In keeping with the White House talking points that Errol Louis followed slavishly in his column this morning, Steve Kornacki plays follow the leader on the Politicker web site-and wonders, where are the liberal mobs? "One by one, Democratic congressmen have watched this summer as their local town hall meetings have been overwhelmed and shut down by irate conservative activists who oppose health care reform. The top-down nature of these protests has been noted. Nonetheless, they’re a potentially effective tool, because the pictures and video images that they generate can be compelling to casual news consumers. As a result, some Democrats have begun to grumble: Where is our mob?"
Top down nature is, however, as tricky concept-as we have noted-and to harp on this alleged feature of the protests is to run the risk of exacerbating the problems that ObamaCare is facing at present. In our view, the attempt to delegitimize the grass roots nature of the disruptions, will only serve to egg them on; and increase them in both size and scope.
But Kornacki's, "where's our liberal mob?" question is an interesting one-his answers, however, are less than compelling: "After all, one of the great achievements of Barack Obama’s campaign was its ability to mobilize everyday people in historic numbers. Why isn’t someone making sure those same people turn up to counter the Republicans now? The problem is that, when it comes to mobilizing its base, Democrats are—for now—at a decided disadvantage on health care."
True enough-but isn't it because the folks aren't really buying the Democratic narrative? Not according to Kornacki; it's because the Republicans are able to falsify and to demonize, while the Democrats await the final details-with nothing solid to grab hold of: "Democrats, on the other hand, have more diffuse interests at this point. Their party runs the White House and Congress and, consequently, they have long expected real health care reform to be implemented this year. With the legislation still inching through Congress, there’s nothing—yet—for them to feel passionate about. The right can scream about evils of “the Obama plan,” but the left knows there’s no such thing. No final bill has yet been produced and decisions are still pending on the public option, a proposed surcharge on wealthy Americans, whether benefits should be taxed, and other contentious issues."
Which really misses the central point. Republicans, and the wide range of independents that Kornacki understandably fails to account for, see the general direction that the majority party seeks to go in; and, frightened of the implications, understand the danger of simply waiting patiently for the final plan to emerge (at which point it may be too late to do anything about it).
Democrats, on the other hand, are generally sanguine about the direction the legislation is going-single payer, government run, extra tax burden, reduced choices, all have little negative resonance in the precincts of the left. All that concerns the activists from the port side, is the importance of universal coverage-everything else is just meaningless postscript.
Which leaves the gurus like Kornacki bereft of serious analysis-left to gnash their terrible teeth in an effort to caricature the protesters' arguments and motives: "Just consider how easy it’s been for the right to foment the rage we’ve been seeing at town hall meetings. Mike Huckabee, the once and probably future G.O.P. presidential candidate, offered a pitch-perfect tutorial for how it’s done in the opening monologue of his Fox News show last weekend...It was a maddeningly dishonest presentation. None of the plans under consideration in Congress would impose a Canadian-style, single-payer health care system in this country. The comparison was absolutely false and baseless."
Well, there's a lot of false and baseless stuff that's organically upsetting the folks without the help of those, "outside agitators." In particular, there's some clear evidence that the oversight boards and the monopsony purchasing regime will lead to something that resembles what our good neighbors to the north have for health care-not to mention Obama's previous statements in support of an "incremental" transformation of the current system into a single payer, government controlled model.
And, given the Obama-led whopping expansion of government, Kornacki shouldn't be so quick to label criticisms of the health care take over as, "absolutely false and baseless." In the process, both Louis and Kornacki patronize and demean the folks who are angrily challenging their elected officials. They've seen the stimulus, thank you, and they've had quite enough of the expansionists.
So, we welcome Kornacki's prediction that these protests will inspire a counter revolution: "On Wednesday, an email to Obama supporters—signed by the president—was sent asking them to attend a town hall meeting this month. A few weeks ago, this appeal would have been met mainly with indifference. Now it may be a different story." Let's hope so. It's about time that the battle was enjoined. May the best narrative win.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
The Dangers of Astroturf
Now, we should confess that we have been accused on many an occasion of fomenting the kind of phony grass roots lobbying campaign that ObamaCare supporters are charging that the opponents of state-run health care are using to intimidate local town hall meetings. Our response? Well, we usually pointed out that no amount of community organizing can gin up an unconcerned and generally apathetic neighborhood.
The key to successful grass roots efforts involves pinpointing existing grievances and, in Saul Alinsky's terms, "rubbing raw the sores of discontent." So, it is with some amusement that we read our friend Errol Louis' screed against the August health care "astroturfing" that, in his words is, "political thuggerry." Well, one man's freedom fighter-you know the rest.
The Louis piece, however, reminds us of the dangers of playing on astroturf-although we've never heard of commentators getting hurt; that is, until Louis apparently threw out his shoulder hurling animadversions against the protesters: "It's getting ugly out there.From coast to coast, as members of Congress try to engage their constituents on the important matter of health care reform, many of them - mostly Democrats - are being shouted down by howling mobs."
Civil unrest, urban disorders-bring on the Kerner Commission; the well orchestrated Obama campaign for taking over 20% of the American economy is being threatened by evil corporate lobbyists: "Political thuggery is always sickening. What makes the current round especially abhorrent is the fact that some of the mob behavior appears to be the work of corporate lobbying groups that are spending an estimated $1.4 million a day to block reform."
Now we have no doubt that corporate interests are trying to egg on the protests; but Errol elides over the real anger that is percolating out there in the precincts-only giving lip service to the reality of the actual grass roots anger: "Some of the disrupters are genuinely ticked-off citizens upset at President Obama's policies on health care, the environment and the economy. More power to such protesters, I say - provided they allow others at these town halls to hear and be heard."
Now, we're not big fans of an obsessive incivility, but it is important to dramatize the way in which proponents of government run health care have been trying to speed up the process; and avoid answering the hard questions about the implications of what this all means for America. Errol hasn't complained about the staged town hall meetings-seeded with the proper kinds of questioners-that the president himself has been orchestrating. One can see how this Potemkin Village-like phoniness could get on the nerves of some really concerned and upset folks.
Michele Malkin captures some of what Louis manages to avoid: "President Obama's architects of Kabuki town halls have packed public forums with partisan plants. Now they accuse opponents gathering at impromptu rallies against the massive health-care takeover of orchestrating "manufactured anger." Unaccustomed to pushback, the wealthy, astroturfed ground troops for ObamaCare -- underwritten by unions, liberal philanthropists, the AARP, ACORN and your tax dollars -- have resorted to projection. The health-care takeover lobby boasts a $40 million budget and a stable of seasoned operatives based at 1825 K Street in Washington, DC. Now that cabal is accusing the broad coalition of taxpayer activists, libertarians, independents, talk-radio loyalists, bloggers and first-time protesters of being, yes, wealthy and astroturfed."
The reality here, is that the deficit driving and government expansion activities of the Obama administration have galvanized a public that hasn't been known to be in your face active-and it must come as some shock to see the mostly middle class folks red faced and angry. But the polls don't lie; and the folks are worried and muy upset.
But Errol Louis is a proponent of ObamaCare, and his biggest concern is that the protesting will have the kind of impact that will thwart the president's goal: "In Austin, Tex., a forum by Rep. Lloyd Doggett dissolved into chaos as a chanting crowd surrounded him and prevented the congressman from speaking. Some of the estimated 5.8 million Texans with no health insurance - 25% of the population, the highest such percentage in America - might have wanted to hear from Doggett, but it wasn't to be."
But the current proposals have the potential of making things much worse for all of the hard working folks-more than 80% of all Americans-who already have insurance; and who worry that the changes proffered will cut their health care options will also raising their costs at the same time. It appears to them much like how we heard Dennis Miller describe the proposal: it's like a school principal demanding that most of the children give up their milk money so a few of the lactose intolerant kids could be taken care of.
So anger here-within reason-is good; and to conflate what's going on to insurrection is a not only a disservice, it will prove to be counterproductive to those whose talking points Louis so willingly is borrowing from. His end paragraph, dots the I's and crosses the T's of our point: "But the right-wing goon squads disrupting health care town hall meetings nationwide aren't just an annoyance - they are a threat to democracy that should be taken seriously and prosecuted when they cross the line between advocacy and violent intimidation."
Indeed! How dare the relatively silent middle class take up cudgels and get in the face of their elected officials-and in the process adopt some of the Alinsky-like tactics that the left has used to foment disssent for decades. Instead of being upset, the left should be flattered. And if they want to make their points more forcefully, why don't they get out and counter-organize. Then we might get a chance to see who is really grass roots, and who is simply astroturfing with special interest money.
The key to successful grass roots efforts involves pinpointing existing grievances and, in Saul Alinsky's terms, "rubbing raw the sores of discontent." So, it is with some amusement that we read our friend Errol Louis' screed against the August health care "astroturfing" that, in his words is, "political thuggerry." Well, one man's freedom fighter-you know the rest.
The Louis piece, however, reminds us of the dangers of playing on astroturf-although we've never heard of commentators getting hurt; that is, until Louis apparently threw out his shoulder hurling animadversions against the protesters: "It's getting ugly out there.From coast to coast, as members of Congress try to engage their constituents on the important matter of health care reform, many of them - mostly Democrats - are being shouted down by howling mobs."
Civil unrest, urban disorders-bring on the Kerner Commission; the well orchestrated Obama campaign for taking over 20% of the American economy is being threatened by evil corporate lobbyists: "Political thuggery is always sickening. What makes the current round especially abhorrent is the fact that some of the mob behavior appears to be the work of corporate lobbying groups that are spending an estimated $1.4 million a day to block reform."
Now we have no doubt that corporate interests are trying to egg on the protests; but Errol elides over the real anger that is percolating out there in the precincts-only giving lip service to the reality of the actual grass roots anger: "Some of the disrupters are genuinely ticked-off citizens upset at President Obama's policies on health care, the environment and the economy. More power to such protesters, I say - provided they allow others at these town halls to hear and be heard."
Now, we're not big fans of an obsessive incivility, but it is important to dramatize the way in which proponents of government run health care have been trying to speed up the process; and avoid answering the hard questions about the implications of what this all means for America. Errol hasn't complained about the staged town hall meetings-seeded with the proper kinds of questioners-that the president himself has been orchestrating. One can see how this Potemkin Village-like phoniness could get on the nerves of some really concerned and upset folks.
Michele Malkin captures some of what Louis manages to avoid: "President Obama's architects of Kabuki town halls have packed public forums with partisan plants. Now they accuse opponents gathering at impromptu rallies against the massive health-care takeover of orchestrating "manufactured anger." Unaccustomed to pushback, the wealthy, astroturfed ground troops for ObamaCare -- underwritten by unions, liberal philanthropists, the AARP, ACORN and your tax dollars -- have resorted to projection. The health-care takeover lobby boasts a $40 million budget and a stable of seasoned operatives based at 1825 K Street in Washington, DC. Now that cabal is accusing the broad coalition of taxpayer activists, libertarians, independents, talk-radio loyalists, bloggers and first-time protesters of being, yes, wealthy and astroturfed."
The reality here, is that the deficit driving and government expansion activities of the Obama administration have galvanized a public that hasn't been known to be in your face active-and it must come as some shock to see the mostly middle class folks red faced and angry. But the polls don't lie; and the folks are worried and muy upset.
But Errol Louis is a proponent of ObamaCare, and his biggest concern is that the protesting will have the kind of impact that will thwart the president's goal: "In Austin, Tex., a forum by Rep. Lloyd Doggett dissolved into chaos as a chanting crowd surrounded him and prevented the congressman from speaking. Some of the estimated 5.8 million Texans with no health insurance - 25% of the population, the highest such percentage in America - might have wanted to hear from Doggett, but it wasn't to be."
But the current proposals have the potential of making things much worse for all of the hard working folks-more than 80% of all Americans-who already have insurance; and who worry that the changes proffered will cut their health care options will also raising their costs at the same time. It appears to them much like how we heard Dennis Miller describe the proposal: it's like a school principal demanding that most of the children give up their milk money so a few of the lactose intolerant kids could be taken care of.
So anger here-within reason-is good; and to conflate what's going on to insurrection is a not only a disservice, it will prove to be counterproductive to those whose talking points Louis so willingly is borrowing from. His end paragraph, dots the I's and crosses the T's of our point: "But the right-wing goon squads disrupting health care town hall meetings nationwide aren't just an annoyance - they are a threat to democracy that should be taken seriously and prosecuted when they cross the line between advocacy and violent intimidation."
Indeed! How dare the relatively silent middle class take up cudgels and get in the face of their elected officials-and in the process adopt some of the Alinsky-like tactics that the left has used to foment disssent for decades. Instead of being upset, the left should be flattered. And if they want to make their points more forcefully, why don't they get out and counter-organize. Then we might get a chance to see who is really grass roots, and who is simply astroturfing with special interest money.
Wild About Larry
The NY Daily News picks up on one of the Ground Zero themes that we made yesterday-the culpability of Larry Loot Siverstein in the inordinant delays in the re-building of that sacred space: "If you are among the millions of New Yorkers who have had it with eight years of incompetence in reconstruction at Ground Zero, and if you are among those for whom trying to referee between developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority is like trying to score a fight between sewer alligators, herewith a cheat sheet to the latest tangling."
Unfortunately, the mayor in his zeal to maintain his grip on power, has only focused on the Port-and has unfairly-and inexplicably-left the Larry alligator out of his harsh critique; a big omission in our view: "Silverstein holds the rights to build three enormous towers on the World Trade Center site, but he is running out of cash. Silverstein hasn't a snowball's chance of financing the skyscrapers because he has no tenants. Silverstein has no tenants because New York's economy - in particular, the financial industry - is in severe contraction. Silverstein has persuaded the Port Authority to get behind one building to the tune of almost $1 billion - a building that will be occupied only because the city and the PA have agreed to take space at inflated rents. Silverstein wants the Port Authority to back construction of two even bigger towers with more billions in public money. The Port Authority said no way. Gov. Paterson said no how. The Port Authority said that it would help out if Silverstein found anyone - anyone - willing to invest private money."
It's time for the city and the state to give both the Port and Siverstein the heeve ho-they have dithered enough; and the mayor, along with all of the former governors, have been as nonfeasant as any elected officials could be. This is, after all, supposed to be sacred space-and for seven and a half years Mike Bloomberg hasn't said much of anything about the lack of action on the site.
Now, however, he takes off on the amorphous public authority-giving the equally culpable Silverstein a free pass; something that the News makes very clear Silverstein doeasn't deserve: "Silverstein dissed Paterson big-time by throwing his dispute with the Port Authority into arbitration. Silverstein needs enormous sums of public money immediately because doom is fast approaching: If he does not complete construction of all three towers by 2014, he loses everything. Silverstein's gambit is a naked attempt to muscle money out of the public in order to rescue his multibillion-dollar Trade Center dreams from the wreckage of America's economic meltdown. Silverstein needs to get real."
No, he needs to get lost-and the mayor, who says he wants to use his, "bully pulpit," to get the MTA to make certain changes in mass transit, needs to force Silverstein and the Port to bite the bullet. Now! And the way to do it is to move swiftly to condemn the property and begin to personally take charge over the redevelopment of the site.
The fact that we still have a hole in the ground while the mayor has had eight years of lockjaw on the matter is to his everlasting shame. That he hesitates to use eminent domain to kick his fellow billionaire out of the site is certainly, as the socialists say, no accident. It's only the little guys who become the targets of government taking-especially when class acts like Mike Bloomberg are running things.
Unfortunately, the mayor in his zeal to maintain his grip on power, has only focused on the Port-and has unfairly-and inexplicably-left the Larry alligator out of his harsh critique; a big omission in our view: "Silverstein holds the rights to build three enormous towers on the World Trade Center site, but he is running out of cash. Silverstein hasn't a snowball's chance of financing the skyscrapers because he has no tenants. Silverstein has no tenants because New York's economy - in particular, the financial industry - is in severe contraction. Silverstein has persuaded the Port Authority to get behind one building to the tune of almost $1 billion - a building that will be occupied only because the city and the PA have agreed to take space at inflated rents. Silverstein wants the Port Authority to back construction of two even bigger towers with more billions in public money. The Port Authority said no way. Gov. Paterson said no how. The Port Authority said that it would help out if Silverstein found anyone - anyone - willing to invest private money."
It's time for the city and the state to give both the Port and Siverstein the heeve ho-they have dithered enough; and the mayor, along with all of the former governors, have been as nonfeasant as any elected officials could be. This is, after all, supposed to be sacred space-and for seven and a half years Mike Bloomberg hasn't said much of anything about the lack of action on the site.
Now, however, he takes off on the amorphous public authority-giving the equally culpable Silverstein a free pass; something that the News makes very clear Silverstein doeasn't deserve: "Silverstein dissed Paterson big-time by throwing his dispute with the Port Authority into arbitration. Silverstein needs enormous sums of public money immediately because doom is fast approaching: If he does not complete construction of all three towers by 2014, he loses everything. Silverstein's gambit is a naked attempt to muscle money out of the public in order to rescue his multibillion-dollar Trade Center dreams from the wreckage of America's economic meltdown. Silverstein needs to get real."
No, he needs to get lost-and the mayor, who says he wants to use his, "bully pulpit," to get the MTA to make certain changes in mass transit, needs to force Silverstein and the Port to bite the bullet. Now! And the way to do it is to move swiftly to condemn the property and begin to personally take charge over the redevelopment of the site.
The fact that we still have a hole in the ground while the mayor has had eight years of lockjaw on the matter is to his everlasting shame. That he hesitates to use eminent domain to kick his fellow billionaire out of the site is certainly, as the socialists say, no accident. It's only the little guys who become the targets of government taking-especially when class acts like Mike Bloomberg are running things.
Good By-and Good Riddance to-Guillermo
Guillermo Linares, the quisling council member who sold his own people out in the Pathmark controversy in the mid-nineties, has been knocked off the ballot-and his comeback attempt has been thankfully aborted. Or, as Shakespeare once said: "Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it." (Macbeth)
Here's the report from Daily Politics: "The city Board of Elections ruled that former Councilman Miguel Martinez's committee on vacancies did not comply with the Election Law, essentially invalidating its selection of Guillermo Linares to take over the disgraced former lawmaker's petitions."
And it looks as if Linares' lawyer has thrown in the towel: "Jerry Goldfeder, the attorney for one of Linares' opponents, Ydanis Rodriguez, has already started a court proceeding to invalidate Linares' petitions. The case was adjourned until tomorrow, pending the elections commissioners' ruling today...UPDATE: I'm not sure if there's a record for the shortest-lived comeback attempt, but this one might be a contender. Goldfeder said he received a call from Berger, who says Linares is NOT going to be pursuing an appeal of the board's decision, and thus will not be running to reclaim his old Council seat."
No appeal is very appealing to, not only us, but to the scores of supermarket owners who mistakenly put their faith in Linares-only to be stabbed in the back when he switched his support to Abyssinian Church and Pathmark; a move that the NY Post excoriated at the time. Linares's support of the Pathmark effectively denigrated the years of sacrifice that these risk taking entrepreneurs had made in the city; especially after the big chain supermarkets had left.
Juan Gonzales captured the perfidy of this Judas: "But the Pathmark issue is even more complicated. It's about whether small businessmen with loyalty to a neighborhood, guys who never get any government subsidy or break on a bank loan, must always face rigged competition against the giant firms that inevitably demand a guaranteed profit through tax abatements or low-interest loans or government subsidies of some sort before they will invest in the inner city."
Guys with loyalty to the neighborhood like Alfredo Rodriguez, Luis Salcedo and Mariano Diaz, loyal Linares supporters who misplaced their faith in the first Dominican elected official in the United States. In fact it was Rodriguez, who Linares (the night before the Pathmark vote), told: "Alfredo, I'll never do anything to hurt you or your family."
There are many times in a three decade career that we have experienced political treachery in one form or another; but the Linares betrayal of his own people ranks first in the political Hall of Shame. The people of Washington Heights have dodged a major bullet.
Here's the report from Daily Politics: "The city Board of Elections ruled that former Councilman Miguel Martinez's committee on vacancies did not comply with the Election Law, essentially invalidating its selection of Guillermo Linares to take over the disgraced former lawmaker's petitions."
And it looks as if Linares' lawyer has thrown in the towel: "Jerry Goldfeder, the attorney for one of Linares' opponents, Ydanis Rodriguez, has already started a court proceeding to invalidate Linares' petitions. The case was adjourned until tomorrow, pending the elections commissioners' ruling today...UPDATE: I'm not sure if there's a record for the shortest-lived comeback attempt, but this one might be a contender. Goldfeder said he received a call from Berger, who says Linares is NOT going to be pursuing an appeal of the board's decision, and thus will not be running to reclaim his old Council seat."
No appeal is very appealing to, not only us, but to the scores of supermarket owners who mistakenly put their faith in Linares-only to be stabbed in the back when he switched his support to Abyssinian Church and Pathmark; a move that the NY Post excoriated at the time. Linares's support of the Pathmark effectively denigrated the years of sacrifice that these risk taking entrepreneurs had made in the city; especially after the big chain supermarkets had left.
Juan Gonzales captured the perfidy of this Judas: "But the Pathmark issue is even more complicated. It's about whether small businessmen with loyalty to a neighborhood, guys who never get any government subsidy or break on a bank loan, must always face rigged competition against the giant firms that inevitably demand a guaranteed profit through tax abatements or low-interest loans or government subsidies of some sort before they will invest in the inner city."
Guys with loyalty to the neighborhood like Alfredo Rodriguez, Luis Salcedo and Mariano Diaz, loyal Linares supporters who misplaced their faith in the first Dominican elected official in the United States. In fact it was Rodriguez, who Linares (the night before the Pathmark vote), told: "Alfredo, I'll never do anything to hurt you or your family."
There are many times in a three decade career that we have experienced political treachery in one form or another; but the Linares betrayal of his own people ranks first in the political Hall of Shame. The people of Washington Heights have dodged a major bullet.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Mayoral Port-a-Potty
Can it be that Mike Bloomberg has finally got in touch with his inner Rudy? After almost eight years of catatonia, the mayor seems to have discovered that Ground Zero hasn't been developed-and he's made as hell: "Mayor Bloomberg launched a blistering attack against the Port Authority's bungling at Ground Zero yesterday, saying the agency has "an obligation to the nation" to rebuild the site on time and calling repeated delays "intolerable."
Talk about your Michael-come-lately. What exactly has the mayor been doing on this for eight years? Oh, yeah, we forgot-planning for the Olympics, and his magnum opus, a football stadium on the Far West Side. Okay, so he was a bit distracted; but it could certainly happen to anyone with big plans and a limited ability, we guess, to multi-task.
But let's give some of the discredit where discredit is due-right at the feet of Deputy Dan Docotroff who came into public service with the Olympic idée fixe; and had no interest in what Bloomberg now calls, "an obligation to the nation." Only now?
So the redevelopment of Ground Zero now becomes an additional rationale for the re-election of Mike; because, after all, who else has the requisite expertise and ability to do what the incumbent obviously was ill-equipped to accomplish. Which brings us to Mr. Silverstein.
Bloomberg has nary a discouraging word for Larry Loot-nor any aggressive intentions toward a developer who hadn't even taken his Trade Tower coat off before the planes hit. Too bad Nick Sprayregen hadn't bought the trade center. If he had, Bloomberg would have dove right in and began the public condemnation process; but then again Nick, unlike Larry, has never been part of the mayor's minyon.
All of which underscores just how the use of public condemnation is never used against those with great wealth-the clearest demonstration of the theory of non-decision making that we have ever seen. If the Port and Silverstein have mucked this national civic monument thing up to a fare thee well, we can think of no more righteous use of the right of eminent domain than to remove the sacred ground from the clutches of the fumbling Port Authority and the avaricious Silverstein.
Talk about your Michael-come-lately. What exactly has the mayor been doing on this for eight years? Oh, yeah, we forgot-planning for the Olympics, and his magnum opus, a football stadium on the Far West Side. Okay, so he was a bit distracted; but it could certainly happen to anyone with big plans and a limited ability, we guess, to multi-task.
But let's give some of the discredit where discredit is due-right at the feet of Deputy Dan Docotroff who came into public service with the Olympic idée fixe; and had no interest in what Bloomberg now calls, "an obligation to the nation." Only now?
So the redevelopment of Ground Zero now becomes an additional rationale for the re-election of Mike; because, after all, who else has the requisite expertise and ability to do what the incumbent obviously was ill-equipped to accomplish. Which brings us to Mr. Silverstein.
Bloomberg has nary a discouraging word for Larry Loot-nor any aggressive intentions toward a developer who hadn't even taken his Trade Tower coat off before the planes hit. Too bad Nick Sprayregen hadn't bought the trade center. If he had, Bloomberg would have dove right in and began the public condemnation process; but then again Nick, unlike Larry, has never been part of the mayor's minyon.
All of which underscores just how the use of public condemnation is never used against those with great wealth-the clearest demonstration of the theory of non-decision making that we have ever seen. If the Port and Silverstein have mucked this national civic monument thing up to a fare thee well, we can think of no more righteous use of the right of eminent domain than to remove the sacred ground from the clutches of the fumbling Port Authority and the avaricious Silverstein.
The Jane Jacobs Legacy
In the latest issue of the City Journal, Howard Husack reviews two books that deal with the import of Jane Jacobs to our conception of what the ideal city should look like. Jacobs was, and remains, an intellectual mentor to us, and to the work that the Alliance has done over the past twenty five years: "Though Jacobs’s ideas were lobbed like grenades from outside her era’s planning and architecture establishment—she had no formal training in either—her defense of cities’ apparent disorder has become more widely accepted...The same deeply local experience led to the development of another, less understood side of Jacobs—her role in shaping, for good and ill, the tactics of what has come to be called community activism."
Indeed she did, and her fights against Robert Moses serve as a paradigm of how to use an intellectual narrative, street protests, and coalition building to defeat more well-heeled interests: "Amazingly, Robert Caro makes no mention of Jacobs in his generally definitive Power Broker, the thousand-plus-page biography that changed the public conception of Moses from master builder of parks, parkways, and beaches to undemocratic destroyer of neighborhoods. He was both, to be sure...Moses is the perfect villain in the Jacobs saga not only because of his enormous power but also because of his capacity to articulate, confidently, the rationale for his actions. He called slum clearance, for instance, “the scythe of progress.” He was both the philosopher and implementer of architectural modernism."
But Jacobs knew how to neutralize Moses; and it is she, rather than Saul Alinsky, who is the true progenitor of successful modern urban protest. Anthony Flint's book, "Wrestling with Moses...," captures the essence of Jacobs' success: "Flint describes how Jacobs and a powerful coalition of Village citizens and officials (including the young Ed Koch) successfully led what we would now call a neighborhood-preservation movement. A turning point was the defeat of Moses’s plan, first announced in 1952, to run a four-lane highway through one of the city’s landmarks, Greenwich Village’s Washington Square Park."
And soon, her tactics were replicated everywhere: "Over the course of the fifties and early sixties, Jacobs helped stop two other disastrous projects: the replacement of 14 blocks of the West Village to make way for apartment towers, and the construction of a Lower Manhattan Expressway linking New Jersey and Long Island. The tactics that helped defeat Moses have become commonplace. Children marched with banners for the benefit of newspaper photographers, and activists got the word out in editorials in the fledgling Village Voice."
But, as Flint reminds us, Jacobs' success couldn't have been possible without a compelling story-something that we have successfully done in our Wal-Mart campaigns: "But none of this might have mattered had Jacobs not made the intellectual case against high-rise housing, neighborhood clearance, and highways that ran through cities—indeed, against the profession of city planning itself."
And just as we have tried to follow in the path that Jacobs paved, so have others tried in their own way to replicate the Moses slum clearance model-using eminent domain to replace small businesses with malls that destroy the character of the city's neighborhood-all in the name, supposedly, of bettering the conditions of poor people.
Our work over the years has focused on preserving the character of neighborhood life-something that we learned, first by living in the city through the fifties and sixties; and then by reading Jacobs in graduate school (along with, yes, Saul Alinsky). Preserving the diversity of local communities-something that Mike Bloomberg and the developers will never quite understand-has been both a goal as well as a successful tactic.
Husack's description of how Jacobs was able to succeed, while residents of the lower middle class Bronx neighborhoods were not, is instructive for those of us who wish to emulate her efforts today: "Bronx residents, in their struggle to stop construction of the Cross-Bronx Expressway, had tried demonstrating against Moses, but to no avail. He had always been able to rely on planning elites, newspaper editorial pages, and his own social background and connections to make “slum-dwellers” look self-interested and benighted. In Jacobs, Moses faced a foe who employed hardball political tactics and sarcasm as well. She dared to condescend to him."
And she really understood neighborhoods at their most human level: "In fact, Jacobs was the the progenitor of a new elite consensus to rival the grand urban-renewal designs of modernism. She argued that “organic” neighborhoods with many “eyes on the street” would, over time, “unslum” themselves through neighbors’ actions and decisions. Moses thought that expert guidance and planning could create an environment that fostered enjoyment and fulfillment. Jacobs demurred: “To approach a city or even a city neighborhood as if it were capable of being given order by converting it into a disciplined work of art is to make the mistake of substituting art for life.” Her struggle, then, was not just about neighborhood preservation; it pitted individualism and liberty against regimentation imposed by a benevolent despot."
And the fight against sterile-real estate developer-driven-planning continues today; as the Bloombergistas look to eliminate the "eyesores" at the Bronx Terminal Market and Willets Point-or the small businesses in West Harlem. All to be replaced by pristine sterility-and using the power of the state to take away what people have devoted their lives to building.
New York's richness is built on its diverse and interesting myriad of neighborhoods-something that the Related malls seek and destroy with tax payer subsidies. The mayor, as the first citizen of the world, has no organic connection to neighborhood life of NYC; and his development policies reflect this.
Jane Jacobs, then, is not just a great New York historical figure, she is also a role model for the kind of economic and social policies that allow city's to breathe with a life of diversity and economic invention. We all owe her a great debt of gratitude; and we disregard her wisdom at our peril.
Indeed she did, and her fights against Robert Moses serve as a paradigm of how to use an intellectual narrative, street protests, and coalition building to defeat more well-heeled interests: "Amazingly, Robert Caro makes no mention of Jacobs in his generally definitive Power Broker, the thousand-plus-page biography that changed the public conception of Moses from master builder of parks, parkways, and beaches to undemocratic destroyer of neighborhoods. He was both, to be sure...Moses is the perfect villain in the Jacobs saga not only because of his enormous power but also because of his capacity to articulate, confidently, the rationale for his actions. He called slum clearance, for instance, “the scythe of progress.” He was both the philosopher and implementer of architectural modernism."
But Jacobs knew how to neutralize Moses; and it is she, rather than Saul Alinsky, who is the true progenitor of successful modern urban protest. Anthony Flint's book, "Wrestling with Moses...," captures the essence of Jacobs' success: "Flint describes how Jacobs and a powerful coalition of Village citizens and officials (including the young Ed Koch) successfully led what we would now call a neighborhood-preservation movement. A turning point was the defeat of Moses’s plan, first announced in 1952, to run a four-lane highway through one of the city’s landmarks, Greenwich Village’s Washington Square Park."
And soon, her tactics were replicated everywhere: "Over the course of the fifties and early sixties, Jacobs helped stop two other disastrous projects: the replacement of 14 blocks of the West Village to make way for apartment towers, and the construction of a Lower Manhattan Expressway linking New Jersey and Long Island. The tactics that helped defeat Moses have become commonplace. Children marched with banners for the benefit of newspaper photographers, and activists got the word out in editorials in the fledgling Village Voice."
But, as Flint reminds us, Jacobs' success couldn't have been possible without a compelling story-something that we have successfully done in our Wal-Mart campaigns: "But none of this might have mattered had Jacobs not made the intellectual case against high-rise housing, neighborhood clearance, and highways that ran through cities—indeed, against the profession of city planning itself."
And just as we have tried to follow in the path that Jacobs paved, so have others tried in their own way to replicate the Moses slum clearance model-using eminent domain to replace small businesses with malls that destroy the character of the city's neighborhood-all in the name, supposedly, of bettering the conditions of poor people.
Our work over the years has focused on preserving the character of neighborhood life-something that we learned, first by living in the city through the fifties and sixties; and then by reading Jacobs in graduate school (along with, yes, Saul Alinsky). Preserving the diversity of local communities-something that Mike Bloomberg and the developers will never quite understand-has been both a goal as well as a successful tactic.
Husack's description of how Jacobs was able to succeed, while residents of the lower middle class Bronx neighborhoods were not, is instructive for those of us who wish to emulate her efforts today: "Bronx residents, in their struggle to stop construction of the Cross-Bronx Expressway, had tried demonstrating against Moses, but to no avail. He had always been able to rely on planning elites, newspaper editorial pages, and his own social background and connections to make “slum-dwellers” look self-interested and benighted. In Jacobs, Moses faced a foe who employed hardball political tactics and sarcasm as well. She dared to condescend to him."
And she really understood neighborhoods at their most human level: "In fact, Jacobs was the the progenitor of a new elite consensus to rival the grand urban-renewal designs of modernism. She argued that “organic” neighborhoods with many “eyes on the street” would, over time, “unslum” themselves through neighbors’ actions and decisions. Moses thought that expert guidance and planning could create an environment that fostered enjoyment and fulfillment. Jacobs demurred: “To approach a city or even a city neighborhood as if it were capable of being given order by converting it into a disciplined work of art is to make the mistake of substituting art for life.” Her struggle, then, was not just about neighborhood preservation; it pitted individualism and liberty against regimentation imposed by a benevolent despot."
And the fight against sterile-real estate developer-driven-planning continues today; as the Bloombergistas look to eliminate the "eyesores" at the Bronx Terminal Market and Willets Point-or the small businesses in West Harlem. All to be replaced by pristine sterility-and using the power of the state to take away what people have devoted their lives to building.
New York's richness is built on its diverse and interesting myriad of neighborhoods-something that the Related malls seek and destroy with tax payer subsidies. The mayor, as the first citizen of the world, has no organic connection to neighborhood life of NYC; and his development policies reflect this.
Jane Jacobs, then, is not just a great New York historical figure, she is also a role model for the kind of economic and social policies that allow city's to breathe with a life of diversity and economic invention. We all owe her a great debt of gratitude; and we disregard her wisdom at our peril.
Post Recovers its Balance
In this morning's NY Post, the paper comments on the NY Times revelation about the Mike Bloomberg slush fund: "Mayor Bloomberg's reputation for fis cal competence took one on the chin this week with a troubling report in The New York Times about some unexplained city funding of two politically connected nonprofits."
But the report underscores what we have been saying for some time-Mike Bloomberg is not some iconic figure standing above the rough and tumble of ordinary politics; he is, despite attempts to portray himself differently, thoroughly immersed in the rewarding of political favors to those that can benefit the most significant mayoral special interest, Mike Bloomberg in the flesh. And the revealing report raises questions about that other Bloomberg canard-the need for the uniquely qualified Bloomberg to pilot the city through tough economic times.
Because the truth is that Mikey Bloomberg's F Troop, not only was clueless about the most tawdry aspects of the City Council's own slush fund, but apparently couldn't follow the law itself when it came time to spread a little love on a favored special interest: "Indeed, incompetence is the kinder word. Absent an explanation for how the groups -- Agudath Israel and Ohel Children's Home and Family Services -- got $3 million in city cash from 2002 to 2008, New Yorkers might be forgiven for thinking the worst. The money was part of a $20 million pork pot ladled out to nonprofits supposedly on behalf of City Council members. Bloomberg's folks say they wrote the necessary checks at the request of Councilman Simcha Felder. But Felder says he never requested the money, and the groups say they dealt directly with the mayor's office -- which has no records to resolve the issue one way or another."
Once again, Mr. Indispensability demonstrates just how hollow the third term argument for Mike-the new Abe Beame?-really is: "No one has yet challenged the integrity of the two groups in question. And if Felder never asked for the cash, as he claims, then Mike's folks broke the law, which bars City Hall from disbursing pork directly to any group. Frankly, the possibilities go downhill from there...Which is why Mike Bloomberg needs to keep his records in substantially better order than this episode demonstrates."
And not only the city records, but his own private pig pen as well-the one that allows those favored hogs to slop down hundreds of thousands of charitable dollars; money that was never seen prior to Bloomberg's entry into city politics. The Post, along with all of the other editorialists, should demand an itemized list of the mayor's largess-and compare the before and after on it. It will amaze one and all how Mike Bloomberg's love for the Jewish people has grown exponentially since he has taken office. Pay for play has been turned into a game of three dimensional chess by the billionaire Bloomberg.
In our view, he should clean up all those municipal records so that the city archivist has a better handle on what happened during his two terms in office-and so that his successor has a better grip on getting a head start in insuring that the city is in more competent hands. Can anyone still argue with a straight face that Mike Bloomberg is needed for an extra-legal third term now?
But the report underscores what we have been saying for some time-Mike Bloomberg is not some iconic figure standing above the rough and tumble of ordinary politics; he is, despite attempts to portray himself differently, thoroughly immersed in the rewarding of political favors to those that can benefit the most significant mayoral special interest, Mike Bloomberg in the flesh. And the revealing report raises questions about that other Bloomberg canard-the need for the uniquely qualified Bloomberg to pilot the city through tough economic times.
Because the truth is that Mikey Bloomberg's F Troop, not only was clueless about the most tawdry aspects of the City Council's own slush fund, but apparently couldn't follow the law itself when it came time to spread a little love on a favored special interest: "Indeed, incompetence is the kinder word. Absent an explanation for how the groups -- Agudath Israel and Ohel Children's Home and Family Services -- got $3 million in city cash from 2002 to 2008, New Yorkers might be forgiven for thinking the worst. The money was part of a $20 million pork pot ladled out to nonprofits supposedly on behalf of City Council members. Bloomberg's folks say they wrote the necessary checks at the request of Councilman Simcha Felder. But Felder says he never requested the money, and the groups say they dealt directly with the mayor's office -- which has no records to resolve the issue one way or another."
Once again, Mr. Indispensability demonstrates just how hollow the third term argument for Mike-the new Abe Beame?-really is: "No one has yet challenged the integrity of the two groups in question. And if Felder never asked for the cash, as he claims, then Mike's folks broke the law, which bars City Hall from disbursing pork directly to any group. Frankly, the possibilities go downhill from there...Which is why Mike Bloomberg needs to keep his records in substantially better order than this episode demonstrates."
And not only the city records, but his own private pig pen as well-the one that allows those favored hogs to slop down hundreds of thousands of charitable dollars; money that was never seen prior to Bloomberg's entry into city politics. The Post, along with all of the other editorialists, should demand an itemized list of the mayor's largess-and compare the before and after on it. It will amaze one and all how Mike Bloomberg's love for the Jewish people has grown exponentially since he has taken office. Pay for play has been turned into a game of three dimensional chess by the billionaire Bloomberg.
In our view, he should clean up all those municipal records so that the city archivist has a better handle on what happened during his two terms in office-and so that his successor has a better grip on getting a head start in insuring that the city is in more competent hands. Can anyone still argue with a straight face that Mike Bloomberg is needed for an extra-legal third term now?
Doing a Number on Us
We're beginning to get a chance to take a glimpse behind the Wizard of Oz's curtain on the puffed up school test scores and graduation rates. Yesterday, the NY Times continued its fine reporting on those scores-you know, the ones that have suddenly transformed city school kids into brainiacs; and the concerns expressed relate not only to question of whether these tests are watered down, but whether they are also a product of obsessive teaching to the test:
"In its campaign to extend the mayor’s school control law, which the State Senate is expected to take up this week, the Bloomberg administration has used the rising test scores as evidence of improved teaching and learning under its direction. Still, educators continue to debate the true value of the tests and a curriculum guided by them, arguing that some of the rise in scores is attributable simply to students’ growing comfort with test-taking, and that some of the skills developed to prepare for the exams, like time-allocation techniques and multiple-choice shortcuts, are poor substitutes for true understanding of key concepts."
And, as far as the watered down issue is concerned: "Questions of whether the state tests have been made too easy grew in 2007, when the results of a federal test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, showed that the city’s eighth graders had made no significant gains in reading or math under the mayor’s control. (Fourth-grade math and reading scores on the federal test rose; new federal results are expected this fall.) Average SAT scores for city students fell 2 percent from 2004 to 2008, though that is partly explained by the increasing number of students who took the tests: 40,500 last year, up from 33,150. Critics ask: If students were really learning more and better, as opposed to just better learning the state testing protocol, wouldn’t their performance rise on all manner of measurements?"
Yes, wouldn't they? But the gap between test scores and actual learning has yet to be fully examined-and with the flim flammers at the DOE, it's unlikely to happen with any integrity: "Howard T. Everson, a senior research fellow at City University of New York and chairman of the Technical Advisory Group, a collection of experts who oversee the state testing process, said he believed New York’s tests were “about as good as we can build them.” But he said that with so much riding on the tests, there was a need for greater study to certify that rising scores correspond with a gain in learning. “Unfortunately, I think some of the gains that we’re seeing are probably related to test-score inflation, meaning that people are using inappropriate ways of teaching to the test,” he said. “Instead of really good time spent on instruction, they’re doing a lot of test prep and drill.”
Which brings us to the graduation rates that were the focus of a recent Bill Thompson audit. As Wayne Barrett reports, the city's crack auditor, Ernst and Young, acted more like the firm of Dewey, Cheathum, and Howe in its immediate, and inaccurate, critique of the Comptroller's audit: "When Bill Thompson issued a recent audit questioning the high school graduation rate claims of the Bloomberg administration, the Department of Education enlisted its prestigious outside auditor, Ernst & Young, to rebut the comptroller's findings. But the E&Y partner who signed the unusual June 22 letter challenging Thompson's findings, David Milkosky, turns out to be a thin reed for Bloomberg to lean on."
Thin? More like anorexic, in our view: "Milkosky, who is "the coordinating partner" for the E&Y team that oversaw its supposedly "independent" audit of the graduation rate as part of a roughly $2 million-a-year contract with the DOE, also headed the E&Y team that for years audited the city's Housing Development Corporation when it was run by Russell Harding, who pled guilty in 2005 to looting it for $400,000. In submissions to the DOE, Milkosky described himself as "the partner in charge of all services rendered" to the city's HDC, though he tells the Voice he didn't "recall" if he ever talked to Harding during the three years that he audited the small agency while Harding ran it."
Jeez, even a blind guy could have seen what good old Russell was up to-that is, if he were inclined to do so: "An HDC spokeswoman says that Milkosky was "the lead partner" on the contract during the Harding years, and that E&Y was awarded the contract shortly after Harding became president. Since Harding's release from federal prison, he has been writing his own blog, Rudy Veritas (he was a Rudy Giuliani appointee) and has noted that E&Y auditors were in his office for two months every year and that "all of my records were there for E&Y to see."
Like Sargent Schultz in Hogan's Heroes Milkosky, "Sees nothsing!" But then again, maybe he's really being paid to look the other way; can anyone say Enron? And Barret also uncovers the Milkosky role in the pay for pay regime across the river in the hamlet of Hoboken-that citadel of moral probity: "One Hoboken councilman, Michael Russo, tells the Voice that he had "no confidence" in E&Y and that "when we had the opportunity to change" auditors in 2007, "we did it." Russo, whose father was once Hoboken's mayor and also went to jail, says E&Y was "just going through the motions" and that the council "had many issues with our financial statements at that point, and we've uncovered many issues since."
But the meat of the Barrett accusation relates to the shoddiness of the Milkosky rebuttal: "Milkosky explained to the Voice that Thompson "looked at the information behind the transcripts" of the graduates and "we didn't." The comptroller "went beyond things that we checked" because "we weren't asked to check that," he said. Yet the June 22 letter he wrote at DOE's request left the impression that E&Y was challenging Thompson's findings, noting that it doesn't "call into question any of the conclusions" expressed in the firm's report, "including but not limited to our overall conclusion that the graduation rate calculation was accurate." The key word in Milkosky's letter is "calculation," which means simply that all E&Y did was validate DOE's numbers, not the probity of the graduation controls, and that Thompson did nothing to contradict the numbers either."
Gee whiz, any book keeper could have signed off on the numbers; but why pay these guys so much money-to rubber stamp the DOE's numbers? And then there is the way in which the DOE awarded its bid-dramatizing just how unaccountable these shifty dudes are: "E&Y's requirements contract with DOE has averaged $2 million a year and, under it, the department requests that they perform an assortment of auditing functions ("I'm sure we charged them for a couple of hours" to review the Thompson audit, said Milkosky). It was renewed for another four years in 2007, despite the fact that the only other bidder, KPMG, submitted a bid at less than half E&Y's price (E&Y bid $1.2 million for the core audit of 40 schools and KPMG bid $500,000). E&Y "showed a greater understanding and willingness to adapt to the preferences and needs" of DOE, concluded an evaluation report authorizing the contract."
We're sure that E&Y are, without doubt, adaptable; although politically malleable is probably a better term. Once again, as the Times and Barrett underscore, you simply can't trust this mayoral regime to accurately evaluate the educational achievements of our school kids. In essence, it is doing a number on us all.
"In its campaign to extend the mayor’s school control law, which the State Senate is expected to take up this week, the Bloomberg administration has used the rising test scores as evidence of improved teaching and learning under its direction. Still, educators continue to debate the true value of the tests and a curriculum guided by them, arguing that some of the rise in scores is attributable simply to students’ growing comfort with test-taking, and that some of the skills developed to prepare for the exams, like time-allocation techniques and multiple-choice shortcuts, are poor substitutes for true understanding of key concepts."
And, as far as the watered down issue is concerned: "Questions of whether the state tests have been made too easy grew in 2007, when the results of a federal test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, showed that the city’s eighth graders had made no significant gains in reading or math under the mayor’s control. (Fourth-grade math and reading scores on the federal test rose; new federal results are expected this fall.) Average SAT scores for city students fell 2 percent from 2004 to 2008, though that is partly explained by the increasing number of students who took the tests: 40,500 last year, up from 33,150. Critics ask: If students were really learning more and better, as opposed to just better learning the state testing protocol, wouldn’t their performance rise on all manner of measurements?"
Yes, wouldn't they? But the gap between test scores and actual learning has yet to be fully examined-and with the flim flammers at the DOE, it's unlikely to happen with any integrity: "Howard T. Everson, a senior research fellow at City University of New York and chairman of the Technical Advisory Group, a collection of experts who oversee the state testing process, said he believed New York’s tests were “about as good as we can build them.” But he said that with so much riding on the tests, there was a need for greater study to certify that rising scores correspond with a gain in learning. “Unfortunately, I think some of the gains that we’re seeing are probably related to test-score inflation, meaning that people are using inappropriate ways of teaching to the test,” he said. “Instead of really good time spent on instruction, they’re doing a lot of test prep and drill.”
Which brings us to the graduation rates that were the focus of a recent Bill Thompson audit. As Wayne Barrett reports, the city's crack auditor, Ernst and Young, acted more like the firm of Dewey, Cheathum, and Howe in its immediate, and inaccurate, critique of the Comptroller's audit: "When Bill Thompson issued a recent audit questioning the high school graduation rate claims of the Bloomberg administration, the Department of Education enlisted its prestigious outside auditor, Ernst & Young, to rebut the comptroller's findings. But the E&Y partner who signed the unusual June 22 letter challenging Thompson's findings, David Milkosky, turns out to be a thin reed for Bloomberg to lean on."
Thin? More like anorexic, in our view: "Milkosky, who is "the coordinating partner" for the E&Y team that oversaw its supposedly "independent" audit of the graduation rate as part of a roughly $2 million-a-year contract with the DOE, also headed the E&Y team that for years audited the city's Housing Development Corporation when it was run by Russell Harding, who pled guilty in 2005 to looting it for $400,000. In submissions to the DOE, Milkosky described himself as "the partner in charge of all services rendered" to the city's HDC, though he tells the Voice he didn't "recall" if he ever talked to Harding during the three years that he audited the small agency while Harding ran it."
Jeez, even a blind guy could have seen what good old Russell was up to-that is, if he were inclined to do so: "An HDC spokeswoman says that Milkosky was "the lead partner" on the contract during the Harding years, and that E&Y was awarded the contract shortly after Harding became president. Since Harding's release from federal prison, he has been writing his own blog, Rudy Veritas (he was a Rudy Giuliani appointee) and has noted that E&Y auditors were in his office for two months every year and that "all of my records were there for E&Y to see."
Like Sargent Schultz in Hogan's Heroes Milkosky, "Sees nothsing!" But then again, maybe he's really being paid to look the other way; can anyone say Enron? And Barret also uncovers the Milkosky role in the pay for pay regime across the river in the hamlet of Hoboken-that citadel of moral probity: "One Hoboken councilman, Michael Russo, tells the Voice that he had "no confidence" in E&Y and that "when we had the opportunity to change" auditors in 2007, "we did it." Russo, whose father was once Hoboken's mayor and also went to jail, says E&Y was "just going through the motions" and that the council "had many issues with our financial statements at that point, and we've uncovered many issues since."
But the meat of the Barrett accusation relates to the shoddiness of the Milkosky rebuttal: "Milkosky explained to the Voice that Thompson "looked at the information behind the transcripts" of the graduates and "we didn't." The comptroller "went beyond things that we checked" because "we weren't asked to check that," he said. Yet the June 22 letter he wrote at DOE's request left the impression that E&Y was challenging Thompson's findings, noting that it doesn't "call into question any of the conclusions" expressed in the firm's report, "including but not limited to our overall conclusion that the graduation rate calculation was accurate." The key word in Milkosky's letter is "calculation," which means simply that all E&Y did was validate DOE's numbers, not the probity of the graduation controls, and that Thompson did nothing to contradict the numbers either."
Gee whiz, any book keeper could have signed off on the numbers; but why pay these guys so much money-to rubber stamp the DOE's numbers? And then there is the way in which the DOE awarded its bid-dramatizing just how unaccountable these shifty dudes are: "E&Y's requirements contract with DOE has averaged $2 million a year and, under it, the department requests that they perform an assortment of auditing functions ("I'm sure we charged them for a couple of hours" to review the Thompson audit, said Milkosky). It was renewed for another four years in 2007, despite the fact that the only other bidder, KPMG, submitted a bid at less than half E&Y's price (E&Y bid $1.2 million for the core audit of 40 schools and KPMG bid $500,000). E&Y "showed a greater understanding and willingness to adapt to the preferences and needs" of DOE, concluded an evaluation report authorizing the contract."
We're sure that E&Y are, without doubt, adaptable; although politically malleable is probably a better term. Once again, as the Times and Barrett underscore, you simply can't trust this mayoral regime to accurately evaluate the educational achievements of our school kids. In essence, it is doing a number on us all.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Olga Tribute
The NY Times' David Gonzales penned a wonderful paean to Olga Mendez in today's paper-calling her, rightfully, a political trailblazer: "A standing-room-only crowd from the powerful to the plebian filled the modest sanctuary of an East Harlem church on Monday to pay respects to the memory and legacy of State Senator Olga A. Méndez. Befitting a scrappy, independent political pioneer — in 1978 she was the first Puerto Rican woman elected to a state legislature in the United States — her funeral attracted the governor, the mayor, several members of Congress and countless local officials. She was lauded for many things: her tenacity; her willingness to cross party lines; her embrace of labor, housing and educational rights for the poor. She was eulogized as a loyal friend, a fierce competitor and a proud Puerto Rican."
And Gonzales captured the mood of la gente as well: “I don’t think we’ll ever see another one like her,” said Monin Paez, who said she always voted for Senator Méndez. “When she spoke, you had to listen. The politicians today don’t talk to us. They only come by when they want your vote.”
Nothing, however, can match the eloquence of our friend Gerson Borerro's tribute to the late La Senadora-placing the pending confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an integral part of the Mendez legacy. Here's an excerpt from Gerson's eulogy: "This week, most New Yorkers—and certainly los Puertorriqueños and Latinos in general—anxiously anticipate the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, by the United States Senate, to the Supreme Court. I can assure you that the Olga I wrote about in my columns, interviewed on the radio, spoke with about hard-fought battles to open doors of exclusion to our community, talked to about the “machismo” she experienced along with the sexism that punishes women in the body politic of our nation, is, I’m certain, one of those women on whose shoulders Sonia Sotomayor stands."
Well done Gerson, and hats off to Gonzales who so moving captured the feeling of those regular folks who came yesterday to pay their last respects to Olga in the humble church that embodied the humility of our dear friend. As one local construction worker told the Times, and we'll give him the last word: "Outside, there was a plainspoken pride among the construction workers who sweated for the duration of the Mass. “Olga always did the right thing for El Barrio,” said one worker, Marty Torres. “She was about change. She was no punk.”
And Gonzales captured the mood of la gente as well: “I don’t think we’ll ever see another one like her,” said Monin Paez, who said she always voted for Senator Méndez. “When she spoke, you had to listen. The politicians today don’t talk to us. They only come by when they want your vote.”
Nothing, however, can match the eloquence of our friend Gerson Borerro's tribute to the late La Senadora-placing the pending confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an integral part of the Mendez legacy. Here's an excerpt from Gerson's eulogy: "This week, most New Yorkers—and certainly los Puertorriqueños and Latinos in general—anxiously anticipate the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, by the United States Senate, to the Supreme Court. I can assure you that the Olga I wrote about in my columns, interviewed on the radio, spoke with about hard-fought battles to open doors of exclusion to our community, talked to about the “machismo” she experienced along with the sexism that punishes women in the body politic of our nation, is, I’m certain, one of those women on whose shoulders Sonia Sotomayor stands."
Well done Gerson, and hats off to Gonzales who so moving captured the feeling of those regular folks who came yesterday to pay their last respects to Olga in the humble church that embodied the humility of our dear friend. As one local construction worker told the Times, and we'll give him the last word: "Outside, there was a plainspoken pride among the construction workers who sweated for the duration of the Mass. “Olga always did the right thing for El Barrio,” said one worker, Marty Torres. “She was about change. She was no punk.”
Ruben's Rubicon
As the NY Daily News reports this morning, Bronx BP Ruben Diaz is grappling with his decision on the development of the Kingsbridge Armory: "Although his decision on whether to support the plan by The Related Companies to fill the landmarked building with shops is nonbinding, area residents are looking to Diaz to wring meaningful concessions from the developer in a CBA."
To this end, Diaz has gathered some of the stakeholders together: "To work out the broad principles for an agreement, Diaz has brought the parties to the table, chiefly represented by Community Board 7 and the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, a coalition of local clergy, unions and advocacy groups."
But,as one knowledgeable observer points out, Ruben has an unfortunate legacy to overcome:
"Though not part of the Armory CBA talks, Bettina Damiani of the advocacy group Good Jobs New York has worked on previous agreements and said Diaz should learn from the missteps of his predecessor, Adolfo Carrión. Many of those pushing for a CBA hope to see one signed before Diaz makes his advisory recommendation on the project next month. But Damiani warned against rushing talks. “Don’t let City Hall or the developer dictate the time line,” she said, citing the rushed and poorly received Yankee Stadium CBA. Several opted to leave it, Damiani noted, and since its signing, has had a number of problems with implementation and oversight. “People realize now that the CBAs that have been happening in the Bronx haven’t really been legitimate community benefits agreements,” she said. “So the idea that the borough president can just stamp a piece of paper calling it a CBA and the community will think its interests are protected, that’s just not going to happen this time.”
But the obstacles her are formidable-beginning with the developer's reluctance to cede any ground on a key living wage component: "Also, KARA is pushing for a living-wage provision obligating Related to write terms into the lease requiring tenants to pay all employees significantly more than the $7.25 an hour minimum wage. Related has said that such a requirement would make it virtually impossible for the developer to find retail tenants and would cause the entire project to collapse."
So Ruben Diaz has a great deal to overcome-but the street smart BP has none of the hauteur of his predecessor, and is someone who wants to craft a CBA that has some real benefits; unlike the farcical one that Carrion promulgated with the able assistance of Jesse James Masyr: "There was no requirement for public disclosure in monitoring the benefit programs, funded with $3 million from Related and administered by the Bronx Overall Economic Development Corp. Monitoring was so lax that after allegations of misappropriation of funds surfaced this year, BOEDC is still struggling to account for the money."
According to Diaz, this CBA won't resemble Gateway: "That won't happen with the Armory CBA, Diaz pledged. "There will be monitoring by my office. And not just with the Armory - I'm going retro." Diaz said he is now demanding regular reports on past agreements involving Gateway and the Yankees. Advocates have also criticized the Gateway deal as lacking any enforcement mechanism other than negligible fines. Diaz said that the need for a more robust enforcement mechanism is something that he and all the stakeholders have agreed on. "If you don't have that," Diaz said, "a CBA isn't worth the paper it's printed on."
Which leaves us with the open question of whether Ruben will support the inclusion of a supermarket or big box food use in the Armory: "Owners and workers at a Morton Williams grocery store directly across the street from the Armory are hoping that pressure from unions and members of the Bronx delegation to the City Council will persuade Diaz to insist on a clause barring a supermarket at the site. The Armory project's environmental impact statement sparked controversy because it included plans for a 60,000-square-foot supermarket. This despite the city's original request for proposals explicitly seeking plans that wouldn't bring in direct competitors to existing local businesses."
Ruben, along with Council member Palma, led the good fight against the closing of the Key Food on Bruckner Boulevard. Any inclusion of a mega-mart at the Armory will insure that multiple numbers of local supermarkets will close-the kind of result that Diaz should be vehemently opposed to, particularly because so many of the owners-aside from those at Morton Williams-are immigrant entrepreneurs who have helped to Bronx rebound (much as the Morton Williams owners have done as well).
So we await the BP's deliberations on this maiden voyage of his. The community-as opposed to those appointee pretenders at the community board-eagerly watches and waits; while the supermarket workers and owners, worried about their jobs and businesses, wonder what the BP has in store for them.
To this end, Diaz has gathered some of the stakeholders together: "To work out the broad principles for an agreement, Diaz has brought the parties to the table, chiefly represented by Community Board 7 and the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, a coalition of local clergy, unions and advocacy groups."
But,as one knowledgeable observer points out, Ruben has an unfortunate legacy to overcome:
"Though not part of the Armory CBA talks, Bettina Damiani of the advocacy group Good Jobs New York has worked on previous agreements and said Diaz should learn from the missteps of his predecessor, Adolfo Carrión. Many of those pushing for a CBA hope to see one signed before Diaz makes his advisory recommendation on the project next month. But Damiani warned against rushing talks. “Don’t let City Hall or the developer dictate the time line,” she said, citing the rushed and poorly received Yankee Stadium CBA. Several opted to leave it, Damiani noted, and since its signing, has had a number of problems with implementation and oversight. “People realize now that the CBAs that have been happening in the Bronx haven’t really been legitimate community benefits agreements,” she said. “So the idea that the borough president can just stamp a piece of paper calling it a CBA and the community will think its interests are protected, that’s just not going to happen this time.”
But the obstacles her are formidable-beginning with the developer's reluctance to cede any ground on a key living wage component: "Also, KARA is pushing for a living-wage provision obligating Related to write terms into the lease requiring tenants to pay all employees significantly more than the $7.25 an hour minimum wage. Related has said that such a requirement would make it virtually impossible for the developer to find retail tenants and would cause the entire project to collapse."
So Ruben Diaz has a great deal to overcome-but the street smart BP has none of the hauteur of his predecessor, and is someone who wants to craft a CBA that has some real benefits; unlike the farcical one that Carrion promulgated with the able assistance of Jesse James Masyr: "There was no requirement for public disclosure in monitoring the benefit programs, funded with $3 million from Related and administered by the Bronx Overall Economic Development Corp. Monitoring was so lax that after allegations of misappropriation of funds surfaced this year, BOEDC is still struggling to account for the money."
According to Diaz, this CBA won't resemble Gateway: "That won't happen with the Armory CBA, Diaz pledged. "There will be monitoring by my office. And not just with the Armory - I'm going retro." Diaz said he is now demanding regular reports on past agreements involving Gateway and the Yankees. Advocates have also criticized the Gateway deal as lacking any enforcement mechanism other than negligible fines. Diaz said that the need for a more robust enforcement mechanism is something that he and all the stakeholders have agreed on. "If you don't have that," Diaz said, "a CBA isn't worth the paper it's printed on."
Which leaves us with the open question of whether Ruben will support the inclusion of a supermarket or big box food use in the Armory: "Owners and workers at a Morton Williams grocery store directly across the street from the Armory are hoping that pressure from unions and members of the Bronx delegation to the City Council will persuade Diaz to insist on a clause barring a supermarket at the site. The Armory project's environmental impact statement sparked controversy because it included plans for a 60,000-square-foot supermarket. This despite the city's original request for proposals explicitly seeking plans that wouldn't bring in direct competitors to existing local businesses."
Ruben, along with Council member Palma, led the good fight against the closing of the Key Food on Bruckner Boulevard. Any inclusion of a mega-mart at the Armory will insure that multiple numbers of local supermarkets will close-the kind of result that Diaz should be vehemently opposed to, particularly because so many of the owners-aside from those at Morton Williams-are immigrant entrepreneurs who have helped to Bronx rebound (much as the Morton Williams owners have done as well).
So we await the BP's deliberations on this maiden voyage of his. The community-as opposed to those appointee pretenders at the community board-eagerly watches and waits; while the supermarket workers and owners, worried about their jobs and businesses, wonder what the BP has in store for them.
Mike's Money
In this morning's NY Times, the paper reports on how the mayor apparently has funnelled-in slush like City Council fashion-illegal appropriations to some favored community groups: "For years, aides to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg routed hundreds of thousands of dollars in city money to at least two politically connected nonprofit groups in violation of government contracting rules, according to records and interviews. The mayor’s office, from 2002 to 2006, gave $1.1 million to Agudath Israel of America Community Services and more than $400,000 to Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services, using a little-known pot of discretionary money that it controls."
Now it just so happens, that the two groups in question are very supportive of someone named Mike Bloomberg-the very same Mike Bloomberg who postures that he is above all of the tawdry special interest politics that hamper others who are less noble than he is. And Mike also is able to double down on these groups it seems: "Agudath Israel and Ohel provide services including career counseling and mental health care and are powerful institutions in the city’s Orthodox Jewish communities — political forces long courted by the mayor. And the organizations have substantial ties to the Bloomberg administration: Mr. Bloomberg, since becoming mayor, has personally donated $200,000 to Agudath Israel, and a former top aide to the mayor is a lobbyist for Ohel."
Now don't get us wrong, we have never been scolds when it comes to this kind of so-called member item funding when the legislature does it-as long as there is some transparency. It's the mayor's holier than thou posture that is disturbing; and his ability to combine his own great wealth with the city's money creates a unique political advantage.
But what makes this situation problematic for Mr. Clean is that it appears to have been an illegal act-done without the required request from a city council member; bring on the depositions! As the Times points out: "In documents, the Bloomberg administration contends that since 2002, it distributed money annually to the two groups at the request of Councilman Simcha Felder, a Bloomberg ally. But Mr. Felder, a Brooklyn Democrat, says he never sought the money.“I did not ask for it,” Mr. Felder said in an interview. A spokesman for the mayor said the administration disagreed with Mr. Felder’s account. He said City Hall had conducted a formal audit of all money distributed through the mayor’s fund and determined that all grants had been done at the request of an elected official."
Now we believe Simcha on this because, as the lawyers say, he is arguing against interest: "We have no reason to think that the funding analysis contains any errors,” the spokesman, Marc LaVorgna, said. “And we disagree with the councilman’s recollection.” But the mayor’s office said it had no documentation showing that Mr. Felder had made the requests. In fact, the mayor’s office could not provide documents for much of the money it had distributed and said it relied on interviews with its own staff to conduct its audit. When asked whether Agudath Israel had requested the money from Mr. Felder, David Zwiebel, an executive vice president of the group, said that the group had sought the money directly from the mayor’s office. “It was news to us that the mayor’s money was being funneled through the City Council,” Mr. Zwiebel said."
So why didn't the mayor simply go to Felder in the first place? In our view, it's because of arrogance, and underscores the need for a forensic audit of all of the mayor's largess-both public and private. We have never had a mayor of such vast wealth, and his ability to throw the Bloombucks around pollutes the democratic process-and exposes Mike Bloomberg as just another self interested politician.
And in this current example, what is fully exposed is the extent to which Bloomberg uses time-honored (Tammany honored?) logrolling methods to aggrandize his supporters as well as himself: "Mr. Felder said it was not until the 2007 fiscal year that he even learned that money was being given to the groups in his name. That year, he said, the mayor’s director of intergovernmental affairs, Haeda Mihaltses, asked him whether she could attach his name to the allocations. “We can’t do it without you,” he recalled her saying. Mr. Felder said he agreed to let his named be used, but at a price: he wanted the mayor’s office to distribute an additional $700,000 to his favorite nonprofit groups the next year.The following year, Mr. Felder got nearly all of the extra $700,000 he asked for. Mr. Felder said the extra money allowed him to finance deserving groups. Mr. LaVorgna said that Ms. Mihaltses remembered only that Mr. Felder requested the money for the groups, and he disputed the claim that Mr. Felder was offered $700,000 as part of a deal."
Now, when Felder's appropriations were revealed, we wondered just what the deal was-they were so much greater than those of any other member. Now we know-in spite of the denials from the mayor's minions. And, if the law was broken, Bloomberg should man up; and not try to hide behind Felder's skirts; especially when both Simch and the groups tell the Times that the money was direct deposit: “I don’t know what to tell you. I have nothing to say,” Mr. Felder said. “I am trying to be as honest as I can without ruining my relationships with people who will be annoyed with what they read.” Agudath Israel said it never asked Mr. Felder for the money, going instead straight to the mayor’s office and the commissioner of the community assistance unit at the time, Jonathan Greenspun, who served as Mr. Bloomberg’s liaison to the Jewish community. “We always worked with the mayor’s office,” Mr. Zwiebel said."
The only questions left unanswered here is, who broke the law, and what will be done about it? And we encourage the intrepid Barbaro and Rivera to continue with this auditing of the mayor's money. But the role of Greenspun, typical of the revolving lobbying door that we have come to look down upon as part of the pay to play culture, underscores the extent to which it is hypocrisy, and not even Mike Bloomberg, that is the real ruler of city hall.
Now it just so happens, that the two groups in question are very supportive of someone named Mike Bloomberg-the very same Mike Bloomberg who postures that he is above all of the tawdry special interest politics that hamper others who are less noble than he is. And Mike also is able to double down on these groups it seems: "Agudath Israel and Ohel provide services including career counseling and mental health care and are powerful institutions in the city’s Orthodox Jewish communities — political forces long courted by the mayor. And the organizations have substantial ties to the Bloomberg administration: Mr. Bloomberg, since becoming mayor, has personally donated $200,000 to Agudath Israel, and a former top aide to the mayor is a lobbyist for Ohel."
Now don't get us wrong, we have never been scolds when it comes to this kind of so-called member item funding when the legislature does it-as long as there is some transparency. It's the mayor's holier than thou posture that is disturbing; and his ability to combine his own great wealth with the city's money creates a unique political advantage.
But what makes this situation problematic for Mr. Clean is that it appears to have been an illegal act-done without the required request from a city council member; bring on the depositions! As the Times points out: "In documents, the Bloomberg administration contends that since 2002, it distributed money annually to the two groups at the request of Councilman Simcha Felder, a Bloomberg ally. But Mr. Felder, a Brooklyn Democrat, says he never sought the money.“I did not ask for it,” Mr. Felder said in an interview. A spokesman for the mayor said the administration disagreed with Mr. Felder’s account. He said City Hall had conducted a formal audit of all money distributed through the mayor’s fund and determined that all grants had been done at the request of an elected official."
Now we believe Simcha on this because, as the lawyers say, he is arguing against interest: "We have no reason to think that the funding analysis contains any errors,” the spokesman, Marc LaVorgna, said. “And we disagree with the councilman’s recollection.” But the mayor’s office said it had no documentation showing that Mr. Felder had made the requests. In fact, the mayor’s office could not provide documents for much of the money it had distributed and said it relied on interviews with its own staff to conduct its audit. When asked whether Agudath Israel had requested the money from Mr. Felder, David Zwiebel, an executive vice president of the group, said that the group had sought the money directly from the mayor’s office. “It was news to us that the mayor’s money was being funneled through the City Council,” Mr. Zwiebel said."
So why didn't the mayor simply go to Felder in the first place? In our view, it's because of arrogance, and underscores the need for a forensic audit of all of the mayor's largess-both public and private. We have never had a mayor of such vast wealth, and his ability to throw the Bloombucks around pollutes the democratic process-and exposes Mike Bloomberg as just another self interested politician.
And in this current example, what is fully exposed is the extent to which Bloomberg uses time-honored (Tammany honored?) logrolling methods to aggrandize his supporters as well as himself: "Mr. Felder said it was not until the 2007 fiscal year that he even learned that money was being given to the groups in his name. That year, he said, the mayor’s director of intergovernmental affairs, Haeda Mihaltses, asked him whether she could attach his name to the allocations. “We can’t do it without you,” he recalled her saying. Mr. Felder said he agreed to let his named be used, but at a price: he wanted the mayor’s office to distribute an additional $700,000 to his favorite nonprofit groups the next year.The following year, Mr. Felder got nearly all of the extra $700,000 he asked for. Mr. Felder said the extra money allowed him to finance deserving groups. Mr. LaVorgna said that Ms. Mihaltses remembered only that Mr. Felder requested the money for the groups, and he disputed the claim that Mr. Felder was offered $700,000 as part of a deal."
Now, when Felder's appropriations were revealed, we wondered just what the deal was-they were so much greater than those of any other member. Now we know-in spite of the denials from the mayor's minions. And, if the law was broken, Bloomberg should man up; and not try to hide behind Felder's skirts; especially when both Simch and the groups tell the Times that the money was direct deposit: “I don’t know what to tell you. I have nothing to say,” Mr. Felder said. “I am trying to be as honest as I can without ruining my relationships with people who will be annoyed with what they read.” Agudath Israel said it never asked Mr. Felder for the money, going instead straight to the mayor’s office and the commissioner of the community assistance unit at the time, Jonathan Greenspun, who served as Mr. Bloomberg’s liaison to the Jewish community. “We always worked with the mayor’s office,” Mr. Zwiebel said."
The only questions left unanswered here is, who broke the law, and what will be done about it? And we encourage the intrepid Barbaro and Rivera to continue with this auditing of the mayor's money. But the role of Greenspun, typical of the revolving lobbying door that we have come to look down upon as part of the pay to play culture, underscores the extent to which it is hypocrisy, and not even Mike Bloomberg, that is the real ruler of city hall.
Monday, August 03, 2009
RIP Olga
We just came from the funeral service in East Harlem for State Senator Olga Mendez-and the turn out in the hot little church was tremendous. Dignitaries from the governor and the mayor on down came to pay their respects; although we were disappointed to not see former Governor Pataki at the church.
What was most gratifying, aside from all of Olga's viejas who came to honor their senator, was the stirring eulogy given by Gerson Borerro; he had us on the verge of both laughter and tears on a number of occasions-a sure sign of an effective valedictory. We didn't know that Gerson had such stem winding ability-we may have to see if he's booked for sometime later in the century if we need him.
Olga would have gotten a kick, we think, from the presence of so many elected officials that she couldn't stomach, even on a good day. Their attendance at her funeral was Olga's last laugh-and Borerro certainly made some of them a bit uncomfortable.
For us, we are just so sad to see her go-and we'll miss that voice of hers more than anything. Even when she would infuriate us-and she was really good at that some times-we could never be mad at Olga, it just wasn't possible. Still, we're happy that she got the send off she deserved-as well as the last laugh.
What was most gratifying, aside from all of Olga's viejas who came to honor their senator, was the stirring eulogy given by Gerson Borerro; he had us on the verge of both laughter and tears on a number of occasions-a sure sign of an effective valedictory. We didn't know that Gerson had such stem winding ability-we may have to see if he's booked for sometime later in the century if we need him.
Olga would have gotten a kick, we think, from the presence of so many elected officials that she couldn't stomach, even on a good day. Their attendance at her funeral was Olga's last laugh-and Borerro certainly made some of them a bit uncomfortable.
For us, we are just so sad to see her go-and we'll miss that voice of hers more than anything. Even when she would infuriate us-and she was really good at that some times-we could never be mad at Olga, it just wasn't possible. Still, we're happy that she got the send off she deserved-as well as the last laugh.
Taxing and Regulating the Neighborhoods to Death
In continuing with the commentary on the Mike Bloomberg warning that we need to be on the look out for more Albany taxes-a classic misdirection if there ever was one-we refer you to an article on traffic enforcement agents in today's NY Times: "New York City’s surge in parking summonses may be costing motorists, but it has been a boon to traffic enforcement agents, at least a third of whom have substantially increased their pay with hefty overtime earnings, city records show. More than 700 agents increased their wages by 20 percent with overtime in the 2008 fiscal year. Some raised their pay by 50 percent or more. One agent even managed to double his income."
The Times goes on to point out that this is one government agency whose over time figures don't send fiscal watchdogs into fits: "But even fiscal watchdogs, who generally fault overtime as evidence of poor management, say they can understand the city’s penchant for it because spending on overtime may make more economic sense than filling new positions."
Except that, when it comes to the agent work force, this observation simply ain't so: "While this is not true for the ticket-writing force, which has grown dramatically to reach a head count of 2,332 this summer, up from 1,559 in 2002, in other departments overtime may be used to compensate for a depleted staff."
So the traffic enforcement bureau, even though it is racking up big overtime from its work force, is still, at the same time, another example of how Bloomberg has further grown government. And, in this case, to what end? Just ask motorists: "In all, the city doled out $13 million in overtime pay, on top of $68 million in regular pay to its traffic agents. But in terms of pure economics, it has been a worthy investment: Ticket agents generated $578.6 million in revenues for the city in fiscal 2008, up from $366.6 million in 2002. “It’s very tough parking in the city,” said Radek Jaskolski, who frequently drives into Manhattan from Queens for Fox Plumbing. “We get more tickets than before, that I know. Maybe that’s why.”
What does this all mean? It is another example of how the current administration uses regulations to punish tax paying neighborhood car owners and small businesses at the same time-since so much of this enforcement effort takes place on neighborhood shopping strips where business is already hurting badly.
So Mike Bloomberg really needs to watch out who he points to when it comes to matters of fiscal prudence. His tenure has been an unending panoply of taxes and regulations that have rendered business in the city's neighborhoods moribund-a fact that somehow is conveniently overlooked when his hilariously fictional, "five borough economic plan," commercials run incessantly on both radio and television.
And one other point while we're at it. In many cases, when the mayor or Rob Walsh, the city's small business commissioner, want to trumpet neighborhood business success, they point to the creation of yet another Business Improvement District (BID). These BIDS, however, as the NY Post highlights today, are actually symptomatic-not of success-but of the way that the city surreptitiously increases local taxes by other means: "BIDs are, in effect, mini-municipalities with the power to levy taxes and provide services within their geographic limits. Back in the bad old (that is, pre-Giuliani) days -- when the city could neither clean the streets nor keep them safe -- BIDs were a novel way to finance vital municipal functions without siphoning tax dollars from bloated social-service programs or a spectacularly dysfunctional school system. Business owners within the BID got no break on their regular taxes and levies, of course -- the BID takeaways were, and remain, in addition to everything else."
And, of course, the store owners get another rent hike in their monthly nut-as the BID costs are passed through to the retail renters. So, Mr. Thompson, more examples of how the Bloombergistas have waged war against neighborhood businesses and residents; if the ticket agent doesn't get you, the BID taxes-on top of the city's regular levies-will. All part of the mayor's five borough plan which, as we have said ad infinitum, has led to the closing of stores in all five boroughs.
The Times goes on to point out that this is one government agency whose over time figures don't send fiscal watchdogs into fits: "But even fiscal watchdogs, who generally fault overtime as evidence of poor management, say they can understand the city’s penchant for it because spending on overtime may make more economic sense than filling new positions."
Except that, when it comes to the agent work force, this observation simply ain't so: "While this is not true for the ticket-writing force, which has grown dramatically to reach a head count of 2,332 this summer, up from 1,559 in 2002, in other departments overtime may be used to compensate for a depleted staff."
So the traffic enforcement bureau, even though it is racking up big overtime from its work force, is still, at the same time, another example of how Bloomberg has further grown government. And, in this case, to what end? Just ask motorists: "In all, the city doled out $13 million in overtime pay, on top of $68 million in regular pay to its traffic agents. But in terms of pure economics, it has been a worthy investment: Ticket agents generated $578.6 million in revenues for the city in fiscal 2008, up from $366.6 million in 2002. “It’s very tough parking in the city,” said Radek Jaskolski, who frequently drives into Manhattan from Queens for Fox Plumbing. “We get more tickets than before, that I know. Maybe that’s why.”
What does this all mean? It is another example of how the current administration uses regulations to punish tax paying neighborhood car owners and small businesses at the same time-since so much of this enforcement effort takes place on neighborhood shopping strips where business is already hurting badly.
So Mike Bloomberg really needs to watch out who he points to when it comes to matters of fiscal prudence. His tenure has been an unending panoply of taxes and regulations that have rendered business in the city's neighborhoods moribund-a fact that somehow is conveniently overlooked when his hilariously fictional, "five borough economic plan," commercials run incessantly on both radio and television.
And one other point while we're at it. In many cases, when the mayor or Rob Walsh, the city's small business commissioner, want to trumpet neighborhood business success, they point to the creation of yet another Business Improvement District (BID). These BIDS, however, as the NY Post highlights today, are actually symptomatic-not of success-but of the way that the city surreptitiously increases local taxes by other means: "BIDs are, in effect, mini-municipalities with the power to levy taxes and provide services within their geographic limits. Back in the bad old (that is, pre-Giuliani) days -- when the city could neither clean the streets nor keep them safe -- BIDs were a novel way to finance vital municipal functions without siphoning tax dollars from bloated social-service programs or a spectacularly dysfunctional school system. Business owners within the BID got no break on their regular taxes and levies, of course -- the BID takeaways were, and remain, in addition to everything else."
And, of course, the store owners get another rent hike in their monthly nut-as the BID costs are passed through to the retail renters. So, Mr. Thompson, more examples of how the Bloombergistas have waged war against neighborhood businesses and residents; if the ticket agent doesn't get you, the BID taxes-on top of the city's regular levies-will. All part of the mayor's five borough plan which, as we have said ad infinitum, has led to the closing of stores in all five boroughs.
The Meaning of the Kingsbridge Armory Battle
As the fight over the development of the Kingsbridge Armory wends its way downtown, it is a good time to reflect on the meaning of the struggle-and its potential impact on the upcoming election cycle. In our view, the Armory fight symbolizes a great deal of what's wrong with the policies of Mayor Mike Bloomberg; and in uncovering some of the underlying meanings in the battle, we can also highlight some significant hypocrisies in the Bloomberg policy portfolio.
In the first place, Mike Bloomberg has been attempting-arguing against the evidence, in our view-to position himself as an environmental crusader. This posturing really emerged, de novo, in his promotion of congestion pricing. The concept was advanced in order to reduce carbon emissions and make New York a healthier city. The pedestrian malling of Times Square is just the latest manifestation of this environmental pretension.
In making the case for Mike the Green Crusader, the mayor wanted us to ignore his own personal life style; one that had multiple houses, a private jet, a helicopter and a boat in its lavish resume. Now none of this new found environmental fervor was really very persuasive to us, but Bloomberg managed to suborn enough enviro groups to give the entire congestion campaign the feel of a moral crusade.
Which brings us to the development of the Armory-situated in an area where asthma rates are conspicuously higher than the city's average. So what will this particular mall contribute to the already over burdened local traffic? Well, according to the developer's own study, traffic at key intersections will be-unmitigatable!
Here’s how the document outlined the severity of the traffic problem: “Under the proposed actions, a minimum of six intersections would experience unmitigatable impacts…The three intersections that would remain unmitigated are the intersections of West Kingsbridge Road and University Avenue, and West Fordham Road at its intersections with the Major Deegan Expressway’s northbound and southbound ramps.”
So, as we have said, in the congestion pricing debate, the mayor argued that we needed to reduce traffic in order to lower harmful emissions and improve the city’s air quality. What’s a particularly useful extrapolation from the mayor’s campaign is the manner in which his allies at the NYC Partnership-and Steve Ross of Related-yes, the same developer now looking to mall the Armory-was front and center; arguing in advertisements that congestion pricing would. The Partnership spent over a $1 million to “research and promote the plan.” (NY Daily News-6/24/2007)
One of the linchpins of the Partnership’s ads was the argument that reducing traffic would have a salutary effect on Black and Latino children who suffer disproportionately from asthma conditions that are exacerbated by increased traffic. So what we have with the Armory development, then, is a self-serving amnesia contracted by Ross and the city. You can’t be for a reduced carbon footprint while simultaneously promoting auto-dependent malls in areas where asthma rates are epidemic.
So, what's also unmitigatible here, is the gall of Mike Bloomberg and Steve Ross. You can't argue for the car cleansing of midtown-making the area safe for all of your limos?-while simultaneously building these auto dependent retail malls in areas where respiratory conditions are more severe than elsewhere in the city. Kingsbridge, then, symbolizes the hypocrisy of the Bloombergistas and the fight against the development becomes, ipso facto, a battle for the kind of reduced carbon foot print that the mayor has tried to claim as his epitaph.
But this isn't all that's wrong in the Kingsbridge Armory struggle-and we'd be remiss if we simply left the argument at this point. The approval of this project without any mitigating living wage agreement would also be representative of the mayor's consistently poor economic decision making.
As we have said elsewhere: "Another reason, is that the mayor, always ready and willing to promote large retail development, has successfully advocated a permissive policy of mall development that has sucked the life out of those neighborhood stores that are the lifeblood of a community. Here's why the advocates-as well as the comptroller-are dead on when it comes to their living wage battle. If you're going to continue to promote mall development-with its concomitant chain store proliferation-than minimally, these stores must provide the kind of living wages that families can live on. Otherwise, we have simply replaced the locally owned neighborhood business-ones that circulate dollars through the community-with a chain that removes revenue, and whose dollars fail to circulate in as healthy a manner."
And with retail store vacancies reaching epidemic proportions, the insidious and self defeating nature of this policy becomes apparent. Bill Thompson underscores this point: "Thompson said he thinks the city should be tying tax breaks into the creation of good jobs, “not just during construction, but after construction” as well. He added, “Some of the models [for linking tax breaks to post-construction jobs] that we’re seeing are not part of how the city thinks.”
So, in essence, the fight at the Armory dramatizes the serious faults inherent in the Bloomberg economic worldview-highlighting the inflated fallacies of his five borough plan. Which brings us to the supermarket inclusion question-in a kind of strike three and your out manner.
The city has a major supermarket promotion policy going through the ULURP process. In fact, the first City Planning hearing on this land use proposal will be on Wednesday, August 5th. The plan is meant to address a supermarket gap in so called underserved neighborhoods.The proposed supermarket/big box food use at the Armory is emblematic of all that is wrong with how the city is proceeding on this issue.
Over the past eight or nine years-the city has lost over 300 local supermarkets. So, if indeed there is a gap, than the gap has come as a result of the loss of existing markets. But instead of addressing the disappearance factor-the underlying causes of store closings-City Planning devised an elaborate plan for incentivizing new market penetration in areas it considers to be underserved.
What should be clear is that NYC is losing supermarkets; and that good public policy must address the underlying causes of the disappearance. The current supermarket initiative, however, appears to be a good answer to the wrong question-a non sequitor that won’t remedy the supermarket deficit that it purports to ameliorate.
Building a tax subsidized mega-food store at the Armory dramatizes the fallacy-and underlying false premises-of the city’s well meaning effort to assure better access to fresh food. To allow the Armory development to proceed with this use will lead to the diminution of the number of local supermarkets.
So, there it is in a nutshell. The Armory fight symbolizes the fallacies and faults of a failed Bloomberg environmental and economic development policy-underscoring the mayor's hypocrisy at the same time. If this project is to go forward at all, then, it must exclude any supermarket use that reduces the number of local food stores; and it must provide a living wage that will mitigate the fact that the community will be forced to absorb unmitigatable traffic conditions that will exacerbate the already higher respiratory disease rates that the neighborhood experiences. Its the kind of fight that could define the upcoming mayoral election.
In the first place, Mike Bloomberg has been attempting-arguing against the evidence, in our view-to position himself as an environmental crusader. This posturing really emerged, de novo, in his promotion of congestion pricing. The concept was advanced in order to reduce carbon emissions and make New York a healthier city. The pedestrian malling of Times Square is just the latest manifestation of this environmental pretension.
In making the case for Mike the Green Crusader, the mayor wanted us to ignore his own personal life style; one that had multiple houses, a private jet, a helicopter and a boat in its lavish resume. Now none of this new found environmental fervor was really very persuasive to us, but Bloomberg managed to suborn enough enviro groups to give the entire congestion campaign the feel of a moral crusade.
Which brings us to the development of the Armory-situated in an area where asthma rates are conspicuously higher than the city's average. So what will this particular mall contribute to the already over burdened local traffic? Well, according to the developer's own study, traffic at key intersections will be-unmitigatable!
Here’s how the document outlined the severity of the traffic problem: “Under the proposed actions, a minimum of six intersections would experience unmitigatable impacts…The three intersections that would remain unmitigated are the intersections of West Kingsbridge Road and University Avenue, and West Fordham Road at its intersections with the Major Deegan Expressway’s northbound and southbound ramps.”
So, as we have said, in the congestion pricing debate, the mayor argued that we needed to reduce traffic in order to lower harmful emissions and improve the city’s air quality. What’s a particularly useful extrapolation from the mayor’s campaign is the manner in which his allies at the NYC Partnership-and Steve Ross of Related-yes, the same developer now looking to mall the Armory-was front and center; arguing in advertisements that congestion pricing would. The Partnership spent over a $1 million to “research and promote the plan.” (NY Daily News-6/24/2007)
One of the linchpins of the Partnership’s ads was the argument that reducing traffic would have a salutary effect on Black and Latino children who suffer disproportionately from asthma conditions that are exacerbated by increased traffic. So what we have with the Armory development, then, is a self-serving amnesia contracted by Ross and the city. You can’t be for a reduced carbon footprint while simultaneously promoting auto-dependent malls in areas where asthma rates are epidemic.
So, what's also unmitigatible here, is the gall of Mike Bloomberg and Steve Ross. You can't argue for the car cleansing of midtown-making the area safe for all of your limos?-while simultaneously building these auto dependent retail malls in areas where respiratory conditions are more severe than elsewhere in the city. Kingsbridge, then, symbolizes the hypocrisy of the Bloombergistas and the fight against the development becomes, ipso facto, a battle for the kind of reduced carbon foot print that the mayor has tried to claim as his epitaph.
But this isn't all that's wrong in the Kingsbridge Armory struggle-and we'd be remiss if we simply left the argument at this point. The approval of this project without any mitigating living wage agreement would also be representative of the mayor's consistently poor economic decision making.
As we have said elsewhere: "Another reason, is that the mayor, always ready and willing to promote large retail development, has successfully advocated a permissive policy of mall development that has sucked the life out of those neighborhood stores that are the lifeblood of a community. Here's why the advocates-as well as the comptroller-are dead on when it comes to their living wage battle. If you're going to continue to promote mall development-with its concomitant chain store proliferation-than minimally, these stores must provide the kind of living wages that families can live on. Otherwise, we have simply replaced the locally owned neighborhood business-ones that circulate dollars through the community-with a chain that removes revenue, and whose dollars fail to circulate in as healthy a manner."
And with retail store vacancies reaching epidemic proportions, the insidious and self defeating nature of this policy becomes apparent. Bill Thompson underscores this point: "Thompson said he thinks the city should be tying tax breaks into the creation of good jobs, “not just during construction, but after construction” as well. He added, “Some of the models [for linking tax breaks to post-construction jobs] that we’re seeing are not part of how the city thinks.”
So, in essence, the fight at the Armory dramatizes the serious faults inherent in the Bloomberg economic worldview-highlighting the inflated fallacies of his five borough plan. Which brings us to the supermarket inclusion question-in a kind of strike three and your out manner.
The city has a major supermarket promotion policy going through the ULURP process. In fact, the first City Planning hearing on this land use proposal will be on Wednesday, August 5th. The plan is meant to address a supermarket gap in so called underserved neighborhoods.The proposed supermarket/big box food use at the Armory is emblematic of all that is wrong with how the city is proceeding on this issue.
Over the past eight or nine years-the city has lost over 300 local supermarkets. So, if indeed there is a gap, than the gap has come as a result of the loss of existing markets. But instead of addressing the disappearance factor-the underlying causes of store closings-City Planning devised an elaborate plan for incentivizing new market penetration in areas it considers to be underserved.
What should be clear is that NYC is losing supermarkets; and that good public policy must address the underlying causes of the disappearance. The current supermarket initiative, however, appears to be a good answer to the wrong question-a non sequitor that won’t remedy the supermarket deficit that it purports to ameliorate.
Building a tax subsidized mega-food store at the Armory dramatizes the fallacy-and underlying false premises-of the city’s well meaning effort to assure better access to fresh food. To allow the Armory development to proceed with this use will lead to the diminution of the number of local supermarkets.
So, there it is in a nutshell. The Armory fight symbolizes the fallacies and faults of a failed Bloomberg environmental and economic development policy-underscoring the mayor's hypocrisy at the same time. If this project is to go forward at all, then, it must exclude any supermarket use that reduces the number of local food stores; and it must provide a living wage that will mitigate the fact that the community will be forced to absorb unmitigatable traffic conditions that will exacerbate the already higher respiratory disease rates that the neighborhood experiences. Its the kind of fight that could define the upcoming mayoral election.
Pot and Kettle
You just gotta love Mike Bloomberg's chutzpah. On his Friday radio show he lashed out at Albany for the legislatures pending-and perpetual-raid against the state's, and the city's, tax payers: "Mayor Bloomberg to New Yorkers: Hold onto your wallets now that Albany's crying poverty again. Hizzoner yesterday said the latest warnings about ballooning budget deficits and lackluster collections from Gov. Paterson will likely mean new taxes and fees for residents of the five boroughs. "They have been spending more than they're taking in for a long time," Bloomberg said of Albany on his weekly radio show."
This is, albeit unintentionally, because Mike ain't no comedian-hilarious: "And it's going to come home to roost, this coming year or the year after." "When it comes home to roost . . . they will try to raise taxes on New York City residents, because New York City pays most of it."
So here's what we think. In the World According to Mike, taxing the sh*t out of the folks is only OK if he's the one who gets to levy them-and levy them he does, taxing and spending in ways that remind us unmistakably of the wayward ways of John V. Lindsay. And the latest tax hike comes one day after his warning about the state's evil propensities.
As the NY Daily News reports: "It's only pennies for most purchases, but New Yorkers still felt the pinch of Saturday's sales tax hike.The rate went up half a percentage point - from 8.375% to 8.875% - which will cost consumers an extra 50 cents for every $100 they spend. It's the first permanent tax rise in more than 35 years and could generate as much as $950 million a year in revenue for the cash-strapped city."
Many of the New Yorkers fully understand what this kind of taxing policy means for an economy in deep recession-so much so, that you wonder why it escapes the ken of the nimble mayor: "Wow, that's irresponsible of me, I didn't even notice," said John Painz, 36, a graphic designer from Tribeca who was buying toiletries in a downtown Duane Reade. "It's just one more thing that's pricing New Yorkers out of New York." "What are you gonna do? The economy sucks right now so they're raising taxes," said attorney Yoev Griver, 42, who lives near Union Square. "I think it's unfortunate and it'll send people to New Jersey even more." New Jersey's rate is 7%."
So, when Bloomberg says that Albany has been, "...spending more than they're taking in for a long time," does he begin to see the ironic tone and implications of his remarks? The reality is that Albany balances its budget the same way that the city does-by raising taxes to cover the short fall; and damn the economic consequences to the state's businesses and tax payers. Heaven forbid that either entity reduce the size of the government's payroll so that the folks footing the bill can take a modest breathe.
The Bloomberg critique, then, is a manifestation of a man who has apparently lost his grip on reality-and believes that, with his vast fortune, he can spend enough dough to bamboozle enough suckers to accept that he is a fiscal steward worth retaining in office. What the people need to realize, however, is that with this latest sales tax hike, the mayor has transformed his vaunted five borough economic plan into an expanded campaign that now encompasses two states; and it is the Garden State and Paramus Park Malls that are now poised to reap the benefits of Bloomberg's beneficence.
The harsh reality is that the city and state are facing some drastic economic predicaments-and from what we've seen, neither David Paterson nor Mike Bloomberg is suited to the task of successfully addressing the situation so that New York can recover quickly from this meltdown. New leadership is needed on both the city and state levels.
This is, albeit unintentionally, because Mike ain't no comedian-hilarious: "And it's going to come home to roost, this coming year or the year after." "When it comes home to roost . . . they will try to raise taxes on New York City residents, because New York City pays most of it."
So here's what we think. In the World According to Mike, taxing the sh*t out of the folks is only OK if he's the one who gets to levy them-and levy them he does, taxing and spending in ways that remind us unmistakably of the wayward ways of John V. Lindsay. And the latest tax hike comes one day after his warning about the state's evil propensities.
As the NY Daily News reports: "It's only pennies for most purchases, but New Yorkers still felt the pinch of Saturday's sales tax hike.The rate went up half a percentage point - from 8.375% to 8.875% - which will cost consumers an extra 50 cents for every $100 they spend. It's the first permanent tax rise in more than 35 years and could generate as much as $950 million a year in revenue for the cash-strapped city."
Many of the New Yorkers fully understand what this kind of taxing policy means for an economy in deep recession-so much so, that you wonder why it escapes the ken of the nimble mayor: "Wow, that's irresponsible of me, I didn't even notice," said John Painz, 36, a graphic designer from Tribeca who was buying toiletries in a downtown Duane Reade. "It's just one more thing that's pricing New Yorkers out of New York." "What are you gonna do? The economy sucks right now so they're raising taxes," said attorney Yoev Griver, 42, who lives near Union Square. "I think it's unfortunate and it'll send people to New Jersey even more." New Jersey's rate is 7%."
So, when Bloomberg says that Albany has been, "...spending more than they're taking in for a long time," does he begin to see the ironic tone and implications of his remarks? The reality is that Albany balances its budget the same way that the city does-by raising taxes to cover the short fall; and damn the economic consequences to the state's businesses and tax payers. Heaven forbid that either entity reduce the size of the government's payroll so that the folks footing the bill can take a modest breathe.
The Bloomberg critique, then, is a manifestation of a man who has apparently lost his grip on reality-and believes that, with his vast fortune, he can spend enough dough to bamboozle enough suckers to accept that he is a fiscal steward worth retaining in office. What the people need to realize, however, is that with this latest sales tax hike, the mayor has transformed his vaunted five borough economic plan into an expanded campaign that now encompasses two states; and it is the Garden State and Paramus Park Malls that are now poised to reap the benefits of Bloomberg's beneficence.
The harsh reality is that the city and state are facing some drastic economic predicaments-and from what we've seen, neither David Paterson nor Mike Bloomberg is suited to the task of successfully addressing the situation so that New York can recover quickly from this meltdown. New leadership is needed on both the city and state levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)