple fruit and vegetable carts; while employing scores of exploited workers who have been blocked from owning a cart of their own.
The other problem is the diffuse nature of the oversight responsibility: "Of all the gray areas for food vendors — who are regulated by a cluster of agencies including the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Police Department and the New York State sales tax authority — permits are the murkiest." Still, the idea of increasing their number amidst all of the acknowledged chaos is simply nuts: "The Health Department set the number of full-time food vending permits at 3,100, in 1979. (In the fall, the City Council will vote on a proposal that would increase the number of permits to 25,000.)"
In our view, the current chaos offers the city an opportunity for devising a system that actually works; where the rules are laid out clearly, and enforcement is delegated to one agency. But, of course, no matter how much sympathy we may have for the street vendor concept, some sense of equity for the tax paying and rent paying retailers needs to be built right into the heart of the regulatory system.
It's one thing to want more fruit peddlers in certain neighborhoods to address health issues; it's quite another to simply allow these peddlers to set up shop-literally-right in front of the tax paying food retailers who are trying to sell the same produce. The current administration appears to have almost no allegiance to the neighborhood retailers-and the Bloomberg commercials add insult to injury in this regard. But, if the goal is to stem the disappearance of supermarkets in the city, then what sense does it make to allow competitors with almost no comparable overhead to siphon off business from retailers deemed vital to the city's overall public health?
So, it's high time for an extreme makeover of the vendor regulations-and the city council and the mayor's office needs to get started right away on this so that hearings on the matter can proceed with proper due speed. The crooks and racketeers need to be rooted out, and that goes for the veggie vendors who own wholesale businesses, and run multiple fruit and vegetable carts; while employing scores of exploited workers who have been blocked from owning a cart of their own.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Sampson and DeMayor
Gee, it's getting just like one of those old tag-team wrestling matches watching the NY Post and Mike Bloomberg go after State Senator John Sampson. First, the Post "exposes" Sampson for a supposed conflict of interest in representing a school principal who was fired from her job. Then it inveighs against him in one of its editorial series in support of a mayoral stranglehold on the city's schools.
And then, you know what happens next? Mighty Mite Mike, takes his partner's cue, and jumps the ring ropes, swinging away at the already pummeled senator: "Mayor Bloomberg yesterday blasted Senate Democratic leader John Sampson for allowing mayoral control of schools to expire at the same time he's representing a woman in a suit against Chancellor Joel Klein. Bloomberg noted that legislators are permitted to have outside law practices -- but then fumed, "What's legal in Albany sometimes defies imagination."
Can you get a better Master Card moment then this? And what's even more precious is the way in which Bloomberg tries to take the ethical high ground; and elide the way in which his own spending-both direct and charitable-has basically rendered the democratic process inoperative. Here's his haughty comments to the WFP forumn: "Mayor Bloomberg Thursday night defended the overwhelming pile of money he is spending to win reelection, while two Democrats who want to replace him said he was running a city for the rich. "I made every dime that I have," Bloomberg told the Working Families Party candidate forum, sparking scattered hisses from the crowd of about 250."
Not to mention the way in which he overran the will of the voters on term limits. You see, Bloomberg would like us to view political corruption in only a certain narrow way-the taking of special interest money, or bribes; or having a law practice that night be seen as a conflict of interest, as in the case of John Sampson. The massive use of millions of dollars to "get my message out," along with the ability to dole out $250 million a year in charitable giving, is not depicted as anything untoward. This is, in our view, a classic definition of solipsistic.
And, of course, the WFP event wasn't covered by the NY Post; nor has the paper bothered to examine the mayor's public and private spending; talk about whose ox is being gored! No examination either of the mayor's role in the Albany meltdown; or the impact of his tax and spend policies on the city's faltering economy. Isn't there simply a confluence of class interest here?
After all, as the NY Times reports this morning, of all the people in this school governance battle, only John Sampson has even gone to a city public school: "Mr. Sampson, now in his seventh term in the Senate, was born in Bedford-Stuyvesant, not far from the district in southeast Brooklyn he now represents and lives in with his wife and three daughters. A product of city schools, he attended elementary school at Public School 3 and Samuel J. Tilden High School, where he found his wide, bulky frame well suited for football and baseball. Clement Sampson, a Guyanese immigrant, was a carpenter; his wife, who is deceased, was a special education teacher for the city."
Just maybe, Sampson has a legitimate ax to grind: "Mr. Sampson said that his affinity for the public school system is what has made him so outspoken on the issue of school control...“I don’t need to be lectured about that because I’m a product of the public school systems. And the benefits I received from the public school system put me in the position I’m in today,” Mr. Sampson said in a brief interview this week. “I’m not playing politics at all.”
It's ironic, as well as instructive to point out, that this journalistic trysting is happening at the same time that the Washington Post is being exposed for pimping access to the Obama administration. On the other outstretched hand, the NY Post's ethical lapse doesn't involve selling access; it involves the kind of media scuba diving that makes the idea of being in the tank simply quaint. These two fish-Bloomberg and Murdoch-are swimming in their own gated pond.
And then, you know what happens next? Mighty Mite Mike, takes his partner's cue, and jumps the ring ropes, swinging away at the already pummeled senator: "Mayor Bloomberg yesterday blasted Senate Democratic leader John Sampson for allowing mayoral control of schools to expire at the same time he's representing a woman in a suit against Chancellor Joel Klein. Bloomberg noted that legislators are permitted to have outside law practices -- but then fumed, "What's legal in Albany sometimes defies imagination."
Can you get a better Master Card moment then this? And what's even more precious is the way in which Bloomberg tries to take the ethical high ground; and elide the way in which his own spending-both direct and charitable-has basically rendered the democratic process inoperative. Here's his haughty comments to the WFP forumn: "Mayor Bloomberg Thursday night defended the overwhelming pile of money he is spending to win reelection, while two Democrats who want to replace him said he was running a city for the rich. "I made every dime that I have," Bloomberg told the Working Families Party candidate forum, sparking scattered hisses from the crowd of about 250."
Not to mention the way in which he overran the will of the voters on term limits. You see, Bloomberg would like us to view political corruption in only a certain narrow way-the taking of special interest money, or bribes; or having a law practice that night be seen as a conflict of interest, as in the case of John Sampson. The massive use of millions of dollars to "get my message out," along with the ability to dole out $250 million a year in charitable giving, is not depicted as anything untoward. This is, in our view, a classic definition of solipsistic.
And, of course, the WFP event wasn't covered by the NY Post; nor has the paper bothered to examine the mayor's public and private spending; talk about whose ox is being gored! No examination either of the mayor's role in the Albany meltdown; or the impact of his tax and spend policies on the city's faltering economy. Isn't there simply a confluence of class interest here?
After all, as the NY Times reports this morning, of all the people in this school governance battle, only John Sampson has even gone to a city public school: "Mr. Sampson, now in his seventh term in the Senate, was born in Bedford-Stuyvesant, not far from the district in southeast Brooklyn he now represents and lives in with his wife and three daughters. A product of city schools, he attended elementary school at Public School 3 and Samuel J. Tilden High School, where he found his wide, bulky frame well suited for football and baseball. Clement Sampson, a Guyanese immigrant, was a carpenter; his wife, who is deceased, was a special education teacher for the city."
Just maybe, Sampson has a legitimate ax to grind: "Mr. Sampson said that his affinity for the public school system is what has made him so outspoken on the issue of school control...“I don’t need to be lectured about that because I’m a product of the public school systems. And the benefits I received from the public school system put me in the position I’m in today,” Mr. Sampson said in a brief interview this week. “I’m not playing politics at all.”
It's ironic, as well as instructive to point out, that this journalistic trysting is happening at the same time that the Washington Post is being exposed for pimping access to the Obama administration. On the other outstretched hand, the NY Post's ethical lapse doesn't involve selling access; it involves the kind of media scuba diving that makes the idea of being in the tank simply quaint. These two fish-Bloomberg and Murdoch-are swimming in their own gated pond.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Who Will Call Out The Mayor?
Mike Bloomberg continues to act on the school governance issue as if we're all idiots-but perhaps he's only responding to the fact that the city's editorial writers are such slavish toadies. The mayor continues to posture that he's the only grown up in the room; and that everyone else is politically craven, while he, and he alone, righteously pursues the public good-unshackled by tawdry politics.
Here's the NY Times report: "At a news conference, Mr. Bloomberg denounced the “reckless behavior” of state lawmakers and called the city’s efforts to maintain continuity “Band-Aids, not solutions.” He said he was “trying to continue on as though mayoral control was approved.”
“Since the Senate refused to exercise its duties responsibly,” he said, “we here in the city are moving to protect our children.”
He reminds us of the pyromaniac who, upon returning to the scene of his fire, clucks on indignantly about the devastation and loss. The destruction is Bloomberg's responsibility; and not one editorial page has the guts to single him out for the deserved opprobrium. Consider today's NY Post editorial: "Bloomberg has long predicted that the expiration of mayoral control would cause the sky to fall. Then he went out of his way to see that it didn't. A week from now, or a month, it still won't have fallen -- and Sampson, et al., likely will have won the mayoral-control struggle by default. So what must Bloomberg do now? "I don't make any government decision based on politics," the mayor said yesterday. Well, his enemies do. They certainly used their power to deal mayoral control a perhaps fatal blow. Now Bloomberg needs to use his to fight back."
This is an aggravated example of editorial aphasia; it is precisely because of Bloomberg's maladroit political maneuverings that we are in facing this mess in Albany. As Wayne Barrett wrote a while back:
"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. The mayor also donated $700,000 to the Senate Republicans, another funnel to Padavan's campaign. The next biggest donor to state campaigns last year gave a mere $200,000, making Mayor Mike the largest financier, by far, of the bi-partisan legislative calamity in Albany (though he almost exclusively bankrolled Republicans)."
So if, as the Post and others aver, the state senate is being run by a bunch of clowns, we need these folks to point out that it was Mike Bloomberg who built the Big Top for this circus to take place. The crusaders are, however, mum on this salient fact, content as they are to go after the low hanging fruit; while failing to realize that the evidence of malfeasance and clownishness is simply what the lawyers call, "fruit of the poisonous tree."
Here's the NY Times report: "At a news conference, Mr. Bloomberg denounced the “reckless behavior” of state lawmakers and called the city’s efforts to maintain continuity “Band-Aids, not solutions.” He said he was “trying to continue on as though mayoral control was approved.”
“Since the Senate refused to exercise its duties responsibly,” he said, “we here in the city are moving to protect our children.”
He reminds us of the pyromaniac who, upon returning to the scene of his fire, clucks on indignantly about the devastation and loss. The destruction is Bloomberg's responsibility; and not one editorial page has the guts to single him out for the deserved opprobrium. Consider today's NY Post editorial: "Bloomberg has long predicted that the expiration of mayoral control would cause the sky to fall. Then he went out of his way to see that it didn't. A week from now, or a month, it still won't have fallen -- and Sampson, et al., likely will have won the mayoral-control struggle by default. So what must Bloomberg do now? "I don't make any government decision based on politics," the mayor said yesterday. Well, his enemies do. They certainly used their power to deal mayoral control a perhaps fatal blow. Now Bloomberg needs to use his to fight back."
This is an aggravated example of editorial aphasia; it is precisely because of Bloomberg's maladroit political maneuverings that we are in facing this mess in Albany. As Wayne Barrett wrote a while back:
"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. The mayor also donated $700,000 to the Senate Republicans, another funnel to Padavan's campaign. The next biggest donor to state campaigns last year gave a mere $200,000, making Mayor Mike the largest financier, by far, of the bi-partisan legislative calamity in Albany (though he almost exclusively bankrolled Republicans)."
So if, as the Post and others aver, the state senate is being run by a bunch of clowns, we need these folks to point out that it was Mike Bloomberg who built the Big Top for this circus to take place. The crusaders are, however, mum on this salient fact, content as they are to go after the low hanging fruit; while failing to realize that the evidence of malfeasance and clownishness is simply what the lawyers call, "fruit of the poisonous tree."
Hard of Hearing
The NY Daily News has finally posted the fine Bill Egbert report on last week's curious public hearing on the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory: "Community Board 7 got an earful at last week's public hearing on developing the Kingsbridge Armory, as vociferous supporters and opponents packed the room. More than 100 employees of the Morton Williams supermarket threatened by the project arrived early, waving signs pleading, "Save Our Jobs."
But the hearing had it surreal moments, with the singing Peter Yarrow-of all people!-and a vociferous display from the construction outliers of Positive Work Force leading to threats of banishment: "As the hearing was set to begin, several dozen construction workers shouting "Build it Now!" stormed the door so aggressively that security personnel initially threw themselves against the crush. Not even special guest Peter Yarrow - of Peter, Paul and Mary - leading the room in singing "If I Had a Hammer" could bring a "Kumbaya" spirit to the meeting. Repeated outbursts from both sides forced board chairman Gregory Faulkner to threaten to have people thrown out of the hearing, which dragged on an hour beyond its scheduled end."
The Morton Willaims workers, joined by the folks at KARA, did, however, totally dominate the substantive portion of the hearing-and the issue of a living wage will, indubitably, continue to be contentious: "Members of the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, a coalition of local groups, businesses and unions, asked the board to reject the project unless a binding community benefits agreement guarantees retail workers a "living wage" of at least $10 per hour, plus benefits. Pressed by Faulkner on the issue, Related lawyer Jesse Masyr said requiring tenants to pay workers at the Armory higher than the prevailing wage would doom the entire project."
The Riverdale Press also highlights the living wage issue: "Mr. Faulkner said after the meeting that he believes, somewhere down the line, Related and the neighborhood activists of Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance will reach some kind of agreement. They might, for example, agree on an incentive for tenants who provide a living wage rather than making it a requirement. So far, neither side is willing to budge. Related’s veteran development lawyer, Jesse Masyr of Wachtel & Masyr, says being forced to pay higher wages would “undermine the economic viability” of the Armory."
The RP reports about the supermarket issue as well: "Related’s proposal leaves open the possibility of a large grocery store, which would compete with Bronx-based Morton Williams across the street from the Kingsbridge Heights facility. Morton Williams is one of the only grocery chains to have a unionized workforce, offering higher wages (and better benefits) than most rivals. “If a big-box supermarket or big-box warehouse club is put into the Armory we would have to close our two Bronx stores as well as our hiring office,” said Valerie Sloan, a fourth generation owner of Morton Williams. She said this would take 450 union jobs from the neighborhood."
From our perspective, CB #7 did a disservice to all of the folks who had come to testify; with unneeded delays and inappropriate guest speakers marring the ability of the community to be properly heard. Given these problems, the Board would be well-served if it delayed the vote for at least a week-it has until the 26th to issue its final recommendation.
Still, as the Norwood News has written, the Board will probably approve the project with this proviso: "Board chair Greg Faulkner told the Norwood News on the eve of a June 24 public hearing that he expects the board to vote “yes” on the proposal, despite the fact that a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) may not be in place before the vote. Faulkner said the Board would essentially say with its vote: “This approval is conditioned on there being a Community Benefits Agreement which will include the following items …”
Ah, yes. The devil here is in the CBA details. But, everyone needs to be mindful of the fact that, when it comes to the ultimate source of power, it will not be the Bronx Council delegation that will be singing, "If I had a hammer..." That's because, when it comes to hammering, the council members are the ones who already hold the powerful political mallet.
But the hearing had it surreal moments, with the singing Peter Yarrow-of all people!-and a vociferous display from the construction outliers of Positive Work Force leading to threats of banishment: "As the hearing was set to begin, several dozen construction workers shouting "Build it Now!" stormed the door so aggressively that security personnel initially threw themselves against the crush. Not even special guest Peter Yarrow - of Peter, Paul and Mary - leading the room in singing "If I Had a Hammer" could bring a "Kumbaya" spirit to the meeting. Repeated outbursts from both sides forced board chairman Gregory Faulkner to threaten to have people thrown out of the hearing, which dragged on an hour beyond its scheduled end."
The Morton Willaims workers, joined by the folks at KARA, did, however, totally dominate the substantive portion of the hearing-and the issue of a living wage will, indubitably, continue to be contentious: "Members of the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, a coalition of local groups, businesses and unions, asked the board to reject the project unless a binding community benefits agreement guarantees retail workers a "living wage" of at least $10 per hour, plus benefits. Pressed by Faulkner on the issue, Related lawyer Jesse Masyr said requiring tenants to pay workers at the Armory higher than the prevailing wage would doom the entire project."
The Riverdale Press also highlights the living wage issue: "Mr. Faulkner said after the meeting that he believes, somewhere down the line, Related and the neighborhood activists of Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance will reach some kind of agreement. They might, for example, agree on an incentive for tenants who provide a living wage rather than making it a requirement. So far, neither side is willing to budge. Related’s veteran development lawyer, Jesse Masyr of Wachtel & Masyr, says being forced to pay higher wages would “undermine the economic viability” of the Armory."
The RP reports about the supermarket issue as well: "Related’s proposal leaves open the possibility of a large grocery store, which would compete with Bronx-based Morton Williams across the street from the Kingsbridge Heights facility. Morton Williams is one of the only grocery chains to have a unionized workforce, offering higher wages (and better benefits) than most rivals. “If a big-box supermarket or big-box warehouse club is put into the Armory we would have to close our two Bronx stores as well as our hiring office,” said Valerie Sloan, a fourth generation owner of Morton Williams. She said this would take 450 union jobs from the neighborhood."
From our perspective, CB #7 did a disservice to all of the folks who had come to testify; with unneeded delays and inappropriate guest speakers marring the ability of the community to be properly heard. Given these problems, the Board would be well-served if it delayed the vote for at least a week-it has until the 26th to issue its final recommendation.
Still, as the Norwood News has written, the Board will probably approve the project with this proviso: "Board chair Greg Faulkner told the Norwood News on the eve of a June 24 public hearing that he expects the board to vote “yes” on the proposal, despite the fact that a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) may not be in place before the vote. Faulkner said the Board would essentially say with its vote: “This approval is conditioned on there being a Community Benefits Agreement which will include the following items …”
Ah, yes. The devil here is in the CBA details. But, everyone needs to be mindful of the fact that, when it comes to the ultimate source of power, it will not be the Bronx Council delegation that will be singing, "If I had a hammer..." That's because, when it comes to hammering, the council members are the ones who already hold the powerful political mallet.
Making Puppets Look Bad
The old Board of Education was reconstituted yesterday-with little of the chaos that the mayor had predicted One of the major reasons why things went so smoothly was because the borough presidents, charged with appointing five of the seven board members, slavishly bowed down to the will of Mike Bloomberg (with Ruben Diaz the major exception). As City Room reported: "Back from the dead after seven years, reconstituted almost by accident, the New York City Board of Education is set to meet at noon on Wednesday. Its seven members: three deputy mayors, three sympathetic allies of the mayor, and one wild card from the Bronx.'
After the meeting, we imagine that one of the BPs-Helen Marshal of Queens-stayed around just to see if the mayor wanted her to run any errands. After all, to choose Dennis Walcott as "her" appointment to the Board, strips away even the appearance of independence: "The Queens borough president, Helen M. Marshall, appointed a third deputy mayor — Dennis M. Walcott, the deputy mayor for education and community development — as her representative on the board. With three of the new board members reporting directly to the mayor, the Bloomberg administration is close to assured in its goal of maintaining control over the nation’s largest school district and keeping the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, in place."
This act of slavishness, was so embarrassing that we can envision Pinocchio, upon witnessing such a display of subservience, deciding against becoming a real boy; seeing no real difference between being human or remaining a puppet. But, we guess that Marshall's actions simply reflect the fact that, absent the Mike Bloomberg intervention, this sweet old lady would have had to retire after her term was up, and give her job to some other Queens worthy.
So what was done yesterday-and the vote to keep Herr Klein was consistent with the best Politburo tradition (to mix a metaphor)-was to dramatize just how little true democratic substance still exists in this once vibrant democracy; and yesterday's mockery almost makes us wish that the legislature had simply rubber stamped the school governance bill.
We said almost; because the current system still needs to be bolstered with a greater degree of monitoring-and the faux graduation rate hikes are one example of the way in which puffery has replaced real achievement. Clara Hemphill underscores this point: "Because a huge proportion of students arrive in ninth grade with the skills that are two, three or even four years below grade level, the new schools must focus intensely on helping them catch up. A large proportion of the graduates of the new schools so far have received only a "local diploma" that represents the bare minimum of requirements set by the state-- standards that officials and academic experts generally agree are well below those needed to succeed in college."
And, of course, once they do graduate, these kids are simply unprepared to do any college work-and, therefore, continue on the same path of remediation at the community colleges that they were on in high school. Is this kind of statistical improvement worth the $9 billion in additional funds that the mayor has expended to jack up test scores? Or is this, courtesy of the NY Post's mayoral press office, simply a triumph of flimsy form over substance?
But the limbo that the system finds itself in is a direct result of the mayor's efforts to achieve Albany relevance-and isn't it instructive that none of the vigilant editorialists have commented on the mayor's own role in the current impasse? Fred Dicker hits this squarely: "After years of watching Mayor Bloomberg bankroll Republican control of the Senate, hearing his high-handed lectures on congestion pricing and seeing him back a primary against one of their own, Senate Democrats unexpectedly got their chance to take revenge. And they did so with a vengeance, killing -- at least for now -- mayoral control of the schools, the centerpiece accomplishment of the mayor's two terms in office."
Not one word on Bloomberg's culpability from either the Post's or the NY Daily News' editorial board. For instance, did the June 8th coup occur without the input or knowledge of one Mike Bloomberg? If so, the guy should demand a refund. In our view, this is all Bloomberg's mess-and under Pottery Barn rules, since he's the one behind the breakage, he owns it-but his press lackeys won't breathe a word of this kind of sacrilege.
It is, however, refreshing to see some folks resisting the supineness exhibited by Helen of Queens; the senate Dems have shown, at least in regards to the regal pretensions of this mayor, a good degree of backbone: "The irony is that it was the June 8 coup attempt by Bloomberg's longtime GOP allies that cleared the way for a block of largely black and Hispanic city Democratic senators to derail what the mayor wanted most from this year's legislative session. "They see Bloomberg as a white Manhattan billionaire who thinks he can boss everyone around and they don't like it," said a top Senate Democrat."
In politics, the rule of thumb is, "Cui bono," or who benefits. And here Dicker teaches us: "Had the GOP coup succeeded, Bloomberg, who had the backing of a sizable number of Democrats, today would have unquestioned control of city schools." It hasn't yet, though, so the ever nimble and tap dancing CEO of New Yor City, quickly shifted focus and railed against the senate impasse; the one that he should be taking full credit for-and none of the city Izvestias breathe a word of this!
So, we proceed with our own version of Venezuelan democracy, hopeful that we don't face another "crisis" in four years that demands the changing of the democratic rules of the game in favor of plutocracy. In the meantime, we await the national test results scheduled to come out sometime in the fall. We are anxious to see what kind of educational progress our $9 billlion has bought us.
After the meeting, we imagine that one of the BPs-Helen Marshal of Queens-stayed around just to see if the mayor wanted her to run any errands. After all, to choose Dennis Walcott as "her" appointment to the Board, strips away even the appearance of independence: "The Queens borough president, Helen M. Marshall, appointed a third deputy mayor — Dennis M. Walcott, the deputy mayor for education and community development — as her representative on the board. With three of the new board members reporting directly to the mayor, the Bloomberg administration is close to assured in its goal of maintaining control over the nation’s largest school district and keeping the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, in place."
This act of slavishness, was so embarrassing that we can envision Pinocchio, upon witnessing such a display of subservience, deciding against becoming a real boy; seeing no real difference between being human or remaining a puppet. But, we guess that Marshall's actions simply reflect the fact that, absent the Mike Bloomberg intervention, this sweet old lady would have had to retire after her term was up, and give her job to some other Queens worthy.
So what was done yesterday-and the vote to keep Herr Klein was consistent with the best Politburo tradition (to mix a metaphor)-was to dramatize just how little true democratic substance still exists in this once vibrant democracy; and yesterday's mockery almost makes us wish that the legislature had simply rubber stamped the school governance bill.
We said almost; because the current system still needs to be bolstered with a greater degree of monitoring-and the faux graduation rate hikes are one example of the way in which puffery has replaced real achievement. Clara Hemphill underscores this point: "Because a huge proportion of students arrive in ninth grade with the skills that are two, three or even four years below grade level, the new schools must focus intensely on helping them catch up. A large proportion of the graduates of the new schools so far have received only a "local diploma" that represents the bare minimum of requirements set by the state-- standards that officials and academic experts generally agree are well below those needed to succeed in college."
And, of course, once they do graduate, these kids are simply unprepared to do any college work-and, therefore, continue on the same path of remediation at the community colleges that they were on in high school. Is this kind of statistical improvement worth the $9 billion in additional funds that the mayor has expended to jack up test scores? Or is this, courtesy of the NY Post's mayoral press office, simply a triumph of flimsy form over substance?
But the limbo that the system finds itself in is a direct result of the mayor's efforts to achieve Albany relevance-and isn't it instructive that none of the vigilant editorialists have commented on the mayor's own role in the current impasse? Fred Dicker hits this squarely: "After years of watching Mayor Bloomberg bankroll Republican control of the Senate, hearing his high-handed lectures on congestion pricing and seeing him back a primary against one of their own, Senate Democrats unexpectedly got their chance to take revenge. And they did so with a vengeance, killing -- at least for now -- mayoral control of the schools, the centerpiece accomplishment of the mayor's two terms in office."
Not one word on Bloomberg's culpability from either the Post's or the NY Daily News' editorial board. For instance, did the June 8th coup occur without the input or knowledge of one Mike Bloomberg? If so, the guy should demand a refund. In our view, this is all Bloomberg's mess-and under Pottery Barn rules, since he's the one behind the breakage, he owns it-but his press lackeys won't breathe a word of this kind of sacrilege.
It is, however, refreshing to see some folks resisting the supineness exhibited by Helen of Queens; the senate Dems have shown, at least in regards to the regal pretensions of this mayor, a good degree of backbone: "The irony is that it was the June 8 coup attempt by Bloomberg's longtime GOP allies that cleared the way for a block of largely black and Hispanic city Democratic senators to derail what the mayor wanted most from this year's legislative session. "They see Bloomberg as a white Manhattan billionaire who thinks he can boss everyone around and they don't like it," said a top Senate Democrat."
In politics, the rule of thumb is, "Cui bono," or who benefits. And here Dicker teaches us: "Had the GOP coup succeeded, Bloomberg, who had the backing of a sizable number of Democrats, today would have unquestioned control of city schools." It hasn't yet, though, so the ever nimble and tap dancing CEO of New Yor City, quickly shifted focus and railed against the senate impasse; the one that he should be taking full credit for-and none of the city Izvestias breathe a word of this!
So, we proceed with our own version of Venezuelan democracy, hopeful that we don't face another "crisis" in four years that demands the changing of the democratic rules of the game in favor of plutocracy. In the meantime, we await the national test results scheduled to come out sometime in the fall. We are anxious to see what kind of educational progress our $9 billlion has bought us.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Passing the Sell Date
The drop dead date for mayoral control has passed-and Mike Bloomberg is flailing around trying to pin the guilty tail on anyone else but the man in the mirror. But, as Gerson Borrero points out: "This adulation and clamor has led the billionaire—who thinks he knows best—to strike out a