The NY Daily News has had a history of offering just awful advice-so much so that the folk singer Tom Paxton penned the immortal "Daily News, Daily Blues," ditty. Here are the money lyrics-with an adjustment for inflation:
"Daily News, daily blues
Pick up a copy any time you choose
Seven little pennies in the newsboy's hand
And you ride right along to never, never land."
So, it's within this context that we need to take this morning's advice to Malcolm Smith, that the majority leader strip Carl Kruger of his finance chairmanship: "That post demands a modicum of sense and responsibility as to raising and spending taxpayer monies. Brooklyn Democrat Carl Kruger has neither. His plan for bailing out the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is so far off the beam, it's lunacy."
Of course, if your Morticia at the Daily News it's completely rational to rip off motorists in order to pour money down the black hole called the MTA; or, to do a complete 180 on your position on term limits in order to usher in the reign of Mike III. Or, to propose a congestion tax so that Manhattan can be freed up for greater limousine access for your Billionaire Boys Club.
Now Kruger's transit plan may not pass the smell test for the scions at the News, but how would folks with a permanent sinus condition when it comes to sniffing public malfeasance-at least when it comes to their rich real estate buddies-be able to tell? After all, the News lead the cheers for all of the city's eminent domain projects, where local property owners were forced, looking down the barrel of a public gun, to relinquish their land to richer folks.
And, how can we forget that the paper lauded the sweetheart Bronx Terminal Market rip-off, where small minority wholesalers were evicted for the pleasure of the billionaire Steve Ross. Oh, and did the Daily News ever opine about how the Bloombergistas ripped off Bronx parkland in hopeful exchange for a luxury box? No, exhibiting typical noblesse oblige lockjaw, they left that to their intrepid columnist Juan Gonzales to inveigh against.
So now they want Kruger's scalp, and for what? For the temerity of standing up for the outer borough middle class, the same folks who pay 50 cents to allow Morticia to editorialize against their interests. If anyone should leave, it is the paper's publisher; let him follow the profligate and inept Pinch Sulzberger, right out the door. The resulting editorial silence would be a blessing.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
House of Cards
Adolfo Carrion is now added to the increasingly large list of folks for whom the White House vetting process has proven to be more than somewhat lacking. Not only was Carrion a master of the pay-for-play political shakedown; he was also using his position to get folks to provide free services. As the NY Daily News reported yesterday: "President Obama's new urban czar, Adolfo Carrión, admitted Tuesday he has not paid an architect who designed a renovation of his Bronx home two years ago.That presents conflict-of-interest issues because at the time the architect was a key player in a Bronx development that needed approval from Carrión, then the Bronx borough president."
Well, it's only been two years, so maybe Adolfo had a clause that allowed him to wait-forever?-until he could be sure that the house wouldn't collapse because of architectural errors: "In a statement to the Daily News, Carrión admitted he hadn't paid architect Hugo Subotovsky to design a porch and balcony for his City Island home. The renovation occurred more than two years ago. The last document filed with the city Buildings Department is dated Feb. 2, 2007. The work permit on the job expired that same month."
Unable to ignore this potentially unreported-and illegal-gift, the White House responded to the News' revelations in today's edition: "The White House told urban czar Adolfo Carrión on Wednesday to pay the architect who did work on his Bronx home more than two years ago. The Daily News reported that Carrión, the former Bronx borough president who is now the White House urban policy director, had the architect draw up renovations in early 2007. That work came as Carrión's office was reviewing the architect's plan for a housing project. Carrión still hasn't paid for the work, raising questions about whether it was a freebie done to win approval of the project."
And, on the editorial page, the paper mocks the "urban legend," underscoring what many of us have known about the slippery AC: "Then, one day, the powerful borough president, who goes by the name Adolfo Carrión and who was always asked for valuable permissions, said to the architect: "Please, my supplicant, design a wondrous home for me." And the architect, whose name was Hugo (The Helpful) Subotovsky, said: "Yes, powerful sir." And so Hugo the Helpful drew up magnificent plans in the Victorian style, and he worked and worked on them until, lo, after the passage of almost three years, the powerful borough president had a renovated house that suited his magnificence."
Carrion better pay up fast-after all, he doesn't have any job to go back to now that he has resigned his Bronx post. But with the new administration's desire to bail out all manner of deadbeats with its mortgage bailout proposal, we believe that Adolfo Carrion will fit in well down in DC, along with a number of other ethical challenged folks-reminding us of the words sung by the melodious Mary Wells: "I'm sticking to my guy like a stamp to a letter. Like birds of a feather, we stick together. I'm tellin' you from the start. I can't be torn apart from my guy."
For AC's sake, this better be the last bombshell; or else he will join Tom Daschile and Bill Richardson in the Conflict of Interest Hall of Fame. But, probably not. Even when it comes to taking a hand out, he remains simply minor league.
Well, it's only been two years, so maybe Adolfo had a clause that allowed him to wait-forever?-until he could be sure that the house wouldn't collapse because of architectural errors: "In a statement to the Daily News, Carrión admitted he hadn't paid architect Hugo Subotovsky to design a porch and balcony for his City Island home. The renovation occurred more than two years ago. The last document filed with the city Buildings Department is dated Feb. 2, 2007. The work permit on the job expired that same month."
Unable to ignore this potentially unreported-and illegal-gift, the White House responded to the News' revelations in today's edition: "The White House told urban czar Adolfo Carrión on Wednesday to pay the architect who did work on his Bronx home more than two years ago. The Daily News reported that Carrión, the former Bronx borough president who is now the White House urban policy director, had the architect draw up renovations in early 2007. That work came as Carrión's office was reviewing the architect's plan for a housing project. Carrión still hasn't paid for the work, raising questions about whether it was a freebie done to win approval of the project."
And, on the editorial page, the paper mocks the "urban legend," underscoring what many of us have known about the slippery AC: "Then, one day, the powerful borough president, who goes by the name Adolfo Carrión and who was always asked for valuable permissions, said to the architect: "Please, my supplicant, design a wondrous home for me." And the architect, whose name was Hugo (The Helpful) Subotovsky, said: "Yes, powerful sir." And so Hugo the Helpful drew up magnificent plans in the Victorian style, and he worked and worked on them until, lo, after the passage of almost three years, the powerful borough president had a renovated house that suited his magnificence."
Carrion better pay up fast-after all, he doesn't have any job to go back to now that he has resigned his Bronx post. But with the new administration's desire to bail out all manner of deadbeats with its mortgage bailout proposal, we believe that Adolfo Carrion will fit in well down in DC, along with a number of other ethical challenged folks-reminding us of the words sung by the melodious Mary Wells: "I'm sticking to my guy like a stamp to a letter. Like birds of a feather, we stick together. I'm tellin' you from the start. I can't be torn apart from my guy."
For AC's sake, this better be the last bombshell; or else he will join Tom Daschile and Bill Richardson in the Conflict of Interest Hall of Fame. But, probably not. Even when it comes to taking a hand out, he remains simply minor league.
Soda Tax RIP
In what was almost inevitable since the public outcry-and industry-led lobbying effort-was started over the governor's proposed soda tax, it was announced yesterday that the tax on sugared soft drinks had fizzled: "Gov. David Paterson is poised to announce a three-way agreement between himself and majority legislative leaders to ditch many of the so-called "fun taxes" he proposed as revenue generators in his 2009-2010 budget, lawmakers briefed on the plan confirm. The soda tax (AKA the "fat tax"), which Paterson all-but declared dead not too long ago, despite a valiant YouTube defense mounted by DOH Commissioner Richard Daines, will now be officially confined to the recycling heap, along with the ever-unpopular "iPod" tax that would have applied to all digital downloads (including porn)."
As we had pointed out in our posts, and in a well publicized press conference, the tax hurt poor consumers along with the store owners in low income neighborhoods. As we said at the time, when it looked as if Paterson was about to cry uncle: "Opponents of the soda tax — which Mr. Paterson and his aides preferred to call a tax on obesity, which afflicts a quarter of New Yorkers — said they were glad that Mr. Paterson appeared to be abandoning it. “The governor is responding to the obvious hue and cry, not only from the food and beverage industry people, but from the general public, who have shown in poll after poll that this is not an idea that they feel is worth embracing,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the beverage industry."
Still, can we at least say that this victory is a sweet one? Especially for the small Hispanic bottlers such as Good-O, Inca Kola and Top Pop; folks who would have been hard pressed to absorb the increase during these tough times. As Luis Jardines, owner of Inca, told El Diario-emphasizing the tough economic conditions: "Por su parte, Luis Jardines, de la distribuidora de Inca Kola, dijo que “es triste que, en estos momentos críticos, en que cada día se pierden miles de empleos, se quiera poner un impuesto adicional a un producto que consume el pueblo”.
Clearly, the unpopularity of both the tax-as well as the governor himself-played a role in the jettisoning of the soda levy. The City Room blog captures this: "With budget negotiations proceeding at a crawl and his approval ratings in the gutter, Gov. David A. Paterson announced a deal with the Legislature on Wednesday to use more than a billion dollars in federal stimulus money to eliminate some of the unpopular new taxes and fees he had proposed to help balance next year’s state budget."
Next up, the bottle bill-with support for the measure waning in the state senate; the razor thin Democratic majority makes this a difficult sell. As the NY Times points out this morning: "Everything has broken down,” said one Democratic lobbyist, who insisted on anonymity to protect the interests of his clients. “The reason is that the Senate can’t produce — they can’t generate votes for taxes, for Rockefeller drug law reform, for anything.” At the same time, it is clear that many in the legislature feel that it's not the time to foist regulatory burdens on struggling retailers; and, surprise, we agree.
As we had pointed out in our posts, and in a well publicized press conference, the tax hurt poor consumers along with the store owners in low income neighborhoods. As we said at the time, when it looked as if Paterson was about to cry uncle: "Opponents of the soda tax — which Mr. Paterson and his aides preferred to call a tax on obesity, which afflicts a quarter of New Yorkers — said they were glad that Mr. Paterson appeared to be abandoning it. “The governor is responding to the obvious hue and cry, not only from the food and beverage industry people, but from the general public, who have shown in poll after poll that this is not an idea that they feel is worth embracing,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the beverage industry."
Still, can we at least say that this victory is a sweet one? Especially for the small Hispanic bottlers such as Good-O, Inca Kola and Top Pop; folks who would have been hard pressed to absorb the increase during these tough times. As Luis Jardines, owner of Inca, told El Diario-emphasizing the tough economic conditions: "Por su parte, Luis Jardines, de la distribuidora de Inca Kola, dijo que “es triste que, en estos momentos críticos, en que cada día se pierden miles de empleos, se quiera poner un impuesto adicional a un producto que consume el pueblo”.
Clearly, the unpopularity of both the tax-as well as the governor himself-played a role in the jettisoning of the soda levy. The City Room blog captures this: "With budget negotiations proceeding at a crawl and his approval ratings in the gutter, Gov. David A. Paterson announced a deal with the Legislature on Wednesday to use more than a billion dollars in federal stimulus money to eliminate some of the unpopular new taxes and fees he had proposed to help balance next year’s state budget."
Next up, the bottle bill-with support for the measure waning in the state senate; the razor thin Democratic majority makes this a difficult sell. As the NY Times points out this morning: "Everything has broken down,” said one Democratic lobbyist, who insisted on anonymity to protect the interests of his clients. “The reason is that the Senate can’t produce — they can’t generate votes for taxes, for Rockefeller drug law reform, for anything.” At the same time, it is clear that many in the legislature feel that it's not the time to foist regulatory burdens on struggling retailers; and, surprise, we agree.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
News Extolling Kruger
The NY Daily News, the paper for whom the congestion tax was the highest standard of public policy excellence, is continuing its campaign of trying to, well, throw the three amigos-and two other senators-under the bus for their principled opposition to bridge tolls: "If you're among the 109,000 southern Brooklyn subway riders, be warned: your state senator, Carl Kruger, is engineering drastic fare hikes and service cuts for you. If you're among the 123,000 southern Bronx subway riders, be warned: your senator, Ruben Diaz, is pushing you toward the same awful fate. The same is true if you're among 111,400 subway riders in Sen. Pedro Espada's central Bronx district; 78,000 in Sen. Kevin Parker's central Brooklyn district, and 56,000 in Ruth Hassell-Thompson's northern Bronx district. Kruger, Diaz, Espada, Parker and Hassell-Thompson have emerged as the leading opponents of rescuing the MTA from collapse by imposing a tax on payrolls and tolls on the East River and Harlem River bridges."
This is, count them, the sixth editorial that the paper has run in its attempt to tar baby the opposition-and present the toll hike as the inevitable result of what it presents as a zero-sum game. Absent in any of this advocacy and excoriation is there any recognition that the MTA is a dysfunctional agency whose cries of poverty need to be seen in order to be believed; as with a forensic accounting of its books and practices.
For instance, just how many over there are making better than six figure salaries? How much property could be sold to create a temporary respite while the agency's finances are gone over with a fine tooth comb? None of this is within the tolling purview of the News; a paper that seemingly delights in the anticipation of socking it to city motorists.
Neither does the News explore any alternative funding mechanisms-as Kruger has done. Here's his comments to the Politicker: ""Deadlines are arbitrary dates set by people that have things to hide," State Senator Carl Kruger, who is adamantly opposed to tolls, told me. His idea to generate revenue for the M.T.A.: use bridges over the East and Harlem River as collateral, borrow $4.25 billion against them, give $1 billion to the M.T.A. and invest the remainder in the state's common retirement fund and use the return - it's "conservatively" pegged at 6.5 percent - to pay off the bonds."The most recent proposal about creating a public benefit authority: it's met with stonewall silence," Kruger claimed. "There are other proposals on the table as well and they too have been met with silence. I don't feel, nor will I accept the fact that there's linkage from one piece of this so-called bailout is married to another piece of the bailout."
So instead we get the bogarting bum rush from the taxers-limousine riders from Manhattan who now cry crocodile tears for straphangers-all in order to hide their shameless defense of the malfeasant public authority, It's time that Malcolm Smith called Silver's bluff-and the MTA's anti-motorist and small business plan. There's a better alternative out there than tolling all of the bridges.
This is, count them, the sixth editorial that the paper has run in its attempt to tar baby the opposition-and present the toll hike as the inevitable result of what it presents as a zero-sum game. Absent in any of this advocacy and excoriation is there any recognition that the MTA is a dysfunctional agency whose cries of poverty need to be seen in order to be believed; as with a forensic accounting of its books and practices.
For instance, just how many over there are making better than six figure salaries? How much property could be sold to create a temporary respite while the agency's finances are gone over with a fine tooth comb? None of this is within the tolling purview of the News; a paper that seemingly delights in the anticipation of socking it to city motorists.
Neither does the News explore any alternative funding mechanisms-as Kruger has done. Here's his comments to the Politicker: ""Deadlines are arbitrary dates set by people that have things to hide," State Senator Carl Kruger, who is adamantly opposed to tolls, told me. His idea to generate revenue for the M.T.A.: use bridges over the East and Harlem River as collateral, borrow $4.25 billion against them, give $1 billion to the M.T.A. and invest the remainder in the state's common retirement fund and use the return - it's "conservatively" pegged at 6.5 percent - to pay off the bonds."The most recent proposal about creating a public benefit authority: it's met with stonewall silence," Kruger claimed. "There are other proposals on the table as well and they too have been met with silence. I don't feel, nor will I accept the fact that there's linkage from one piece of this so-called bailout is married to another piece of the bailout."
So instead we get the bogarting bum rush from the taxers-limousine riders from Manhattan who now cry crocodile tears for straphangers-all in order to hide their shameless defense of the malfeasant public authority, It's time that Malcolm Smith called Silver's bluff-and the MTA's anti-motorist and small business plan. There's a better alternative out there than tolling all of the bridges.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Carrion's Home Improvement
Questions are being raised about that kind of help former Bronx BP might have gotten to renovate his City Isl;and house. As the NY Daily News reports: "President Obama's new urban czar renovated his Bronx home with help from the architect on a major development that needed his approval, a Daily News investigation has found."
Carrion, for his part, vigorously defended his tenure: "As the Bronx borough president, I built a reputation for integrity and dedication to my constituents." But, as the News reported last week: "...several developers seeking Carrión's approval for projects across the Bronx raised tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions for him."
Maybe Adolfo left at the opportune moment-but to his defense, his alleged misdeeds pale in comparison to those of the shifty fingered Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut; someone for whom merely getting some architectural help is considered chump change when a sweetheart mortgage is available-from an industry he regulates-to save himself tens of thousands of dollars.
But then AC is going to Washington where, apparently, his Bronx training will stand him in good stead for the rigors of national politics; and the blandishments of the pay-to-play crowd. Not like Mr. Smith, is it?
Carrion, for his part, vigorously defended his tenure: "As the Bronx borough president, I built a reputation for integrity and dedication to my constituents." But, as the News reported last week: "...several developers seeking Carrión's approval for projects across the Bronx raised tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions for him."
Maybe Adolfo left at the opportune moment-but to his defense, his alleged misdeeds pale in comparison to those of the shifty fingered Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut; someone for whom merely getting some architectural help is considered chump change when a sweetheart mortgage is available-from an industry he regulates-to save himself tens of thousands of dollars.
But then AC is going to Washington where, apparently, his Bronx training will stand him in good stead for the rigors of national politics; and the blandishments of the pay-to-play crowd. Not like Mr. Smith, is it?
Poisoned Toll House Cookies
It certainly looks as if it's gonna be a difficult sell for Malcolm Smith to get his conference to accept tolling of the East River and Harlem bridges, even as Anthony Weiner proposes just charging out-of-towners. As the NY Post reports: "Mayoral hopeful Rep. Anthony Weiner wants the MTA's financial crisis to take the biggest toll on out-of-towners. Weiner said cameras could take pictures of license plates crossing the now free East and Harlem river bridges, and bill drivers who aren't registered in the city $4.15 each way. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith tried to rally support for a plan that would bill anyone who crosses the East River bridges $5 or $4.15 for E-ZPass holders. Drivers crossing the Harlem River bridges would be billed $2."
One of the toll's little understood impacts is the hurting it would put on the city's small businesses. Just recently, for instance, Assemblyman Espaillat brought MTA guru Richard Ravitch up to meet with our friend Paul Gagliardi, the owner of Flair Beverage on 207th Street. Espaillat wanted Ravitch to gauge how the toll plan would impact Flair's cash and carry beer business-a business that relies on bodegas coming from the Bronx across 207th Street to shop.
Gagliardi estimated that he could lose up to 35% of his business because the cash-strapped bodegueros make frequent daily trips across the span to replenish their stock of beer and soda; and his neighboring supermarkets could also be impacted, he told Ravitch, because of the additional expense of tolls. What the transit vultures never realize-and we saw the same thing with the mayor's congestion tax-is that the city is one seamless piece; and small business relies on its easy access to Manhattan markets to sustain wholesale and contracting operations housed in the outer boroughs.
So, while five state senators are balking at the toll plan because of its unfair impact on their constituents, there is also the recognition by the three amigos that the toll will hurt the predominately Hispanic and other minority small retail and wholesale businesses for whom the tolls would be another nail in the proverbial recession-built coffin; something that the NY Daily News editorial board loses sight of when it points fingers at the hold outs.
Here's the News at its most strident, and less thoughtful: "Smith, Kruger, Skelos and all the other anti-toll lawmakers will bear responsibility for hammering millions of daily riders because they feared the wrath of a comparative handful of bridge motorists. Among the guilty will also be Sens. Ruben Diaz and Pedro Espada of the Bronx. All have railed against tolls and/or taxes or, like Smith, postured this way or that - without offering any credible alternative. Ideas that have been floated are unworkable or lunacy."
Why the hasty doom and gloom? Well, because of the MTA's self imposed legislative doomsday deadline-one that the News accepts without question. No one-least of all Kruger, Diaz and Espada, thinks that there isn't the need for a plan-and perhaps an overhaul of the agency's governance; but that doesn't mean that tolls are the answer, or that Shelly Silver's about face is the manifestation of policy sagacity.
New Yorkers are hurting, and the legislature needs to find a way to fund a transit system that the previous leadership drove deeply into debt: "The authority's biggest problem is the massive amounts of debt it took on years ago, in the Pataki era. Politicos, including then-Executive Director Marc Shaw, forced that debt to bloat knowing full well that it would blow up after they had left."
So let's come up with the plan that does the least harm-and one that avoids either tolls or huge fare hikes. Mismanagement of transit should not find its remedy in the pockets of cash poor New York residents and small businesses.
One of the toll's little understood impacts is the hurting it would put on the city's small businesses. Just recently, for instance, Assemblyman Espaillat brought MTA guru Richard Ravitch up to meet with our friend Paul Gagliardi, the owner of Flair Beverage on 207th Street. Espaillat wanted Ravitch to gauge how the toll plan would impact Flair's cash and carry beer business-a business that relies on bodegas coming from the Bronx across 207th Street to shop.
Gagliardi estimated that he could lose up to 35% of his business because the cash-strapped bodegueros make frequent daily trips across the span to replenish their stock of beer and soda; and his neighboring supermarkets could also be impacted, he told Ravitch, because of the additional expense of tolls. What the transit vultures never realize-and we saw the same thing with the mayor's congestion tax-is that the city is one seamless piece; and small business relies on its easy access to Manhattan markets to sustain wholesale and contracting operations housed in the outer boroughs.
So, while five state senators are balking at the toll plan because of its unfair impact on their constituents, there is also the recognition by the three amigos that the toll will hurt the predominately Hispanic and other minority small retail and wholesale businesses for whom the tolls would be another nail in the proverbial recession-built coffin; something that the NY Daily News editorial board loses sight of when it points fingers at the hold outs.
Here's the News at its most strident, and less thoughtful: "Smith, Kruger, Skelos and all the other anti-toll lawmakers will bear responsibility for hammering millions of daily riders because they feared the wrath of a comparative handful of bridge motorists. Among the guilty will also be Sens. Ruben Diaz and Pedro Espada of the Bronx. All have railed against tolls and/or taxes or, like Smith, postured this way or that - without offering any credible alternative. Ideas that have been floated are unworkable or lunacy."
Why the hasty doom and gloom? Well, because of the MTA's self imposed legislative doomsday deadline-one that the News accepts without question. No one-least of all Kruger, Diaz and Espada, thinks that there isn't the need for a plan-and perhaps an overhaul of the agency's governance; but that doesn't mean that tolls are the answer, or that Shelly Silver's about face is the manifestation of policy sagacity.
New Yorkers are hurting, and the legislature needs to find a way to fund a transit system that the previous leadership drove deeply into debt: "The authority's biggest problem is the massive amounts of debt it took on years ago, in the Pataki era. Politicos, including then-Executive Director Marc Shaw, forced that debt to bloat knowing full well that it would blow up after they had left."
So let's come up with the plan that does the least harm-and one that avoids either tolls or huge fare hikes. Mismanagement of transit should not find its remedy in the pockets of cash poor New York residents and small businesses.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Tax the Newspapers!
Newday is the latest newspaper to come out in support of bottle bill expansion: "Have you noticed the plastic water bottles littering our state? Do you enjoy the juggling act of returning empty beer and soda bottles to the store, but water and tea bottles to the curb? Albany can change that - and it really should - by expanding the state's original bottle bill." Which leads us to ask, given that the NY Times has also editorialized on behalf of the expansion: Why not tax the newspapers?
When we examine the post consumer recycling waste stream in NYC, we find that newspapers make up the largest percentage of materials that could be recycled-but isn't. 22% of the deposed waste is paper; and 41% of that paper is newsprint. So effectively, we're paying to dispose of newspapers that should be recycled by the public but, for whatever reason-perhaps inconvenience-it lands in the garbage instead.
What this underscores is that fact that the various deposit items aren't finding their way into the municipal garbage truck, even when they aren't returned to the store; but that newspaper is. Therefore, unless someone thinks that a newspaper deposit makes sense, newsprint needs to be taxed to defray the tax payer cost of its disposal.
But, you say that newspapers are in economic trouble, and that adding a tax burden will hurt them further? Oh, we get it. Only the troubled NYC supermarkets and grocery stores should have the added burden of more deposit work that helps the environment-leaving the Times and Newsday free to hector without shouldering the load themselves; and Newsday makes it worse by not even acknowledging that those burdens exist.
So from our vantage, if you want to be green, than join in and volunteer-especially is you're willing to volunteer others so freely. If not, than just shut up-or risk the following chiding refrain: Those who can't do, teach.
When we examine the post consumer recycling waste stream in NYC, we find that newspapers make up the largest percentage of materials that could be recycled-but isn't. 22% of the deposed waste is paper; and 41% of that paper is newsprint. So effectively, we're paying to dispose of newspapers that should be recycled by the public but, for whatever reason-perhaps inconvenience-it lands in the garbage instead.
What this underscores is that fact that the various deposit items aren't finding their way into the municipal garbage truck, even when they aren't returned to the store; but that newspaper is. Therefore, unless someone thinks that a newspaper deposit makes sense, newsprint needs to be taxed to defray the tax payer cost of its disposal.
But, you say that newspapers are in economic trouble, and that adding a tax burden will hurt them further? Oh, we get it. Only the troubled NYC supermarkets and grocery stores should have the added burden of more deposit work that helps the environment-leaving the Times and Newsday free to hector without shouldering the load themselves; and Newsday makes it worse by not even acknowledging that those burdens exist.
So from our vantage, if you want to be green, than join in and volunteer-especially is you're willing to volunteer others so freely. If not, than just shut up-or risk the following chiding refrain: Those who can't do, teach.
Remnants of Prohibition
In the past few weeks we have seen the liquor stores escalating their claim that allowing grocery stores to sell wine will lead to, well, an escalation of underage drinking. It does a heart good to see the local liquor store elevated as a guardian of the public morals; but does the argument hold any water?
Let's take the one assertion-made over and over by the lobbyists-that the governor's proposal will lead to a huge increase in, the number of outlets selling alcohol! Flat out false; since those grocery stores already sell alcohol-particularly those products such as beer and malt liquor that are the drinks of choice for the underage. In fact, liquor industry studies show that wine is way down the list (around 4%) when it comes to the choice of young drinkers.
But the argument is understandable. After all, what kind of policy position can, "Protect my retail monopoly" be? So we read this from a liquor store owner in yesterday's Newsday: "The only thing I'm licensed to sell is wine and spirits. If I sell to a minor, the state can shut me down and I will earn nothing. If a grocer loses the ability to sell wine for a while, that's no skin off his knuckles; the rest of his store is still bustling."
The reality, however, is that grocery stores and supermarkets-unlike drug stores-are doing a great job at insuring that stores comply with the underage drinking laws; so if we would look to tweak the governor's proposal to limit the availability of wine at the local Walgreen's or CVS; that's an idea worth exploring.
Once the prohibitionist arguments are put aside, we're left with the protect our stores-damn the consumer rhetoric that, quite frankly, doesn't withstand even the slightest independent scrutiny. Here's the industry view in yesterday's Poughkeepsie Journal: "Jeff Saunders, founder of the Last Store on Main Street Coalition, a group of retailers that opposes the governor's proposal, believes about 1,000 liquor stores will close, costing 4,000 to 5,000 jobs. "We feel that if one bottle of wine is sold in a supermarket, that's one bottle that comes from our stores," Saunders said. At a time of high unemployment, "why would anyone want to do anything to add to those numbers? We don't know." The coalition is made up of three trade associations representing retailers, including liquor stores."
Now, even if we accept the alarmist projection of a 40% loss in the number of liquor stores-an assumption that is contradicted be only a cursory look at other states where supermarkets and liquor stores co-exist-the idea that New York State will lose thousands of jobs is pure propaganda. As the Journal pointed out: "Allowing wine sale in grocery and drug stores would provide sizable economic benefit through the creation of 2,000 additional jobs, $93.4 million in added tax revenue and increase consumer spending in the state. Overall, wine sales would increase by nearly 19 percent," according to MKF Research, a California-based company hired by the Wine & Grape Foundation."
The increase in wine sales, then, would act as the proverbial rising tide lifting all boats-even the leaky liquor store row boat As Jim Rogers of the Food Industry Alliance says: "Rogers added there could be 2,000 net new jobs created related to wine sales and distribution if the law were to pass. "There will be more business and there will be a need for more employees," he said." The large percentage of these jobs would be high paying, good pension and benefits jobs that are driven by the unionized supermarket workforce.
What's totally clear in this debate-a point that is made with an erudite historical flair by Michael Lerner in yesterday's Newsday-is that the current patchwork quilt nature of the alcoholic beverage laws in NY need to be overhauled: "We've been through this before. New Yorkers have sought to allow grocers to sell wine on a half dozen occasions in the 75 years since Prohibition's end. ("Wine is food, wine belongs in food stores," was the slogan of a 1951 campaign.) Each time, the arguments offered by liquor stores - understandably offered in the interest of self-preservation - have prevailed. But what is really at work here is the legacy of Prohibition, and what is at stake is an opportunity to adopt a more rational approach to the way we think about, and enjoy, wine."
The opportunity is upon us to act rationally-in the interest of the state's wineries, consumers and local economies. Will the special interests once again prevail? That's up to the legislature.
Let's take the one assertion-made over and over by the lobbyists-that the governor's proposal will lead to a huge increase in, the number of outlets selling alcohol! Flat out false; since those grocery stores already sell alcohol-particularly those products such as beer and malt liquor that are the drinks of choice for the underage. In fact, liquor industry studies show that wine is way down the list (around 4%) when it comes to the choice of young drinkers.
But the argument is understandable. After all, what kind of policy position can, "Protect my retail monopoly" be? So we read this from a liquor store owner in yesterday's Newsday: "The only thing I'm licensed to sell is wine and spirits. If I sell to a minor, the state can shut me down and I will earn nothing. If a grocer loses the ability to sell wine for a while, that's no skin off his knuckles; the rest of his store is still bustling."
The reality, however, is that grocery stores and supermarkets-unlike drug stores-are doing a great job at insuring that stores comply with the underage drinking laws; so if we would look to tweak the governor's proposal to limit the availability of wine at the local Walgreen's or CVS; that's an idea worth exploring.
Once the prohibitionist arguments are put aside, we're left with the protect our stores-damn the consumer rhetoric that, quite frankly, doesn't withstand even the slightest independent scrutiny. Here's the industry view in yesterday's Poughkeepsie Journal: "Jeff Saunders, founder of the Last Store on Main Street Coalition, a group of retailers that opposes the governor's proposal, believes about 1,000 liquor stores will close, costing 4,000 to 5,000 jobs. "We feel that if one bottle of wine is sold in a supermarket, that's one bottle that comes from our stores," Saunders said. At a time of high unemployment, "why would anyone want to do anything to add to those numbers? We don't know." The coalition is made up of three trade associations representing retailers, including liquor stores."
Now, even if we accept the alarmist projection of a 40% loss in the number of liquor stores-an assumption that is contradicted be only a cursory look at other states where supermarkets and liquor stores co-exist-the idea that New York State will lose thousands of jobs is pure propaganda. As the Journal pointed out: "Allowing wine sale in grocery and drug stores would provide sizable economic benefit through the creation of 2,000 additional jobs, $93.4 million in added tax revenue and increase consumer spending in the state. Overall, wine sales would increase by nearly 19 percent," according to MKF Research, a California-based company hired by the Wine & Grape Foundation."
The increase in wine sales, then, would act as the proverbial rising tide lifting all boats-even the leaky liquor store row boat As Jim Rogers of the Food Industry Alliance says: "Rogers added there could be 2,000 net new jobs created related to wine sales and distribution if the law were to pass. "There will be more business and there will be a need for more employees," he said." The large percentage of these jobs would be high paying, good pension and benefits jobs that are driven by the unionized supermarket workforce.
What's totally clear in this debate-a point that is made with an erudite historical flair by Michael Lerner in yesterday's Newsday-is that the current patchwork quilt nature of the alcoholic beverage laws in NY need to be overhauled: "We've been through this before. New Yorkers have sought to allow grocers to sell wine on a half dozen occasions in the 75 years since Prohibition's end. ("Wine is food, wine belongs in food stores," was the slogan of a 1951 campaign.) Each time, the arguments offered by liquor stores - understandably offered in the interest of self-preservation - have prevailed. But what is really at work here is the legacy of Prohibition, and what is at stake is an opportunity to adopt a more rational approach to the way we think about, and enjoy, wine."
The opportunity is upon us to act rationally-in the interest of the state's wineries, consumers and local economies. Will the special interests once again prevail? That's up to the legislature.
Ring Around Malcolm?
In yesterday's NY Daily News, the paper alleges that Speaker Silver is "running rings around" Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith: " Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the new king of Albany, has quietly been undermining the fragile leadership of new Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, insiders say."
Well, as they say, context is everything; and to imply that this possible state of affairs is correlative to Smith's abilities is invidious, to say the least-what would Silver do with the current senate demographics? "By passing the bills, Silver has managed to not only appease his liberal constituency but also highlight the fact that Smith's razor-thin majority has left him impotent.
The Senate Democrats have a 32-30 majority, meaning every Democratic vote is needed to get most controversial measures through the house."
This is underscored quite well in this morning's NY Post article about the MTA bridge toll proposal: "Unless five Democratic state senators can be convinced to change their minds, the plan to bail out the MTA by imposing tolls on East and Harlem river bridges is dead in the water, a Post survey has revealed." So here. in sharp relief, is the real problem: the numbers militate against Smith; and he can't dictate to a splintered conference when the issue is contentious-as bridge tolls certainly are.
Silver's styling may look good because of his overwhelming majority, but the end result here will devolve from a composite box score that can only be compiled after the state budget passes; and if the end product sucks, Silver won't be able to escape untarnished. Or, in other words, they're all in it together: "You have three players each with a different agenda, and hopefully, they'll meet someplace for the benefit of the taxpayers," said Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf."
Let's not forget, that the Assembly has taken the lead on some of the high tax proposals that could give it a black eye should the economy continue to tank. In short, performance-of both the legislature and the economy in tandem-is key; with inside politics scorecards taking a distant second place.
Well, as they say, context is everything; and to imply that this possible state of affairs is correlative to Smith's abilities is invidious, to say the least-what would Silver do with the current senate demographics? "By passing the bills, Silver has managed to not only appease his liberal constituency but also highlight the fact that Smith's razor-thin majority has left him impotent.
The Senate Democrats have a 32-30 majority, meaning every Democratic vote is needed to get most controversial measures through the house."
This is underscored quite well in this morning's NY Post article about the MTA bridge toll proposal: "Unless five Democratic state senators can be convinced to change their minds, the plan to bail out the MTA by imposing tolls on East and Harlem river bridges is dead in the water, a Post survey has revealed." So here. in sharp relief, is the real problem: the numbers militate against Smith; and he can't dictate to a splintered conference when the issue is contentious-as bridge tolls certainly are.
Silver's styling may look good because of his overwhelming majority, but the end result here will devolve from a composite box score that can only be compiled after the state budget passes; and if the end product sucks, Silver won't be able to escape untarnished. Or, in other words, they're all in it together: "You have three players each with a different agenda, and hopefully, they'll meet someplace for the benefit of the taxpayers," said Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf."
Let's not forget, that the Assembly has taken the lead on some of the high tax proposals that could give it a black eye should the economy continue to tank. In short, performance-of both the legislature and the economy in tandem-is key; with inside politics scorecards taking a distant second place.
News Refuses to be Buffaloed
In its lead editorial on Saturday, the Buffalo News joined with a number of other editorial outlooks, and strongly endorsed the sale of wine in grocery stores; and in doing so in a thorough and comprehensive manner, the paper insightfully shredding the opposition arguments:
"For the 2,600 or so (mostly) small businesses that now enjoy a legal monopoly on the sale of wine in New York, there is no good time to change the rules. They fear the loss of that monopoly will put many of them out of business...But there is evidence from the other 35 states that do allow supermarket wine sales that wineries can benefit and that the impact would not be that draconian on smaller stores, which still would hold a monopoly on liquor sales and still can offer better selections, knowledgeable sales staff and better service. New York now ranks 47th in the number of places per capita where wine can be bought, and states with supermarket sales also have more liquor stores."
But let's not bother with the facts when we can impugn the governor's integrity; or create a strawman argument over drunk driving. And the News also argues cogently that any change in the law should be used to benefit liquor stores as well-and we agree: "If supermarket customers gain the right to buy a little wine with their cheese, though, antiquated liquor store rules also should be changed to allow customers there to buy a little cheese with their wine—or crackers, beer, chips, glassware, gift bags and other items such stores are not now allowed to sell. And wine sale hours also should be equal." Sounds like the basis for a negotiated settlement, doesn't it?
But that's hard to do when the only response from the liquor lobby is: No compromise! Yet, the News is little convinced that-whatever the dire threats predicted by the monopolists-preserving the protection racket makes good public policy sense: "Most businesses—restaurants, hardware stores, newspapers— also are threatened by economic changes, and yet they neither seek nor receive legal immunity from competition."
The Wine Spectator agrees, and sees that compromise is indeed viable: "The legislators negotiating over the details of the bill are exploring compromises that might soften the blow for wine and liquor stores. One idea is to remove restrictions on such stores—currently they are not allowed to sell food or party supplies. They are also forbidden to have more than one location, which makes expansion near impossible."
The Buffalo News also sees the good things in the measure for the state's beleaguered wineries: "Reported experiences elsewhere suggest that more wine sales are good news for home-state wine makers and their suppliers, where new jobs could easily overwhelm any losses from liquor stores closings. That’s been the case in Washington, a state that has seen its own wine industry more than triple, surpassing New York’s as the second largest in the nation, after the number of retail outlets there was increased."
And what about the drunk driving strawman? The News is skeptical: "And grocers, who already have established their ability to safely handle the sale of beer, seem equal to the task of legally selling wine, a product that is a distant second to beer as the beverage of choice for drunken drivers." The 80 year monopoly makes little sense-for either economic growth or consumer interest; and a change in the law would benefit everyone; even the liquor stores. We'll give the News the last good word: "Wine is supposed to maketh a heart glad, not give Albany heartburn. The market seems big enough for everyone, and all should benefit from a new, more rational, system."
"For the 2,600 or so (mostly) small businesses that now enjoy a legal monopoly on the sale of wine in New York, there is no good time to change the rules. They fear the loss of that monopoly will put many of them out of business...But there is evidence from the other 35 states that do allow supermarket wine sales that wineries can benefit and that the impact would not be that draconian on smaller stores, which still would hold a monopoly on liquor sales and still can offer better selections, knowledgeable sales staff and better service. New York now ranks 47th in the number of places per capita where wine can be bought, and states with supermarket sales also have more liquor stores."
But let's not bother with the facts when we can impugn the governor's integrity; or create a strawman argument over drunk driving. And the News also argues cogently that any change in the law should be used to benefit liquor stores as well-and we agree: "If supermarket customers gain the right to buy a little wine with their cheese, though, antiquated liquor store rules also should be changed to allow customers there to buy a little cheese with their wine—or crackers, beer, chips, glassware, gift bags and other items such stores are not now allowed to sell. And wine sale hours also should be equal." Sounds like the basis for a negotiated settlement, doesn't it?
But that's hard to do when the only response from the liquor lobby is: No compromise! Yet, the News is little convinced that-whatever the dire threats predicted by the monopolists-preserving the protection racket makes good public policy sense: "Most businesses—restaurants, hardware stores, newspapers— also are threatened by economic changes, and yet they neither seek nor receive legal immunity from competition."
The Wine Spectator agrees, and sees that compromise is indeed viable: "The legislators negotiating over the details of the bill are exploring compromises that might soften the blow for wine and liquor stores. One idea is to remove restrictions on such stores—currently they are not allowed to sell food or party supplies. They are also forbidden to have more than one location, which makes expansion near impossible."
The Buffalo News also sees the good things in the measure for the state's beleaguered wineries: "Reported experiences elsewhere suggest that more wine sales are good news for home-state wine makers and their suppliers, where new jobs could easily overwhelm any losses from liquor stores closings. That’s been the case in Washington, a state that has seen its own wine industry more than triple, surpassing New York’s as the second largest in the nation, after the number of retail outlets there was increased."
And what about the drunk driving strawman? The News is skeptical: "And grocers, who already have established their ability to safely handle the sale of beer, seem equal to the task of legally selling wine, a product that is a distant second to beer as the beverage of choice for drunken drivers." The 80 year monopoly makes little sense-for either economic growth or consumer interest; and a change in the law would benefit everyone; even the liquor stores. We'll give the News the last good word: "Wine is supposed to maketh a heart glad, not give Albany heartburn. The market seems big enough for everyone, and all should benefit from a new, more rational, system."
Friday, March 06, 2009
Store Campaign All Liquored Up
Crain's Insider is reporting this morning (subscription only), that the liquor store lobby was behind a scurrilous Facebook campaign designed to drum up support for its astroturf, "Last Store Standing on Main Street" campaign: "The coalition of liquor stores fighting Gov. Paterson’s proposal to let supermarkets sell wine posted a photo on its Facebook page suggesting he is corrupt. The photo illustration showed Paterson accepting wads of cash from Neil Golub, president and CEO of the parent company of Price Chopper, which supports the plan. A spokeswoman for Mercury Public Affairs, which represents the liquor stores, says Mercury was unaware of the photo until being notified by the Insider and promptly had it taken down."
Ironically, while there is no record of Golub-a Republican donor for many years-giving Paterson a nickle, it is well known that the liquor store lobby has been very generous in stuffing campaign coffers; no sin in that, but the height of hypocrisy when these kinds of accusations are leveled at others: "Campaign finance records show Golub made no contributions to Paterson. (He did make many four-figure donations to Republicans, among them George Pataki, who was a Mercury client.)"
In addition to this Facebook controversy, Crain's also points out, with the help of wine spokesman Dave Vermillion, that the so-called law enforcement groups that have been listed in the liquor store effort may be simply creatures of Mercury's imagination: "Vermillion also says he cannot find any evidence that a group called Law Enforcement Against Drunk Driving existed prior to its participation in the liquor stores’ campaign. The group’s press contact, Gordy Warnock, works for Mercury’s government relations division. LEADD Chairman Dan Sisto says the group is new, but the idea for it predates the current debate."
So, while the plight of the local liquor store may be compelling for some, the questionable campaign on its behalf indicates that the over the top claims of future extinction-much like the faux Mercury campaign itself-need to be fully vetted for veracity before any of the claims are given credibility in the ongoing debate over wine in supermarkets.
Ironically, while there is no record of Golub-a Republican donor for many years-giving Paterson a nickle, it is well known that the liquor store lobby has been very generous in stuffing campaign coffers; no sin in that, but the height of hypocrisy when these kinds of accusations are leveled at others: "Campaign finance records show Golub made no contributions to Paterson. (He did make many four-figure donations to Republicans, among them George Pataki, who was a Mercury client.)"
In addition to this Facebook controversy, Crain's also points out, with the help of wine spokesman Dave Vermillion, that the so-called law enforcement groups that have been listed in the liquor store effort may be simply creatures of Mercury's imagination: "Vermillion also says he cannot find any evidence that a group called Law Enforcement Against Drunk Driving existed prior to its participation in the liquor stores’ campaign. The group’s press contact, Gordy Warnock, works for Mercury’s government relations division. LEADD Chairman Dan Sisto says the group is new, but the idea for it predates the current debate."
So, while the plight of the local liquor store may be compelling for some, the questionable campaign on its behalf indicates that the over the top claims of future extinction-much like the faux Mercury campaign itself-need to be fully vetted for veracity before any of the claims are given credibility in the ongoing debate over wine in supermarkets.
Well Armored For a Fight
Comptroller Bill Thompson, after remaining fairly quiet over a number of questionable deals, is gearing up for a fight over the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory. As the Real Estate Observer reports: "But now, with the mayoral election just eight months away, Mr. Thompson is striking a noticeably different tone, as he seems to be taking a more activist approach to some of the various roles the comptroller’s job affords."
Thompson is rightfully questioning the subsidizing of the Armory deal-particularly if the retail development will have shops that compete with existing neighborhood businesses: "The latest round came Thursday morning, when he joined the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union and a host of other labor, religious and community groups to take a swipe at the Related Companies’ plans for a $323 million retail development in the Bronx, threatening a "no" vote if Related did not make certain changes. The project, the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment, must go before the IDA, as Related is seeking $13.8 million in tax breaks."
And there are possible plans for putting a food use right across the street from the borough's oldest supermarket-one that has been remodeled with millions of the Sloan brothers' own money: "With regard to Related, Mr. Thompson is vowing to vote against the deal unless there is a community benefits agreement in which Related would agree to concessions such as guaranteed wages and community hiring. The firm has been asked many things for the development, including requests that it build a school, and that it not build a competitor to a neighboring grocery store."
The controversy puts into sharp relief our observation about the city's supermarket promotion plan; one that proposes to subsidize new building, but might do so at the expense of stores that have been working in the neighborhoods for many years. Such is the case of the Associated Supermarket on the corner of Kingsbridge and Jerome. The fact that the Sloans hire around 700 Kingsbridge residents for all of their stores in Manhattan only adds to the inequity of promoting a project-with tax subsidies-that would hurt such a large local employer.
The city needs to be cognizant of nurturing existing markets-and the possibility of a box store at the site, one that might threaten the viability of scores of local markets, makes no policy sense. Thompson is right; and the local council persons-Baez and Rivera-need to stand tall with KARA and the RWDSU, the community coalition that has done so much to galvanize community support for Associated and a strong community benefits agreement.
Thompson is rightfully questioning the subsidizing of the Armory deal-particularly if the retail development will have shops that compete with existing neighborhood businesses: "The latest round came Thursday morning, when he joined the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union and a host of other labor, religious and community groups to take a swipe at the Related Companies’ plans for a $323 million retail development in the Bronx, threatening a "no" vote if Related did not make certain changes. The project, the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment, must go before the IDA, as Related is seeking $13.8 million in tax breaks."
And there are possible plans for putting a food use right across the street from the borough's oldest supermarket-one that has been remodeled with millions of the Sloan brothers' own money: "With regard to Related, Mr. Thompson is vowing to vote against the deal unless there is a community benefits agreement in which Related would agree to concessions such as guaranteed wages and community hiring. The firm has been asked many things for the development, including requests that it build a school, and that it not build a competitor to a neighboring grocery store."
The controversy puts into sharp relief our observation about the city's supermarket promotion plan; one that proposes to subsidize new building, but might do so at the expense of stores that have been working in the neighborhoods for many years. Such is the case of the Associated Supermarket on the corner of Kingsbridge and Jerome. The fact that the Sloans hire around 700 Kingsbridge residents for all of their stores in Manhattan only adds to the inequity of promoting a project-with tax subsidies-that would hurt such a large local employer.
The city needs to be cognizant of nurturing existing markets-and the possibility of a box store at the site, one that might threaten the viability of scores of local markets, makes no policy sense. Thompson is right; and the local council persons-Baez and Rivera-need to stand tall with KARA and the RWDSU, the community coalition that has done so much to galvanize community support for Associated and a strong community benefits agreement.
Stringer's Gotham Food Policy
In a post at the Gotham Gazette, there is an interesting discussion of Manhattan BP Stringer's "food enterprise zones;" areas where city policy would nurture existing supermarket businesses, while incentivizing the building of new markets: "He recommends the city create "food enterprise zones" to attract food retailers to underserved areas through zoning and tax incentives. The plan calls for public financing or micro loans to community food partnerships, allowing food vendors tax abatements under the Industrial and Commercial Abatement Program and exempting vendors from business taxes. It also suggested the New York City Housing Authority make provisions for food retailers in public projects."
There is much rich material in the Stringer plan-and it amplifies, with essential mitigation, some of the ideas that the city is circulating to enhance supermarkets in underserved areas. In particular, Stringer's concept of tax exemptions for existing stores, recognizes the need to help these retailers so that any new siting that is encouraged doesn't deleteriously impact their business; after all, they may have been operating in the so-called food deserts without city aid for years.
Some of the zoning changes that Stringer suggests, do mirror what the city is considering: "Zoning regulations offer another policy option to increase the number of retailers selling healthy foods and stem the tide of closing supermarkets. The report suggests government agencies develop an integrated plan for city support of supermarkets, adjust land-use regulations influencing supermarkets, consider supermarkets' need during future rezoning and evaluate the possibility of supermarkets on city owned property. For example, the city might categorize retailers selling fresh fruits and differently from general food stores and so provide them with a density bonus or a permit for additional floor area exemption, according to Stringer."
So what the city needs is a balanced approach; one that recognizes the need to staunch the bleeding of supermarkets that has led to their disappearance, while at the same time, devising a growth promotion policy. Meanwhile, all that has come out of the administration so far-besides jawboning on the issue-is a fruit peddler initiative that fell flat. We need a more muscular approach from the Bloombergistas.
There is much rich material in the Stringer plan-and it amplifies, with essential mitigation, some of the ideas that the city is circulating to enhance supermarkets in underserved areas. In particular, Stringer's concept of tax exemptions for existing stores, recognizes the need to help these retailers so that any new siting that is encouraged doesn't deleteriously impact their business; after all, they may have been operating in the so-called food deserts without city aid for years.
Some of the zoning changes that Stringer suggests, do mirror what the city is considering: "Zoning regulations offer another policy option to increase the number of retailers selling healthy foods and stem the tide of closing supermarkets. The report suggests government agencies develop an integrated plan for city support of supermarkets, adjust land-use regulations influencing supermarkets, consider supermarkets' need during future rezoning and evaluate the possibility of supermarkets on city owned property. For example, the city might categorize retailers selling fresh fruits and differently from general food stores and so provide them with a density bonus or a permit for additional floor area exemption, according to Stringer."
So what the city needs is a balanced approach; one that recognizes the need to staunch the bleeding of supermarkets that has led to their disappearance, while at the same time, devising a growth promotion policy. Meanwhile, all that has come out of the administration so far-besides jawboning on the issue-is a fruit peddler initiative that fell flat. We need a more muscular approach from the Bloombergistas.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Bottle Bill Hard of Hearing
The State Senate yesterday held a hearing (via Liz) on the so-called Bigger, Better Bottle Bill, and the lines were drawn early. Environmentalists praised the measure while business groups-particularly in the food and beverage industry-spoke about the costs of the expanded regulation.
One thing became clear, however, not a soul believed that the unclaimed deposits should be used to fund the EPF: "Even supporters of Paterson's proposal call it flawed because it ties funding of the state Environmental Protection Fund to $118 million in projected funds from unredeemed deposits, and strips away the more reliable real estate transfer tax. Sen. Carl Marcellino, R-Syosset, said this method would mean that more redeemed deposits would result in less available money for the already shrunken environmental fund, which pays for land conservation, solid waste, recycling and other programs. "The government should not issue a program and hope it fails," said the former Republican chairman of the environmental committee."
On top of this the pleas of small bottlers such as Good-O Beverage, one of the largest Hispanic operated bottlers, were heard on this issue. As Martin Salo, vice president of the company, told the EnCon committee: "In the first place, the proposal to have the state escheat the unredeemed deposits will take away from Good-O money that it desperately needs to fund the current redemption process. Our margins are thin to begin with, since we sell to small stores in some of the lowest income neighborhoods in the city, state and country. Taking away the unredeemed nickels will force us to raise our prices to the consumer and will, at the same time, reduce the demand for Good-O products-since these sodas are marketed, not only for their unique tastes, but also for their affordability."
This holds true for other small Hispanic-owned bottlers like Inca Kola and Top Pop who need the unredeemed deposits to maintain their own slim margins. In spite of this Senator Thompson, the chair of the committee, believes a compromise is possible: "Senate Environmental Conservation Committee Chairman Antoine Thompson, D-Buffalo, said after the hearing is confident a compromise agreement could be worked out and would recommend to Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, that negotiations be held, he said. "I think there's been a willingness to come together," Thompson said, adding the legislation could be done before a budget is passed."
Perhaps so; but this will mean that the senate majority will have to overcome some significant concerns of Hispanic lawmakers-Good-O is in Senator Espada's district. And if the three amigos stick together-and we believe that the fourth amigo, Senator Monserrate, will re-join his colleagues on this issue-it will be difficult to craft the middle ground here.
Still, it will be a bruising battle; but the dispute over the EPF should effect the removal of the matter from the budget process. Which will leave the measure to be debated as a separate issue later in the session. Our own view is that it is the absolute wrong time to be adding expensive regulations to the beleaguered supermarket, grocery store, and beverage businesses.
One thing became clear, however, not a soul believed that the unclaimed deposits should be used to fund the EPF: "Even supporters of Paterson's proposal call it flawed because it ties funding of the state Environmental Protection Fund to $118 million in projected funds from unredeemed deposits, and strips away the more reliable real estate transfer tax. Sen. Carl Marcellino, R-Syosset, said this method would mean that more redeemed deposits would result in less available money for the already shrunken environmental fund, which pays for land conservation, solid waste, recycling and other programs. "The government should not issue a program and hope it fails," said the former Republican chairman of the environmental committee."
On top of this the pleas of small bottlers such as Good-O Beverage, one of the largest Hispanic operated bottlers, were heard on this issue. As Martin Salo, vice president of the company, told the EnCon committee: "In the first place, the proposal to have the state escheat the unredeemed deposits will take away from Good-O money that it desperately needs to fund the current redemption process. Our margins are thin to begin with, since we sell to small stores in some of the lowest income neighborhoods in the city, state and country. Taking away the unredeemed nickels will force us to raise our prices to the consumer and will, at the same time, reduce the demand for Good-O products-since these sodas are marketed, not only for their unique tastes, but also for their affordability."
This holds true for other small Hispanic-owned bottlers like Inca Kola and Top Pop who need the unredeemed deposits to maintain their own slim margins. In spite of this Senator Thompson, the chair of the committee, believes a compromise is possible: "Senate Environmental Conservation Committee Chairman Antoine Thompson, D-Buffalo, said after the hearing is confident a compromise agreement could be worked out and would recommend to Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, that negotiations be held, he said. "I think there's been a willingness to come together," Thompson said, adding the legislation could be done before a budget is passed."
Perhaps so; but this will mean that the senate majority will have to overcome some significant concerns of Hispanic lawmakers-Good-O is in Senator Espada's district. And if the three amigos stick together-and we believe that the fourth amigo, Senator Monserrate, will re-join his colleagues on this issue-it will be difficult to craft the middle ground here.
Still, it will be a bruising battle; but the dispute over the EPF should effect the removal of the matter from the budget process. Which will leave the measure to be debated as a separate issue later in the session. Our own view is that it is the absolute wrong time to be adding expensive regulations to the beleaguered supermarket, grocery store, and beverage businesses.
Up Against the Wal-Mart
In what could be the ultimate challenge-to both Wal-Mart and its opponents-the retail giant is apparently looking for a site in Manhattan: "Manhattan's retail rent rollback is causing Wal-Mart to give the city another look. The giant discount chain has shopped for space in Union Square and among the big-box stores along Sixth Avenue in Chelsea, The Post has learned. Wal-Mart recently passed on a proposal by Related Companies for a two-level store of about 57,000 feet in Union Square where Virgin Megastores and Circuit City are closing, sources said. The company's real-estate scouts have also been roaming the area around 620 Sixth Ave., said the sources.:
Now the challenge here for the Walmonster, is the logistics of the parking deprived borough; with the store being the anti-congestion tax all by itself. In addition, it's unlikely-no, probably impossible to find the usual single story site that the retailer is used to; so that anew configuration of multi story levels would have to be devised.
At the same time, however, any site that Wal-Mart might be looking at is probably zoned for commercial use-a major problem for all of its opponents who have relied upon defeating the various Wal-Mart sites in the city because of the need in those cases for some kind of zoning permit. That being said, wherever Wal-Mart might look to go, it will find determined foes: "Unions say that despite the city's economic distress, it doesn't need the retail giant.
"We don't need Wal-Mart to take advantage of an economic crisis to sneak into New York and drive down standards and wages," said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union."
Still, the economic downturn may, because of its bargain reputation, in fact increase Wal-Mart's appeal; raising the level of difficulty for the Alliance and its supporters. Still, we remain undaunted; and with a string of Alliance-stimulated defeats, the Walmonster better tread lightly-it's starting to get the same reputation in NYC as Casey Stengel's old Mets; losers, but without any lovable tag.
Now the challenge here for the Walmonster, is the logistics of the parking deprived borough; with the store being the anti-congestion tax all by itself. In addition, it's unlikely-no, probably impossible to find the usual single story site that the retailer is used to; so that anew configuration of multi story levels would have to be devised.
At the same time, however, any site that Wal-Mart might be looking at is probably zoned for commercial use-a major problem for all of its opponents who have relied upon defeating the various Wal-Mart sites in the city because of the need in those cases for some kind of zoning permit. That being said, wherever Wal-Mart might look to go, it will find determined foes: "Unions say that despite the city's economic distress, it doesn't need the retail giant.
"We don't need Wal-Mart to take advantage of an economic crisis to sneak into New York and drive down standards and wages," said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union."
Still, the economic downturn may, because of its bargain reputation, in fact increase Wal-Mart's appeal; raising the level of difficulty for the Alliance and its supporters. Still, we remain undaunted; and with a string of Alliance-stimulated defeats, the Walmonster better tread lightly-it's starting to get the same reputation in NYC as Casey Stengel's old Mets; losers, but without any lovable tag.
End the Protection Racket
The Rochester Business Journal came out strongly this week for deregulating the sale of wine: "Here’s the real question: Is there a compelling reason to preserve the wine-sale monopoly now granted to liquor and wine stores and to wineries? No, there is not."
And the Journal ridicules the "Last Store Standing on Main Street" plea: "The liquor store industry and its supporters have branded their lobbying effort against this provision as the Last Store on Main Street, suggesting that they are the final defense against the demise of small business in New York. In fact, they represent only a very small portion of the state’s small businesses; should legal protection also be extended to the rest?"
As we have pointed out-and this is particularly true of NYC-the most important stores in the neighborhoods are the bodegas and local supermarkets. The local liquor store has no function beyond the sale of wine and hard liquor; while the others mentioned are the linchpin for neighborhood economies and healthy eating.
That doesn't mean that we would want the liquor store to be put out of business; but changes in the law are needed by this niche as well: "Grocery stores should be free to sell wine, period. But likewise, liquor stores should be permitted to sell beer, food items and other products that now are off-limits for them."
The bottom line here is that consumers are the real beneficiaries of a competitive market-something that the Business Journal underscores: "Fair competition brings out the best in superior companies of all sizes. And let’s not forget that it benefits consumers." All small stores are important, but we need a public policy that promotes equity and not any special exemption from fair competition.
And the Journal ridicules the "Last Store Standing on Main Street" plea: "The liquor store industry and its supporters have branded their lobbying effort against this provision as the Last Store on Main Street, suggesting that they are the final defense against the demise of small business in New York. In fact, they represent only a very small portion of the state’s small businesses; should legal protection also be extended to the rest?"
As we have pointed out-and this is particularly true of NYC-the most important stores in the neighborhoods are the bodegas and local supermarkets. The local liquor store has no function beyond the sale of wine and hard liquor; while the others mentioned are the linchpin for neighborhood economies and healthy eating.
That doesn't mean that we would want the liquor store to be put out of business; but changes in the law are needed by this niche as well: "Grocery stores should be free to sell wine, period. But likewise, liquor stores should be permitted to sell beer, food items and other products that now are off-limits for them."
The bottom line here is that consumers are the real beneficiaries of a competitive market-something that the Business Journal underscores: "Fair competition brings out the best in superior companies of all sizes. And let’s not forget that it benefits consumers." All small stores are important, but we need a public policy that promotes equity and not any special exemption from fair competition.
Bodega SOS
In yesterday's El Diario, there was a strong plea for greater help for the city's bodegas: "The New York City Council and Bloomberg administration are gearing up to help small businesses. Those plans must include concrete support for the thousands of bodega owners across our city." From where we stand, the current proposals don't offer much relief.
In fact, Speaker Quinn's initiatives are no more than palliatives: "The New York City Council and Bloomberg administration are gearing up to help small businesses. Those plans must include concrete support for the thousands of bodega owners across our city." And the paper agrees; "These plans could help ease the pain of small businesses as they struggle to stay afloat. But bodega owners, 80 percent of who are Latino, are in need of a tailored strategy."
Something in the area of a real estate tax abatement would help considerably; as would implementation of the Small Business Protection Act, a bill that would relieve stores from the pressure of overly zealous landlords: "For decades, bodegas have served neglected neighborhoods around the clock and where supermarkets and other services are scarce. And while other small businesses also face financial pressures, some bodegueros are getting squeezed by landlords. In a survey of mostly bodegas, the U.S.A. Latin Chamber of Commerce found that nearly one in three Latino small-business owners say that greedy landlords are demanding cash bribes before negotiating new leases."
But the real bane for the bodegueros is the way in which the state and city overwhelm them with taxes and fines: "The Association of Bodegueros says that fines and penalties, along with new state taxes being introduced, also threaten to undermine the survival of these stores. There are approximately 10,000 bodegas in the city, according to the Association." This means the soda tax in particular-a tax that really will impact the folks in those neighborhoods where bodegas thrive.
And wouldn't it be nice, as Bill Hammond wrote on Tuesday, if grocery stores were given the right to sell wine; after all, they are the bulwark of Main Street shopping: "Wine lovers who like a nice Chianti with their spaghetti would gain the convenience of one-stop shopping. And they'd probably save a few bucks, too, as thousands of additional retailers compete for their business.
Plus, this is a unique situation in which the affected taxpayers - supermarkets and bodegas - are eagerly volunteering to chip in a couple thousand bucks each for the opportunity to move into a new market."
Deregulation and lower taxes are the linchpin of business success-and the bodegas are no exception. Making it easier to get a permit is fine; but reining in the anti-store owner DCA would be even better. That, however, might effect the city's own revenues-and that's an area where it is often unwilling to yield. If the city keeps it up, its revenue pinata may soon shrivel. What then would city regulators have left to do?
In fact, Speaker Quinn's initiatives are no more than palliatives: "The New York City Council and Bloomberg administration are gearing up to help small businesses. Those plans must include concrete support for the thousands of bodega owners across our city." And the paper agrees; "These plans could help ease the pain of small businesses as they struggle to stay afloat. But bodega owners, 80 percent of who are Latino, are in need of a tailored strategy."
Something in the area of a real estate tax abatement would help considerably; as would implementation of the Small Business Protection Act, a bill that would relieve stores from the pressure of overly zealous landlords: "For decades, bodegas have served neglected neighborhoods around the clock and where supermarkets and other services are scarce. And while other small businesses also face financial pressures, some bodegueros are getting squeezed by landlords. In a survey of mostly bodegas, the U.S.A. Latin Chamber of Commerce found that nearly one in three Latino small-business owners say that greedy landlords are demanding cash bribes before negotiating new leases."
But the real bane for the bodegueros is the way in which the state and city overwhelm them with taxes and fines: "The Association of Bodegueros says that fines and penalties, along with new state taxes being introduced, also threaten to undermine the survival of these stores. There are approximately 10,000 bodegas in the city, according to the Association." This means the soda tax in particular-a tax that really will impact the folks in those neighborhoods where bodegas thrive.
And wouldn't it be nice, as Bill Hammond wrote on Tuesday, if grocery stores were given the right to sell wine; after all, they are the bulwark of Main Street shopping: "Wine lovers who like a nice Chianti with their spaghetti would gain the convenience of one-stop shopping. And they'd probably save a few bucks, too, as thousands of additional retailers compete for their business.
Plus, this is a unique situation in which the affected taxpayers - supermarkets and bodegas - are eagerly volunteering to chip in a couple thousand bucks each for the opportunity to move into a new market."
Deregulation and lower taxes are the linchpin of business success-and the bodegas are no exception. Making it easier to get a permit is fine; but reining in the anti-store owner DCA would be even better. That, however, might effect the city's own revenues-and that's an area where it is often unwilling to yield. If the city keeps it up, its revenue pinata may soon shrivel. What then would city regulators have left to do?
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Ex-Tolling the MTA
It is looking more and more as if the plan to toll the East River bridges will founder on the opposition of key Senate Democrats. As the NY Daily News reported yesterday: "Questions about the MTA'S credibility are hampering a plan designed to rescue 8.5 million subway, bus and commuter train riders from massive fare hikes and service cuts.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) Monday said he has enough votes to pass a package with tolls on East and Harlem river bridges. But some Senate Democrats doubted a majority of senators would go along - and Majority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) said the Metropolitan Transportation Authority "does not have a history of being forthright in terms of their budget. You know, they kept two books at a time."
Well, this skepticism mirrors our own-and the issue of the need for a forensic accountant is something we had brought up two years ago when the Bloomberg congestion tax was proposed. Here's how the NY Post details the senate opposition: "Smith (D-Queens) demanded a comprehensive audit of the beleaguered MTA before he would agree to any plan to plug its projected $1.2 billion budget gap with new tolls and a regional payroll tax. The ultimatum cast new doubt on a compromise that was emerging last week, when Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) threw his support behind a $2 toll on East and Harlem River spans, down from the $5 toll proposed by the MTA."
Put simply, that fact that the MTA, after saying that it needed $5 bridge tolls, could so easily shift and accept the deuce raised the suspicion levels in the Democratic majority. As the News pointed out: "Senate Dems planned a "full vetting of MTA finances" and want to strengthen the state controller's oversight of the authority, Smith said in a statement last night...The "two sets of books" phrase was popularized in a legal challenge of MTA fare hikes in 2003. A suit based on reports by the state and city controllers claimed the MTA misled the public by exaggerating its financial situation."
But aside from the agency's creative bookkeeping, there should be concern about the general ability of the MTA to actually govern the regional transit system-something that the NY Times had raised-only to forget when the mayor's tax was proposed-when the fare increase had been trial ballooned a few years back.. The reality here, as the Post shows, is that Smith simply doesn't have the votes for a toll: "The audit demand was widely seen as a stall tactic by the new Senate leader, who had encountered stiff resistance from outer-borough Democrats after saying he would consider Silver's compromise. All 32 Democrats would have to vote unanimously to overcome unified opposition from Republicans, who say the transit plan neglects upstate road needs and includes unacceptable tax hikes."
We are reaping the whirlwind now for years of fiscal laxity and mismanagement at this sclerotic agency. Why riders and auto commuters should be made to suffer for this is beyond us-no matter what the plutocratic editorial boards say-something that many outer borough pols understand: "The coalition of legislators argues that the toll plan would not evenly spread the cost of meeting the transit shortfall. They argue it is unfair to residents of neighborhoods where mass transit options are limited. "Why should people pay for a system that's not available to them?" said Assembly member Rory Lancman (D-Queens). "I can assure you no one drives into Manhattan for the fun of it."
So it looks as if the governor once again has egg on his face as Liz points out: "Asked whether he has reached out to the senators who are so far steadfast in their opposition to the bailout - a group that includes at least two of the Three Amgios - (Kruger and Diaz Sr.) - Paterson replied:
"Well, I've made myself available to the majority leader if I can help. I served with a lot of Senate Democrats and with the Assembly members and am always happy to talk to them...I'm not just going to call them up. I don't know what their conversations with Sen. Smith are, if there's any way I can be of help to get this process moving, i can be available at a moment's notice." This hands-off approach is a big departure from the method employed by past governors. Eliot Spitzer, and even George Pataki, used to routinely call rank-and-file members - or at least have their staffers do it - for priority policy issues."
All of which underscore, perhaps, why Paterson's poll numbers are tanking; and there historically so low that it's hard to see how he can extricate himself from a situation that will soon lead other Democrats to follow Ruben Diaz's lead in (possibly) calling for him to step down. In the middle of a massive MTA and state budget gap, this is not a pretty picture.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) Monday said he has enough votes to pass a package with tolls on East and Harlem river bridges. But some Senate Democrats doubted a majority of senators would go along - and Majority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) said the Metropolitan Transportation Authority "does not have a history of being forthright in terms of their budget. You know, they kept two books at a time."
Well, this skepticism mirrors our own-and the issue of the need for a forensic accountant is something we had brought up two years ago when the Bloomberg congestion tax was proposed. Here's how the NY Post details the senate opposition: "Smith (D-Queens) demanded a comprehensive audit of the beleaguered MTA before he would agree to any plan to plug its projected $1.2 billion budget gap with new tolls and a regional payroll tax. The ultimatum cast new doubt on a compromise that was emerging last week, when Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) threw his support behind a $2 toll on East and Harlem River spans, down from the $5 toll proposed by the MTA."
Put simply, that fact that the MTA, after saying that it needed $5 bridge tolls, could so easily shift and accept the deuce raised the suspicion levels in the Democratic majority. As the News pointed out: "Senate Dems planned a "full vetting of MTA finances" and want to strengthen the state controller's oversight of the authority, Smith said in a statement last night...The "two sets of books" phrase was popularized in a legal challenge of MTA fare hikes in 2003. A suit based on reports by the state and city controllers claimed the MTA misled the public by exaggerating its financial situation."
But aside from the agency's creative bookkeeping, there should be concern about the general ability of the MTA to actually govern the regional transit system-something that the NY Times had raised-only to forget when the mayor's tax was proposed-when the fare increase had been trial ballooned a few years back.. The reality here, as the Post shows, is that Smith simply doesn't have the votes for a toll: "The audit demand was widely seen as a stall tactic by the new Senate leader, who had encountered stiff resistance from outer-borough Democrats after saying he would consider Silver's compromise. All 32 Democrats would have to vote unanimously to overcome unified opposition from Republicans, who say the transit plan neglects upstate road needs and includes unacceptable tax hikes."
We are reaping the whirlwind now for years of fiscal laxity and mismanagement at this sclerotic agency. Why riders and auto commuters should be made to suffer for this is beyond us-no matter what the plutocratic editorial boards say-something that many outer borough pols understand: "The coalition of legislators argues that the toll plan would not evenly spread the cost of meeting the transit shortfall. They argue it is unfair to residents of neighborhoods where mass transit options are limited. "Why should people pay for a system that's not available to them?" said Assembly member Rory Lancman (D-Queens). "I can assure you no one drives into Manhattan for the fun of it."
So it looks as if the governor once again has egg on his face as Liz points out: "Asked whether he has reached out to the senators who are so far steadfast in their opposition to the bailout - a group that includes at least two of the Three Amgios - (Kruger and Diaz Sr.) - Paterson replied:
"Well, I've made myself available to the majority leader if I can help. I served with a lot of Senate Democrats and with the Assembly members and am always happy to talk to them...I'm not just going to call them up. I don't know what their conversations with Sen. Smith are, if there's any way I can be of help to get this process moving, i can be available at a moment's notice." This hands-off approach is a big departure from the method employed by past governors. Eliot Spitzer, and even George Pataki, used to routinely call rank-and-file members - or at least have their staffers do it - for priority policy issues."
All of which underscore, perhaps, why Paterson's poll numbers are tanking; and there historically so low that it's hard to see how he can extricate himself from a situation that will soon lead other Democrats to follow Ruben Diaz's lead in (possibly) calling for him to step down. In the middle of a massive MTA and state budget gap, this is not a pretty picture.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Toasting a Change in the Law
In this morning's NY Daily News, Bill Hammond comes out strongly for what he sees as a budget no-brainer-wine in grocery stores: "Here's a budget-balancing idea that won't cost average New Yorkers a penny - and goes down really well with a nice, aged cheddar: Start selling wine in grocery stores. There's no good reason that the store where you buy a T-bone steak can't also sell you a Cabernet to go with it."
Well, there is one good reason; but it has nothing to do with sound public policy-an antiquated law and the liquor lobby that backs it: "But thanks to New York's antiquated, Prohibition-era alcohol control laws, grocery stores can sell beer but not wine. And liquor stores can sell wine and the hard stuff - and pretty much nothing else...Overhauling these laws would make life easier for almost everyone, boost the economy and raise a few bucks for our cash-strapped state government in the bargain. The only thing standing in the way is the liquor store lobby, which is predictably opposed to giving up even part of its longstanding monopoly."
And Hammond underscores one of the law changes best features; it would-unlike some of his retail taxes-actually benefit consumers, the folks who back the idea in poll after poll: "This would be a great deal for consumers. Unlike Paterson's other money-raising ideas - such as taxing sugary soda or taxing music downloads or taxing movie tickets - this is one levy that promotes pleasure instead of penalizing it. Wine lovers who like a nice Chianti with their spaghetti would gain the convenience of one-stop shopping. And they'd probably save a few bucks, too, as thousands of additional retailers compete for their business."
Not only that; but there's a great deal of dough in this proposal for the strapped state: "Plus, this is a unique situation in which the affected taxpayers - supermarkets and bodegas - are eagerly volunteering to chip in a couple thousand bucks each for the opportunity to move into a new market." Not to mention what kind of shot in the arm this would be for an upstate economy that is down in the dumps: "With thousands of additional retailers selling wine, it stands to reason that New York's winegrowers - a surprisingly important part of upstate's economy - would benefit, too. New York, which once was the nation's No. 2 wine producing state, has been slipping in recent years. "I really believe if wine goes into grocery stores, I'll have to triple my production," says Scott Osborn of Fox Run Vineyards in upstate Penn Yan."
As Hammond points out, however, the liquor lobby does have one argument against the plan that isn't-on its face-self serving; the specter of an increase in underage drinking. He isn't much impressed by the scare tactic: "For example, they quote the scary-sounding figure that grocery stores account for 90% of illegal sales of alcohol to minors. What they generally fail to point out is that there are more than 16,000 grocery stores in New York, but only 2,700 liquor stores. So proportionally, the rate of underage sales is right in line with what you'd expect. Also, grocery stores already carry beer, which is widely recognized as the drink of choice for young people. Nobody's suggesting changing that."
But what about all of those lost jobs on Main Street claimed by the lobby? "The liquor stores also claim that changing the law would drive 1,000 of their members out of business and eliminate 4,000 jobs. But that figure comes from a five-year-old industry-sponsored study that leaves out any hiring that might occur at grocery stores and vineyards."
There will undoubtedly be some dislocation involved if the 80 year old state monopoly is upended; but that's why supporters of the measure believe that the liquor stores deserve some extra considerations: "In fairness, liquor store owners deserve some consideration for losing part of their traditional monopoly. The right way to balance that out is to let them sell additional products - such as mixers and snack foods - and open more than one store on a single license."
With the state in a financial bind-and with city grocery stores really struggling to survive-a change in the law would be a real boon. We'll give Hammond the last word: "Thirty-five other states already allow wine sales in grocery stores. It's high time that New York joined the party."
Well, there is one good reason; but it has nothing to do with sound public policy-an antiquated law and the liquor lobby that backs it: "But thanks to New York's antiquated, Prohibition-era alcohol control laws, grocery stores can sell beer but not wine. And liquor stores can sell wine and the hard stuff - and pretty much nothing else...Overhauling these laws would make life easier for almost everyone, boost the economy and raise a few bucks for our cash-strapped state government in the bargain. The only thing standing in the way is the liquor store lobby, which is predictably opposed to giving up even part of its longstanding monopoly."
And Hammond underscores one of the law changes best features; it would-unlike some of his retail taxes-actually benefit consumers, the folks who back the idea in poll after poll: "This would be a great deal for consumers. Unlike Paterson's other money-raising ideas - such as taxing sugary soda or taxing music downloads or taxing movie tickets - this is one levy that promotes pleasure instead of penalizing it. Wine lovers who like a nice Chianti with their spaghetti would gain the convenience of one-stop shopping. And they'd probably save a few bucks, too, as thousands of additional retailers compete for their business."
Not only that; but there's a great deal of dough in this proposal for the strapped state: "Plus, this is a unique situation in which the affected taxpayers - supermarkets and bodegas - are eagerly volunteering to chip in a couple thousand bucks each for the opportunity to move into a new market." Not to mention what kind of shot in the arm this would be for an upstate economy that is down in the dumps: "With thousands of additional retailers selling wine, it stands to reason that New York's winegrowers - a surprisingly important part of upstate's economy - would benefit, too. New York, which once was the nation's No. 2 wine producing state, has been slipping in recent years. "I really believe if wine goes into grocery stores, I'll have to triple my production," says Scott Osborn of Fox Run Vineyards in upstate Penn Yan."
As Hammond points out, however, the liquor lobby does have one argument against the plan that isn't-on its face-self serving; the specter of an increase in underage drinking. He isn't much impressed by the scare tactic: "For example, they quote the scary-sounding figure that grocery stores account for 90% of illegal sales of alcohol to minors. What they generally fail to point out is that there are more than 16,000 grocery stores in New York, but only 2,700 liquor stores. So proportionally, the rate of underage sales is right in line with what you'd expect. Also, grocery stores already carry beer, which is widely recognized as the drink of choice for young people. Nobody's suggesting changing that."
But what about all of those lost jobs on Main Street claimed by the lobby? "The liquor stores also claim that changing the law would drive 1,000 of their members out of business and eliminate 4,000 jobs. But that figure comes from a five-year-old industry-sponsored study that leaves out any hiring that might occur at grocery stores and vineyards."
There will undoubtedly be some dislocation involved if the 80 year old state monopoly is upended; but that's why supporters of the measure believe that the liquor stores deserve some extra considerations: "In fairness, liquor store owners deserve some consideration for losing part of their traditional monopoly. The right way to balance that out is to let them sell additional products - such as mixers and snack foods - and open more than one store on a single license."
With the state in a financial bind-and with city grocery stores really struggling to survive-a change in the law would be a real boon. We'll give Hammond the last word: "Thirty-five other states already allow wine sales in grocery stores. It's high time that New York joined the party."
City Hall Pot and Bronx Kettle
The Politicker reported yesterday that Mike Bloomberg, for one, doesn't think that Adolfo Carrion did any thing wrong when he took developer money for a myriad of Bronx projects: "Michael Bloomberg said that he doesn’t think Adolfo Carrion did anything wrong by approving development projects associated with people who donated money to his campaigns...“I assume there’s been nothing done wrong there,” Bloomberg said, who went on to praise the city’s campaign finance system, which he said was better than the state’s."
But why would he? The solipsistic Mr. Bloomberg believes that moral rectitude devolves exclusively from an agreement with the mayor's own positions; and in the case of the Bronx-where the Terminal Market and Yankee Stadium debacles roiled that political landscape-the mayor and Adolfo were, well, perfect together. In fact AC emerged from those ventures soaking wet-giving new meaning to the idea of carrying some one's water.
But once again, the issue of campaign cash remains; and Adolfo assiduously plied the developer treasure trove with the kind of zeal that the neighborhood folks around Yankee Stadium only wished he had demonstrated for the preservation of their local parks. It's why AC was given the sobriquet, "Cash and Carrion," by the ever vigilant Juan Gonzales. But, as far as we can tell, there's no dissonance here for a mayor, whose concern for neighborhoods and small business has yet to be detected-even in the slightest.
But why would he? The solipsistic Mr. Bloomberg believes that moral rectitude devolves exclusively from an agreement with the mayor's own positions; and in the case of the Bronx-where the Terminal Market and Yankee Stadium debacles roiled that political landscape-the mayor and Adolfo were, well, perfect together. In fact AC emerged from those ventures soaking wet-giving new meaning to the idea of carrying some one's water.
But once again, the issue of campaign cash remains; and Adolfo assiduously plied the developer treasure trove with the kind of zeal that the neighborhood folks around Yankee Stadium only wished he had demonstrated for the preservation of their local parks. It's why AC was given the sobriquet, "Cash and Carrion," by the ever vigilant Juan Gonzales. But, as far as we can tell, there's no dissonance here for a mayor, whose concern for neighborhoods and small business has yet to be detected-even in the slightest.
Monday, March 02, 2009
More Bloomberg Blather
Yeterday, the NY Daily News' Adam Lisberg highlighted Mike Bloomberg's rhetorical flourishes-something that used to be called talkng out of both sides of your mouth until Mike bought the domain name and, in self service, retired the phrase from public use: "Mayor Bloomberg built his political reputation as the guy who speaks uncomfortable truths, but what happens to that reputation when the truth gets muddled? The issue arises after last week's closed-door meeting with the five Republican county chairs who could let him onto the party's ballot - or not>
The real confusion surrounded two fairly easy words to understand-support, and vote: "All five chairs told the Daily News that when Bloomberg talked about Republicans he supported, he brought up John McCain. (And a top McCain source tells the Daily News' Tom DeFrank that Bloomberg personally assured him he was a supporter, despite being publicly neutral.) Yet when the mayor walked outside, he told reporters they talked about President Obama. And the next day, he denied ever saying he supported McCain. "I didn't say that at all. I've never said who I voted for," Bloomberg responded. "I did say that John McCain is a friend of mine. He campaigned for me in 2001, and I've always respected him. ... But I certainly did not say who I supported, nor will I."
Now it takes a well-paid campaign guru to demystify this: "But his public walk-back soured some of those good feelings - since he was the only one who ever mentioned Obama.
"He hurt himself more with the Obama issue," a third chair said. "Why would we have waited all that time to meet with him, and then talked about Obama?" Bloomberg's campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said the mayor never misled the chairs about McCain. "He has supported John McCain. That's a little different than him saying he supported him for President," Wolfson said. "He is a Republican that Mike Bloomberg supported."
So, once again, the mayor's allegiance to the straight talk express has gotten derailed; and his support and vote for George Bush is exiled-in 1984 fashion-to the refuse bin of expurgated history. And the man for all reasons emerges to face the voters; born again in newly purchased garb.
The real confusion surrounded two fairly easy words to understand-support, and vote: "All five chairs told the Daily News that when Bloomberg talked about Republicans he supported, he brought up John McCain. (And a top McCain source tells the Daily News' Tom DeFrank that Bloomberg personally assured him he was a supporter, despite being publicly neutral.) Yet when the mayor walked outside, he told reporters they talked about President Obama. And the next day, he denied ever saying he supported McCain. "I didn't say that at all. I've never said who I voted for," Bloomberg responded. "I did say that John McCain is a friend of mine. He campaigned for me in 2001, and I've always respected him. ... But I certainly did not say who I supported, nor will I."
Now it takes a well-paid campaign guru to demystify this: "But his public walk-back soured some of those good feelings - since he was the only one who ever mentioned Obama.
"He hurt himself more with the Obama issue," a third chair said. "Why would we have waited all that time to meet with him, and then talked about Obama?" Bloomberg's campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said the mayor never misled the chairs about McCain. "He has supported John McCain. That's a little different than him saying he supported him for President," Wolfson said. "He is a Republican that Mike Bloomberg supported."
So, once again, the mayor's allegiance to the straight talk express has gotten derailed; and his support and vote for George Bush is exiled-in 1984 fashion-to the refuse bin of expurgated history. And the man for all reasons emerges to face the voters; born again in newly purchased garb.
Grapes of Wrath
In yesterday's NY Post, the paper details some of the acrimony surrounding the fight to allow supermarkets to sell wine: "A bottle of red, a bottle of spite - it all depends upon your side of the debate. Gov. Paterson's proposal to expand wine sales in New York - and pour money into state coffers - has pitted supermarkets against liquor shops, and in some cases, it's gotten vicious."
How vicious? Well, threatening wineries with a boycott is pretty vicious to us: "One supporter, upstate vineyard owner Scott Osborn, said that after he testified in favor of the proposal at a budget hearing last month, several liquor-store owners threatened to pull his wines from their shelves. "I used to be pushing your wines, but now just looking at them makes me want to puke," one liquor-store owner wrote in e-mail. "I'll never sell any of your wines ever again!"
And this is no isolated incident; scores of liquor store owners-zealously out to protect and preserve their state-sponsored monopoly-have made similar calls to other state wineries. This disturbing restraint of trade campaign is being looked at by AG Cuomo: "Osborn, who owns Fox Run Vineyards in the Finger Lakes, said the expanded market for his wine would help business. He asked Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to investigate what he said was a "coordinated campaign of intimidation and retaliation." Cuomo's office said it's reviewing the request."
The liquor stores, hard pressed to come up with any public interest rationale that would justify the preservation of an anti-competitive monopoly-and to deflect attention away from their pressure tactics, managed to find one policy objective that didn't simply devolve from their own narrow self interest-under aged drinking: ""We don't threaten anybody," said Jeff Saunders, owner of McCabe's liquor store on the Upper East Side and founder of The Last Store on Main Street, a coalition opposing the Paterson plan. Saunders said permitting supermarkets to peddle pinot noir will not only put liquor stores out of business, but increase underage drinking. He said teens would be able to purchase wine more easily in grocery and convenience shops, where cashiers may not be vigilant in preventing such sales."
So now we've seen everything! Liquor stores looking out for the kids. But, who are they really kidding? This is all simply about your basic protectionism-and the damn the consumer mentality that goes with it; something that Crain's New York Business understands very well.
In this week's magazine (subscription only), Crain's tells us: "A proposal to allow grocery stores to sell wine in New York state comes down to a choice between more competition and increased tax revenue on one hand, and continued protection for a regulated industry on the other...If the idea is approved, consumers would enjoy lower prices and more convenience. New York's wine industry, which desperately needs new markets in the state if it is to grow, would also benefit by increasing its distribution network. That's why the New York Farm Bureau is an enthusiastic supporter, as are many of the state's most innovative wineries."
And Crain's goes on to voice support for changing the law so that the liquor stores can evolve-and adapt to the modern age: "Liquor stores' real problem isn't competition; it is the archaic laws that hamstring owners. They can operate only one outlet, which precludes them from expanding and amassing the economic wherewithal that would allow them to compete. The state also prohibits them from selling complementary products such as gift bags, cheese or snack items...The Legislature should approve the proposal to allow wine to be sold in grocery stores, and accompany it with legislation loosening the rules that stifle liquor stores. The result will help the state's consumers and its finances."
So let's look to modernize this entire industry-and give consumers a choice at the same time. In the process, NYC's neighborhood supermarkets-hurting badly during the economic downturn-would get a needed boost. The benefits of such a move far outweigh any of the negatives; the ball is in the legislature's court.
How vicious? Well, threatening wineries with a boycott is pretty vicious to us: "One supporter, upstate vineyard owner Scott Osborn, said that after he testified in favor of the proposal at a budget hearing last month, several liquor-store owners threatened to pull his wines from their shelves. "I used to be pushing your wines, but now just looking at them makes me want to puke," one liquor-store owner wrote in e-mail. "I'll never sell any of your wines ever again!"
And this is no isolated incident; scores of liquor store owners-zealously out to protect and preserve their state-sponsored monopoly-have made similar calls to other state wineries. This disturbing restraint of trade campaign is being looked at by AG Cuomo: "Osborn, who owns Fox Run Vineyards in the Finger Lakes, said the expanded market for his wine would help business. He asked Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to investigate what he said was a "coordinated campaign of intimidation and retaliation." Cuomo's office said it's reviewing the request."
The liquor stores, hard pressed to come up with any public interest rationale that would justify the preservation of an anti-competitive monopoly-and to deflect attention away from their pressure tactics, managed to find one policy objective that didn't simply devolve from their own narrow self interest-under aged drinking: ""We don't threaten anybody," said Jeff Saunders, owner of McCabe's liquor store on the Upper East Side and founder of The Last Store on Main Street, a coalition opposing the Paterson plan. Saunders said permitting supermarkets to peddle pinot noir will not only put liquor stores out of business, but increase underage drinking. He said teens would be able to purchase wine more easily in grocery and convenience shops, where cashiers may not be vigilant in preventing such sales."
So now we've seen everything! Liquor stores looking out for the kids. But, who are they really kidding? This is all simply about your basic protectionism-and the damn the consumer mentality that goes with it; something that Crain's New York Business understands very well.
In this week's magazine (subscription only), Crain's tells us: "A proposal to allow grocery stores to sell wine in New York state comes down to a choice between more competition and increased tax revenue on one hand, and continued protection for a regulated industry on the other...If the idea is approved, consumers would enjoy lower prices and more convenience. New York's wine industry, which desperately needs new markets in the state if it is to grow, would also benefit by increasing its distribution network. That's why the New York Farm Bureau is an enthusiastic supporter, as are many of the state's most innovative wineries."
And Crain's goes on to voice support for changing the law so that the liquor stores can evolve-and adapt to the modern age: "Liquor stores' real problem isn't competition; it is the archaic laws that hamstring owners. They can operate only one outlet, which precludes them from expanding and amassing the economic wherewithal that would allow them to compete. The state also prohibits them from selling complementary products such as gift bags, cheese or snack items...The Legislature should approve the proposal to allow wine to be sold in grocery stores, and accompany it with legislation loosening the rules that stifle liquor stores. The result will help the state's consumers and its finances."
So let's look to modernize this entire industry-and give consumers a choice at the same time. In the process, NYC's neighborhood supermarkets-hurting badly during the economic downturn-would get a needed boost. The benefits of such a move far outweigh any of the negatives; the ball is in the legislature's court.
Feasting on Carrion
The NY Daily News' I-Team focused yesterday on the tawdry pay for play machinations of our new White House policy advisor-the developer's munecho-Adolfo Carrion: "The man who is President Obama's newly minted urban czar pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers' money, a Daily News probe found. Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion often received contributions just before or after he sponsored money for projects or approved important zoning changes, records show."
On project after project AC was a friend, not to the communities or minority businesses who could have used the support of the city's highest ranking Hispanic legislator, but to those real estate interests whose projects were often antithetical to real community needs. Nothing was more emblematic of this sell-out philosophy than AC's shilling for the destruction of the Bronx Terminal Market, and the subsequent building of the Gateway Mall by Related.
Here, not only were the merchants evicted, without so much as a meager helping hand from the Bronx BP (after Carrion called the market a, "commercial ghetto"); but the resulting project will generate 125,000! cars and trucks a week to the area of the South Bronx known as "asthma alley." As the News points out, and as we have commented extensively on:
"Developer Related Companies' subsidiary, BTM Development Partners, needed Carrion and the city Planning Commission to change zoning, modify height restrictions and approve permits for parking spaces. As the project moved forward, the neighborhood railed about increased traffic and the impact the chain stores would have on local businesses. All the while Related executives wrote campaign checks to Carrion. On March 10, 2005, five $1,000 donations from Related executives arrived. On June 20, 2005, the company notified the city it planned to build a 1 million-square-foot retail center with 2,610 parking spaces and a 250-room hotel. On Oct. 19, 2005, Carrion approved the project, with his office monitoring local hiring. Since 2003, Carrion has received $39,100 from 24 Gateway-related donations."
Adding insult to injury, Carrion proceeded to usurp the community's role in the development of a community benefits agreement. As we highlighted at the time:
"The negotiation process for this CBA was incredibly, incredibly flawed:
• Normally CBAs are negotiated prior to the land use review process so that community coalitions can have leverage over developers. The opposite occurred with the Gateway CBA. Brainstorming for the document only began in November after City Planning Certification, Community Board approval, and the Borough President’s “Yes” vote. The agreement was finalized two days prior to the City Council’s approval.
• There was no independent community coalition. The community-based organizations involved in the initial brainstorming (“the taskforce”) were handpicked by BOEDC and Borough President Carrion. When certain group representatives said or did things that upset the Borough President they were kicked out of the negotiating group.
• None of the taskforce members had CBA negotiating experience
• The taskforce was not given legal representation
• Unknown to the participants, representatives from Related were in the room while the taskforce brainstormed
• The taskforce never negotiated directly with Related. Final negotiations occurred between Bronx elected officials and the developer. For this reason the final CBA is a very watered down version of what the community asked for.
• Most of the City Council never had the chance to read the CBA. The final copy was sent to the Council the morning of the project’s approval."
And, as we pointed out in this morning's NY Times focus on Carrion: "It’s ironic that President Obama hired Adolfo Carrión, whose record in the Bronx at every turn thwarted the interest of the community, and yet the president started his career as a community organizer,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the market’s former merchants." The NY Daily News followed up its expose yesterday as well, and we told the paper: "Carrión's acted in such a perverse manner to really go out of his way to thwart community and small-business concerns," Lipsky charged."
So Carrion, someone with both good looks and charm-if not good judgment-leaves a legacy of abandoning genuine community interests; both substantively as well as procedurally, to go to work for the ultimate community organizer. Either Obama has taken a real audacious leap of faith here-suspending all disbelief-or Carrion will hopefully transform himself into a shrewd analyst of urban problems. Anyone want to take the under/over here?
On project after project AC was a friend, not to the communities or minority businesses who could have used the support of the city's highest ranking Hispanic legislator, but to those real estate interests whose projects were often antithetical to real community needs. Nothing was more emblematic of this sell-out philosophy than AC's shilling for the destruction of the Bronx Terminal Market, and the subsequent building of the Gateway Mall by Related.
Here, not only were the merchants evicted, without so much as a meager helping hand from the Bronx BP (after Carrion called the market a, "commercial ghetto"); but the resulting project will generate 125,000! cars and trucks a week to the area of the South Bronx known as "asthma alley." As the News points out, and as we have commented extensively on:
"Developer Related Companies' subsidiary, BTM Development Partners, needed Carrion and the city Planning Commission to change zoning, modify height restrictions and approve permits for parking spaces. As the project moved forward, the neighborhood railed about increased traffic and the impact the chain stores would have on local businesses. All the while Related executives wrote campaign checks to Carrion. On March 10, 2005, five $1,000 donations from Related executives arrived. On June 20, 2005, the company notified the city it planned to build a 1 million-square-foot retail center with 2,610 parking spaces and a 250-room hotel. On Oct. 19, 2005, Carrion approved the project, with his office monitoring local hiring. Since 2003, Carrion has received $39,100 from 24 Gateway-related donations."
Adding insult to injury, Carrion proceeded to usurp the community's role in the development of a community benefits agreement. As we highlighted at the time:
"The negotiation process for this CBA was incredibly, incredibly flawed:
• Normally CBAs are negotiated prior to the land use review process so that community coalitions can have leverage over developers. The opposite occurred with the Gateway CBA. Brainstorming for the document only began in November after City Planning Certification, Community Board approval, and the Borough President’s “Yes” vote. The agreement was finalized two days prior to the City Council’s approval.
• There was no independent community coalition. The community-based organizations involved in the initial brainstorming (“the taskforce”) were handpicked by BOEDC and Borough President Carrion. When certain group representatives said or did things that upset the Borough President they were kicked out of the negotiating group.
• None of the taskforce members had CBA negotiating experience
• The taskforce was not given legal representation
• Unknown to the participants, representatives from Related were in the room while the taskforce brainstormed
• The taskforce never negotiated directly with Related. Final negotiations occurred between Bronx elected officials and the developer. For this reason the final CBA is a very watered down version of what the community asked for.
• Most of the City Council never had the chance to read the CBA. The final copy was sent to the Council the morning of the project’s approval."
And, as we pointed out in this morning's NY Times focus on Carrion: "It’s ironic that President Obama hired Adolfo Carrión, whose record in the Bronx at every turn thwarted the interest of the community, and yet the president started his career as a community organizer,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the market’s former merchants." The NY Daily News followed up its expose yesterday as well, and we told the paper: "Carrión's acted in such a perverse manner to really go out of his way to thwart community and small-business concerns," Lipsky charged."
So Carrion, someone with both good looks and charm-if not good judgment-leaves a legacy of abandoning genuine community interests; both substantively as well as procedurally, to go to work for the ultimate community organizer. Either Obama has taken a real audacious leap of faith here-suspending all disbelief-or Carrion will hopefully transform himself into a shrewd analyst of urban problems. Anyone want to take the under/over here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)