Having Fund Yet?

Crain's Insider (subsc.) is reporting on the behind the scenes negotiations over the fate of the Kingsbridge Armory-and the idea floated about the creation of a wage subsidy fund that would somehow provide for a living wage: "Related says it won't give in on the living-wage issue because it could not get financing for a project under those circumstances. The Bloomberg administration, which has fully supported Related, is looking for creative solutions. A source says the company is talking about creating a fund that would supplement the pay of employees of the new mall. It is not clear how much city money would be involved, or whether the fund would make up the entire difference between standard retail wages and what the City Council is demanding."

Now the above paragraph seems a bit confused-first saying that the Bloomberg administration is looking for, "creative solutions," than describing how, "the company," is talking about creating a fund. Which is it? Here's where it really stands as of this morning.

The Bloombergistas proposed a small sum that would have provided for a worker subsidy that would have been adequate for only about two years-after that, zilch. The council came back with an enriched version of the plan that would look to create a self-perpetuating fund that would last for as long as the mall has retailers.

That counter proposal has been taken under advisement by the administration-which has told the Bronx delegation that it needs to consult with Related. So, with the vote scheduled for tomorrow, we can expect a response sometime today. The sticking point in our view? Precedent.
As the Insider points out: "But the solution would be unprecedented and could create similar expectations for future projects, such as the stalled City Point mall in downtown Brooklyn." The ability to resolve this issue comes down to how the administration and Related weigh precedence versus the need not to see the first defeat of a major real estate project in the mayor's eight year tenure.

Now, the NY Daily News also weighs in on the state of the negotiations-and we think that its subheader-"THE CITY HAS BLINKED in the Armory battle"-is nice, but premature; as the paper does point out: "But the sign of slight movement may not be enough in the deadlocked talks over the Kingsbridge Armory to push it past the finish line in tomorrow's City Council vote."

Our view? Too close to call-with the council's history of negotiating rather than killing also playing its part in this complicated political equation. And the support of the Working Families Party for the KARA/RWDSU position further complicates any easy resolution that precludes a living wage.

Which could mean that the land use subcommittee might vote tomorrow for modification and slight delay: "While opponents claim to have the votes to kill the project when the zoning and franchise subcommittee meets tomorrow, subcommittee member and Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera has signaled they will instead vote to delay the final decision to allow more time for negotiations. The subcommittee could vote tomorrow to modify the plan in some way, which would send the proposal back to the City Planning Commission for a two-week review before the full City Council must weigh in."

This tactic would, however, take away the leverage that Bronx council members have on the nine member subcommittee, since the modified application would by pass it and go directly to the full land use committee-and we don't think modification will be the preferred option-unless a deal is really close and needs a bit more time to ferment: "But by voting to modify the Armory proposal tomorrow, opponents would effectively stretch that deadline to Dec. 21."

However, it should be reiterated that even those who support the project without the living wage component, are united with the Bronx delegation in its position that any supermarket or big box food use be excluded from the final development. A very unusual and unpredictable situation that will, hopefully, become less murky as the day unfolds.

Daily News Evolves

The NY Daily News editorializes this morning on the fate of the Kingsbridge Armory-and surprising takes a rather mild position in support of the plan, and fails to excoriate those who are pushing hard for a living wage: "Now the matter rests with the City Council. There, Councilman Joel Rivera and Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. are threatening to scuttle the deal unless Related agrees to require tenants to pay workers a special minimum wage - $10 an hour with benefits, $11.50 without. The legal minimum wage in New York is $7.25 an hour...Think about the numbers here: The fate of a megaproject hinges on a salary differential of, at most, $4.25 per hour, a figure that would lift the annual wage from $14,500 a year to $23,000."

And the paper goes on to say: "Such is how bad the jobs picture and downward pressure on incomes are. One amount represents a life in poverty, while the other buys life on the margins. Unfortunately, that's what the market now bears, and Diaz and Rivera ought to proceed with care. With good intentions, they may well be on their way to killing, for many years to come, a development that would be a shot in the arm, however meager the wages."

But does the market bear it? And do we simply take the word of Related? The News recognizes the reality of depressed wages-and rightly points out that the proposed wage scale, "represents a life in poverty." Yet it can't bring itself to support the call for a living wage.

Still, the tone of the editorial is certainly a change for the paper that would normally issue a stentorian call for the development's passage-and "Knucklehead Awards" to Diaz and Rivera for their obstructionism. So, as the fate of the project hangs in the balance, even the Daily News recognizes that the KARA and RWDSU-led fight to lift wages has merit.

As the paper poignantly pointed out in the opening of its editorial: "The battle over renovating the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx into a shopping mall has opened a window onto the depressing facts of working-class life in New York." Now the council has the opportunity to strike a blow for change-a living wage, and no subsidized retail uses that cripple existing local supermarkets. Let's hope it does just that. If the Daily News sees the new dawn, so should Mike Bloomberg.

Bloomberg's Legacy

Stuart Appelbaum, in a cogent analysis of just what's at stake in the Kingsbridge Armory battle, lays out what's at stake for the legacy of Mike Bloomberg: "Faced with record unemployment and a collapsing middle-class, the mayor must focus his last term on the monumental task of rebuilding the city's sputtering economy. He must also begin to recognize that real prosperity doesn't trickle from the top down; rather it is methodically and carefully built from the grassroots up. The battle over the permanent retail and other jobs planned for the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Plan in the Bronx is his first challenge."

But at this late hour, it isn't clear that the mayor understands the issue of development from any perspective other than that of the real estate scions-and his administration has been loath to endorse any living wage provision for the Armory: "So far, and not surprisingly, Related has refused to sign the CBA. Many of our elected leaders believe, as do most New Yorkers, that when a private corporation receives public support, the public has the right to expect something in return. Unfortunately, one New Yorker, the one at the top, has publicly taken the opposite position. Mayor Bloomberg revealed this opposition when he told the Daily News this week, "The city is not in the business of guaranteeing people's wages."

And Appelbaum underscores just what is at stake for struggling New York workers: "Over the course of this decade the fastest growing source of private sector jobs in New York has been in the retail industry, but it is also one of the worst paying. An alarming 44 percent of retail workers earn less than $10 an hour. The implications of this aren't only staggering for the low-wage worker, but for taxpayers who foot the bill for the social services they need for their families to survive."

That is why the Bronx delegation to the city council has endorsed this crucial measure-bolstered by the strong leadership of Bronx BP Ruben Diaz Jr. What these electeds are saying quite clearly, is that enough's enough-no more gold mine to the Relateds and a shaft of the workers. Workers, especially those in the Bronx, need more than a guaranteed poverty wage.

As Appelbaum points out: "To guarantee good paychecks at Kingsbridge, last year an alliance pioneered by a coalition of labor, community, and faith-based organizations, have been pressing the developer of Kingsbridge, the Related Companies, to sign a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA). The agreement would insure that in return for public support and monies, Related Companies must sign a contract ensuring its tenants will pay the retail and building workers a living wage and maintain neutrality during union organizing drives."

As things stand today, the entire project is up in the air. The Bronx delegation has put an offer on the table-and any supermarket in the Armory is out of consideration. It is up to the mayor and Related to respond, or the project could very well be defeated: "Now it is up to Mike Bloomberg to determine his mayoral legacy. He can be the mayor who helped rebuild the city's middle-class to make us great again. Or he can be remembered as the mayor who only built up the wishes of wealthy CEOs and developers."

These next two days will determine to what extent Mike Bloomberg's, "save the middle class," campaign rhetoric was more than just smoke. We have our suspicions as to his real feelings, but maybe he will be able to transcend class bias support the community's demands. He should do so while thinking about how he could be remembered.

Mea Culpa

We owe an apology to the NY Daily News for the accusation we just leveled about its silence on the Columbia court ruling-the paper really weighs in today, and shoots with both barrels against how the condemnation was undertaken: "New York State's supposed economic development geniuses have only themselves to blame for the scathing court ruling that barred the use of eminent domain to spur Columbia University's $6.3 billion expansion plan. The Manhattan Appellate Division cited persuasive evidence in declaring that the Empire State Development Corp. essentially concocted a determination that the neighborhood where Columbia wants to build was blighted."

And the News deserves real credit here because it has supported-and still supports-the expansion plan: "In the court's estimation, ESDC officials "hatched a scheme" to trump up a blight finding in order to justify taking properties from private owners and handing them to the university. This was done via a consultant that had been in the pay of Columbia and whose neighborhood study was "idiocy," the court concluded. The ruling was stunning. While it may slow construction of Columbia's hugely important campus in West Harlem, the decision was nonetheless welcome for putting public authorities on notice that they must meet minimal standards before trying to seize private property."

The intense focus in this case-as it is in Malanga's Op-ed that we commented on earlier-is on the definition of blight, and how it is in the eye of the municipal gun holder: "But here, civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel, representing two property owners, waged a five- year battle that forced into public view more than 10,000 pages of ESDC documents, among which were the shaky underpinnings of the blight study performed by its consultants."

Given this record of abuse, Columbia may just have to build around Sprayregen's and Singh's properties-or agree to the swap that Nick had proposed two years ago: "Columbia was not party to the litigation and has never committed to rely on eminent domain to acquire properties. Instead, through standard negotiations, the school owns or controls 61 of the 67 lots in the 17acres slated for the campus. It will have to keep haggling with holdouts Nicholas Sprayregen, owner of a self-storage business, and Amrik Singh, who manages two gas stations. And build around them, if necessary."

And that would be a good thing

Eminently Sensible

Steve Malanga waxes eloquently today in the NY Post about the need to change New York State's archaic eminent domain law: "A New York appellate court last week harshly rejected the state's effort to take property from businesses in upper Manhattan and give it to Columbia University for its campus expansion, calling it a "scheme" hatched by the university and the state and labeling their arguments in favor of invoking eminent domain, the government power to seize private property, as "mere sophistry." Yet for decades the state has confiscated private property on the slimmest of pretexts, often vastly underpaying, and in the process ruined businesses and lives. The Institute for Justice, an Arlington, Va.-based, public-interest group, recently called New York one of the worst eminent-domain abusers in the country."

And while the Post has provided Op-ed coverage for the big appellate court story on Columbia, it has yet to editorialize on the topic-but at least there has been some supportive commentary; the NY Times and the NY Daily News have been editorially silent (although the News did print our piece on Willets Point). This isn't an accident, since all of papers supported the Columbia the -and Willets Point-developments when they were debated by the city council.

But, as Malanga points out, going into the historical evolution of eminent domain in our state, the nature of the abuses rendered by the current state of NY's law demands a legislative response: "Only the state Legislature can fix this problem with a new law to rein in these abuses."

And it has been small businesses that have suffered greatly from these abuses: "In East Harlem alone, authorities took possession of and then razed 1,000 small businesses to make way for a dozen public-housing developments. In most cases, these businesses received little in the way of compensation; the majority simply disappeared. In 1957, New York Times reporters went in search of those displaced by government. They found Ramon Caro, who'd operated a restaurant in East Harlem until the government seized it and was now working as a dishwasher because the amount awarded to him wasn't enough to open a new restaurant."

And this is particularly true-as it is for so many of the Willets Point businesses-if the owners are renting but don't own the property: "Little has changed, especially in the case of businesses that don't own their own locations. For them, eminent domain is often a death knell because the state pays little in takings cases. To take one recent example, many of the estimated 55 businesses the city displaced to make way for the New York Times tower on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets either never reopened or relocated and have since succumbed."

The harsh reality of how eminent domain law effects so many is, of course, exacerbated by the unfair process that was revealed by the appellate court decision on Columbia. Gabe Pressman underscores this point: "The appeals court spoke out angrily, referring to how the "scheme was hatched," calling the effort “sophistry” and “idiocy.” The idea of stacking the deck should offend taxpayers, and make us thankful we have courts standing in the way of plundering landlords -- even if they say they’re acting in the cause of higher education."

And the use of eminent domain is going on all over the state while, as Malanga reminds us, the legislature remains stuck in the mud: "In New York, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed displacing businesses in a 62-acre tract in Queens known as Willets Point in order to make way for a proposed retail and subsidized housing project. In Patchogue, authorities used the threat of eminent domain to persuade business- and residential-property owners to sell land on which a private developer then built subsidized housing. In Schenectady, officials began the condemnation process this summer for a historic building that government wants to seize and tear down to replace with a retail project."

Changes are definitely needed-and Malanga advances a few ideas: "Reform would include:

* A stricter definition of "blight" land so that officials can't declare even a thriving neighborhood to be devastated just so they can seize property in it.

* A ban on government taking property from one private citizen to transfer to another private citizen for redevelopment merely to enhance the value of the land."

And we'll give him the last word: "We should all shudder at the notion that state or local officials could one day seize our property simply because they think someone else could make it more valuable."

Courting Confusion

The decision at the appellate level on the expansion plans for Columbia University has generated a great deal of confusion, The court in this case, veered away from what New York court's have done in most other eminent domain cases-ruling for the plaintiff Nick Sprayregen, who gets spotlighted in Saturday's NY Times: "Mr. Sprayregen, the self-storage impresario who has been fighting Columbia University’s expansion plan, spent much of Friday reveling in a court ruling that had gone his way. It said that New York State could not use eminent domain on Columbia’s behalf to clear parcels along Broadway that Mr. Sprayregen owns."

The question of course, is whether Sprayregen's reveling will be short lived-as the Court of Appeals awaits an appeal from the university: "The agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, said it would appeal the ruling to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. Mr. Sprayregen said that no matter who won there, the case would almost certainly go to the United States Supreme Court."

But this court battle underscored the way in which state and local officials often simply rig the game against smaller property owners: "The agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, said it would appeal the ruling to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. Mr. Sprayregen said that no matter who won there, the case would almost certainly go to the United States Supreme Court."

And another thing did get exposed here-the total abdication of the city to the Columbia plan-an abdication that led the court to rule that this wasn't a, "civic project." In doing so, the court was following one of the NY State Bar Association's recommendations, issued after a task force was formed post-Kelo. Its third recommendation reads: "Agencies exercising eminent domain for economic development purposes should be required to prepare a comprehensive economic development plan and a property owner impact assessment."

Of course, as we have argued, no such plan exists in regards to Willets Point-all we have are flowery phrases and architectural renderings that can be changed at the click of a mouse. The only thing approved by the city council last year was a rezoning; a rezoning bereft of any comprehensive development plan. So how is it possible, then, to move on an eminent domain hearing if we have yet to see if there is a plan that can be properly evaluated as a public use or benefit?

All of this confusion and unfairness cries out for reform; and one reform that we have advocated for years is the creation of a truly independent environmental review process. What we have now, is simply a case of liars for hire-with folks like AKRF tailoring their "findings-in golden rule fashion-to the needs of clients. And the city and state do absolutely no independent evaluation. And in most cases, the review is of the best case scenario fashion so that communities aren't given the facts about how bad things could get in their neighborhoods.

We see this most clearly in the environmental review done for the massive Willets Point development-a fact that got the East Elmhurst and Corona residents visibly upset when they found out just how slip shod the traffic analysis was for the Iron Triangle development. Typically, the aggravating ripple effect of massive new car and truck traffic is overlooked-and in Willets Point 80,000 new car trips is evaluated in the narrowest manner, with the intersections and roadways radiating away from the project left out almost entirely.

The same is true for the Kingsbridge Armory-and, as the Marxists are wont to say, this is no accident. You get what you pay for; and a really thorough evaluation that did uncover worst case situations wouldn't ingratiate you to the real estate clients-and to the city that is enamored of their world view.

So, whatever happens at the Court of Appeals on the Columbia case, doesn't take away from the crying need for reform-both of the eminent domain law and the city's flawed land use review process. A more property owner and citizen friendly review methodology is essential in order to insure that collusion is removed from these critical policy areas.

Perkins Percolates on Eminent Domain

We met with Bill Perkins on the steps of city hall this morning and, predictably, the senator was beaming over the appellate court's decision on Columbia and the use of eminent domain. Liz Benjamin captured this: "Sen. Bill Perkins applauded yesterday's court decision that it would be unconstitutional for the Empire State Development Corp. to use eminent domain to facilitate Columbia University's expansion in Harlem and urged the state to reconsider its plan to appeal. It's no secret that Perkins, who represents Harlem (he holds the seat that once belonged to Gov. David Paterson) is not a fan of government's use of eminent domain for private development projects."

The senator went on to say: "The use of eminent domain is like a gun to the community’s head which basically says, 'If you don’t give it up we’re going to take it,'" Perkins said outside City Hall this afternoon. And as a result, those who do not have the wherewithal of a Nick Sprayregen or a lawyer like Norm Siegel begin to negotiate under the threat of begin robbed or mugged through the process of eminent domain."

In response, Perkins may be looking to introduce legislation that would make NY State law more property owner friendly: "As chair of the Senate Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee, he held a series of hearings on the practice last summer and indicated support for legislation that would restrict its use."

The problem for eminent domain opponents is in the assembly, where Speaker Silver hasn't been seen as amenable to reform. But you have to start somewhere-and Assembly member Brosdsky is someone who can help make the case in that body.

Clearly, however, a national movement is gaining momentum on the issue-as the following well read legal blog highlights (thanks for the link):

"In Kaur v. New York Urban Development Corporation,a close 3–2 decision [HT: Neighborhood Retail Alliance], a New York intermediate appellate court has invalidated the taking of property in the Manhattanville neighborhood of New York City for transfer to Columbia University. Columbia and the government claimed that the land in question was blighted. However, the court ruled that there was no evidence of any real blight (especially before Columbia acquired much of the surrounding area after 2002), other than claims of “underutilization” of property. And mere “underutilization,” the majority concludes, is not enough to justify the condemnation of property as “blighted.” As the court puts it, “[t]he time has come to categorically reject eminent domain takings solely based on underutilization.” I wholeheartedly agree with this general sentiment. Indeed, I have often argued against broad definitions of blight that allow virtually any property to be condemned on the grounds that some other use might lead to increased development (see, e.g., here). Overbroad definitions of blight undercut many of the eminent domain “reform” laws enacted in response to the US Supreme Court’s decision upholding “economic development” takings in Kelo v. City of New London."

But, as Volokh points out, a major problem remains: "There is, however, one major problem with the Kaur decision: it seems to contradict the New York Court of Appeals’ (the state supreme court) recent decision in the Atlantic Yards case, Goldstein v. New York Urban Development Corporation, which specifically ruled that a property can be declared blighted and condemned if there was “economic underdevelopment” or “stagnation” in the area. As I explained in this post, Goldstein allows state officials to designate almost any area as blighted and then condemn property within it. As an intermediate appellate court the, Kaur court is required to follow state supreme court rulings. Unfortunately, the Kaur majority barely even mentions Goldstein, except for noting that the same private consultant conducted the study allegedly proving the existence of “blight” in both cases."

So, it appears from this legal observer, one who is definitely friendly to the cause of the opposition, that no one should be getting prematurely giddy: "However, the central holding of Kaur - that “underutilization” isn’t enough to prove blight — is in clear tension with the Atlantic Yards decision. The fact that the same consultant conducted both blight studies and used similar arguments to justify his findings only accentuates the tension. Indeed, “underutilization” was the main evidence for the existence of blight in the Atlantic Yards project area, as well as in the part of Manhattanville condemned for transfer to Columbia."

And, as Volokh concludes-causing us to pause the celebration, even though Norman Siegel has explained the differences between the AY case and Columbia's: "In sum, I think that Kaur is a much better reasoned decision than Goldstein (except for its neglect of Goldstein itself). Unfortunately, the court that reached the wrong result is also the higher of the two. Thus, I fear that Kaur may well eventually be overruled by the Court of Appeals. At the very least, the Kaur majority should have taken more time to produce their opinion, and clearly explained why this case differs from Goldstein."

All of which makes the case for legislative remedies all that much more compelling. But, as we have pointed out, the Willets Point situation is fraught with any number of extra-legal difficulties-cost traffic mitigation and feasibility leading the way. Still, the courts just may, hopefully, be moving towards a different view on the use of eminent domain for "public benefit," and not public use.

Sprayregen Speaks Out

In a deservedly celebratory mood, Nick Sprayregen writes in the NY Post today that his court victory is, "A win for the people." He goes on to say: "The court was clear in its ruling: The state may not take property from one private party merely to hand it over to another private party. To do so is not only a violation of the state and federal Constitutions, but it is anathema to the very construct of our great country — the vital importance of private property rights."

He also-as we have done-focuses on the phony use of "blight" to justify condemnation: "Columbia pretended that this neighborhood was blighted (and thus an appropriate place for the use of eminent domain), yet nothing was further from the truth. The court saw this, stating, "The blight designation was utilized [by the state] years after the scheme was hatched to justify the employment of eminent domain but this project has always primarily concerned a massive capital project for Columbia." In short, the project was a land grab — and the use of eminent domain was a means to fix the outcome."

So everyone is waiting for the next step-a Court of Appeals decision that will be the ultimate arbiter of the Columbia expansion plan. However, it shouldn't be left up to the court to decide this issue-and the legislature needs to emerge from its moribund state and amend the eminent domain statutes. A more level-and equitable-playing field is an absolute necessity for all New York's property owners and small businesses.

Might Makes Blight

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the appellate court ruling in favor of Tuck-it-Away against Columbia's attempt to use the state to take away its property, is Judge Catterson's scathing attack on how ESDC colluded with the university to come up with the conclusion that there area around the storage facility was blighted. The NY Post nails it: "The fix was in. The state and Columbia University conspired "in bad faith" to use eminent domain to seize six properties in West Harlem, the state Appellate Division ruled yesterday in a harshly worded decision that slams the brakes on the controversial plan."

And the court went on to say: "The state agency in charge of eminent domain and the school even "predetermined the unconstitutional outcome" by cooking up findings that the neighborhood was "blighted" and that the school's $6 billion expansion plan, therefore, served a "civic use."

The court also totally derided the idea that there was any public purpose in the taking of our former client's property: "The exercise of eminent domain power" by the Empire State Development Corp. "to benefit a private elite education institution is violatitive" of the US and New York state constitutions and should not be allowed, the Appellate Division ruling said."

The NY Times captures the essence of the court ruling: "Mr. Sprayregen and the family that owns the stations challenged the process the state used in finding that the neighborhood was blighted. Writing for the majority, Justice James M. Catterson said there was a conflict of interest when the state hired the same real estate consultant, AKRF, that Columbia had hired to make the determination of blight. “We questioned AKRF’s ability to provide ‘objective advice’ to the E.S.D.C., particularly with respect to its preparation of the blight study,” Justice Catterson wrote. The blight designation, the court said, was “mere sophistry” about a neighborhood that was already undergoing a renaissance. The state’s development corporation committed to rezoning long before the study, “not for the goal of general economic development or to remediate an area that was blighted before Columbia acquired over 50 percent of the property, but rather solely for the expansion itself.”

Now the question remains as to what the New York State Court of Appeals will do-after all it ruled 6-1 in favor of the Atlantic Yards project. Attorney Norman Siegel is optimistic, saying that the two legal approaches are not the same. As Crain's reports: "Columbia didn’t have an immediate comment. In a statement, the ESDC said it believe the decision was wrong and it attends to appeal to the state’s highest court- the New York State Court of Appeals. Late last month, that court ruled that the state could use eminent domain to clear the site for the massive Atlantic Yards $4.9 billion project in Brooklyn. Mr. Siegel said there are differences between the two cases. For example, Mr. Siegel argued it was inappropriate for the state to use eminent domain for a private institution such as Columbia because not everyone can attend the university."

Still, the caustic nature of this court ruling-the harshest that we've ever seen-gives Tuck-it-Away's Nick Sprayregen some good cause for possible success at the next level. As the NY Times tells us "The majority opinion was scathing in its appraisal of how the “scheme was hatched,” using terms like “sophistry” and “idiocy” in describing how the state went about declaring the neighborhood blighted, the main prerequisite for eminent domain."

But even if Sprayregen succeeds at the Court of Appeals, this doesn't preclude Columbia from expanding-and Nick never was opposed to the concept, only its all-or-nothing approach: "Mr. Sprayregen said he never opposed the plan. “The research and education they will perform are very beneficial,” he said. “The fact remains that even if they don’t get the last 5 percent, they can still go ahead and build their campus.”

In fact, this gives Sprayregen some leverage in his efforts to negotiate with Columbia and pursue his own plans to develop affordable housing in conjunction with the university's plan-an idea that CU failed to pick up on when the development was going through its land use application at the city council. But that depends on what the state's highest court decides.

Without a doubt, however, the decision has given a shot in the arm to our friends over at Willets Point: "A year ago, the City Council authorized the use of eminent domain to take a 62-acre area of mostly salvage yards and auto repair shops known as Willets Point in Queens. “The tide may be turning on the use of eminent domain for private purposes,” said Jake Bono, a spokesman for Willets Point United, a group of property owners opposed to condemnation."

And, given all of his yeoman-like work, we'll give Norm Siegel the last word. As the Post reports: "Norman Siegel, a lawyer for businesses fighting property seizure, said the ruling shows "property owners can fight back against the state when eminent domain is thrust upon them."

Update

Crain's Insider also gives a shout out to the fighters at Willets Point:

"Eminent Domain Opponents Cheer

Willets Point United, a coalition of property owners fighting condemnation of their land, was heartened by yesterday's court ruling in the Columbia University eminent domain case. “We believe the tide is starting to turn,” says coalition member Jake Bono."

Sprayregen Beats Columbia!

In a jaw dropping decision, a NY State Appelate Court, in a 3-2 ruling, declared that the use of eminent domain to allow Columbia University to expand in West Harlem was unconstitutional. Judge Catterson, speaking for the majority, couldn't have been stronger:

"The exercise of eminent domain power by the New York State Urban Development Corporation d/b/a Empire State Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "ESDC") to benefit a private elite education institution is violative of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, article 1, § 7 of the New York Constitution, and the "first principles of the social contract." The process employed by ESDC predetermined the unconstitutional outcome, was bereft of facts which established that the neighborhood in question was blighted, and ultimately precluded the petitioners from presenting a full record before either the ESDC or, ultimately, this Court. In short, it is a skein worth unraveling."

In essence, the court determined that the use of eminent domain was not for any public purpose-a point that we have made constantly in our defense of Tuck-it-Away's Nick Sprayregen. This was a plan that was conceived by Columbia for its own benefit-and the collusion between the university and the city was evident to this court. As the Observer points out: "In an unexpected major decision, a New York appellate court has overturned the use of eminent domain to create a new West Harlem campus for Columbia University, ruling the action unconstitutional. The cases were brought by the defiant owner of a set of storage warehouses in West Harlem, Nick Sprayregen, and the owners of two gas stations in the footprint for the 17-acre campus, called Manahttanville. Mr. Sprayregen sued to block the land takings in January, after the use of eminent domain was approved by the state's development agency, the Empire State Development Corporation."

Judge Catterson saw through the ruse here: "The decision, written by Justice James Catterson, finds a difference between the use of eminent domain for Columbia and in other cases such as the landmark Kelo v. New London case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development. In the case of Columbia, the decision says, the clear beneficiary was Columbia, not the public. Columbia, by buying up property and not maintaining sidewalks, helped to create blight, the court found, and the university underwrote costs for the entire project, rather than the city or state committing funds..."

Catterson blisters ESDC on this point: "The record shows no evidence that ESDC placed any constraints upon Columbia's plans, required any accommodation of existing, or competing uses, or any limitations on the scale or configuration of Columbia's scheme for the annexation of Manhattanville. Thus, the record makes plain that rather than the identity of the ultimate private beneficiary being unknown at the time that the redevelopment scheme was initially contemplated, the ultimate private beneficiary of the scheme for the private annexation of Manhattanville was the progenitor of its own benefit."

And the collusion of the consultants that we underscored in 2007 came back to bite the university-and we cited a Weekly Standard piece that demonstrated this basic unfairness: "So to recap: The state of New York hired a firm that works for Columbia to carry out the blight study. The firm used personnel who were working for Columbia on the project, and Columbia reviewed this work as it progressed. You will perhaps not be surprised to learn that AKRF's report declared the Manhattanville neighborhood was blighted--the precise result Columbia desired."

But, as City Room reports, the ruling isn't fatal to the expansion-but restricts Columbia's ubber alles approach: "The court’s decision is not fatal to to its expansion plan. It already owns or controls 91 percent of the 17-acres–61 of 67 buildings–in the project area. It can simply build around the other property owners, or come to some sort of agreement. But the state and the university had always sought the entire site."

In fact, Sprayregen had offered the university a compromise plan that would have swapped properties so that Nick could build affordable housing on the East Side of Broadway-outside of the direct footprint of the university's "bathtub." The swap plan was rejected by the university-and in light of the court decision today that rejection turns out to be somewhat ironic. If it had agreed to allow the affordable housing plan to proceed, Columbia would have killed two birds with the proverbial single stone; taking Sprayregen out of the mix as an opponent, while at the same time, giving its plan a real public purpose.

As to be expected, the ruling buoyed our friends at Willets Point. As the Observer points out: "The ruling has also caught the eye of a set of business owners at Willets Point in Queens, where the city seems likely to use eminent domain. "We look forward to the same kind of vindication if the city coerces eminent domain on Willets Point," business owner Jake Bono said in a statement. That project, however, is a full city initiative for which no private developer has yet been identified."

True, but the Willets Point development is a taking of private property and transferring it for another private use-at least in our view. Still, the ruling was indeed shocking-and just may reverberate throughout NY State politics-and the notion of public use may indeed need to be further refined. As Daily Politics reports-citing the court: "The use of eminent domain should also be rejected on the grounds that Columbia's expansion is not a 'civic project,'" the decision reads.

"ESDC states that the project will be used by Columbia for "education related uses," and thus the project serves a civic purpose. The petitioners correctly contend that within the definition of Uncons. Laws § 6253(6)(d) (UDCA 3(6)(d)), a private university does not constitute facilities for a 'civic project. The statutory definition does refer to educational uses, but the final clause "or other civic purposes," clearly restricts the educational purposes qualifying for a civic project to only such educational purposes as constitute a "civic purpose...Were we to grant civic purpose status to a private university for purposes of eminent domain, we are doing that which the Legislature has explicitly failed to do: as in California and Connecticut, that decision is solely the province of the state legislature."

Spryregen was clearly ecstatic over the ruling-a vindication of his quixotic quest that even we doubted he could pull off. As he told City Room: "I feel unbelievable,” Mr. Sprayregen said following Thursday’s decision. “I was always cautiously optimistic. But I was aware we were going against 50 tears of unfair cases against property owners.”

And the true kudos go to the intrepid legal work of the indomitable Norman Siegel: "Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the property owners who opposed the use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia, called the court’s decision a “major victory” in a state that has been very deferential to the state’s power to take private property. He said the ruling establishes “a road map for how property owners can fight these battles.”

So this was a real case of David and Goliath-and we believe that it will be seen as a nationally significant decision. But, first things first. It should be a clear signal to the state, that the eminent domain law here needs to be changed.

The 11th Hour

As the Bronx News Network is reporting, the decision on the fate of the Kingsbridge Armory is drawing near-with a final vote expected on the 9th of this month at the city council. The key land use committee meets today-and KARA will be holding a presser to once again demonstrate the community's commitment to a living wage, bo supermarket and the recognition of labor rights: "according the City Council's online agenda for the Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee tomorrow morning, the four land use changes that Related and the EDC are applying for with regards to the Armory project are up for discussion (and a vote?). They are listed as agenda items 2 through 5. There have been rumors swirling that the vote will get pushed back until next Wednesday, but we haven't been able to confirm anything.]"

Well, there won't be a vote today because there has been no movement to any kind of negotiated settlement-a meeting between the city and the Bronx delegation yesterday didn't appear to move the ball at all: "Over the past weeks, the developer, Related Companies, and the Bronx City Council delegation have been at a standstill over the main issue of the shopping mall development: providing a living wage ($10 an hour plus benefits) for retail workers. If both factions refuse to back down, both the Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee and the City Council appear poised to reject Related’s proposal and start from scratch."

Now we are all for total failure in these kinds of battles-even though it is a rare occurrence in the city council's normal course of deliberation-but it would be nice if the city and Related would begin to recognize how committed the folks are on the wage issue so that a precedent could be set on the Armory project. The ball, however, is in their court, and so far nothing has changed: "Related insists that including a living wage requirement will deter retail companies from setting up shop in the mall. They believe the community will benefit from the 2,200 jobs created during and after construction of the mall, regardless of wage level."

And if no movement occurs-Speaker Quinn has been ominously quiet on the issue-the project could be set to an ignominious defeat: "Meanwhile, the Bronx delegation, along with an apparent majority of the Zoning and Franchising Subcommittee, hold that guaranteeing living wage jobs is a small fee for Related to pay, since they stand to make a bundle off of the development. They say the jobs currently being offered at the proposed Armory mall would do nothing to lift a community mired in poverty."

And an earlier report that the application would be modified-and the clock stretched to December 21st-appears to have been shot down: "The Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) fears that delaying the vote will only allow the Bloomberg administration, which is in favor of the development and against living wage guarantees, more time to influence Council members.“[Related has] had well over two years to negotiate,” said KARA’s Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter. “They met with the Bronx delegation twice and they have left them empty handed."

So, in one of the most interesting and hard to predict land use battles we have ever seen, we have a situation where the outcome is still in doubt even at the 11th hour-and there is only one week left to decide. Still, there is plenty of time to come up with a settlement, but we aren't seeing what that could possibly look like-with both sides dug in and adamant on their positions.

Today's Presser

MEDIA ADVISORY

City Hall Pray-In for Living Wages at Kingsbridge Armory
Clergy Gather in Prayer, Call on City Council to See Wisdom in Requiring Living Wage Jobs at the Kingsbridge Armory

What: Clergy will gather on City Hall steps before going in to the meeting of the Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises of the Land Use Committee to pray that City Council members see the wisdom in voting "No" on the rezoning and sale of the Kingsbridge Armory until the developer, The Related Companies, has signed a binding Community Benefits Agreement that includes living wage jobs, first source local hiring, protection of the right of retail workers to join a union without fear or intimidation, community and recreation space, and the exclusion of a supermarket or a big box grocery store.

Who: Clergy and members of the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance

When: Thursday, December 3, 9:00 AM

Where: New York City Hall Steps

Bully Pulpit?

The state's budget mess-thought to be resolved by a deal two nights ago is still up in the air; with, as the NY Times points out, accusations flying between the governor's office and various state senators: "The State Legislature has proved once again that it is a place where expectation and reality rarely converge. After a day of false starts and high anticipation that the Senate would vote on legislation to legalize same-sex marriage and close the state’s $3.2 billion budget gap, senators broke for recess late Tuesday before taking any votes."

The senate thought that the governor had agreed to a resolution only to come back on Tuesday to find out that Paterson had reneged: "Many legislators, who believed that they had struck a compromise with the governor on Monday afternoon only to learn from a press release that he was rejecting their deficit reduction plan, expressed outrage over the governor’s negotiating tactics and accused him of dragging the process out for his own political benefit."

Which led our friend Senator Savino to come up with this great line: "The truth is he doesn’t want this to end; he feels the longer this goes on the better he’ll look,” said Senator Diane J. Savino, a Democrat from Staten Island. “He’s enjoying the bully pulpit. He doesn’t want resolution because resolution deprives him of the spotlight.”

We're betting that this was the first time that Paterson and bully were used in the same sentence, but clearly senators were irked by the irresolution that they see as typifying the governor's behavior: "Senators also made an issue out of Mr. Paterson’s trip to Brooklyn on Tuesday evening to attend a campaign event. “The fact that he’s in Brooklyn tonight doing politicking instead of doing the budget is a great illustration of what we’ve been dealing with,” said Senator Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat."

Which led to this response from Bully Dave: “Nobody has stalled negotiations or dragged his feet for political purposes throughout this process more than Carl Kruger,” said Marissa Shorenstein, a spokeswoman for Mr. Paterson. “From his unsubstantiated projections of the deficit to his own plan filled with fiscal gimmicks, borrowing and one-shots, Senator Kruger has devoted weeks to trying to roadblock a sound fiscal plan.”

We're guessing that the gov's flack's referring to Kruger's call for Paterson to come out from behind his desk and lead the charge against Indian tax avoidance-a potential $1.6 billion windfall. But that issue won't go away, because the current shortfall will pale in comparison to what the state will be facing after the first of the year. At that point, Paterson will have to choose his role model-either Andrew Jackson or General George Custer.

Revolting Times

In a classic NY Times editorial today, the paper excoriates-the voters-for their temerity in getting rid of Nassau's County Executive Tom Suozzi and Westchester's Andy Spano over those county's high tax rates: "Thomas Suozzi has just lost his job, voted out as Nassau County executive by about 380 votes in an election that turned on voters’ frustration and anger about high property taxes. It was a victory for free-form anxiety, but a loss for Nassau County, whose tax-weary residents went after the wrong target."

OK, but what exactly is the right target is never really fully explained by the Times-except perhaps for the paper blaming long gone Republican leaders and regimes that are apparently the root causes of the current fiscal mess. And the Times finds this to be true even in New Jersey: "Decades of Republican majorities in Nassau County kept taxes down by borrowing and borrowing until the crisis exploded. Mr. Corzine fell into a hole created by the reckless borrowing and tax-cutting of the state’s last Republican governor, Christine Todd Whitman."

But incredibly, the high tax rates themselves-a function of state and local levies combined-isn't seen as problematic by the Times in its attack on, "A Misguided Tax Revolt." In fact, the Times sees the anti-tax platform as too simplistic: "The Republicans took the simplistic path to success, railing against taxes to turn voters’ pain into votes. But their logic was grossly misplaced. Nassau’s property taxes are crushingly high, but the county portion of the bill, Mr. Suozzi’s responsibility, is only about 16 percent. More than 60 percent goes to school districts, whose bloated budgets voters routinely support. Twenty percent pays for a galaxy of special taxing entities, like garbage districts and fire departments, that voters have never seen fit to consolidate or close..."

We wonder why the paper doesn't understand that these local electeds were seen as standard bearers for the entire high tax regimes in both New York and New Jersey-and that the coming revolt may very well make the ouster of Spano, Suozzi and Corzine look mild in comparison. But why should the Times understand this when it writes a long editorial on campaign finance and Albany dysfunction without mentioning the state's high tax environment and the role of the Working Families Party in its sustenance.

And so it concludes its voter ignorance screed on the folowing note-warning the electorate that what they are looking for is not in their own best interests: "Voters in these areas should hope their newly elected leaders don’t actually try to keep their promises." What, not enough New Yorkers are making their way to the exits?

Campaign Finance Farce: Part Two

The other day we commented on the farcical campaign finance reform analysis of the NY Times-an evaluation that totally ignored the growing influence and questionable practices of the Working Families Party. It has been left up to City Hall News to do the kind of in-depth review of the WFP that we should have expected from the paper of record.

And City Hall doesn't disappoint-highlighting how the WFP's methods have elevated the party, and its labor affiliates, into major players in NYC and NYS politics; you'd think the Times would have been a bit more prescient. The work of City Hall was instrumental in prompting external as well as internal investigations into Data Field Services, WFP's campaign arm.

As the newspaper points out: "In August, City Hall published an investigative report explaining the operations of the Working Families Party’s for-profit company, Data & Field Services. In early September, after conducting its own review, the New York City Campaign Finance Board officially declared that “DFS exists as an arm of the Working Families Party.” Over the last three months, City Hall has continued the investigation, relying on dozens of interviews with people within and outside the organization, in addition to a review of tax, lobbying and campaign finance records, as well as confidential internal documents."

And what CH also found was that WFP is more than just two arms, but also has-to mix metaphors-a Hydra-like structure with four separate extremities acting in concert to collate resources and maximize political power: "What follows are the findings of City Hall’s investigation into what few seem to realize: the political party and Data & Field Services are not the only two arms of the Working Families. There are, in fact, four arms: a political party, a for-profit and two different kinds of non-profits, each of which is separate and distinct under the law.
This five-part examination by City Hall into the Working Families Party’s accounting methods and finances has shown that together through these four arms, the Working Families has the benefits of a political party (legitimacy in voters’ minds, ballot line), a non-profit (tax-exemptions, uncapped donation limits and tax deductions) and a for-profit (no disclosure requirements, ability to collect fees backed by taxpayer-supported matching funds from candidates)."

Talk about an adroit gaming of the system! How did the Times miss this? And let's not forget that under current city campaign finance law-the one that the Times called, "one of the best and fairest," labor is basically elevated as a non-special interest, exempt from the limitations that those other tawdry interests are shackled with. In essence, with this kind of unlevel playing field, labor gets to play a kind of five on one full court political game.

And the big loser is the mother of all special interests-New York's tax payers and small businesses. These shlubs are unable to organize in similar fashion and are closely scrutinized if they do. The Times would devote a five part series to this untoward phenomenon.

And, of course, the results speak for themselves-with John Liu and Bill Deblasio wiping out the field in the last city election cycle, and the WFP becoming the tail that wags the Democratic dog on the state level: "Over the last decade, the Working Families Party has become a dominating force in New York politics by using the state’s fusion voting law (one of only a few in the nation) to give candidates a second line to run on and, more importantly, by throwing its weight behind candidates in Democratic primaries all over the state at a time when the state Democratic Party has been suffering. And never was the Party stronger than in this year’s elections: come inauguration day on Jan. 1, New York City will have a public advocate, city comptroller and almost a fifth of the City Council who owe their seats and their control over city finances and legislation in large part to its efforts."

Quite a record. How did the Times miss this? Oh, right, they were focused on the nefarious fundraising ability of State Senator Carl Kruger. Which brings to mind our favorite aphorism: "The law in all of its majesty, punishes the thief who steals the goose from off of the commons, but lets the greater felon loose, who steals the common from the goose."

But the point we made the other day is worth re-emphasizing. New York Sate is a fiscal mess-and we're hemorrhaging tax payers every day; folks fleeing for tax relief from this high tax heaven. In the midst of the budget meltdown, the WFP made the clarion call for-budget cuts and less government? No, for more taxes on the so-called wealthy.

And the WFP has positioned itself as a good government group-all the while finding loopholes in the lobbying and campaign finance laws: "While standing for ethics in government and campaign finance reform, Working Families has non-profits groups and a for-profit entity that lack donation caps, disclosure requirements (in terms of frequency and detail) and other regulations that political parties face."

All of which raises questions about the not-for-profit status of the WFP's charitable arms: "Allen Bromberger, a New York City attorney at Perlman Perlman who has spent 20 years specializing in “hybrid” legal structures that incorporate non-profits with other entities, was struck by the details of the Working Families structure. “I’ve never seen this kind of a set-up before,” he said. “In order to pass muster at IRS, as far as I’m concerned, all the accounting and the bookkeeping and the allocation of costs would have to be done in a very diligent manner. Even then I think it could still be problematic,” he added. “It may be okay—they may have designed it carefully and put enough safeguards in place—but the primary purpose of the 501(c)4 cannot be to engage in political activities. So if they’re not able to show some substantial non-political activity by the 501(c)4, I think they’ve got a pretty significant problem.”

And we thought that Claire Shulman's LDC had an IRS problem! The interlocking nature of the WFP's various organizations enable it to make an end run of the campaign rules: "Were the Working Families just a political party, it would only be able to receive a maximum of $94,200 from each donor under state law. But records show the lobbying entity, the Working Families Organization, gets much more than that each year from a small group of supportive unions, including a $1 million lump sum payment from the United Federation of Teachers in 2008."

How could the NY Times fail to see this? And the limits that are placed on candidate donations to a political party? No problem: "The Campaign Finance Board restricts candidates’ donations to political parties ($10,000 for citywide candidates, less for borough-wide and Council candidates) before leveling penalties on the matching funds that are distributed, to make sure city candidates only receive the taxpayer-funded money they need to run. But state and city campaign finance records show that the for-profit entity, Data & Field Services, was able to collect a combined $750,000 from the very candidates the Party endorsed in 2009 alone, the overwhelming majority of it from candidates in the city’s matching funds program."

As one good government observer told CH: "Money is not supposed to work like this in politics,” said Tom Halper, chair of the Baruch College political science department, when briefed on the Working Families arrangement." Which leads us to conclude that the NY Times is simply in the tank on this because it is sympathetic to the WFP's agenda-as it was in the tank for Mike Bloomberg during the past election cycle even though he defecated on its signature campaign finance issue.

What this means, is that Carl Kruger is a Times scapegoat-someone who can be conveniently targeted so that the dwindling cohort of the paper's readers can be hoodwinked about the real campaign finance culprits. Will New York's tax payers wake up? It might take some real follow-up reporting; and a movement of restless tax payers unwilling to foot the bill for the WFP's excessive influence.

It's Not Heart Surgery

The NY Post has to stop cutting and pasting mayoral press releases-like it seemed to do in its support for Bloomberg's anti teacher's union proposal in yesterday's paper: "For every year that Albany tolerates substandard public schools, New York kids lose a year of sound education. This year, doing so may cost the state a ton in federal cash. Thus, Mayor Bloomberg, whose legacy is on the line, took it upon himself last week to act. The steps he announced couldn't be more welcome. Let's just hope that Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch, who oversees the state's education apparatus, gets on board."

Well, well, the Post is salivating for a federal handout-quite droll, in our view. But this overheated panting masks the meretricious nature of the Bloomberg initiative-something we commented on last week. It rests on the fallacious notion that it is both possible-and worthwhile-to grade teachers on merit: "And Mike went further: He said a state law barring the use student-achievement data in teacher evaluations only covers those hired after July 1, 2008. And since at least three years of teaching is needed for tenure, no teacher being considered this year is covered by the law. With that, he asked Chancellor Joel Klein to immediately begin using student-progress figures in tenure decisions. It's a huge breakthrough: Teachers will finally be graded on their performance."

But as we noted in last week's post, this is a tenuous concept, one whose shortcoming we learned directly in our classroom experience: "In our view, however, tests are always a risky tool to use. Way back in the day when we taught the fifth grade one year we had an influx of Dominican immigrants. And it so happened, that this batch of kids was extremely bright, although not yet fluent in English. At the end of the year, a large number of the kids had jumped from second and third grade levels in reading to eleventh and twelfth grade scores-a recognition, without a doubt, of our superior pedagogical skills."

And then there's the idea that the grading will be correlated to these fraudulent tests that the Post itself has famously ridiculed-right after it had colluded with the mayor in using them to champion the success of the Bloomberg education miracle. Remember the false positive exams were used as the basis for giving out millions of tax payer dollars to reward ostensibly outstanding performances that have turned out to be as sartorially splendid as the Emperor's new clothes.

But the real danger lies with the folks who are designated proctors for the new teacher-and administrator-performance tests. Remember the admonition of the Roman Juvenal: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will watch the watchmen?) The injection of a merit grading system will likely be rife with favoritism and corruption-and that's even assuming that the tests themselves are ever going to be reliable.

But hope does spring eternal-especially when it devolves from the thought that a new level of arbitrariness can be utilized in educational reform. Thomas Carroll underscores this-and cites the mayor's wildly inaccurate analogy in the process: "Repeal New York's "data firewall." This law tries to prevent school districts from using student-performance data in evaluating teachers. Bloomberg called for mandating districts to come up with ways to use that data as "one of multiple sources of input" in judging educators. The mayor explained: "The state Legislature passed a law last year that actually tells principals: You can evaluate teachers on any criteria you want -- just not on student-achievement data. That's like saying to hospitals: You can evaluate heart surgeons on any criteria you want -- just not patient-survival rates! You really can't make this up!" Yes, indeed."

This is from a mayor who has presided over a test regime that allowed one Bronx principal to elevate passing test scores one year from 34% to 83%. Who will watch the watchmen, indeed! As the DOE's so-called investigation highlighted: "The dramatic, 49-point vault in scores earned former Principal Elba Lopez-Spangenberg a tidy $15,000 bonus that year. Several months later, Lopez retired. But the evaporation of the stunning gain the next year prompted an investigation, and as the snail-paced probe dragged on, critics assailed it as a "coverup," particularly because officials never questioned Lopez -- the person with seemingly the most to gain. Probers also didn't question students in that miracle fourth-grade class until they were in the eighth grade and they couldn't use the kids' answer sheets as evidence because that paperwork had already been destroyed."

Sol Stern captures the inanity of all this: "It's a joke. It's a farce," Sol Stern, a contributing editor for City Journal, said of the results. Stern and former New York Sun columnist Andy Wolf beat the drum that sparked the probe, which was concluded this year. "Inspector Clouseau could have done better," Stern said, referring to the bumbling "Pink Panther" detective."

So, by all means, come up with a convincing methodology to scam the feds out of some stimulus cash-after all, the city schools are cash starved, right? But we need to ask, what's the difference between this feeding at the federal trough, and a similar feeding over food stamp allotments that the paper excoriated awhile back?

So, we need to be ultra careful about letting all of the non educators run amok in this teacher evaluation scheme. It is all a thinly disguised effort to erode union strength-and one that, in our view, will not put kids over teachers, as the Post believes. It will, instead, put the MBA bean counters over the entire system-a prospect that should chill even the most ardent critic of the current status quo.

Environmental Protection?

The selection of Cawell Holloway as the new DEP commissioner is raising a few eyebrows. As the NY Times reports: "The appointment of Caswell F. Holloway IV, who since 2006 has served as chief of staff to Edward Skyler, a deputy mayor, raised the eyebrows of some policy experts and leaders of good-government groups. They said the move signaled that the mayor was increasingly relying on a tight-knit inner circle at a time when he could benefit from fresh energy and new perspectives."

Well, since we have no idea about who the heck this guy is-revealing the unfortunate nature of our lack of true insider status-we can't really comment on his qualifications. But we say that if he worked with Ed Skylar at the Parks Department, who are we to quibble: "The mayor’s staff described Mr. Holloway as a deft behind-the-scenes problem-solver who pushed through a plan for a citywide waste management system, over the objections of a state lawmaker; oversaw the collection of human remains found at ground zero years after the attack; and drew up plans to revive the unsightly Gowanus Canal...But his selection left some in the environmental world scratching their heads. “Wow,” said Peggy M. Shepard, executive director of We Act for Environmental Justice and a member of the mayor’s Sustainability Advisory Board. “I am not at all familiar with this person.”

Well, we'll see-but it hardly indicates an injection of new blood in this exciting third term, does it? And the real challenge will be to see how Cas can manage an agency that is known for its inept handling of the city's water management system-and a hidebound refusal to entertain the idea of food waste disposers: "After an election that exposed simmering anger over the mayor’s sometimes imperious management style, Mr. Bloomberg had vowed to shake up his staff by injecting new blood into his eight-year-old administration, which is overseen by a handful of loyal aides who followed him from the gleaming headquarters of his company, Bloomberg LP, to City Hall. Yet in announcing his selection of Mr. Holloway, the mayor observed that he “worked a couple of desks away from me.” Said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, which monitors city government, “This seems like musical chairs more than genuine change.”

It seems to us that Holloway is an ominous sign of the impending mayoral sclerosis-not that we would criticize his skill, set given the ineptitude that the DEP has demonstrated over the past eight years. It does have, however, a circle the wagons feel to it, doesn't it? Now let's see if DEP will become more adept at building filtration plants, and accurately gauging everyone's water bill. We aren't asking for much, are we?