The press, apparently now at ease because the mayor appears on the way to an historic election victory, has begun to examine the Bloomberg Splurge. Joyce Purnick at the Times this morning looks ($$) at the level of mayoral spending and determines, well, it's not really clear what she is saying beyond, it seems, the People are to blame.
Anyway maybe others could get the gist of this analysis but Purnick misses what we believe is the essential point in the queasiness we feel about the mayor's campaign excesses: The spending differentials has all but cut off meaningful debate and any concomitant evaluation of the mayor's record that goes beyond his self-serving canned messages.
The lack of any serious analysis is of course somewhat a function of the under-funded nature of the Ferrer campaign and its own inability to find themes that critique the mayor while simultaneously resonating with the voters. The largest culprit, however, is the press itself. In the face of the mayoral barrage Errol Louis is right: the media needs to become a lot more thorough and tenacious in its evaluation of the mayor's tenure.
A case in point is the mayor's charitable donations, featured in a Ferrer charge in today's Daily News. The level of Bloomberg's charitable giving has risen from around $27 million in 1997 to around $139 million today. So there is a direct correlation between the mayor's political ambitions and his largesse (The Harlem Boys Choir for instance didn't receive a nickel until after Bloomberg was politicized, at which point they were apparently discovered as a worthy charitable donation). Ferrer pointing this out is not, in Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser’s view, a "cheap shot", but a serious accusation, one that deserves major scrutiny from the press.
The mayor, after all, didn't get rich all of a sudden so his $112 of excess giving can reasonably be traced to only one motive. Isn't time to trace all of these expenditures and expose them for what they are: a fancy way of bribing support not because of any newly found generosity. Or in Joyce Purnick's phrase, "because he can."
Monday, October 17, 2005
Goodwin Ignores the Elephant in the Room
In a column in yesterday’s Daily news, Michael Goodwin highlights a number of themes that we agree with. In particular, if Democrats continue to ignore mainstream middle-class New Yorkers, a great many of whom come from the city’s homeowner neighborhoods or own retail stores, they are going to be vulnerable to Republican challengers (with money) in any upcoming cycle.
That being said, it is absolutely essential when evaluating the current expected Bloomberg blowout to talk about the mayor’s ad blitz and its “carpet bomb” features. That’s just too big a variable to ignore and it effectively skews the kind of ideological analysis that Goodwin engages in.
It also obscures the fact that in many ways Bloomberg is governing in a classically liberal style. Remember his comments on how you could get better care at the city’s public hospitals? Would the more reformist anti-status quo Rudy Giuliani every have made such a remark? Goodwin should take a look at his paper’s exposé last week on these very same public hospitals. What does this say about the mayor’s approach to government?
The reality is that Bloomberg has done precious little to challenge the political culture (see Fred Siegal’s book on Giuliani and “reinventing government”). Mayor Mike, without the more pronounced left-wing social work biases, manages to resemble David Dinkins right down to the courtliness when it comes to governing philosophy.
Given the lack of political debate in the current election cycle and given the saturation of the airwaves by a monotonous barrage of political sedatives it is hard to see where the mayor will go when faced with a $4.6 billion deficit next tear. After all how much more can you raise taxes and close firehouses.
That being said, it is absolutely essential when evaluating the current expected Bloomberg blowout to talk about the mayor’s ad blitz and its “carpet bomb” features. That’s just too big a variable to ignore and it effectively skews the kind of ideological analysis that Goodwin engages in.
It also obscures the fact that in many ways Bloomberg is governing in a classically liberal style. Remember his comments on how you could get better care at the city’s public hospitals? Would the more reformist anti-status quo Rudy Giuliani every have made such a remark? Goodwin should take a look at his paper’s exposé last week on these very same public hospitals. What does this say about the mayor’s approach to government?
The reality is that Bloomberg has done precious little to challenge the political culture (see Fred Siegal’s book on Giuliani and “reinventing government”). Mayor Mike, without the more pronounced left-wing social work biases, manages to resemble David Dinkins right down to the courtliness when it comes to governing philosophy.
Given the lack of political debate in the current election cycle and given the saturation of the airwaves by a monotonous barrage of political sedatives it is hard to see where the mayor will go when faced with a $4.6 billion deficit next tear. After all how much more can you raise taxes and close firehouses.
Big Box Hypocrisy
The fight over the proliferation of big box store such as BJ’s and Wal-Mart is regularly portrayed by (mostly conservative) supporters of these retailers as a battle between labor and consumers. In this worldview the union "protectionists" are preventing NYC consumers from availing themselves of the lower prices offered by the mega-store. This dichotomy is thoroughly misleading.
The latest false dichotomy salvo in this battle comes from Adam Brodsky in yesterday's New York Post. Citing the Council's passage of the HCSA as a "stealth ban" on "Big Box" stores he observes that the health care bill "is only the latest drubbing New Yorkers have endured at the hands of Big Labor.
Brodsky goes on to say that the HCSA, "if it sticks," will force New Yorkers to "keep schlepping out to New Jersey or the Island if they want to enjoy bargains at stores like Wal-Mart and Sam's Club." Aside from Brodsky overstating the obstructing power of the law – Wal-Mart is after all pursuing two sites on Staten Island and BJ's is doing the same in the Bronx – he is also misconstruing the kind of opposition that these stores generate in conservative homeowner communities.
Brodsky will continue to do this so he can keep on beatin' up on the Big Labor bogeyman and avoid the cognitive dissonance of the facts on the ground. His ideological blinders are underscored in yesterday's NY Times story on Maspeth, Queens. This conservative homeowner community is supporting the mayor. Why? Because he intervened to prevent KeySpan from using a large vacant parcel that it owned for a Home Depot.
As two local leaders, Tony Nunziato and John Holden, tell the Times it is Bloomberg's support of efforts to defeat the mega-store, an effort that saw the community mobilize hundreds of residents into the streets in "a general rallying 'round on behalf of local shopping," that drives the community's support of the mayor's re-election. As Holden, head of the Juniper Civic Association says, "Most people in Maspeth can still walk to the store, and they want to keep it that way."
Which is precisely the point that the Alliance has been making all over the city. This conservative case against Wal-Mart has started to take hold in communities much like Maspeth. Just last week we met with civic leaders on the South Shore of Staten Island and many of the Maspeth arguments resonated here as well.
They are the kind of arguments that, because they emphasize local shopping, traffic and quality of life issues, are immune to the public relations campaign of Wal-Mart. The opposition, then, has nothing to do with how people feel about the store's quality. In fact the more popular the store the more opposition it will tend to generate in these communities, something that Steve Greenhouse highlighted in his story on Staten Island and Wal-Mart in the NY Times.
We don't think that the good folks of Maspeth harbor any intrinsic animus to Home Depot or any other box store. They may be the same people who are traveling to Long Island to shop at Home Depot or Wal-Mart there. They are, however, opposed to such stores contiguous to their homes and their neighborhood shopping strips.
That is why Bloomberg, in spite of his rhetorical support for mega-stores, intervened in Maspeth and why Giuliani, who also supported big boxes, killed projects in Bay Ridge, Mill Basin and Forest Hills. The debate, Mr. Brodsky, needs to transcend the tired dichotomy of consumers vs. Big Labor and enter into the realm of neighborhood economics and community quality-of-life.
The latest false dichotomy salvo in this battle comes from Adam Brodsky in yesterday's New York Post. Citing the Council's passage of the HCSA as a "stealth ban" on "Big Box" stores he observes that the health care bill "is only the latest drubbing New Yorkers have endured at the hands of Big Labor.
Brodsky goes on to say that the HCSA, "if it sticks," will force New Yorkers to "keep schlepping out to New Jersey or the Island if they want to enjoy bargains at stores like Wal-Mart and Sam's Club." Aside from Brodsky overstating the obstructing power of the law – Wal-Mart is after all pursuing two sites on Staten Island and BJ's is doing the same in the Bronx – he is also misconstruing the kind of opposition that these stores generate in conservative homeowner communities.
Brodsky will continue to do this so he can keep on beatin' up on the Big Labor bogeyman and avoid the cognitive dissonance of the facts on the ground. His ideological blinders are underscored in yesterday's NY Times story on Maspeth, Queens. This conservative homeowner community is supporting the mayor. Why? Because he intervened to prevent KeySpan from using a large vacant parcel that it owned for a Home Depot.
As two local leaders, Tony Nunziato and John Holden, tell the Times it is Bloomberg's support of efforts to defeat the mega-store, an effort that saw the community mobilize hundreds of residents into the streets in "a general rallying 'round on behalf of local shopping," that drives the community's support of the mayor's re-election. As Holden, head of the Juniper Civic Association says, "Most people in Maspeth can still walk to the store, and they want to keep it that way."
Which is precisely the point that the Alliance has been making all over the city. This conservative case against Wal-Mart has started to take hold in communities much like Maspeth. Just last week we met with civic leaders on the South Shore of Staten Island and many of the Maspeth arguments resonated here as well.
They are the kind of arguments that, because they emphasize local shopping, traffic and quality of life issues, are immune to the public relations campaign of Wal-Mart. The opposition, then, has nothing to do with how people feel about the store's quality. In fact the more popular the store the more opposition it will tend to generate in these communities, something that Steve Greenhouse highlighted in his story on Staten Island and Wal-Mart in the NY Times.
We don't think that the good folks of Maspeth harbor any intrinsic animus to Home Depot or any other box store. They may be the same people who are traveling to Long Island to shop at Home Depot or Wal-Mart there. They are, however, opposed to such stores contiguous to their homes and their neighborhood shopping strips.
That is why Bloomberg, in spite of his rhetorical support for mega-stores, intervened in Maspeth and why Giuliani, who also supported big boxes, killed projects in Bay Ridge, Mill Basin and Forest Hills. The debate, Mr. Brodsky, needs to transcend the tired dichotomy of consumers vs. Big Labor and enter into the realm of neighborhood economics and community quality-of-life.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Wal-Mart Spoof
We highly recommend checking out “Big Box Mart,” a hilarious animated spoof of the world’s largest retailer. The folks at Jib Jib always produce high quality stuff (who can forget John Kerry and George Bush signing “This Land is Your Land”) and this is no exception.
Daily News Weighs in on HCSA
The Daily News comments editorially today on the recently passed Health Care Securiy Act (HSCA). The paper cites objections from some of the city's supermarket owners. We're wondering, however, where the paper got its statistics from since it claims that only 300 of New York's markets are unionized and provide the requisite health care benefits to its employees. The rest, it says, "employ about 6,000 workers..."
Where exactly do these numbers come from? The News could have at least footnoted the citation so someone could have attempted verification. The fact is that the Council has been trying to gather data to do just that but certain members of the industry would rather pout than negotiate. There may very well be issues here that can and should be addressed. However, they can't be if store reps don't provide the legitimate info.
We are working with the bill's sponsor to see if we can make some adjustment to the thresholds in the legislation. The raising of the bill's thresholds does not mean, as the News alleges, that the bill will then accomplish nothing.
There are a number of well-known mega employers who feel that it is beyond their considerable means to provide workers with adequate health benefits. I think that they got the message even if the News hasn't. It is high time that the tax payers be given a break from subsidizing the health care costs of multi-billion dollar companies. As the News knows, this is the target, not struggling independent store owners.
Where exactly do these numbers come from? The News could have at least footnoted the citation so someone could have attempted verification. The fact is that the Council has been trying to gather data to do just that but certain members of the industry would rather pout than negotiate. There may very well be issues here that can and should be addressed. However, they can't be if store reps don't provide the legitimate info.
We are working with the bill's sponsor to see if we can make some adjustment to the thresholds in the legislation. The raising of the bill's thresholds does not mean, as the News alleges, that the bill will then accomplish nothing.
There are a number of well-known mega employers who feel that it is beyond their considerable means to provide workers with adequate health benefits. I think that they got the message even if the News hasn't. It is high time that the tax payers be given a break from subsidizing the health care costs of multi-billion dollar companies. As the News knows, this is the target, not struggling independent store owners.
New Jersey and Eminent Domain
A recent poll conducted by Monmouth University shows that people in New Jersey are quite attuned to the eminent domain issue and believe that it’s only acceptable in a few cases where the public good is obviously served. For example, according to the poll most Garden State residents (88%) feel it’s appropriate to take vacant buildings for a school but believe it’s unacceptable to take homes for a shopping center (4% support). Only 1 in 3 polled consider taking one’s business for the purpose of creating new business a suitable use of eminent domain.
We believe that Quinnipiac, Marist and Pace should be conducting similar polls in New York City to gauge the public’s feeling on this hot-button topic. We also believe that the merchants at Willet’s Point should pay special attention to the issue now that the Mayor, in his most recent policy pronouncement, has committed to rapidly redeveloping this "collection of auto body repair shops and salvage yards."
We believe that Quinnipiac, Marist and Pace should be conducting similar polls in New York City to gauge the public’s feeling on this hot-button topic. We also believe that the merchants at Willet’s Point should pay special attention to the issue now that the Mayor, in his most recent policy pronouncement, has committed to rapidly redeveloping this "collection of auto body repair shops and salvage yards."
Legal Issues at the BTM
The lawyers for the merchants at the Bronx Terminal Market have filed a motion, one that serves to justify the decision to withhold rent payments and seeks to enjoin the Related Companies from continuing its illegal construction on the site. The crux of the legal argument is that the redevelopment of the BTM as a suburban mall can only proceed after the ULURP process has been completed.
The point here is that the construction being done, besides disrupting the business activity of the wholesalers, presupposes an approval that the city has yet to grant. In addition, the fact that the so-called landlord is engaged in activities that is disruptive to the well-functioning of the market justifies the withholding of rent payments that are being used, in contravention to the existing 63 month lease (the one of questionable legality), in furtherance of the demise of the market itself. After all, the rent proceeds are being used by Related to amortize the loan it has taken out to purchase the property for redevelopment (with the concomitant elimination of the existing tenants).
The point here is that the construction being done, besides disrupting the business activity of the wholesalers, presupposes an approval that the city has yet to grant. In addition, the fact that the so-called landlord is engaged in activities that is disruptive to the well-functioning of the market justifies the withholding of rent payments that are being used, in contravention to the existing 63 month lease (the one of questionable legality), in furtherance of the demise of the market itself. After all, the rent proceeds are being used by Related to amortize the loan it has taken out to purchase the property for redevelopment (with the concomitant elimination of the existing tenants).
The Money Man
It's about time! With the mayor continuing to spend at a record pace we've been wondering when the press was going to start going after Bloomberg and the monetary disparity between the two candidates. Errol Louis and Juan Gonzales do just that in the Daily News yesterday.
Louis in particular reaches a level of passion on this topic that has heretofore been absent among the commentariat. As he points out, all of the giggling over the poll numbers "glide past the single most important number: $122 million", the total amount spent by Mayor Mike in the last two election cycles.
What the Mayor’s unprecedented spending does, as both Louis and Gonzales allude to, is to make a mockery of an election process where only one voice is being heard and little in the way of meaningful debate about the city's future is able to transcend the advertising din of the Bloomberg message.
Here is the money quote from Louis:
Which brings us to the question we've raised about the public interest, one we have alluded to in our post about the mayor's lack of any real political vision. Bloomberg projects himself as being "above politics" and by doing so reinforces the popular idea that politics is essentially tawdry. If, however, policy is not made in the interplay of "tawdry" interests how will it be made?
The response from the mayor and his campaign is that he is only beholden to the people and not to the "special interests." This simply begs the question of how the will of the people is translated into policy that somehow reflects it (remember the nettlesome issues raised by Rousseau in his discussion of the "general will").
The answer of course is that it is the mayor, and he alone, who will, unencumbered by unseemly obligations, decide where the public interest lies. Once again we refer everyone to Marx's observation about Plato's concept of the philosopher king: "Who will educate the educator?"
Louis in particular reaches a level of passion on this topic that has heretofore been absent among the commentariat. As he points out, all of the giggling over the poll numbers "glide past the single most important number: $122 million", the total amount spent by Mayor Mike in the last two election cycles.
What the Mayor’s unprecedented spending does, as both Louis and Gonzales allude to, is to make a mockery of an election process where only one voice is being heard and little in the way of meaningful debate about the city's future is able to transcend the advertising din of the Bloomberg message.
Here is the money quote from Louis:
In an earlier age, the city's monied elites would have blanched as the open purchase of the city's highest office by a rich man. The disengagement of those elites from civic life...has opened the door for this purchase of public office to go unremarked and unlamented.Not to be outdone Juan Gonzalez chimes in:
Our mayor claims he is a leader who can't be bought. Of course not-he's the one doing the buying.And as Juan points out, the city's good government groups are starting to take notice about how the mayor is "making a mockery of the city's campaign finance laws."
Which brings us to the question we've raised about the public interest, one we have alluded to in our post about the mayor's lack of any real political vision. Bloomberg projects himself as being "above politics" and by doing so reinforces the popular idea that politics is essentially tawdry. If, however, policy is not made in the interplay of "tawdry" interests how will it be made?
The response from the mayor and his campaign is that he is only beholden to the people and not to the "special interests." This simply begs the question of how the will of the people is translated into policy that somehow reflects it (remember the nettlesome issues raised by Rousseau in his discussion of the "general will").
The answer of course is that it is the mayor, and he alone, who will, unencumbered by unseemly obligations, decide where the public interest lies. Once again we refer everyone to Marx's observation about Plato's concept of the philosopher king: "Who will educate the educator?"
Mayor Discovers Small Business
In an announcement on Wednesday Mayor Bloomberg announced a broad plan to make NYC a more business "friendly" place for small business as well as "a more attractive hub for big business." While this does seem like welcome news you'll have to pardon us if we're remaining just a mite bit skeptical of the mayor's good intentions.
The reason for our skepticism derives from an examination of the mayor's record, specifically in regard to small business, over the course of his four year term. We have made this point on innumerable occasions: the mayor has largely ignored those factors that are essential to the growth of a healthy small business sector. In particular, entrepreneurism needs a tax and regulatory environment that allows it to grow through the inevitable growing pains associated with start-up enterprises. This is especially true of neighborhood store owners.
The mayor has been particularly tin-eared in these two crucial areas. His commercial real estate tax increase raised the rent of each and every one of the 186,000 mom and pop stores in the city, in some cases by as much as 25%. On top of this, the current administration unleashed a regulatory assault on the neighborhood stores and proceeded to brag about all the revenue that was brought in.
The lack of sensitivity to small stores has been compounded by the administration's obsession with mega-development. In particular, the case of the Bronx Terminal Market is symbolic of the Bloomberg team's approach in this area. In this case the development, a suburban-style mall, was not only sole-sourced but the recipient of the development rights is a close friend and business associate of the Deputy Mayor. Furthermore, the city's EDC, using questionable legal tactics, abrogated the leases of the Market's mostly minority wholesalers and proceeded to sanction their eviction with no plan for relocation.
In essence, the eviction was very similar to an eminent domain-style ejection, with the property rights of merchants – who are long-term lessees – being arrogantly ignored for that proverbial higher and better use. As bad as the BTM issue is, however, it may only be a dress rehearsal for the city's plan for Willets Point. In the mayor's Wednesday speech he reiterated his proposal to redevelop the Point where over 150 will have to be ejected for the plan to proceed. As Bloomberg has famously remarked, "The land is too valuable for the businesses that are on it."
Sun's Editorial On Point
Despite the mayor's claims that 50,000 more people are working in the city today than were a year ago, the fact remains that New York is lagging behind the rest of the country in job creation, as this lag is particularly pronounced in the small business sector. The NY Sun, citing the work of Ray Keating's Small Business and Entrepreneurial Council, makes the point that NY trails most of the rest of the country on those indices that measure an area's ability to promote entrepreneurism. As the paper indicates, "New York's infamous tax burden is once again a major culprit."
So while the mayor's plan to create an internet center and a 311 system in order to enable small businesses to get licenses and permits more easily is commendable, we still believe that he simply doesn't understand the core underlying issues in regard to nurturing this sector. His government-based approach for targeting neighborhoods plagued with "chronic unemployment" is a case in point.
From a small business perspective it is precisely government's expansion into this area that poses the greatest threat. Inevitably in these low-income areas the concern about unemployment gets transposed into mega-development schemes that end up hurting the existing small business base. Given the last four years we could benefit from a little benign neglect: less regulation, less taxes and less government in general.
Reinventing Government
Which brings us to another of the mayor's weaknesses: his complete lack of a creative vision when it comes to making government more efficient and, by extension, less costly. Inevitably the bloated bureaucracies that breed inefficiency and stifle entrepreneurial initiative within government lead to a tax and regulatory burden that reduces entrepreneurial competitiveness.
What has the mayor done in four years to address the efficiency of government? Indeed, has he ever said anything to even indicate that he sees this as a problem in need of addressing? The sad reality is that when it comes to innovation in government our extremely entrepreneurial mayor approaches the problem in the tradition of the very same old-style liberalism that has caused the city so much grief over the past thirty years.
Which gets us to the issue of the mayor's lack of policy expertise and political vision. Clearly he is not someone who comes to politics imbued with any particular reformist world view. Even after four years it still isn't clear what drove him, aside from boredom, to seek political office. It is, however, precisely this lack of vision that, when combined with his pragmatic technocratic governing style, so endears him to the city's traditional media and business elites.
These are clearly the same folks who are comfortable within the confines of NYC's traditional political culture and who probably had some misgivings about Rudy Giuliani’s crash and burn approach to the politically correct style of governance. Mike Bloomberg, then, exudes a certain impression that makes the political and cultural elite comfortable indeed. It is the kind of elite pleasing style that could be described as David Dinkins with competence.
Unfortunately it is, with certain concessions to technological advances at the margins, a status quo approach to government. There is no indication that Mike Bloomberg will ever read the City Journal and feel impelled forward to changing the way the city is governed. Without any real vision, the next four years of a Bloomberg administration are unlikely to address any of the city's systemic problems.
This expected failure is not only bad for small business but is a bad situation that will leave whoever takes office in 2009 with some daunting challenges. The real tragedy here is that Bloomberg, precisely because he is not beholden to the traditional hidebound structures and elites, could move boldly to tackle some of the intrinsic problems that have plagued NYC politics for the better part of the last half century. Intellectually and temperamentally, however, the mayor sadly appears ill-suited for the daunting task.
NY Post Postscript
In today's NY Post, with an editorial entitled, "Mayor Mike's Nice Try", the paper hits on some of the themes outlined above. In particular, it cites the mayor's failure to connect lower taxes and less regulation with business growth. As the Post says, "the city is arguably less business-friendly than it was four years ago."
The reason for our skepticism derives from an examination of the mayor's record, specifically in regard to small business, over the course of his four year term. We have made this point on innumerable occasions: the mayor has largely ignored those factors that are essential to the growth of a healthy small business sector. In particular, entrepreneurism needs a tax and regulatory environment that allows it to grow through the inevitable growing pains associated with start-up enterprises. This is especially true of neighborhood store owners.
The mayor has been particularly tin-eared in these two crucial areas. His commercial real estate tax increase raised the rent of each and every one of the 186,000 mom and pop stores in the city, in some cases by as much as 25%. On top of this, the current administration unleashed a regulatory assault on the neighborhood stores and proceeded to brag about all the revenue that was brought in.
The lack of sensitivity to small stores has been compounded by the administration's obsession with mega-development. In particular, the case of the Bronx Terminal Market is symbolic of the Bloomberg team's approach in this area. In this case the development, a suburban-style mall, was not only sole-sourced but the recipient of the development rights is a close friend and business associate of the Deputy Mayor. Furthermore, the city's EDC, using questionable legal tactics, abrogated the leases of the Market's mostly minority wholesalers and proceeded to sanction their eviction with no plan for relocation.
In essence, the eviction was very similar to an eminent domain-style ejection, with the property rights of merchants – who are long-term lessees – being arrogantly ignored for that proverbial higher and better use. As bad as the BTM issue is, however, it may only be a dress rehearsal for the city's plan for Willets Point. In the mayor's Wednesday speech he reiterated his proposal to redevelop the Point where over 150 will have to be ejected for the plan to proceed. As Bloomberg has famously remarked, "The land is too valuable for the businesses that are on it."
Sun's Editorial On Point
Despite the mayor's claims that 50,000 more people are working in the city today than were a year ago, the fact remains that New York is lagging behind the rest of the country in job creation, as this lag is particularly pronounced in the small business sector. The NY Sun, citing the work of Ray Keating's Small Business and Entrepreneurial Council, makes the point that NY trails most of the rest of the country on those indices that measure an area's ability to promote entrepreneurism. As the paper indicates, "New York's infamous tax burden is once again a major culprit."
So while the mayor's plan to create an internet center and a 311 system in order to enable small businesses to get licenses and permits more easily is commendable, we still believe that he simply doesn't understand the core underlying issues in regard to nurturing this sector. His government-based approach for targeting neighborhoods plagued with "chronic unemployment" is a case in point.
From a small business perspective it is precisely government's expansion into this area that poses the greatest threat. Inevitably in these low-income areas the concern about unemployment gets transposed into mega-development schemes that end up hurting the existing small business base. Given the last four years we could benefit from a little benign neglect: less regulation, less taxes and less government in general.
Reinventing Government
Which brings us to another of the mayor's weaknesses: his complete lack of a creative vision when it comes to making government more efficient and, by extension, less costly. Inevitably the bloated bureaucracies that breed inefficiency and stifle entrepreneurial initiative within government lead to a tax and regulatory burden that reduces entrepreneurial competitiveness.
What has the mayor done in four years to address the efficiency of government? Indeed, has he ever said anything to even indicate that he sees this as a problem in need of addressing? The sad reality is that when it comes to innovation in government our extremely entrepreneurial mayor approaches the problem in the tradition of the very same old-style liberalism that has caused the city so much grief over the past thirty years.
Which gets us to the issue of the mayor's lack of policy expertise and political vision. Clearly he is not someone who comes to politics imbued with any particular reformist world view. Even after four years it still isn't clear what drove him, aside from boredom, to seek political office. It is, however, precisely this lack of vision that, when combined with his pragmatic technocratic governing style, so endears him to the city's traditional media and business elites.
These are clearly the same folks who are comfortable within the confines of NYC's traditional political culture and who probably had some misgivings about Rudy Giuliani’s crash and burn approach to the politically correct style of governance. Mike Bloomberg, then, exudes a certain impression that makes the political and cultural elite comfortable indeed. It is the kind of elite pleasing style that could be described as David Dinkins with competence.
Unfortunately it is, with certain concessions to technological advances at the margins, a status quo approach to government. There is no indication that Mike Bloomberg will ever read the City Journal and feel impelled forward to changing the way the city is governed. Without any real vision, the next four years of a Bloomberg administration are unlikely to address any of the city's systemic problems.
This expected failure is not only bad for small business but is a bad situation that will leave whoever takes office in 2009 with some daunting challenges. The real tragedy here is that Bloomberg, precisely because he is not beholden to the traditional hidebound structures and elites, could move boldly to tackle some of the intrinsic problems that have plagued NYC politics for the better part of the last half century. Intellectually and temperamentally, however, the mayor sadly appears ill-suited for the daunting task.
NY Post Postscript
In today's NY Post, with an editorial entitled, "Mayor Mike's Nice Try", the paper hits on some of the themes outlined above. In particular, it cites the mayor's failure to connect lower taxes and less regulation with business growth. As the Post says, "the city is arguably less business-friendly than it was four years ago."
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
BTM Hearing: Parties Meet With Judge Cahn
The ongoing fight over the attempted eviction of the wholesalers at the Bronx Terminal Market got more heated yesterday as lawyers for the Related Companies, facing a refusal of the merchants to pay rent to a company that is derelict in its landlord responsibilities, urged Judge Cahn to eject the tenants. In turn, the lawyers for the merchants defended their clients’ refusal to pay the rent and cited Related's illegal construction work and the city's unwillingness to negotiate in good faith about relocation in defense of their tenant's refusal.
The core of the battle, however, remains the contention by Related that the Commissioner of Small Business Services, as the sole authority over the so-called Public Markets, has the absolute right under the City Charter (Sec.1303) to abrogate the leases of the market's wholesalers. In other words, the argument is that the Commissioner's authority over the Markets extends to actions that effectively lead to the elimination of the Markets under his control.
That's quite a leap. Remember that when Mayor Giuliani decided to rid the Markets of organized crime and place the unions under city authority he proposed legislation (that led to Local Law 28) to so empower the Commissioner. Given the city's current eviction action it now appears that if the same measure had been proposed under Mayor Bloomberg's watch he would have felt it unnecessary to enact any enabling legislation. That's how broad EDC is interpreting Commissioner Walsh's power under Sec.1301.
In addition, it should also be pointed out that the only document with Commissioner Walsh's name on it is a city 63 month lease entered into with Related-- TO RUN THE BTM! There is no existing documentation that Walsh has ordered the evictions of the tenants in the Public Market under his jurisdiction.
Without such an edict there isn't even a pretext to evict anyone (even if one agrees that such an audacious authority rests with the Commissioner). The fact that Related isn't even pretending to run the market as the lease states, and is using the tenant's rent money to amortize its loan used to purchase the property at a below market price, only exacerbates the abuse of power here.
The core of the battle, however, remains the contention by Related that the Commissioner of Small Business Services, as the sole authority over the so-called Public Markets, has the absolute right under the City Charter (Sec.1303) to abrogate the leases of the market's wholesalers. In other words, the argument is that the Commissioner's authority over the Markets extends to actions that effectively lead to the elimination of the Markets under his control.
That's quite a leap. Remember that when Mayor Giuliani decided to rid the Markets of organized crime and place the unions under city authority he proposed legislation (that led to Local Law 28) to so empower the Commissioner. Given the city's current eviction action it now appears that if the same measure had been proposed under Mayor Bloomberg's watch he would have felt it unnecessary to enact any enabling legislation. That's how broad EDC is interpreting Commissioner Walsh's power under Sec.1301.
In addition, it should also be pointed out that the only document with Commissioner Walsh's name on it is a city 63 month lease entered into with Related-- TO RUN THE BTM! There is no existing documentation that Walsh has ordered the evictions of the tenants in the Public Market under his jurisdiction.
Without such an edict there isn't even a pretext to evict anyone (even if one agrees that such an audacious authority rests with the Commissioner). The fact that Related isn't even pretending to run the market as the lease states, and is using the tenant's rent money to amortize its loan used to purchase the property at a below market price, only exacerbates the abuse of power here.
HCSA Override: The Cost and Lessons of Political Apathy
It was certainly no surprise that the City Council overrode the mayor's veto of the Health Care Security Act (HCSA), although it was a surprise that only two members voted to sustain the veto (40-2). The size of the vote did demonstrate that the UFCW and its lobbyist on the bill, Evan Stavisky, did a great job and that the late charging opponents just were too late to do much to effect the outcome.
That being said, it is important to emphasize that the independent supermarkets that opposed the bill, including the National Supermarket Association (NSA), a group of independent grocers, need to become more involved in the political process. The Alliance has, over the past decade, represented this sector on a number of key issues, from defeating the Giuliani megastore plan to the derailing of the Bloomberg attempts to enhance the regulatory power of the Department of Consumer Affairs. All of this work, however, was done without the financial backing of any member of the NSA.
The work of the Alliance on these issues, as well as on the various successful box store battles, was supported by other independent stores, food wholesalers and a handful of chain stores concerned about non-union warehouse clubs. Even the historic battle over the East Harlem Pathmark, a fight that we led but that Al Rodriguez and Luis Salcedo (NSA members at the time) made substantial contributions to, was never financially supported by independent store owners (the very folks who would have directly benefited from a Pathmark defeat).
On the other hand when we defeated a similar Pathmark proposal in Astoria we did get strong support from a number of independents, in this case mostly Key Food operators and a number of independents who were not affiliated with the NSA. All of which is to point out that the NSA and its members have been benefiting from our work for the better part of ten years without having any commensurate financial burden.
Perhaps the greatest benefit these retailers received was generated from the East Harlem struggle. The fight in this case involved the need to defend the store owners against a vicious public relations assault that had labeled these retailers as substandard bodegas and East Harlem as a retail desert with a total absence of quality food stores.
The counterattack that we waged was extremely successful. For the first time these hard-working minority entrepreneurs were given recognition for their achievements. Editorial boards started to back-off on the character assassination and we personally wrote a score of Op-Ed pieces that literally put the independent supermarkets on the map. And you know what? They deserved it. Their risk-taking and hard work demanded recognition and not denigration.
In addition, the new found recognition was accompanied by something even more important. Up until this point the independents had been redlined by mainstream banking institutions, with many operators forced to borrow money at usurious rates. As their achievements began to be recognized, however, Governor Pataki's office, through the intervention of the Alliance, set up a series of meetings between the independents and banks such as Chase and Citibank. Loan programs were set up that for the first time put these stores in a much more advantageous financial situation.
Over the years we have approached the NSA and suggested that the organization use its considerable economic clout to better its political advantage. Yes, we have also proposed a working relationship. None of these discussions came to fruition for a variety of reasons, most related to NSA's own internal issues. Our continual emphasis has always been something Richard Lipsky use to say to his political science classes at Queens College: "You may not be interested in politics, but politics is surely interested in you."
Unfortunately the advice wasn't heeded and the HCSA became a confirmation of Dr. Lipsky's observation. The NSA's head-in-the-sand approach came back to bite the group but that's not the full story. You see the Alliance has to share the blame here. For ten years we advocated on issues that hit at the heart of the bottom line concerns of independent supermarkets. We did this without the active support of the NSA and we were successful in a great many instances in protecting the industry's interests.
Having a guardian angel has its cost. It allowed the group to procrastinate at what it should have done years ago: set up an organized lobbying effort. If the HCSA accomplishes this it will have served a useful purpose as a wake-up call for NSA. In observing the group's reactions to the bill's passage however – strident threats and a walkout of a meeting with Council staff – it looks that emotional posturing is displacing the kind of rational self-criticism and re-organization that the bill's passage should have generated.
Postscript
Jill Gardiner in today's NY Sun does a good job at outlining some of the independent supermarkets' objections to the HCSA. Our old friend Luis Salcedo, the group's executive director, argues that the law will put between 40% and 50% of its members will be put out of business. While this seems a bit high it underscores the seriousness of the group's failure to engage in the process leading up to the bill's passage.
The most curious aspect of the article, however was Gardiner, citing Chris Quinn the bill's sponsor, saying that there had been a breakdown of communication between NSA and the Council. She reports the Quinn said that her staff had been talking with a "government affairs professional"(allegedly representing the group) who told them that the NSA had expressed "no concerns" with the legislation.
This is very strange indeed. The only possible such person would have been the Alliance's Richard Lipsky and as our preceding post points out neither Lipsky in person or the Alliance as an organization took any position on the bill. In fact since we work with the UFCW and Lipsky represents Gristedes (John Castimitidis was a supporter of the bill), we at no time either took a position on the bill or talked to anyone about the bill's impact on mid-sized markets.
This allegation then is part of a face-saving effort on everyone's part. The NSA should have been more proactive in defense of the group's interests and certain councilmembers who are close to the NSA and its member stores should have done more outreach. In the absence of this needed "communication" finger-pointing replaces healthy self-criticism.
The Sun also weighs in once again editorially on the impacts of the HCSA. Picking up on Gardiner's reporting the paper shifts from its previous pro-Wal-Mart rant and starts to worry about the plight of the inner city supermarkets.
This concern is a lot more well deserved than the Sun's sympathy for Wal-Mart and the paper's failure to accurately depict the scandal of the world's largest retailer sending its employees to access public health benefits at the tax payers expense. It also avoids confronting the inconsistency of worrying about the inner city entrepreneurs while championing the entry of a retail octopus that will put the investments of these minority business people directly at risk.
That being said, it is important to emphasize that the independent supermarkets that opposed the bill, including the National Supermarket Association (NSA), a group of independent grocers, need to become more involved in the political process. The Alliance has, over the past decade, represented this sector on a number of key issues, from defeating the Giuliani megastore plan to the derailing of the Bloomberg attempts to enhance the regulatory power of the Department of Consumer Affairs. All of this work, however, was done without the financial backing of any member of the NSA.
The work of the Alliance on these issues, as well as on the various successful box store battles, was supported by other independent stores, food wholesalers and a handful of chain stores concerned about non-union warehouse clubs. Even the historic battle over the East Harlem Pathmark, a fight that we led but that Al Rodriguez and Luis Salcedo (NSA members at the time) made substantial contributions to, was never financially supported by independent store owners (the very folks who would have directly benefited from a Pathmark defeat).
On the other hand when we defeated a similar Pathmark proposal in Astoria we did get strong support from a number of independents, in this case mostly Key Food operators and a number of independents who were not affiliated with the NSA. All of which is to point out that the NSA and its members have been benefiting from our work for the better part of ten years without having any commensurate financial burden.
Perhaps the greatest benefit these retailers received was generated from the East Harlem struggle. The fight in this case involved the need to defend the store owners against a vicious public relations assault that had labeled these retailers as substandard bodegas and East Harlem as a retail desert with a total absence of quality food stores.
The counterattack that we waged was extremely successful. For the first time these hard-working minority entrepreneurs were given recognition for their achievements. Editorial boards started to back-off on the character assassination and we personally wrote a score of Op-Ed pieces that literally put the independent supermarkets on the map. And you know what? They deserved it. Their risk-taking and hard work demanded recognition and not denigration.
In addition, the new found recognition was accompanied by something even more important. Up until this point the independents had been redlined by mainstream banking institutions, with many operators forced to borrow money at usurious rates. As their achievements began to be recognized, however, Governor Pataki's office, through the intervention of the Alliance, set up a series of meetings between the independents and banks such as Chase and Citibank. Loan programs were set up that for the first time put these stores in a much more advantageous financial situation.
Over the years we have approached the NSA and suggested that the organization use its considerable economic clout to better its political advantage. Yes, we have also proposed a working relationship. None of these discussions came to fruition for a variety of reasons, most related to NSA's own internal issues. Our continual emphasis has always been something Richard Lipsky use to say to his political science classes at Queens College: "You may not be interested in politics, but politics is surely interested in you."
Unfortunately the advice wasn't heeded and the HCSA became a confirmation of Dr. Lipsky's observation. The NSA's head-in-the-sand approach came back to bite the group but that's not the full story. You see the Alliance has to share the blame here. For ten years we advocated on issues that hit at the heart of the bottom line concerns of independent supermarkets. We did this without the active support of the NSA and we were successful in a great many instances in protecting the industry's interests.
Having a guardian angel has its cost. It allowed the group to procrastinate at what it should have done years ago: set up an organized lobbying effort. If the HCSA accomplishes this it will have served a useful purpose as a wake-up call for NSA. In observing the group's reactions to the bill's passage however – strident threats and a walkout of a meeting with Council staff – it looks that emotional posturing is displacing the kind of rational self-criticism and re-organization that the bill's passage should have generated.
Postscript
Jill Gardiner in today's NY Sun does a good job at outlining some of the independent supermarkets' objections to the HCSA. Our old friend Luis Salcedo, the group's executive director, argues that the law will put between 40% and 50% of its members will be put out of business. While this seems a bit high it underscores the seriousness of the group's failure to engage in the process leading up to the bill's passage.
The most curious aspect of the article, however was Gardiner, citing Chris Quinn the bill's sponsor, saying that there had been a breakdown of communication between NSA and the Council. She reports the Quinn said that her staff had been talking with a "government affairs professional"(allegedly representing the group) who told them that the NSA had expressed "no concerns" with the legislation.
This is very strange indeed. The only possible such person would have been the Alliance's Richard Lipsky and as our preceding post points out neither Lipsky in person or the Alliance as an organization took any position on the bill. In fact since we work with the UFCW and Lipsky represents Gristedes (John Castimitidis was a supporter of the bill), we at no time either took a position on the bill or talked to anyone about the bill's impact on mid-sized markets.
This allegation then is part of a face-saving effort on everyone's part. The NSA should have been more proactive in defense of the group's interests and certain councilmembers who are close to the NSA and its member stores should have done more outreach. In the absence of this needed "communication" finger-pointing replaces healthy self-criticism.
The Sun also weighs in once again editorially on the impacts of the HCSA. Picking up on Gardiner's reporting the paper shifts from its previous pro-Wal-Mart rant and starts to worry about the plight of the inner city supermarkets.
This concern is a lot more well deserved than the Sun's sympathy for Wal-Mart and the paper's failure to accurately depict the scandal of the world's largest retailer sending its employees to access public health benefits at the tax payers expense. It also avoids confronting the inconsistency of worrying about the inner city entrepreneurs while championing the entry of a retail octopus that will put the investments of these minority business people directly at risk.
Fruit Stand Bill Victory: Hail Sung Soo Kim
It was truly gratifying to see the outpouring of support from the Korean and Chinese business communities yesterday in support of sustaining the mayor's veto of Intro 699, a measure that would make it more onerous to operate a fruit stand in town. The bill was expected to get overridden but was unexpectedly laid over until October 27th. Mr. Sung Soo Kim certainly out did himself with the turnout and now we'll have to wait and see if this is a commutation or simply a two week stay of execution.
Our take on the bill is that it is another example of regulatory overreach. It was a product of Councilmember John Liu's concern about overcrowding on Flushing streets and was transformed into a city wide measure without any real due diligence about its potential harm to some of the city's smallest retailers.
Remember that the Council had a hearing on the bill the morning before a Stated Council meeting and the measure was passed that very day, a highly unusual procedural move that smacked of unfairness. We believe that the bill deserves more time to age and get the kind of in-depth study that the fruit stand operators deserve. Let's hope that Kim and his crew get their due.
Our take on the bill is that it is another example of regulatory overreach. It was a product of Councilmember John Liu's concern about overcrowding on Flushing streets and was transformed into a city wide measure without any real due diligence about its potential harm to some of the city's smallest retailers.
Remember that the Council had a hearing on the bill the morning before a Stated Council meeting and the measure was passed that very day, a highly unusual procedural move that smacked of unfairness. We believe that the bill deserves more time to age and get the kind of in-depth study that the fruit stand operators deserve. Let's hope that Kim and his crew get their due.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Veto Override on HCSA
Today the City Council, to the chagrin of the editorial board of the New York Sun (The NY Post soon to follow) will override the mayor's veto of the Health Care Security Act (HSCA) in spite of some last minute efforts to amend the bill in order to afford some additional protection for some of the predominately minority-owned supermarkets. There is still support, however, for amending the law after tomorrow’s vote. There just wasn't enough time to get a consensus so amendments could be drafted.
That being said there is still a great deal of disarray among various industry factions with some, particularly the National Supermarket Association (NSA), looking to perhaps sue to have the law overturned. Needless to say that posture doesn't help persuade the Council to amend the law.
The larger problem that the NSA has is its lack of any well-developed political operation. The HCSA was incubating at the Council for over a year and a half but the NSA either wasn't aware of its existence or had underestimated the bill's potential impact on its members. In addition, since a number of supermarket chains had joined forces with labor to support the HCSA, the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, the usual defender of the markets' interests, remained on the sidelines (something we have been taking a good deal of heat for).
The rejectionist posture is not without risk however. In tackling the Council (and labor we might add), in a direct and personal way the NSA is in danger of making it difficult to achieve any of its other legislative goals. This is even more so since the group's support for councilmembers has never been commensurate with its economic clout. Right now the organization is in need of more sophisticated political advice.
Higher Grocery Price Argument
The economic opposition to the bill comes from fiscal conservatives, like those at the NY Sun, who argue that the bill, by mandating that employers provide health benefits to their workers, will lead to higher food prices. They have a point, one that we have been making all along: The fact that Wal-Mart does not provide adequate health coverage does give the retail giant a competitive edge over those unionized stores that do.
In fact labor costs account for around 60% of a store's overall overhead. Wal-Mart began in the South and its employee base was predominately female. These workers, particularly in the more chauvinistic South, were viewed as supplemental income earners to their male spouses. Since the company's inception, however, the face of retail employment has changed dramatically. The decline of manufacturing has made retail employment family-supporting out of necessity.
The other point is that the largest retailer in the world should not be forcing the government to cover their employees' health care needs. That is precisely what Wal-Mart is doing and the company has been cited as the leading corporate recipient of government hand-outs in state after state. The failure to mention this makes the opposition to the HCSA short-sighted indeed.
That being said there is still a great deal of disarray among various industry factions with some, particularly the National Supermarket Association (NSA), looking to perhaps sue to have the law overturned. Needless to say that posture doesn't help persuade the Council to amend the law.
The larger problem that the NSA has is its lack of any well-developed political operation. The HCSA was incubating at the Council for over a year and a half but the NSA either wasn't aware of its existence or had underestimated the bill's potential impact on its members. In addition, since a number of supermarket chains had joined forces with labor to support the HCSA, the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, the usual defender of the markets' interests, remained on the sidelines (something we have been taking a good deal of heat for).
The rejectionist posture is not without risk however. In tackling the Council (and labor we might add), in a direct and personal way the NSA is in danger of making it difficult to achieve any of its other legislative goals. This is even more so since the group's support for councilmembers has never been commensurate with its economic clout. Right now the organization is in need of more sophisticated political advice.
Higher Grocery Price Argument
The economic opposition to the bill comes from fiscal conservatives, like those at the NY Sun, who argue that the bill, by mandating that employers provide health benefits to their workers, will lead to higher food prices. They have a point, one that we have been making all along: The fact that Wal-Mart does not provide adequate health coverage does give the retail giant a competitive edge over those unionized stores that do.
In fact labor costs account for around 60% of a store's overall overhead. Wal-Mart began in the South and its employee base was predominately female. These workers, particularly in the more chauvinistic South, were viewed as supplemental income earners to their male spouses. Since the company's inception, however, the face of retail employment has changed dramatically. The decline of manufacturing has made retail employment family-supporting out of necessity.
The other point is that the largest retailer in the world should not be forcing the government to cover their employees' health care needs. That is precisely what Wal-Mart is doing and the company has been cited as the leading corporate recipient of government hand-outs in state after state. The failure to mention this makes the opposition to the HCSA short-sighted indeed.
Oddo and Gallagher and Wal-Mart
The ongoing frost between Republican Councilmembers Oddo and Gallagher and the Bloomberg administration is highlighted in the Sun yesterday. Gallagher's position can be partly attributed to his close relationship with Tom Ognibene but an even greater reason may lie with the disconnect he sees between his conservative principles and the mayor's lack thereof.
Oddo's reasons are probably derived from the four years of disregard from the mayor and his minions. As he now says, he is more concerned with who the next speaker will be and doesn't expect that the mayor will pursue him with any real ardor between now and Nov. 8th.
All of this can only help the Alliance's efforts to develop a strong city-wide coalition against Wal-Mart. It is important that we cultivate the city's more conservative homeowner constituencies and the help of Gallagher and Oddo would be appreciated indeed. In this context, the mayor's continued support for the retail giant will only work in our favor.
Oddo's reasons are probably derived from the four years of disregard from the mayor and his minions. As he now says, he is more concerned with who the next speaker will be and doesn't expect that the mayor will pursue him with any real ardor between now and Nov. 8th.
All of this can only help the Alliance's efforts to develop a strong city-wide coalition against Wal-Mart. It is important that we cultivate the city's more conservative homeowner constituencies and the help of Gallagher and Oddo would be appreciated indeed. In this context, the mayor's continued support for the retail giant will only work in our favor.
Monday, October 10, 2005
The Empty Chair
In a powerful affirmation of its belief in campaign finance reform and its concomitant concern about the corrupting power of money in politics, the NY Times editorial board weighed in yesterday with a hard-hitting attack on the mayoral duck of last Thursday's debate at the Apollo Theater. It is about time that the mayor is held to a standard of accountability for his obscene spending. After all he did say, as the Times appropriately points out, that he needed to spend millions four years ago only because, unlike Mark Green, he was not a known political quantity.
We particularly liked the discussion of the empty chair and the assertion by the Bloombergers that it was a cheap shot by NY One. As the Times indicated it could have been worse: "Putting a bucket of money where Mr. Bloomberg should have been would have had some symbolic justice." Especially since the Bloomberg ad spending is sucking all the oxygen out of the normal debate in a political campaign.
The most incisive point that the Times raises deals with the correlation between the mayor's spending and his claims of political independence As the editorial says, the mayor's money orgy sheds, " a different light on the on one of his strongest virtue, his well-known political independence." It goes on to point out that, while the mayor lays claim to owing nothing to any political interest group "...when so much money enters the equation, there's a fine line between a man who can afford to go it alone, and a rich guy who simply always wants to get his own way."
What the editorial misses, however, is the essence of the debate over the politics of special interests that we comment on more extensively today. It's not only that a mega-rich guy can want to get his own way, it is also that the "above politics" politician may not only have little sensitivity to the concerns of the little guys he or she may also be cut off from the real rough and tumble of political debate where good policy, after being subjected to heated evaluation, is often made.
Is there something innately special about Mike Bloomberg that gives him the kind of unique political insights into the public interest that somehow eludes the less exalted among us? And what happens, as it very well might, if someone even less in touch and perhaps caring as Mayor Mike uses great wealth to buy into high office?
We particularly liked the discussion of the empty chair and the assertion by the Bloombergers that it was a cheap shot by NY One. As the Times indicated it could have been worse: "Putting a bucket of money where Mr. Bloomberg should have been would have had some symbolic justice." Especially since the Bloomberg ad spending is sucking all the oxygen out of the normal debate in a political campaign.
The most incisive point that the Times raises deals with the correlation between the mayor's spending and his claims of political independence As the editorial says, the mayor's money orgy sheds, " a different light on the on one of his strongest virtue, his well-known political independence." It goes on to point out that, while the mayor lays claim to owing nothing to any political interest group "...when so much money enters the equation, there's a fine line between a man who can afford to go it alone, and a rich guy who simply always wants to get his own way."
What the editorial misses, however, is the essence of the debate over the politics of special interests that we comment on more extensively today. It's not only that a mega-rich guy can want to get his own way, it is also that the "above politics" politician may not only have little sensitivity to the concerns of the little guys he or she may also be cut off from the real rough and tumble of political debate where good policy, after being subjected to heated evaluation, is often made.
Is there something innately special about Mike Bloomberg that gives him the kind of unique political insights into the public interest that somehow eludes the less exalted among us? And what happens, as it very well might, if someone even less in touch and perhaps caring as Mayor Mike uses great wealth to buy into high office?
Mike Bloomberg: Campaign Finance Reformer?
The news that Mike Bloomberg is on the verge of setting a new spending record, well documented in Saturday’s NY Times, raises a couple of interesting points on the whole issue of campaign finance reform. In some ways the entire foundation of this particular reform effort can be called into question in light of the mayor's millions.
The issue here is the assumption that money in politics, no, check that, "special interest" money in politics, corrupts the entire enterprise and prevents the will of the people from being properly expressed. The critique that informs this world view was expressed eloquently many years ago by Theodore Lowi in his book, "The End of Liberalism."
Lowi's take was that "interest group liberalism," the interplay really of various special interests in the political process prevented the Public Good from being expressed in politics. In some ways this point of Lowi's was a reformulation of Plato's: the idea that a philosophical "Good" existed and could be divined by philosophical examination. In this view, real politics, the rough and tumble of the often seamy world of interests fighting it out, was less pristine and, as a result corrupted the political process.
The corollary to this belief, one that has a more modern perspective, is that there is a dichotomy between the special interests and the will of the people. When these special interests, often never well-defined, hold sway the people's voice is necessarily silenced.
What's missing in this analysis, however, is any conception of how the public will is determined. If the special interests are somehow silenced, how will the voice of the people be expressed? The answer is that the entire premise of the campaign finance effort is faulty. The will of the people is expressed in the interplay of interests. There is no abstract Good that only can be envisioned by a philosopher king. To paraphrase a popular slogan: "One man's special interest is another man's public interest."
Which brings us to Mike's millions. If one is concerned that money can corrupt the political process it should make no difference if that money derives from a special interest source or whether it comes from a single individual who has amassed a billion dollar fortune. In either case, if you follow the reform premise, the putative will of the people is drowned out.
It may be, however, that there are some even greater risks if the money comes from a single source. The need to rely on special interests does mean that you are beholden at least to someone. These interests don't usually represent any monolithic group but derive from a wider interplay of competing groups.
So when the mayor and his minions talk about being above these tawdry interests we should be very careful in expressing any degree of satisfaction with this state of affairs. In reality, the mayor is beholden to absolutely nobody but, even worse, has enough money to shape and mold public opinion in such a way that he can go a long way toward defining what, practically, the so-called public interest is.
That is why the comments of the mayor's media lackey, Bill Cunningham are so ironically prescient. When confronted with the question of the fairness of the mayoral splurge and its potential impact on campaign reform, Cunningham remarked; "Maybe that's the trade-off...Maybe sometimes a guy has to spend his own money to clean up the system."
Defining the Public Interest
Of course the irony of Cunningham's remarks is the way they hoist the campaign reformers on their own petard. The reformers, since they have only focused on the electoral process, have totally ignored the larger question of just how the control of the special interest bogeyman during an election cycle leads to a more "responsive" and democratic political system.
Seen in the context of this larger question the Cunningham remark can be viewed more in line with the old Vietnam observation of destroying the village in order to save it. The phenomenon of someone spending upwards of $100 million in a campaign, precisely because the money serves to define the political reality, poses an even graver threat to democratic politics than a campaign privately funded with "special interest" money.
It is a loophole that exposes the fallacy of campaign reform in two important ways: (1) It doesn't prevent the mega-rich from making a mockery of the process and; (2) It exposes the complete miscalculation of what the public interest is, and how it is achieved. Furthermore, when the wealthy get to buy the pot it is the billionaire alone who, through legerdemain, gets to determine just where the public good lies.
As a result, at least in NYC's case, we are left with the tragic-comedy of Mike Bloomberg as the philosopher king. Listen the mayor's tone of regal authority:
The issue here is the assumption that money in politics, no, check that, "special interest" money in politics, corrupts the entire enterprise and prevents the will of the people from being properly expressed. The critique that informs this world view was expressed eloquently many years ago by Theodore Lowi in his book, "The End of Liberalism."
Lowi's take was that "interest group liberalism," the interplay really of various special interests in the political process prevented the Public Good from being expressed in politics. In some ways this point of Lowi's was a reformulation of Plato's: the idea that a philosophical "Good" existed and could be divined by philosophical examination. In this view, real politics, the rough and tumble of the often seamy world of interests fighting it out, was less pristine and, as a result corrupted the political process.
The corollary to this belief, one that has a more modern perspective, is that there is a dichotomy between the special interests and the will of the people. When these special interests, often never well-defined, hold sway the people's voice is necessarily silenced.
What's missing in this analysis, however, is any conception of how the public will is determined. If the special interests are somehow silenced, how will the voice of the people be expressed? The answer is that the entire premise of the campaign finance effort is faulty. The will of the people is expressed in the interplay of interests. There is no abstract Good that only can be envisioned by a philosopher king. To paraphrase a popular slogan: "One man's special interest is another man's public interest."
Which brings us to Mike's millions. If one is concerned that money can corrupt the political process it should make no difference if that money derives from a special interest source or whether it comes from a single individual who has amassed a billion dollar fortune. In either case, if you follow the reform premise, the putative will of the people is drowned out.
It may be, however, that there are some even greater risks if the money comes from a single source. The need to rely on special interests does mean that you are beholden at least to someone. These interests don't usually represent any monolithic group but derive from a wider interplay of competing groups.
So when the mayor and his minions talk about being above these tawdry interests we should be very careful in expressing any degree of satisfaction with this state of affairs. In reality, the mayor is beholden to absolutely nobody but, even worse, has enough money to shape and mold public opinion in such a way that he can go a long way toward defining what, practically, the so-called public interest is.
That is why the comments of the mayor's media lackey, Bill Cunningham are so ironically prescient. When confronted with the question of the fairness of the mayoral splurge and its potential impact on campaign reform, Cunningham remarked; "Maybe that's the trade-off...Maybe sometimes a guy has to spend his own money to clean up the system."
Defining the Public Interest
Of course the irony of Cunningham's remarks is the way they hoist the campaign reformers on their own petard. The reformers, since they have only focused on the electoral process, have totally ignored the larger question of just how the control of the special interest bogeyman during an election cycle leads to a more "responsive" and democratic political system.
Seen in the context of this larger question the Cunningham remark can be viewed more in line with the old Vietnam observation of destroying the village in order to save it. The phenomenon of someone spending upwards of $100 million in a campaign, precisely because the money serves to define the political reality, poses an even graver threat to democratic politics than a campaign privately funded with "special interest" money.
It is a loophole that exposes the fallacy of campaign reform in two important ways: (1) It doesn't prevent the mega-rich from making a mockery of the process and; (2) It exposes the complete miscalculation of what the public interest is, and how it is achieved. Furthermore, when the wealthy get to buy the pot it is the billionaire alone who, through legerdemain, gets to determine just where the public good lies.
As a result, at least in NYC's case, we are left with the tragic-comedy of Mike Bloomberg as the philosopher king. Listen the mayor's tone of regal authority:
When we make decisions we make decisions not based on who has contributed but what is right for the cityBut on what basis does he make the judgment? On a lifetime of never having even thought about municipal public policy? On his own class perspective? On being able to avoid being distracted by the cacophony of competing interests? These questions should be the starting point for a more meaningful discussion of the whole issue of campaign finance reform.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
NY Times Reviews Bloomberg on Economic Development: Jenny (not) From the Bronx
The Times' review of the Bloomberg record on economic development, while continuing much of the cheerleading style sanguinity that its reporter Jennifer Steinhauer demonstrated when she was covering the mayor at City Hall, at least begins to analyze some of the mayor's shortcomings in this area. We are grateful for the increased nuance but a fuller and more balanced evaluation still remains to be written.
The good news in the piece is Steinhauer's recognition that the Bloombergers have, at least to the small business folks, favored larger businesses at the expense of the little guys. The centerpiece here is her use of a quote from Stanley Mayer of the Bronx Terminal Market Preservation Association:
Steinhauer also gets credit for the recognition that the mayor's budget balancing has come at some cost to the city. The money quote: "And on the fiscal front while it is true that the administration has kept its budget balanced with targeted cuts, tax increases and surging tax revenues from a booming real estate market, it has failed to grapple with longer term structural deficits caused by creeping increases in the number of city employees (something the mayor controls) and rising pension and Medicaid costs (something he does not).
Also on the positive front is her discussion of the stadium debacle and how the mayor and the rest of his economic development team were "unavailable" to address important economic issues because of the obsession with the West Side. As an anonymous source said."...attention and resources were diverted."
Missing Pieces
While Jenny and the Times deserve credit for the discussion of some of the less flattering aspects of the Bloomberg approach to economic development one still gets the feeling that they are mentioned in a more or less obligatory fashion. Certainly their juxtaposition with the more laudatory emphases tends to give the overall impression that they are relatively minor flies in the ointment.
What's missing is a real critique, one that recognizes some of the mayor's achievements but at the same time provides a more balanced and in-depth evaluation of his shortcomings. This in not simply a matter of special pleading on behalf of a small business sector that, under the current mayor, would have actually benefited from a greater inattention. It is rather a recognition that there are some serious weaknesses in the mayor' approach from the standpoint of sound fiscal public policy.
The Bronx Terminal Market is a case in point. The ability of the Doctoroff team in particular to simply jettison these firms with no plan for their relocation underscores a mindset that has no awareness of the importance of nurturing the existing small and minority business sector. This top down mentality is ironically indicated in the Steinhauer piece when she relates how Doctoroff and Alper "began to fly around the country and the world...trying to persuade companies to bring their corporate headquarters here."
Precisely so. This is the $1 a year team's Mt. Olympus perspective. Isn't worth pondering what the impact might be of so many of Bloomberg's top economic and planning people (and the mayor himself) working for no remuneration? How could this crew possibly understand the struggles of small entrepreneurs trying to make a go of it in a neighborhood store? There is simply no one in this administration with any real feel for the immigrant businesses that are so vital to the reinvention of the city's economy every generation. In fact it is quite symbolic that Bloomberg's Commissioner for Immigrant Affairs (Or is he only an advisor?) is none other than Guillermo Linares, the Dominican elected official who sold out his own business class during the East Harlem Pathmark fight.
It is true, however, as Doctoroff points out, that the Bloomberg proactive approach, at least as it applies to the larger economic picture, is a decisive improvement over the reactive approach of EDC under Guiliani but it also further underscores the total lack of awareness or concern for the 186,000 neighborhood retailers who were particularly hard hit in the post 9/11 recession (a sector experiencing record bankruptcies and foreclosures).
Which brings us to a major omission in the Steinhauer piece: the complete absence of any discussion of city regulatory policy. The proactive economic machers allowed Gretchen Dykstra's DCA to go on a scorched earth enforcement rampage that that treated store owners like piñatas and that contributed, along with the real estate taxes, to the aforementioned record level bankruptcies.
This is particularly egregious since Steinhauer had access to the Citizens Budget folks (she quotes Charles Brecher at the end of the article in a manner that we wonder if he would have sanctioned if asked) and it was this group that collaborated on a report that pointed out that taxes and regulation are key variables in the ability of small businesses to compete.
Which highlights the fact that the Times story fails at any point to see if the small business sector is part of the glowing picture the paper paints of the city's economic recovery after 9/11. JS's use of the Mayer quote obscures the issue because the BTM case is about mega-development mania and not about overall policy vis-a-vis small business. There is a great deal of citing of the Kathy Wylde types but none from the Sung Soo Kims, the Rob Bookmans or the Jose Fernandezes (forget the Alliance, we didn’t' expect that JS would call us since we have been less than flattering to her in the past).
Falling Out of the Twelth Floor Window
One final point on JS's rather rosy evaluation of the mayor's record tax increases ("nor did tax increases hamper economic growth, as conservatives warned they would"). It reminds of the anecdote of the man falling out of the 12th floor window, When he flew past the third floor a man who was looking out the window asked, “How’re you doin?" The falling man responds, "So far so good."
Since Steinhauer hasn't really looked beyond the Manhattan-centric pictures painted by the Partnership types, she is unable to see, not only the hurting in the neighborhood business sector, but the aggravated poverty rates and structural unemployment in the city's minority communities (as is evidenced by Times article that also appeared on Sunday). In addition, there is no analysis of what might happen if the "superheated real estate market" bursts in the face of an emerging $4.6 billion projected budget deficit (so far so good indeed).
This failure is underscored in the article's endpiece when Steinhauer describes the mayor's strategy of raising taxes as an approach designed to prevent the city from falling into the "lamentable state of the 1970's." This is a complete misrepresentation of what got the city into trouble then. It was precisely a refusal to cut the size of government and a belief that the city's businesses were destined to remain here even when faced with escalating and crippling taxes that led to the fiscal collapse of that decade.
It is a mentality that the mayor often eerily replicates when he says that it is a privilege for companies to be in New York and, if you are sticker conscious, you really don't belong here. It is also manifested in Bloomberg's sanguine view of government, one that sees the delivery of more services, and not doing more with less, as the sine qua non of good municipal policy. It is right at this point that a quote from Charles Brecher of the CBC would have been apropos. We doubt that Brecher would have described the Bloomberg tax and regulatory policy as "prescient."
The good news in the piece is Steinhauer's recognition that the Bloombergers have, at least to the small business folks, favored larger businesses at the expense of the little guys. The centerpiece here is her use of a quote from Stanley Mayer of the Bronx Terminal Market Preservation Association:
Countless politicians have said that small businesses are the backbone of New York City, and yet we're being steamrolled over hereIn addition Steinhauer recognizes that the administration might have a "tin ear" for local politics within the economic development debates. This is a point that Jonathan Bowles, who is cited later approving much of what the mayor is trying to do in this arena, has emphasized as a major drawback in the mayor's approach and Bowles' analysis would have been at least as appropriate here as it was later on when he was more approving of the mayor's strategy.
Steinhauer also gets credit for the recognition that the mayor's budget balancing has come at some cost to the city. The money quote: "And on the fiscal front while it is true that the administration has kept its budget balanced with targeted cuts, tax increases and surging tax revenues from a booming real estate market, it has failed to grapple with longer term structural deficits caused by creeping increases in the number of city employees (something the mayor controls) and rising pension and Medicaid costs (something he does not).
Also on the positive front is her discussion of the stadium debacle and how the mayor and the rest of his economic development team were "unavailable" to address important economic issues because of the obsession with the West Side. As an anonymous source said."...attention and resources were diverted."
Missing Pieces
While Jenny and the Times deserve credit for the discussion of some of the less flattering aspects of the Bloomberg approach to economic development one still gets the feeling that they are mentioned in a more or less obligatory fashion. Certainly their juxtaposition with the more laudatory emphases tends to give the overall impression that they are relatively minor flies in the ointment.
What's missing is a real critique, one that recognizes some of the mayor's achievements but at the same time provides a more balanced and in-depth evaluation of his shortcomings. This in not simply a matter of special pleading on behalf of a small business sector that, under the current mayor, would have actually benefited from a greater inattention. It is rather a recognition that there are some serious weaknesses in the mayor' approach from the standpoint of sound fiscal public policy.
The Bronx Terminal Market is a case in point. The ability of the Doctoroff team in particular to simply jettison these firms with no plan for their relocation underscores a mindset that has no awareness of the importance of nurturing the existing small and minority business sector. This top down mentality is ironically indicated in the Steinhauer piece when she relates how Doctoroff and Alper "began to fly around the country and the world...trying to persuade companies to bring their corporate headquarters here."
Precisely so. This is the $1 a year team's Mt. Olympus perspective. Isn't worth pondering what the impact might be of so many of Bloomberg's top economic and planning people (and the mayor himself) working for no remuneration? How could this crew possibly understand the struggles of small entrepreneurs trying to make a go of it in a neighborhood store? There is simply no one in this administration with any real feel for the immigrant businesses that are so vital to the reinvention of the city's economy every generation. In fact it is quite symbolic that Bloomberg's Commissioner for Immigrant Affairs (Or is he only an advisor?) is none other than Guillermo Linares, the Dominican elected official who sold out his own business class during the East Harlem Pathmark fight.
It is true, however, as Doctoroff points out, that the Bloomberg proactive approach, at least as it applies to the larger economic picture, is a decisive improvement over the reactive approach of EDC under Guiliani but it also further underscores the total lack of awareness or concern for the 186,000 neighborhood retailers who were particularly hard hit in the post 9/11 recession (a sector experiencing record bankruptcies and foreclosures).
Which brings us to a major omission in the Steinhauer piece: the complete absence of any discussion of city regulatory policy. The proactive economic machers allowed Gretchen Dykstra's DCA to go on a scorched earth enforcement rampage that that treated store owners like piñatas and that contributed, along with the real estate taxes, to the aforementioned record level bankruptcies.
This is particularly egregious since Steinhauer had access to the Citizens Budget folks (she quotes Charles Brecher at the end of the article in a manner that we wonder if he would have sanctioned if asked) and it was this group that collaborated on a report that pointed out that taxes and regulation are key variables in the ability of small businesses to compete.
Which highlights the fact that the Times story fails at any point to see if the small business sector is part of the glowing picture the paper paints of the city's economic recovery after 9/11. JS's use of the Mayer quote obscures the issue because the BTM case is about mega-development mania and not about overall policy vis-a-vis small business. There is a great deal of citing of the Kathy Wylde types but none from the Sung Soo Kims, the Rob Bookmans or the Jose Fernandezes (forget the Alliance, we didn’t' expect that JS would call us since we have been less than flattering to her in the past).
Falling Out of the Twelth Floor Window
One final point on JS's rather rosy evaluation of the mayor's record tax increases ("nor did tax increases hamper economic growth, as conservatives warned they would"). It reminds of the anecdote of the man falling out of the 12th floor window, When he flew past the third floor a man who was looking out the window asked, “How’re you doin?" The falling man responds, "So far so good."
Since Steinhauer hasn't really looked beyond the Manhattan-centric pictures painted by the Partnership types, she is unable to see, not only the hurting in the neighborhood business sector, but the aggravated poverty rates and structural unemployment in the city's minority communities (as is evidenced by Times article that also appeared on Sunday). In addition, there is no analysis of what might happen if the "superheated real estate market" bursts in the face of an emerging $4.6 billion projected budget deficit (so far so good indeed).
This failure is underscored in the article's endpiece when Steinhauer describes the mayor's strategy of raising taxes as an approach designed to prevent the city from falling into the "lamentable state of the 1970's." This is a complete misrepresentation of what got the city into trouble then. It was precisely a refusal to cut the size of government and a belief that the city's businesses were destined to remain here even when faced with escalating and crippling taxes that led to the fiscal collapse of that decade.
It is a mentality that the mayor often eerily replicates when he says that it is a privilege for companies to be in New York and, if you are sticker conscious, you really don't belong here. It is also manifested in Bloomberg's sanguine view of government, one that sees the delivery of more services, and not doing more with less, as the sine qua non of good municipal policy. It is right at this point that a quote from Charles Brecher of the CBC would have been apropos. We doubt that Brecher would have described the Bloomberg tax and regulatory policy as "prescient."
Friday, October 07, 2005
Another Republican Councilman Opposes Staten Island Wal-Mart
We have already reported that Republican Councilman James Oddo has voiced his opposition to a Staten Island Wal-Mart. Now, according to the Staten Island Advance, South Shore Republican Andrew Lanza, whose district encompasses the proposed Richmond Valley site, is also very concerned about Wal-Mart:
Reached by telephone, Lanza reiterated his positions -- previously reported in the Advance -- that the sites proposed for Wal-Mart in Charleston and the NASCAR track in Bloomfield are inappropriate.As we’ve stated all along, once Staten Island politicians looked at the sites in more detail and heard from the communities surrounding those parcels, they’d temper their support or completely withdraw it. This development is very interesting for now Wal-Mart has no local Council support on the Island, a place they considered to be friendly due to its suburban and Republican nature. Considering the already substantial opposition to the store in the City Council, the lack of local political approbation will make it extremely hard if not impossible for the big box retailer to win the needed zoning approvals.
"I don't have an absolute anti-Wal-Mart stance," he said. "But until I see some sort of traffic plan, and anything more concrete than I've heard, I would say no. That being said, there is no project before me right now."
Smoke and Mirrors
We find it fascinating that in all of the millions the mayor has spent on TV and radio ads we have seen or heard not a peep about the indoor smoking ban. At the time of its passage the mayor proclaimed this legislation as the crowning achievement of his first term. In addition, he claimed that it would lead to the saving of 1,000 lives that are lost each month! in this city to second-hand smoke.
So, if this was such an important public health achievement why no mention in the mayoral ad blitz? We think the reason lies with the fact that the measure was relatively unpopular with conservative Republicans and the mayor feels no need to remind them as the election approaches. So much for not being governed by political considerations. To be fair, however, maybe the mayor is becoming more budget conscious.
So, if this was such an important public health achievement why no mention in the mayoral ad blitz? We think the reason lies with the fact that the measure was relatively unpopular with conservative Republicans and the mayor feels no need to remind them as the election approaches. So much for not being governed by political considerations. To be fair, however, maybe the mayor is becoming more budget conscious.
Debatable No More
It is now official. The Daily News is no longer able to hide its partisanship behind any legitimate definition of what constitutes news judgment. In its coverage of the mayor's absence at yesterday's debate, the paper put the story on page 39. It even had the gall to put a mayoral photo-op, with Rosie O'Donnell of all people, on page 22.
The Post had a lively debate report on pg. 2, along with a series of question for the man who didn't come to dinner. The Times lead with a picture on its front page with a follow-up feature on pg. B1 of the Metro Section. The Sun and Newsday also prominently covered the mayoral duck. Who's making these decisions?
The Post had a lively debate report on pg. 2, along with a series of question for the man who didn't come to dinner. The Times lead with a picture on its front page with a follow-up feature on pg. B1 of the Metro Section. The Sun and Newsday also prominently covered the mayoral duck. Who's making these decisions?
Peddler to the Metal
We have commented often about the issue of peddler proliferation and its unfair impact on legitimate store owners. Now, however, the situation has simply gotten out of hand. A number of store owners have informed us that fruit peddlers are overrunning dozens of commercial streets in Manhattan.
The reality is that local regulations are being ignored with impunity. Under Sec.20-812 of the municipal code there are a whole host of restrictions including limits on the the legal size of one's cart, the allowed distance from a corner, synagogue or tree trunk and the size of a street where peddling is allowed. We are compiling pictures which clearly demonstrate that these infractions are not being enforced. Police, when informed about the problems, ignore the complaints.
What's particularly egregious about this lamentable situation is that for the last four years the city has treated small store owners as whipping boys for the benefit of a challenged public treasury. Enforcement has increased and fine levels have escalated as well. The mayor has even tried to increase the enforcement powers of the DCA, making the agency both judge and jury over helpless store keepers.
On top of all this, legislation has been introduced that would increase the legal number of vendors allowed on city streets. Supporters like to point to the poor immigrant status of the vendors but most of the store owners are themselves immigrants who have scrimped and saved in order to be able to afford to buy a shop. Stay tuned on this issue. We are going to expose the city's non-enforcement.
The reality is that local regulations are being ignored with impunity. Under Sec.20-812 of the municipal code there are a whole host of restrictions including limits on the the legal size of one's cart, the allowed distance from a corner, synagogue or tree trunk and the size of a street where peddling is allowed. We are compiling pictures which clearly demonstrate that these infractions are not being enforced. Police, when informed about the problems, ignore the complaints.
What's particularly egregious about this lamentable situation is that for the last four years the city has treated small store owners as whipping boys for the benefit of a challenged public treasury. Enforcement has increased and fine levels have escalated as well. The mayor has even tried to increase the enforcement powers of the DCA, making the agency both judge and jury over helpless store keepers.
On top of all this, legislation has been introduced that would increase the legal number of vendors allowed on city streets. Supporters like to point to the poor immigrant status of the vendors but most of the store owners are themselves immigrants who have scrimped and saved in order to be able to afford to buy a shop. Stay tuned on this issue. We are going to expose the city's non-enforcement.
More Bad Faith
As we’ve reported before, the Related Companies, or an entity on behalf of the developer, is engaging in construction at the Bronx Terminal Market. Though Related is charged with being the market landlord, it is allowing activities to proceed that directly hamper the merchants’ business. Again, why should the market wholesalers pay rent to Related and then have that money used to destroy their livelihoods?
Here are some more pictures of the construction, including the truck of a market client that can barely maneuver due to various obstructions:
Here are some more pictures of the construction, including the truck of a market client that can barely maneuver due to various obstructions:
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Behind the Times
The Times has some good in-depth coverage of the debate flap today although we'd question whether the backlash issue stressed by the paper has the potential, because of Al Sharpton, to have a racial blowback for Freddy. The Apollo setting does have significance for blacks but the larger resonance may well be, as Joyce Purnick's good column highlights($), the impact of the mayor acting as a censor.
What is still disappointing, however, is the continued omission in the Times' coverage of this issue of any correlation with the mayor's campaign spending. The mayoral money binge is precisely why Bloomberg's ducking is so egregiously censorious.
Also, the Daily News continues to lowlight the debate issue. Today they subhead the fracas and highlight instead the mayor's press conference on his minority employment initiative; it's looking quite like they're providing racial cover for Mike. The Post, knowing a good campaign story when they see it- in spite of where the paper's political sentiments may lie - dramatizes the affair with an empty chair drawing in honor of the mayor's absence.
What is still disappointing, however, is the continued omission in the Times' coverage of this issue of any correlation with the mayor's campaign spending. The mayoral money binge is precisely why Bloomberg's ducking is so egregiously censorious.
Also, the Daily News continues to lowlight the debate issue. Today they subhead the fracas and highlight instead the mayor's press conference on his minority employment initiative; it's looking quite like they're providing racial cover for Mike. The Post, knowing a good campaign story when they see it- in spite of where the paper's political sentiments may lie - dramatizes the affair with an empty chair drawing in honor of the mayor's absence.
It's Not Debatable
One thing is not debatable: the debate flap has the potential to seriously hurt the mayor, particularly among those black voters who he has been polling so well with. The reason it does is because it exposes a character defect that he has so far been successful at keeping under wraps: an arrogance that believes that he is above having to respond to the needs of average folks.
The debate duck also exposes a corollary problem that is inherent in the mayor's "above politics" narrative. The narrative spins the tale that Bloomberg, because of his great wealth, isn't beholden to the so-called special interests. What this story-line hides, however, is the fact someone who is not "beholden" to special interests may perhaps not be beholden to anyone's interests at all.
Bloomberg's arrogant response has the potential to have a corrosive effect on voter's perceptions and can, as a result, lead back to the Mayor's Achilles heel: "He doesn't care about people like us". All of this can be compounded if black voters in particular feel that the mayor is taking them for granted. If this happens you can kiss Mike's 50% number goodbye. The unknown is whether those deserting votes will go to Freddy or just stay home.
One of the real disappointing aspects of this whole flap is the posture of the NY Daily News. While all of the print and broadcast media is leading with or at least prominently displaying the debate issue the News is, as we have commented before, simply burying the story. Yesterday was a good example.
The paper had its election story, buried deep on something like page 16, feature a mocking attack on Ferrer's "claim" that he was responsible for the teachers getting their contract. Nothing significant on the debate at all.
Making matters worse was the ludicrous accusation in Michael Godwin's column that Freddy was going to really regret going so negative. Huh? That Godwin could have divined this piece of information from recent campaigning strikes as atonal. Hey Mike, Shouldn't you have something to say about how the mayor's money is sucking all the air out of the room?
On this front we are still awaiting the Times editorial that hits the mayor for ducking while, at the same time, upbraids him for his obscene spending. It should go something like this: "The mayor who is spending huge sums to get his message across as he seeks re-election is, therefore, under a compelling obligation to participate in as many public debates as possible. This is particularly true since Mr. Bloomberg had pledged to not replicate his lavish spending habits if he were to go before the voters for a second time".
The debate duck also exposes a corollary problem that is inherent in the mayor's "above politics" narrative. The narrative spins the tale that Bloomberg, because of his great wealth, isn't beholden to the so-called special interests. What this story-line hides, however, is the fact someone who is not "beholden" to special interests may perhaps not be beholden to anyone's interests at all.
Bloomberg's arrogant response has the potential to have a corrosive effect on voter's perceptions and can, as a result, lead back to the Mayor's Achilles heel: "He doesn't care about people like us". All of this can be compounded if black voters in particular feel that the mayor is taking them for granted. If this happens you can kiss Mike's 50% number goodbye. The unknown is whether those deserting votes will go to Freddy or just stay home.
One of the real disappointing aspects of this whole flap is the posture of the NY Daily News. While all of the print and broadcast media is leading with or at least prominently displaying the debate issue the News is, as we have commented before, simply burying the story. Yesterday was a good example.
The paper had its election story, buried deep on something like page 16, feature a mocking attack on Ferrer's "claim" that he was responsible for the teachers getting their contract. Nothing significant on the debate at all.
Making matters worse was the ludicrous accusation in Michael Godwin's column that Freddy was going to really regret going so negative. Huh? That Godwin could have divined this piece of information from recent campaigning strikes as atonal. Hey Mike, Shouldn't you have something to say about how the mayor's money is sucking all the air out of the room?
On this front we are still awaiting the Times editorial that hits the mayor for ducking while, at the same time, upbraids him for his obscene spending. It should go something like this: "The mayor who is spending huge sums to get his message across as he seeks re-election is, therefore, under a compelling obligation to participate in as many public debates as possible. This is particularly true since Mr. Bloomberg had pledged to not replicate his lavish spending habits if he were to go before the voters for a second time".
Garbage Issue Ignored
Major kudos to Bryan Virasami at Newsday for yesterday's article on the silence of both mayoral campaigns about the city's looming garbage crisis. As we have said before, the mayor effectively (but only cosmetically), removed the issue during his fight with Gifford Miller over transfer station siting. The issue of the mounting cost of disposal and how to mitigate it remains both unexamined and unresolved.
This is clearly pointed out by the Independent Budget Office's Doug Turetsky when he talks about the escalating cost of disposal and the dwindling number of out-of-town venues that are willing to continue to take our garbage. The key variable is, of course, the nettlesome problem of waste reduction, something that remains unaddressed by the mayor's SWMP.
Freddy is missing an opportunity here because without any credible waste reduction strategy the support of "fair share" is reduced to the unimaginative notion that every community must suffer equally. In fact if the Ferrer camp looks at what passes for a waste reduction strategy in the SWMP he will find that, in spite of the hyperbole of a description of the recycling proposals as, "groudbreaking", there's really nothing there (Our comment has been that if the mayor really thinks this is groundbreaking he must be digging with a plastic spoon).
We have been offering a more fiscally responsible and imaginative approach in our support for the comprehensive use of waste disposers. The proposal, waiting on the City Council's support of a pilot program, would reduce garbage exports, truck traffic, disposal costs and help create cleaner neighborhoods. Those who criticize this approach should keep in mind the lack of realistic alternatives and the fiscal calamity that's just around the corner if the city doesn't act creatively.
The most compelling evidence that the use of disposers has a public health benefit is reported convincingly in today's New York Post. The article nicely titled, "'Mices' a Crisis on W. Side", describes the mice epidemic on the West Side. As Penny Ryan, District Manager of CB #7 says, "They're everywhere".
The whole point is that disposers not only help to relieve the garbage export problem but, by reducing the rodent food supply, contribute to the reduction of the rat and mice infestation that is such a public health menace. DM Ryan has the last word: "It's mice in the house, rats in the street...It's getting to be an epidemic. They're just all over the place".
This is clearly pointed out by the Independent Budget Office's Doug Turetsky when he talks about the escalating cost of disposal and the dwindling number of out-of-town venues that are willing to continue to take our garbage. The key variable is, of course, the nettlesome problem of waste reduction, something that remains unaddressed by the mayor's SWMP.
Freddy is missing an opportunity here because without any credible waste reduction strategy the support of "fair share" is reduced to the unimaginative notion that every community must suffer equally. In fact if the Ferrer camp looks at what passes for a waste reduction strategy in the SWMP he will find that, in spite of the hyperbole of a description of the recycling proposals as, "groudbreaking", there's really nothing there (Our comment has been that if the mayor really thinks this is groundbreaking he must be digging with a plastic spoon).
We have been offering a more fiscally responsible and imaginative approach in our support for the comprehensive use of waste disposers. The proposal, waiting on the City Council's support of a pilot program, would reduce garbage exports, truck traffic, disposal costs and help create cleaner neighborhoods. Those who criticize this approach should keep in mind the lack of realistic alternatives and the fiscal calamity that's just around the corner if the city doesn't act creatively.
The most compelling evidence that the use of disposers has a public health benefit is reported convincingly in today's New York Post. The article nicely titled, "'Mices' a Crisis on W. Side", describes the mice epidemic on the West Side. As Penny Ryan, District Manager of CB #7 says, "They're everywhere".
The whole point is that disposers not only help to relieve the garbage export problem but, by reducing the rodent food supply, contribute to the reduction of the rat and mice infestation that is such a public health menace. DM Ryan has the last word: "It's mice in the house, rats in the street...It's getting to be an epidemic. They're just all over the place".
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
The Eminent Domain Fight-Back
The New York Sun editorializes today in favor of the various legislative measures, post-Kelo, that are being considered in the state:
Kelo at least left the door open to legislative restrictions on eminent domain. To that end, a state assemblyman, Richard Brodsky, has proposed a bill requiring a local government to hold a vote on any taking.As we have stated before, now that the Supreme Court decision has brought the issue to the forefront a healthy on the merits of eminent domain can begin. Nuance is important in these deliberations and the desire to promote economic development needs to be balanced with protecting the rights of small business and homeowners.
…
Meanwhile, a state senator, Carl Marcellino, has introduced a bill to limit the definition of a "public project" to those that "provide economic development in a blighted area of the state." He plans to use hearings in January to "tighten the definition of 'blighted'" in his bill. A separate bill by Senator John DeFrancisco would restrict the power of eminent domain to public projects, and where an "industrial development agency approves the use of eminent domain" the local legislature would need to approve it first.
…
In the City Council, Letitia James has proposed a bill prohibiting the city from using the "power of eminent domain to take ownership of private property solely for economic development purposes."
Debate Fever
The heat continues as the mayor remains adamant about avoiding the debate scheduled to be held Thursday at the Apollo Theater. NY One, as the debate's sponsor, has naturally taken the lead here. Yesterday it was reporting that three good government groups had joined in the debate chorus.
The funniest comment we heard was the Bloomberg campaign remark that it would rather have the mayor debate closer to the actual election when "more people are paying attention." So the Bloomberg folks are now couching naked self-interest as public spiritedness. In the same vein we would suggest that Mike's minions immediately cease and desist all advertising until the last week of the campaign when, "more people are paying attention." No? We didn't think so.
As for all of those sage commentators who don't see the debate issue as a big deal – after all didn't the "progressive" Mark Green agree to only two debates? – let us reiterate the key point. When you’re producing $100 million of canned messages and the mainstream media is relatively supine it is of some importance to actually "See Mike Run."
The other piece of debate news that's important to emphasize is the attempt by the Bloombergers to jettison Tom Ognibene from the Thursday affair. Apparently Mike is not only content to knock the real Republican off of the November ballot but is eager to squelch any dissonance from the right that will expose his faux Republican credentials.
The best take on this is Gerson Borrero's most recent column in El Diario. Gerson rightfully accuses "Miguelito" of cowardice.
Update: According to NY1, Floyd Flake remarked that Bloomberg may still change his mind about participating in Thursday's Harlem Debate. We'll see if the various pressures have been enough to convince the Mayor to come out from behind his money.
As an aside, the ad defending the mayor that uses Rev. Butts is funny indeed. If, as Butts states, the mayor has been a great friend to Harlem (And not just to Butts and the ADC), than wouldn't he look forward to coming into the community so he could crow about his wonderful record?
Freddy an anti-Semite? This whole fracas is really getting interesting and if the mayor isn't careful he could be-yikes!- tar-babied by the whole controversy. Now Cunningham, the noted Talmudic scholar, is suggesting that Freddy, by insisting that Mike come to Harlem on Thursday to debate, is being insensitive to Jews since the debate comes only a day after Rosh Hashonah.
The subtext here is that the short interim between the holiday and the debate doesn't leave the mayor time to adequately prepare. This only underscores what we have been saying all along: the Bloombergers are scared to death about any unscripted event.
Lastly, Jamal Watson has great column exhorting the mayor to debate in Harlem
The funniest comment we heard was the Bloomberg campaign remark that it would rather have the mayor debate closer to the actual election when "more people are paying attention." So the Bloomberg folks are now couching naked self-interest as public spiritedness. In the same vein we would suggest that Mike's minions immediately cease and desist all advertising until the last week of the campaign when, "more people are paying attention." No? We didn't think so.
As for all of those sage commentators who don't see the debate issue as a big deal – after all didn't the "progressive" Mark Green agree to only two debates? – let us reiterate the key point. When you’re producing $100 million of canned messages and the mainstream media is relatively supine it is of some importance to actually "See Mike Run."
The other piece of debate news that's important to emphasize is the attempt by the Bloombergers to jettison Tom Ognibene from the Thursday affair. Apparently Mike is not only content to knock the real Republican off of the November ballot but is eager to squelch any dissonance from the right that will expose his faux Republican credentials.
The best take on this is Gerson Borrero's most recent column in El Diario. Gerson rightfully accuses "Miguelito" of cowardice.
Update: According to NY1, Floyd Flake remarked that Bloomberg may still change his mind about participating in Thursday's Harlem Debate. We'll see if the various pressures have been enough to convince the Mayor to come out from behind his money.
As an aside, the ad defending the mayor that uses Rev. Butts is funny indeed. If, as Butts states, the mayor has been a great friend to Harlem (And not just to Butts and the ADC), than wouldn't he look forward to coming into the community so he could crow about his wonderful record?
Freddy an anti-Semite? This whole fracas is really getting interesting and if the mayor isn't careful he could be-yikes!- tar-babied by the whole controversy. Now Cunningham, the noted Talmudic scholar, is suggesting that Freddy, by insisting that Mike come to Harlem on Thursday to debate, is being insensitive to Jews since the debate comes only a day after Rosh Hashonah.
The subtext here is that the short interim between the holiday and the debate doesn't leave the mayor time to adequately prepare. This only underscores what we have been saying all along: the Bloombergers are scared to death about any unscripted event.
Lastly, Jamal Watson has great column exhorting the mayor to debate in Harlem
Wal-Mart Sued for Copycatting
According to Anthropologie, a Philadelphia-based clothing store whose parent company is Urban Outfitters, Wal-Mart illegally copied various patented designs. The designs were featured in last month’s Vogue where Wal-Mart bought a multi-page spread to show readers it can be upscale as well. According to Newsday’s Lauren Weber:
With a splashy fashion show and an advertising spread in September's Vogue magazine, Wal-Mart lately is trumpeting its desire to be a contender for space in the closets of America's style mavens.Though the designs may be the same the prices surely aren’t:
But the company's efforts to reposition itself as a purveyor of hip threads - ground it once ceded to rival Target - has attracted some negative attention, in the form of a lawsuit from the retail chain Anthropologie.
In a complaint filed last week in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Anthropologie and its parent company, Urban Outfitters, allege that Wal-Mart copied several fabrics designed by Anthropologie.
The suit charges Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, with copyright infringement, deceptive trade practices and unfair competition.
The complaint singles out one Wal-Mart product, a skirt from the company's George brand, called "Women's Plus Floral Border Skirt." That skirt is on sale on Wal-Mart's Web site for $12 (down from $16.92); on Anthropologie's Web site, most skirts retail in the range of $100 to $250.Maybe Anthropologie needs to follow Wal-Mart’s lead and begin making its floral skirts in Bangladeshi sweatshops. Then again Anthrpologie would be facing a lawsuit of its own, for having suppliers that systematically mistreat their workers.
Wal-Mart's Charity Is Self-Serving, A Philanthropy Watchdog Says
From the New York Sun:
A charity watchdog group charged yesterday that charitable and political giving by America's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, is part of a self-serving campaign to enrich the company's owners, the Walton family.We aren’t quite sure if a report was necessary to point the obvious: Wal-Mart does engage in a lot of charity work but it is often targeted to deflect key criticisms with regards to community involvement and minority issues. Also, the point needs to be made that Wal-Mart and its foundations are relatively stingy both compared to other philanthropists like Bill Gates and to the country’s small businesses. It’s not that Bentonville retailer shouldn’t be commended for its charitable causes but that this giving be put into context.
…
The 29-page review of the operations of the Wal-Mart Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and political funds connected to the company asserts that the firm is using its gifts to divert attention from a host of thorny problems, including discrimination lawsuits and opposition to the company's efforts to build new stores.
News Four, Freddy, the Mayor and Small Business
We watched Jay DeDapper's "What Matters" segment dealing with small business issues and the mayoral campaign on "Live at Five" yesterday. The piece, which hasn't yet been posted on their website was quite good, certainly better than anything we've seen on this topic in the print media.
DeDapper, not always our favorite political reporter, was particularly good at cutting through Bloomberg's cant about his small business record. He deconstructed the mayor's "We've helped service over 13,000 small business inquiries" claim by pointing out that a look at the mayor's actual record (as well as the views of small business advocates), seems to indicate that this administration earns low marks in promoting and protecting the little guys of New York's economy.
DeDepper also hit on the small business impact of the city's ticket blitz and talked about Freddy's call for a ticket moratorium. He did question, however, how Ferrer would make up the around $15 milllion in lost revenue. He also talked about Freddy's controversial proposal to introduce a form of arbitration for commercial renters, a longstanding goal of a number of small business advocacy groups.
All in all, this segment was extremely useful at focusing attention on one of the Alliance's main themes: the absolute failure of the Bloomberg administration to nurture small entrepreneurs. In fact, this is another example of an egregious Bloomberg flip-flop. While a candidate Mike Bloomberg wrote the Korean American Small Business Service Center stating that the city, post 9/11, needed to do more for its small businesses because these firms, unlike their larger counterparts, don't have the resources to recover from the economic calamity generated in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the city.
We've commented on this theme numerous times before but we'll refer you to our section on the city's Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and small business fines for further demonstration of our point. In particular, the mayor's failure to rein in DCA commissioner Dykstra in her effort to enhance the power of her department and its regulatory assault on the city's retailers is the most compelling evidence of Bloomberg's myopia when it comes to small business.
Exacerbating this myopia was the mayor's acquiescence in putting a proposition, Question 5, on the Charter Referendum Ballot in 2003. The Prop would have given the DCA a judge and jury authority over the city's retailers and, in the process, have greatly curtailed their due process rights. Bloomberg did this after the same initiative had been nixed by the state legislature, earning the measure the unanimous opposition of almost every editorial board.
So once again we need to emphasize that helping small businesses does not mean hiring more bureaucrats to advise them on how to be better businesspeople (It results in more people on the public payroll. Where do we get this money from?). It means, as the Federal Reserve Report emphasized, reducing the cost of doing business, lessening regulation and lowering taxes; it's just that simple. Will Mike Bloomberg, in his economic ivory tower, ever get this?
DeDapper, not always our favorite political reporter, was particularly good at cutting through Bloomberg's cant about his small business record. He deconstructed the mayor's "We've helped service over 13,000 small business inquiries" claim by pointing out that a look at the mayor's actual record (as well as the views of small business advocates), seems to indicate that this administration earns low marks in promoting and protecting the little guys of New York's economy.
DeDepper also hit on the small business impact of the city's ticket blitz and talked about Freddy's call for a ticket moratorium. He did question, however, how Ferrer would make up the around $15 milllion in lost revenue. He also talked about Freddy's controversial proposal to introduce a form of arbitration for commercial renters, a longstanding goal of a number of small business advocacy groups.
All in all, this segment was extremely useful at focusing attention on one of the Alliance's main themes: the absolute failure of the Bloomberg administration to nurture small entrepreneurs. In fact, this is another example of an egregious Bloomberg flip-flop. While a candidate Mike Bloomberg wrote the Korean American Small Business Service Center stating that the city, post 9/11, needed to do more for its small businesses because these firms, unlike their larger counterparts, don't have the resources to recover from the economic calamity generated in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the city.
We've commented on this theme numerous times before but we'll refer you to our section on the city's Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and small business fines for further demonstration of our point. In particular, the mayor's failure to rein in DCA commissioner Dykstra in her effort to enhance the power of her department and its regulatory assault on the city's retailers is the most compelling evidence of Bloomberg's myopia when it comes to small business.
Exacerbating this myopia was the mayor's acquiescence in putting a proposition, Question 5, on the Charter Referendum Ballot in 2003. The Prop would have given the DCA a judge and jury authority over the city's retailers and, in the process, have greatly curtailed their due process rights. Bloomberg did this after the same initiative had been nixed by the state legislature, earning the measure the unanimous opposition of almost every editorial board.
So once again we need to emphasize that helping small businesses does not mean hiring more bureaucrats to advise them on how to be better businesspeople (It results in more people on the public payroll. Where do we get this money from?). It means, as the Federal Reserve Report emphasized, reducing the cost of doing business, lessening regulation and lowering taxes; it's just that simple. Will Mike Bloomberg, in his economic ivory tower, ever get this?
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Health Care Security Act Veto Override
It is looking increasingly likely that the City Council will, on October 11th, overwhelmingly override the mayor's veto of the Health Care security Act in spite of late efforts from independent supermarket owners and their suppliers to amend the legislation. This does not mean that all hopes for changing the legislation are lost. It does mean, however, that the effected parties are going to have to collaborate on a common strategy if they are to avoid Pogo's comic strip observation: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
What this means is that the entire industry must understand that it is faced with a choice: try to amend the bill or employ all of your resources to defeat it. The simple fact is that you can't do both at the same time, especially when support for the legislation is so extensive.
Since we have been asked to intervene in this matter, we are working to develop the industry consensus that is a prerequisite for successfully amending the bill. The jury is still out on whether cooler heads will prevail.
What this means is that the entire industry must understand that it is faced with a choice: try to amend the bill or employ all of your resources to defeat it. The simple fact is that you can't do both at the same time, especially when support for the legislation is so extensive.
Since we have been asked to intervene in this matter, we are working to develop the industry consensus that is a prerequisite for successfully amending the bill. The jury is still out on whether cooler heads will prevail.
Ferrer Hits Bloomberg on Harlem Absence
It is about time that the Ferrer folks started to attack the mayor's $100 million infomercial disguised as a campaign. The only drawback may be the setting and leading actor in a supporting role: Harlem and Al Sharpton. We definitely hope that this doesn't prove to be the case because Mayor Mike's refusal has the ability to expose some of the fallacies inherent in the Bloomberg blitz.
The utility of the attack is in its potential to drag the mayor down from his billionaire balcony and force him to engage in the rough and tumble of an actual campaign. Clearly David Garth and the rest of the mayor's team want to avoid spontaneity at all costs. As long as they can flood the air waves with their own canned message and keep the mayor confined to photo-ops and controlled events their chances of electoral success are assured.
This is clearly revealed in the remarks from NY One's Bob Hardt who noted that the mayor's folks were most concerned with the station's "lightening round" format that would have exposed the "rhetorically disabled" Bloomberg to the need for quick, off-the-cuff responses. It's not that we're looking forward to the mayor's verbal stumbling, it's that it is important to force Mike into a creative and unscripted defense of his record in areas that he has been, so far, unwilling to go.
The utility of the attack is in its potential to drag the mayor down from his billionaire balcony and force him to engage in the rough and tumble of an actual campaign. Clearly David Garth and the rest of the mayor's team want to avoid spontaneity at all costs. As long as they can flood the air waves with their own canned message and keep the mayor confined to photo-ops and controlled events their chances of electoral success are assured.
This is clearly revealed in the remarks from NY One's Bob Hardt who noted that the mayor's folks were most concerned with the station's "lightening round" format that would have exposed the "rhetorically disabled" Bloomberg to the need for quick, off-the-cuff responses. It's not that we're looking forward to the mayor's verbal stumbling, it's that it is important to force Mike into a creative and unscripted defense of his record in areas that he has been, so far, unwilling to go.
Transportation Committee Overrides Mayor’s Fruit Stand Veto
As we have talked about here and here, Councilman John Lui’s Intro 699 would require an extra layer of bureaucratic oversight for the city’s fruit stands. The mayor vetoed the bill but the Council seems set on overriding that veto with alacrity. Though the transportation committee members – who all voted in favor of the override – claimed this was a simple bill that just asked the Department of Transportation to formulate fruit stand guidelines, we are quite skeptical of the legislation’s simplicity and public benefit.
It cannot be denied that in certain neighborhoods sidewalk congestion is a problem but the question is: will the additional regulation of stoop stands, with its new permitting fees, fix the issue without significantly harming minority small business? From our experience, this type of legislation permits inspectors to enlarge city coffers by burdening mom and pop retailers with hefty fines that are very hard to contest at the biased and dysfunctional Environmental Control Board (ECB).
We also find it quite interesting that Lui, the bill’s main sponsor, is also in favor of the stalled Intro 621, legislation that would increase the number of street vendor licenses and expand the areas of the city where these vendors could hawk their goods. If sidewalk congestion is of epidemic proportions as Lui suggests then why does he support a move that would add additional vendors to the street? The presence of additional vendor tables surely does more to hamper sidewalk access then a stoop stand that may be too far from a store front. Councilman Lui, why pick on the tax-paying, legitimate business while promoting those that truly add to congestion and pay no rent/taxes to the city?
Legislation such as Intro 699 will end up just like the numerous other regulations aimed at small business: forged with the intent of protecting the “public good” but, in reality, serving to further encumber an already overburdened small business sector. In the future, we’ll be writing more about how the tax and regulatory burden on NYC small business and its overall negative economic effects.
It cannot be denied that in certain neighborhoods sidewalk congestion is a problem but the question is: will the additional regulation of stoop stands, with its new permitting fees, fix the issue without significantly harming minority small business? From our experience, this type of legislation permits inspectors to enlarge city coffers by burdening mom and pop retailers with hefty fines that are very hard to contest at the biased and dysfunctional Environmental Control Board (ECB).
We also find it quite interesting that Lui, the bill’s main sponsor, is also in favor of the stalled Intro 621, legislation that would increase the number of street vendor licenses and expand the areas of the city where these vendors could hawk their goods. If sidewalk congestion is of epidemic proportions as Lui suggests then why does he support a move that would add additional vendors to the street? The presence of additional vendor tables surely does more to hamper sidewalk access then a stoop stand that may be too far from a store front. Councilman Lui, why pick on the tax-paying, legitimate business while promoting those that truly add to congestion and pay no rent/taxes to the city?
Legislation such as Intro 699 will end up just like the numerous other regulations aimed at small business: forged with the intent of protecting the “public good” but, in reality, serving to further encumber an already overburdened small business sector. In the future, we’ll be writing more about how the tax and regulatory burden on NYC small business and its overall negative economic effects.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Ferrer: Mayor Misled on Terminal Market Deal
There is an interesting story today in Metro today about Ferrer’s attack of the Mayor’s proclivity for publicly-funding new stadiums. Most of the focus is on the failed West Side Stadium attempt but towards the end the Democratic nominee makes an interesting comment about the Bronx Terminal Market. After criticizing the public monies being offered to both the Mets and Yankees, Ferrer mentions the public sweetheart deal between the City and the Related Companies:
The mayor said two years ago [the market] is strictly a private deal, and it turns out not to have been true – it’s not private at all. The mayor’s got to answer for why he misled New Yorkers.We're glad Freddy is starting to point this out and hope he presses the mayor about why the city, at the expense of minority small businesses and NYC taxpayers, is being so generous to a developer friend of the Deputy Mayor.
"Bloomberg's City"
James Traub, who still gets props in our mind for his masterful "City on a Hill" analysis of the plight of City College, takes an interesting look at the four year tenure of Mayor Mike Bloomberg. In the process he manages to make a number of observations that are useful jump-points for a discussion of the state of NYC politics.
Of course anyone who can describe the mayor as the "master of the nonevent", and "rhetorically disabled" was bound to get our full attention. What's really interesting here, however, is Traub's description of the mayor as a non-ideological manager and technocrat. He sees this as a welcome cooling off from the hyper-emotional reign of his predecessor. And maybe it is. As Traub relates, "Even people who welcomed the Giuliani blunderbuss had come to find his tenure exhausting."
This kind of analysis misses an important point. Giuliani’s force majeure personality was part of a political worldview. In combination it had a powerful impact on the political culture of this city. It is not likely that the crime and welfare policies that Giuliani pursued could have been successfully implemented without the drama that the former mayor brought to the political scene. In fact his success is precisely what allows Bloomberg to govern in his faux technocratic fashion.
Education is a case in point. Traub argues that "Bloomberg also succeeded where his predecessor failed by persuading state legislators to grant him full control over the city's vast and refractory school system." Exactly right, but this skirts the underlying truth that without Giuliani’s eight years of incessant hectoring against a failed educational bureaucracy Mike Bloomberg wouldn't have gotten to first base on this issue. According to those who know Shelly Silver, it is clear that the Speaker was also prepared to cede control to Mark Green if he were elected.
In addition, Traub only alludes to the mayor's knee jerk progressive education initiatives that were only jettisoned when the unlamented Diane Lam was herself sent packing after a brief attempt at nepotism (Which Andrew Wolf has chronicled in the NY Sun). In this we can see the wisdom of Fred Siegel’s description of Bloomberg as a "liberal paternalist." There is also strong reason to question how much the mayor has actually continued the Giuliani approach to welfare reform.
On a larger front, however, the short comings in Traub's evaluation of Bloomberg devolve from his juxtaposition of ideology and managerial competence. Borrowing from Max Weber, it is essential to understand that charisma is a necessary component of political change, particularly when faced with a hidebound political culture and its bureaucratic co-conspirators.
Here we believe that Siegel is right and Traub wrong. Siegel correctly sees the Bloomberg backsliding for what it is: a surrender to New York's paternalistic liberal culture. As a result, to call, as Traub does, the Siegel accusation "hyperbolic" is off the mark. The only thing that remains from the Guliani tenure is a crime prevention policy that Bloomberg frankly wouldn't dare even try to reverse.
The key issue that underscores this argument is the Bloomberg response to the city's budget deficit in 2002. As Traub points out, the Guiliani response to towering deficits was to argue that a bloated city bureaucracy was the culprit and the former mayor proceeded to chop it down to size, "enraging traditional liberals and public employee unions."
Bloomberg, starkly diverting from the Giuliani playbook, raised taxes to record levels. Traub nicely captures the Bloomberg mindset here when he recalls the mayor's smug remark that New York was a "luxury good" for which New Yorkers are willing to pay a premium. Who was Mike speaking of here? Mike's response to the bodega owners complaining about a record increase in the cigarette tax is also worth repeating: "It's a minor economic issue."
Giuliani, even though we had major battles with him, did use his unique blend of acerbic personality and ideological passion to reshape the city's political culture. Bloomberg's mainstream liberalism, as well as his dispassionate technocratic style and personality, do threaten to reestablish the very same political worldview that necessitated the Giuliani whirlwind in the first place.
New York City's government is badly in need of reinvention. A sclerotic bureaucracy and an unmanageable tax burden will be seriously challenged if we are facing the $4.5 billion deficit that is predicted for 2006. As Traub points out, "Bloomberg has yet to explain how he will whittle down that sum without resorting to new taxes". Bloombergism, then, is a recrudescence, an unfortunate reversion to the mind set of Robert Wagner. It's exactly what got this city in its original political mess.
Precisely the point. The next budget crisis will demand an innovative approach that Mike Bloomberg is unlikely to be able to muster, not when he is imbued with the kind of ideological blinders that views government as inherently benevolent. This is the cutting edge evaluation that eludes Traub.
The "master of the nonevent" is a stylistic distraction from a proper framework for political analysis. An emphasis on the Giuliani abrasiveness misses the substance of his critique and subsequent reform efforts. The real question here is, Can meaningful change be accomplished without aggressive ideological bombast in NYC when a smug, self-righteous and change-resistant political and cultural elite resists it at every turn?
Postscript
Another story written in the magazine section by Sam Tennenhaus should be read as a companion to the Traub piece. The article is about Bill Buckley's quixotic mayoral run in 1965. The point to be made here is that Tennenhaus adroitly shows how Ed Koch and Rudy Guiliani, admittedly in less ideological tones, are the heirs to Buckley's challenge to NYC's liberal orthodoxy.
Their success, as Buckley's, was a direct result of the fact that serious defects were exposed in a world view that the liberal establishment had been able to promulgate unchallenged. It is precisely a view that Mike Bloomberg, unreflective and without any real policy expertise, clings to.
Of course anyone who can describe the mayor as the "master of the nonevent", and "rhetorically disabled" was bound to get our full attention. What's really interesting here, however, is Traub's description of the mayor as a non-ideological manager and technocrat. He sees this as a welcome cooling off from the hyper-emotional reign of his predecessor. And maybe it is. As Traub relates, "Even people who welcomed the Giuliani blunderbuss had come to find his tenure exhausting."
This kind of analysis misses an important point. Giuliani’s force majeure personality was part of a political worldview. In combination it had a powerful impact on the political culture of this city. It is not likely that the crime and welfare policies that Giuliani pursued could have been successfully implemented without the drama that the former mayor brought to the political scene. In fact his success is precisely what allows Bloomberg to govern in his faux technocratic fashion.
Education is a case in point. Traub argues that "Bloomberg also succeeded where his predecessor failed by persuading state legislators to grant him full control over the city's vast and refractory school system." Exactly right, but this skirts the underlying truth that without Giuliani’s eight years of incessant hectoring against a failed educational bureaucracy Mike Bloomberg wouldn't have gotten to first base on this issue. According to those who know Shelly Silver, it is clear that the Speaker was also prepared to cede control to Mark Green if he were elected.
In addition, Traub only alludes to the mayor's knee jerk progressive education initiatives that were only jettisoned when the unlamented Diane Lam was herself sent packing after a brief attempt at nepotism (Which Andrew Wolf has chronicled in the NY Sun). In this we can see the wisdom of Fred Siegel’s description of Bloomberg as a "liberal paternalist." There is also strong reason to question how much the mayor has actually continued the Giuliani approach to welfare reform.
On a larger front, however, the short comings in Traub's evaluation of Bloomberg devolve from his juxtaposition of ideology and managerial competence. Borrowing from Max Weber, it is essential to understand that charisma is a necessary component of political change, particularly when faced with a hidebound political culture and its bureaucratic co-conspirators.
Here we believe that Siegel is right and Traub wrong. Siegel correctly sees the Bloomberg backsliding for what it is: a surrender to New York's paternalistic liberal culture. As a result, to call, as Traub does, the Siegel accusation "hyperbolic" is off the mark. The only thing that remains from the Guliani tenure is a crime prevention policy that Bloomberg frankly wouldn't dare even try to reverse.
The key issue that underscores this argument is the Bloomberg response to the city's budget deficit in 2002. As Traub points out, the Guiliani response to towering deficits was to argue that a bloated city bureaucracy was the culprit and the former mayor proceeded to chop it down to size, "enraging traditional liberals and public employee unions."
Bloomberg, starkly diverting from the Giuliani playbook, raised taxes to record levels. Traub nicely captures the Bloomberg mindset here when he recalls the mayor's smug remark that New York was a "luxury good" for which New Yorkers are willing to pay a premium. Who was Mike speaking of here? Mike's response to the bodega owners complaining about a record increase in the cigarette tax is also worth repeating: "It's a minor economic issue."
Giuliani, even though we had major battles with him, did use his unique blend of acerbic personality and ideological passion to reshape the city's political culture. Bloomberg's mainstream liberalism, as well as his dispassionate technocratic style and personality, do threaten to reestablish the very same political worldview that necessitated the Giuliani whirlwind in the first place.
New York City's government is badly in need of reinvention. A sclerotic bureaucracy and an unmanageable tax burden will be seriously challenged if we are facing the $4.5 billion deficit that is predicted for 2006. As Traub points out, "Bloomberg has yet to explain how he will whittle down that sum without resorting to new taxes". Bloombergism, then, is a recrudescence, an unfortunate reversion to the mind set of Robert Wagner. It's exactly what got this city in its original political mess.
Precisely the point. The next budget crisis will demand an innovative approach that Mike Bloomberg is unlikely to be able to muster, not when he is imbued with the kind of ideological blinders that views government as inherently benevolent. This is the cutting edge evaluation that eludes Traub.
The "master of the nonevent" is a stylistic distraction from a proper framework for political analysis. An emphasis on the Giuliani abrasiveness misses the substance of his critique and subsequent reform efforts. The real question here is, Can meaningful change be accomplished without aggressive ideological bombast in NYC when a smug, self-righteous and change-resistant political and cultural elite resists it at every turn?
Postscript
Another story written in the magazine section by Sam Tennenhaus should be read as a companion to the Traub piece. The article is about Bill Buckley's quixotic mayoral run in 1965. The point to be made here is that Tennenhaus adroitly shows how Ed Koch and Rudy Guiliani, admittedly in less ideological tones, are the heirs to Buckley's challenge to NYC's liberal orthodoxy.
Their success, as Buckley's, was a direct result of the fact that serious defects were exposed in a world view that the liberal establishment had been able to promulgate unchallenged. It is precisely a view that Mike Bloomberg, unreflective and without any real policy expertise, clings to.
Eminent Domain and Reason
This month’s Reason magazine has a great interview with the lawyer who defended the homeowners in New London, the Institute for Justice's Scott Bullock. Bullock, still hopeful that the New London homeowners will retain their properties, points to the whirlwind of legislative activity around the ED issue as an example of the positive fallout from the SC's Kelo decision.
The best Bullock response was when he was asked whether the fact that the New London redevelopment was part of a "well-developed plan" made the decision justifiable. Bullock's reply, echoing what we have pointed out before in regards to the NY Times' supportive editorial, was that anyone who thinks the existence of a plan (there's always a plan), means the idea had some merit, "is completely disconnected from reality."
The best Bullock response was when he was asked whether the fact that the New London redevelopment was part of a "well-developed plan" made the decision justifiable. Bullock's reply, echoing what we have pointed out before in regards to the NY Times' supportive editorial, was that anyone who thinks the existence of a plan (there's always a plan), means the idea had some merit, "is completely disconnected from reality."
Bloomberg Ducks, Media Quacks
The decision of the Bloomberg campaign to duck next week's mayoral debate at the Apollo Theater in Harlem was expected. It is part of the age-old incumbent's strategy of avoiding unscripted events where a gaffe could prove costly. In Bloomberg's case, the merits of his ducking are even more compelling, given Mike's relative paucity of policy expertise and his minimal talent at public speaking.
What is a little surprising, however, was the media response on Saturday to the shuck and duck strategy. In fact only the Post, of all papers, gave the story both a prominent placing as well as a decent headline. What was missing of course was the colorful tabloid ridicule that accompanied the Freddy snafu over his educational resume. In that case, the Democrat received a frontpage dunce cap. Wouldn't a frontpage picture of the mayor in a chicken costume been apropos?
The Times' coverage was especially disappointing. The paper's story headlined the agreement between the two candidates for two late debates (as the campaign rushes towards its apparently inevitable conclusion). The egregiousness of the story, its minimization through hiding in plain sight, must be viewed in the context of the entire issue of campaign finance reform.
As we have railed about before, if you are going to make this a signature issue than it is incumbent that a degree of consistency is maintained. The mayor's spending has been consistently underplayed by the Times and the paper's failure to mention it while wailing about the possibility of a conservative SC may knock down McCain-Feingold is not up to any decent journalistic standards.
Which brings us to the debate issue. One of the key reasons that the mayor can refuse to debate is that he has been able to suck the oxygen out of campaign discussion by spending millions of his own dollars. Aiding and abetting this onslaught is a relatively uncritical media, one that has failed time and time again to hold the mayor up to any in-depth scrutiny.
With all this in mind Mike's shucking and ducking deserves to be thoroughly lambasted. One thing the city could really use is a contentious election debate on key issues like education, economic development, tax and regulatory policy, solid waste and public safety; a debate that at least forces the mayor to try to articulate some vision of what the next four years will be like in a second Bloomberg administration. When is the media going to get fed up with the mayor's orgy of advertising misinformation?
Postscript
The Sunday Times followed up on this story and got it right, headlining the piece with Freddy's charge that the mayor was ducking the debate. Let's hope that the tabs follow up on this story as the "debate" nears and that the Times comes through with the appropriate editorial scolding of the mayor's gold-plated pusillanimity.
Postscript II
The Daily News flunks the equal time for ridicule standard today when it leads the debate story with a "Bloomberg Strikes Back" motif. Really? The Sun's take is much better here with the paper ridiculing the mayor for using Mark Green as the gold standard on debates. Newsday also steps up by focusing on the outrage over the mayor's shucking and ducking.
All of the media should be juxtaposing the debate issue to the mayor's record profligacy on the campaign trail. In fact, if the papers wanted to really do their job they would use this issue to point out that it is the sitting mayor, and not his Democratic challenger, who is the supreme flip-flopper. After all it was Bloomberg who said that he wanted four debates in 2001, and it was the same Bloomberg who all but assured us that he wouldn't spend at the same levels to get re-elected.
Once this was pointed out, it might also be useful to mention that it was good old Mike who criticized the aforementioned Green as a congenital tax and spender only to quickly morph into a mayor who is pretty much indistinguishable from the former Nader's Raider on this issue. This is the very same Bloomberg who, after raising taxes to record levels, immediately broke his promise on public funding of sports stadiums.
The larger and more important point here is that the mayor, unconstrained by the need to face the voters again, is liable to do a number of things that will upset New Yorkers, including the raising of taxes once again as well as the closing of additional fire houses.
What is a little surprising, however, was the media response on Saturday to the shuck and duck strategy. In fact only the Post, of all papers, gave the story both a prominent placing as well as a decent headline. What was missing of course was the colorful tabloid ridicule that accompanied the Freddy snafu over his educational resume. In that case, the Democrat received a frontpage dunce cap. Wouldn't a frontpage picture of the mayor in a chicken costume been apropos?
The Times' coverage was especially disappointing. The paper's story headlined the agreement between the two candidates for two late debates (as the campaign rushes towards its apparently inevitable conclusion). The egregiousness of the story, its minimization through hiding in plain sight, must be viewed in the context of the entire issue of campaign finance reform.
As we have railed about before, if you are going to make this a signature issue than it is incumbent that a degree of consistency is maintained. The mayor's spending has been consistently underplayed by the Times and the paper's failure to mention it while wailing about the possibility of a conservative SC may knock down McCain-Feingold is not up to any decent journalistic standards.
Which brings us to the debate issue. One of the key reasons that the mayor can refuse to debate is that he has been able to suck the oxygen out of campaign discussion by spending millions of his own dollars. Aiding and abetting this onslaught is a relatively uncritical media, one that has failed time and time again to hold the mayor up to any in-depth scrutiny.
With all this in mind Mike's shucking and ducking deserves to be thoroughly lambasted. One thing the city could really use is a contentious election debate on key issues like education, economic development, tax and regulatory policy, solid waste and public safety; a debate that at least forces the mayor to try to articulate some vision of what the next four years will be like in a second Bloomberg administration. When is the media going to get fed up with the mayor's orgy of advertising misinformation?
Postscript
The Sunday Times followed up on this story and got it right, headlining the piece with Freddy's charge that the mayor was ducking the debate. Let's hope that the tabs follow up on this story as the "debate" nears and that the Times comes through with the appropriate editorial scolding of the mayor's gold-plated pusillanimity.
Postscript II
The Daily News flunks the equal time for ridicule standard today when it leads the debate story with a "Bloomberg Strikes Back" motif. Really? The Sun's take is much better here with the paper ridiculing the mayor for using Mark Green as the gold standard on debates. Newsday also steps up by focusing on the outrage over the mayor's shucking and ducking.
All of the media should be juxtaposing the debate issue to the mayor's record profligacy on the campaign trail. In fact, if the papers wanted to really do their job they would use this issue to point out that it is the sitting mayor, and not his Democratic challenger, who is the supreme flip-flopper. After all it was Bloomberg who said that he wanted four debates in 2001, and it was the same Bloomberg who all but assured us that he wouldn't spend at the same levels to get re-elected.
Once this was pointed out, it might also be useful to mention that it was good old Mike who criticized the aforementioned Green as a congenital tax and spender only to quickly morph into a mayor who is pretty much indistinguishable from the former Nader's Raider on this issue. This is the very same Bloomberg who, after raising taxes to record levels, immediately broke his promise on public funding of sports stadiums.
The larger and more important point here is that the mayor, unconstrained by the need to face the voters again, is liable to do a number of things that will upset New Yorkers, including the raising of taxes once again as well as the closing of additional fire houses.
Daily News Examines BTM Deal
In a Sunday story in the Daily News, Bill Egbert examines the BTM deal and questions not only its fairness but also whether the city, in sole sourcing the development rights, got shortchanged. The priceless quote belongs to Goldman Sachs’s own Andrew Alper (on loan to EDC and acting as its president).
Alper tells the News that "Given the cards we were dealt here...this was an outstanding deal." In saying this, Alper is actually making the first case in card playing history where a stacked deck is transformed into an example of skillful card playing. As he went on to admit, a request for proposal, i.e. an actual bid process, "might have resulted in more money for the city" (Clearly, as this shrewd observation reveals, Alper's ascension to managing partner at G-S was not a result of nepotism).
The entire nature of this insider swindle still awaits a more thorough investigation. Perhaps only criminal charges will lead to the uncovering of the full nature of how Dollar-a-year-Dan rigged the deal for his friend Ross. What's fascinating in the article is the city's admission that, even though it had been litigating with the Buntzman family for years, it needed to act quickly to prevent the slumlord from winning a $100 court judgment.
Given this dire possibility the quick thinking deputy mayor did what any other official would have done under the circumstances: he called his best friend for help. Would anyone in this ridiculous narrative voluntarily submit to a polygraph? A reporter once said to us that, while the deal might look questionable there's no direct evidence of collusion. Yet isn't it quite remarkable that of all the good developers in this city the firm that ends up with this sweetheart arrangement just happens to have close ties to Dan Doctoroff?
In fact, going back to Charles Bagli's excellent expose of the Doctoroff-Ross relationship last November, there are a number of other good examples of apparent favoritism by the Bloomberg administration that has benefited the Related Companies and Steve Ross. So, perhaps it wasn't the case with the BTM but as the proverb goes, "The race doesn't always go to the swift, but that's the way to bet."
Alper tells the News that "Given the cards we were dealt here...this was an outstanding deal." In saying this, Alper is actually making the first case in card playing history where a stacked deck is transformed into an example of skillful card playing. As he went on to admit, a request for proposal, i.e. an actual bid process, "might have resulted in more money for the city" (Clearly, as this shrewd observation reveals, Alper's ascension to managing partner at G-S was not a result of nepotism).
The entire nature of this insider swindle still awaits a more thorough investigation. Perhaps only criminal charges will lead to the uncovering of the full nature of how Dollar-a-year-Dan rigged the deal for his friend Ross. What's fascinating in the article is the city's admission that, even though it had been litigating with the Buntzman family for years, it needed to act quickly to prevent the slumlord from winning a $100 court judgment.
Given this dire possibility the quick thinking deputy mayor did what any other official would have done under the circumstances: he called his best friend for help. Would anyone in this ridiculous narrative voluntarily submit to a polygraph? A reporter once said to us that, while the deal might look questionable there's no direct evidence of collusion. Yet isn't it quite remarkable that of all the good developers in this city the firm that ends up with this sweetheart arrangement just happens to have close ties to Dan Doctoroff?
In fact, going back to Charles Bagli's excellent expose of the Doctoroff-Ross relationship last November, there are a number of other good examples of apparent favoritism by the Bloomberg administration that has benefited the Related Companies and Steve Ross. So, perhaps it wasn't the case with the BTM but as the proverb goes, "The race doesn't always go to the swift, but that's the way to bet."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)