Kermit the Mayor is at it again-this time with a proposal for more pedestrian malls in every nook and cranny. As the NY Post reported yesterday: "Motorists, beware -- there are more pedestrian plazas on the way. City officials, pleased with the success of the traffic ban in Times and Herald squares, yesterday asked community groups to submit smaller-scale ideas to expand the program around the city. The Department of Transportation is asking nonprofits to focus on neighborhoods such as Murray Hill and the Upper East Side, as well as Astoria, Queens, and Borough Park, Brooklyn. The plaza have been criticized for taking space from motorists in an already-gridlocked city and handing it over to pedestrians."
Now this is truly crazy on at least one level-it is an example of a disjointed, almost schizophrenic, policy approach. All over Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx-and Staten Island it goes without saying-the city has encouraged car dependent retail development. This kind of economic dcevelopment policy is a direct threat to the viability of the more eco-friendly local shopping strips. The best current example of this is, of course Willets Point, a project that will generate around 80,000 car trips every day in the center of the Queens highway grid.
But wait, as contradictory as the two approaches do appear to be, there is more actual similarity than at first glance. As one keen eyed observer tells the Post: "Cutting off more streets would be annoying for many drivers, I'm sure. I think New York is already suffering from gridlock bad enough," said Mikayla Gilbert, 32, who was sitting in a pedestrian plaza in the Meatpacking District."
All of this is being done-as per Bloomberg usual-without any kind of community or environmental review; or, heaven forbid, any economic impact analysis for neighborhood commerce. But we thought we'd let our good friend Steve Barrison of Sheepshead Bay and the Small Business Congress rant a little on this cockamamie idea. Take it away Steve:
"MORE pedestrian malls, more traffic, more back ups, more pollution from the traffic caused by less roadway to move the vehicles. This is anti economic development and anti-commerce 100%! The Hassle Factor grows under Blooomie...this is not SEATTLE! Anybody home there at DOT in City HALL?
While the Mayor fills his 2 millionth pothole there is fanfare! WHY? Maybe if we repaired the streets properly we wouldn't have so many potholes. The planning itself by DOT and traffic flow is full of many potholes. Urban Traffic Planning 101 dictates one of the ten commandments of Traffic planning: NEVER GIVE UP ROADWAY IN A DENSE URBAN AREA, as the number of vehicles and people do not decrease and we always need to move them.
Whenever you reduce roadway there are always consequences because the cars have to go somewhere and we have a congestion problem in NYC that is aggravated by consistent anti-car policies that make the problem worse and at crisis levels for commerce and emergency vehicles too! The concept of pedestrian malls in an urban area has been abandoned across America except in limited circumstances.
Generally the local small businesses and main street benefit more from the added excitement in the mix having vehicles, than not having them. The tourists and walkers love it but their perception is tainted as "non drivers." Since the overwhelming majority of New York City residents don't drive or own cars their viewpoint is more like a Disney main street than real life hard working mom and pop shops in reality.
Lastly, since this is NYC and not Seattle, and we probably have more than twenty times the population in a small geographic area we cannot afford to lose any more roadway. The future economic balance and survival of our city depends on efficient traffic flow. This administration has led us down a dangerous path of reducing: traffic lanes, highway access, parking spaces on and off street, and safe productive traffic flow in all 5 boros. The buck stops somewhere, right Mr. Mayor? Even if DOT is sadly in a Disney traffic world.
Here back in the BIG city reality is clear. The Times Square experiment from any driver's view, simply pushed the traffic all around squeezing the pressure elsewhere. The same mistake from this non driver fantasy world can be seen at Herald Square. (Shootings over Easter at both locations!) Do we really need to create more street hang outs? Who is out of touch here? The time has come for real knowledgeable experienced traffic planning, based in the real world of today's NYC small business community, not designed on a computer or with the model of a city 1/20th the density and population of New York.
Ask us in Small Business who have our lives invested here on every local shopping street in all 5 boros what we need, not some traffic office planner who never drove a delivery truck here, or a car everyday or a cab right here in our fair city. You want more pedestrian malls; then there are many places you can visit. But we cannot help address a congestion issue, cried about for eight years now and then continue to make traffic flow worse with new congestion causing policies introduced each week! This is plain contradictory, hypocritical nonsense. Our leaders must stop this crap and start practicing the idea of thinking before they announce more ideas that make living in NYC more difficult for others; even if you don't drive, you benefit from the goods and services and economic effect of vehicles as part of the essential engine of our city."
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Errors of Commission?
City Room blogs on the staff composition for the mayor's Charter Commission-and teases that it could actually have some independence from the mayor: "If you assumed that the new commission to revise the city charter would be a mere rubber stamp for the wishes of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, think again — at least for now. On Tuesday night, at the commission’s first meeting open to public testimony, the commission’s chairman, Matthew Goldstein, revealed that Lorna B. Goodman, who was most recently Nassau County attorney, would be the executive director."
And the rest of the staff are CUNY insiders: "Mr. Goldstein, the chancellor of the City University of New York, also announced several other important staff appointments, including three longtime CUNY insiders — Frederick P. Schaffer as general counsel, Joseph Viteritti as research director and Jay Hershenson as a spokesman."
So far, so good-but the staffing may in fact find itself at loggerheads with the commission members: "Of course, it is the 15 members of the commission itself — all appointed by Mr. Bloomberg, and many with strong ties to City Hall and city government — who will ultimately decide the agenda, not the staff. So many good-government watchdogs are still dubious that the commission will come up with ideas that might truly upset Mr. Bloomberg."
And we shouldn't forget that Mayor Bloomberg-with his backdoor money spigot-is the master of appearances, reminding us of Machiavelli's maxim: "It is better to appear good, than to be good." But this possible Kabuki theater operation underscores the weaknesses of the charter revision process-something we have commented on already.
What the city charter review needs is greater access from, and accountability to, the public-as many of the speakers at the commission's first hearing stated: "Most of the other speakers advocated changes that they said would give the people a greater voice in government — land use decisions, in particular. Calling for a charter commission that “will engage the people of this city much more deeply than ever before,” Public Advocate Bill de Blasio ticked off a list of thing on his agenda: a more independent Civilian Complaint Review Board for the police department, “greater checks and balances on city government, more parental involvement in education and an expanded role for the City Council."
And there was the same skepticism expressed about the commission's independece, something that we have also voiced: "Many speakers wondered whether a commission selected by a mayor who prides himself on his top down management style would actually put “everything on the table” as Bloomberg has promised and give the public a genuine chance to shape its recommendations. Several saw the short notice for last night’s meeting — announced only last week — as a harbinger of possible trouble down the road."
But Chairman Goldstein promised greater outreach: "The commission, Goldstein said, would launch “an extensive effort to reach deep into the bedrock of viewpoints in this city.”
But one person who testified underscored what the mood of the gathering was: “Allow the city to be governed by its people,” urged Erlene Fisher , a member of Community Voices Heard. And such a change-along with bolstering the powers of the legislature-would be the first step towards ameliorating the skewed concentration of power that the charter provides to the executive. Greater checks and balances-particularly when the mayor is NY's richest citizen-is essential to prevent the dangerous concentration of political power.
And the rest of the staff are CUNY insiders: "Mr. Goldstein, the chancellor of the City University of New York, also announced several other important staff appointments, including three longtime CUNY insiders — Frederick P. Schaffer as general counsel, Joseph Viteritti as research director and Jay Hershenson as a spokesman."
So far, so good-but the staffing may in fact find itself at loggerheads with the commission members: "Of course, it is the 15 members of the commission itself — all appointed by Mr. Bloomberg, and many with strong ties to City Hall and city government — who will ultimately decide the agenda, not the staff. So many good-government watchdogs are still dubious that the commission will come up with ideas that might truly upset Mr. Bloomberg."
And we shouldn't forget that Mayor Bloomberg-with his backdoor money spigot-is the master of appearances, reminding us of Machiavelli's maxim: "It is better to appear good, than to be good." But this possible Kabuki theater operation underscores the weaknesses of the charter revision process-something we have commented on already.
What the city charter review needs is greater access from, and accountability to, the public-as many of the speakers at the commission's first hearing stated: "Most of the other speakers advocated changes that they said would give the people a greater voice in government — land use decisions, in particular. Calling for a charter commission that “will engage the people of this city much more deeply than ever before,” Public Advocate Bill de Blasio ticked off a list of thing on his agenda: a more independent Civilian Complaint Review Board for the police department, “greater checks and balances on city government, more parental involvement in education and an expanded role for the City Council."
And there was the same skepticism expressed about the commission's independece, something that we have also voiced: "Many speakers wondered whether a commission selected by a mayor who prides himself on his top down management style would actually put “everything on the table” as Bloomberg has promised and give the public a genuine chance to shape its recommendations. Several saw the short notice for last night’s meeting — announced only last week — as a harbinger of possible trouble down the road."
But Chairman Goldstein promised greater outreach: "The commission, Goldstein said, would launch “an extensive effort to reach deep into the bedrock of viewpoints in this city.”
But one person who testified underscored what the mood of the gathering was: “Allow the city to be governed by its people,” urged Erlene Fisher , a member of Community Voices Heard. And such a change-along with bolstering the powers of the legislature-would be the first step towards ameliorating the skewed concentration of power that the charter provides to the executive. Greater checks and balances-particularly when the mayor is NY's richest citizen-is essential to prevent the dangerous concentration of political power.
Governor Paterson Gets It-And So Does Shelly Silver
Daily Politics posts on the guv's response to the WFP's "tax the Wall Street bonus," chorus-and he nails it: "Paterson quickly dismissed a plan floated by the Working Families Party to tax for two years Wall Street bonuses up to 50% in order to raise needed revenue for the cash-strapped state...“I don’t even know what the Working Families Party, who I’m sure is trying to find some good solutions, is thinking about because we are suffering because some of the changes that Wall Street has made.”
Paterson goes on to underscore the point that we made yesterday: "If you want Wall Street to become a street in New Jersey or Greenwich, Connecticut, that’s the fastest way to get those companies to move.” And jumping right in with the governor was Speaker Silver who told the NY Daily News: "In Iowa they treat corn as the home product. In New York we treat financial services as our home product," Silver said. "I would just say to you that we do not want to endanger our home product."
But that hasn't stopped the social democrat elite from wanting to siphon off more private equity-reminding us of Margaret Thatcher's observation that, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]." We are gradually-and not so gradually-headed in that direction; and the state of California is our handwriting on the wall.
Paterson goes on to underscore the point that we made yesterday: "If you want Wall Street to become a street in New Jersey or Greenwich, Connecticut, that’s the fastest way to get those companies to move.” And jumping right in with the governor was Speaker Silver who told the NY Daily News: "In Iowa they treat corn as the home product. In New York we treat financial services as our home product," Silver said. "I would just say to you that we do not want to endanger our home product."
But that hasn't stopped the social democrat elite from wanting to siphon off more private equity-reminding us of Margaret Thatcher's observation that, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]." We are gradually-and not so gradually-headed in that direction; and the state of California is our handwriting on the wall.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Doubling Down on a Bad Bet
According to Daily Politics, the effort to further increase our local tax burden and stifle economic growth continues-with class warfare language utilized to cover the tracks of proponents of keeping the government in the black by squeezing the sweat equity from producers: "The Better Choice Budget Campaign, an effort backed by a host of advocates and supported by some Democratic state lawmakers, is releasing a TV ad today that calls for making Wall Street pay its "fair share" to help New York out of its budget crisis."
This should be known as the political equivalent of whistling past the graveyard-with the fans of more taxes unwilling to confront the decades long assault on the state's small businesses and the overall producer class. That they want to do this while a rebellion in the grass roots is taking hold is a tribute to the intractable nature of ideology-and how such a mindset interferes with reality testing.
As we commented earlier, this is the NY equivalent to the luxury boat tax-and it elides the fact that we are taxing and regulating ourselves into oblivion. But for those in the state senate majority to advocate this path-while their majority hangs by an uncertain thread-is a testament to the aforementioned psychological grip that ideology has for some folks.
Because those marginal senate members from Long Island and Westchester-not to mention the handful of upstaters-are sitting precariously right now, with a real challenge expected from a grassroots wave that sees bigger government, and the taxes needed to support it, as an anathema. The fate of Suozzi and Spano should be seen as a clear and present danger, but when you're imbued with a false sense of righteousness, who cares about the mundane political consequences?
But at least the WFP's proposal was a narrow and targeted one-albeit misguided. The new initiative is a broader based mugging: "At the event, advocates and legislators will call for creation of yet another high income tax bracket as a potential revenue generator, as well as closure of corporate tax loopholes and the so-called fat tax to avoid deep cuts to education and health care."
So, we have the perfect example of the propagation of a grave digger political and economy philosophy. And our suggestion to these misguided but dangerous folks is: when you find that your the last people in the room, please turn off the lights before you leave.
This should be known as the political equivalent of whistling past the graveyard-with the fans of more taxes unwilling to confront the decades long assault on the state's small businesses and the overall producer class. That they want to do this while a rebellion in the grass roots is taking hold is a tribute to the intractable nature of ideology-and how such a mindset interferes with reality testing.
As we commented earlier, this is the NY equivalent to the luxury boat tax-and it elides the fact that we are taxing and regulating ourselves into oblivion. But for those in the state senate majority to advocate this path-while their majority hangs by an uncertain thread-is a testament to the aforementioned psychological grip that ideology has for some folks.
Because those marginal senate members from Long Island and Westchester-not to mention the handful of upstaters-are sitting precariously right now, with a real challenge expected from a grassroots wave that sees bigger government, and the taxes needed to support it, as an anathema. The fate of Suozzi and Spano should be seen as a clear and present danger, but when you're imbued with a false sense of righteousness, who cares about the mundane political consequences?
But at least the WFP's proposal was a narrow and targeted one-albeit misguided. The new initiative is a broader based mugging: "At the event, advocates and legislators will call for creation of yet another high income tax bracket as a potential revenue generator, as well as closure of corporate tax loopholes and the so-called fat tax to avoid deep cuts to education and health care."
So, we have the perfect example of the propagation of a grave digger political and economy philosophy. And our suggestion to these misguided but dangerous folks is: when you find that your the last people in the room, please turn off the lights before you leave.
WFP's Luxury Boat Tax
You gotta give the Working Families Party credit for consistency. Faced with an out of control state budget, a high tax burden and a bloated public payroll, the party might have been forgiven if it had strayed just a bit from its orthodoxy of promoting more taxes and bigger government-but such innovative responses aren't about to happen-as Daily Politics points out: "With lawmakers and Gov. David Paterson at loggerheads over the state budget - now almost a full week late - the Working Families Party is proposing a temporary tax on Wall Street bonuses in hopes of preventing deep spending cuts. The WFP sent a letter to all 211 state lawmakers today outlining its proposal, which calls for taxing bonuses between 25 percent and 50 percent (and not just for TARP recipients) for the next two years, and also launched an on-line petition drive."
Talk about golden egg goose killing time! Wall Street has been the only economic niche, a cash cow if there ever was one, that has enabled both the state and local NYC government to overcome their profligate ways-so it comes with no surprise that the private sector hating WFP would single the Street out for its counter productive attack. But the reality here is that any confiscatory attack on bonuses in this area could lead to the same situation that confronted the New Jersey luxury boat business after a luxury tax was instituted in 1991.
As you might recall, the tax laid waste to that industry and lead to its demise: "The imposition of a luxury tax on yachts all but destroyed the centuries-old shipbuilding industry in New Jersey. Making matters worse for the government, tax revenues diminished, because the feds were dumb enough to assume a perfectly inelastic demand for luxury yachts. And the vig in this case was only about an additional 10%. Ocean Yachts in Weekstown trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts entered Chapter Eleven bankruptcy, going from 200 employees to five. Viking Yachts dropped from 1,400 to 300 employees. According to a Congressional Joint Economic Committee Study, the boat industry nationwide lost 7,600 employees within one year."
So, in our view, a bonus slash and burn tax on Wall Street could easily have a similar impact-with firms-and their jobs in this case-leaving a newly (even more) hostile climate for a more hospitable home elsewhere. And, of course it goes without saying that the tax's short term benefits-if they were to even materialize-would simply postpone the desperate need to reduce the size and scope of the NY State government Leviathan.
But, for its part, the WFP can't rid itself of its defining class warfare: "Given the magnitude of the cuts that are about to be inflicted on the people of the State of New York, it's hard to understand what's not fair about asking this particularly privileged group of people to do a little extra over the next couple of years," Master said."
What Masters is doing is protecting not, "the people," but, "his people," the public employees who comprise the WFP's core. But all devastation aside, can the average homeowner in Juniper Park, Pelham Bay, New City or Canarsie, somehow manage to survive with the "drastic" cuts being proposed? We think that they will.
But alleviating the burdens of these families is not on the WFP agenda-so let's tell it like it is. The state government has gotten too big and NY is simply a horrid place to do business in. Confiscatory taxing of our one remaining profit center is a crackpot way to deal with the fiscal reality of our profligacy on both the state and local levels. After all, we don't want Wall Street to go the way of Jersey's boat building business.
Talk about golden egg goose killing time! Wall Street has been the only economic niche, a cash cow if there ever was one, that has enabled both the state and local NYC government to overcome their profligate ways-so it comes with no surprise that the private sector hating WFP would single the Street out for its counter productive attack. But the reality here is that any confiscatory attack on bonuses in this area could lead to the same situation that confronted the New Jersey luxury boat business after a luxury tax was instituted in 1991.
As you might recall, the tax laid waste to that industry and lead to its demise: "The imposition of a luxury tax on yachts all but destroyed the centuries-old shipbuilding industry in New Jersey. Making matters worse for the government, tax revenues diminished, because the feds were dumb enough to assume a perfectly inelastic demand for luxury yachts. And the vig in this case was only about an additional 10%. Ocean Yachts in Weekstown trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts entered Chapter Eleven bankruptcy, going from 200 employees to five. Viking Yachts dropped from 1,400 to 300 employees. According to a Congressional Joint Economic Committee Study, the boat industry nationwide lost 7,600 employees within one year."
So, in our view, a bonus slash and burn tax on Wall Street could easily have a similar impact-with firms-and their jobs in this case-leaving a newly (even more) hostile climate for a more hospitable home elsewhere. And, of course it goes without saying that the tax's short term benefits-if they were to even materialize-would simply postpone the desperate need to reduce the size and scope of the NY State government Leviathan.
But, for its part, the WFP can't rid itself of its defining class warfare: "Given the magnitude of the cuts that are about to be inflicted on the people of the State of New York, it's hard to understand what's not fair about asking this particularly privileged group of people to do a little extra over the next couple of years," Master said."
What Masters is doing is protecting not, "the people," but, "his people," the public employees who comprise the WFP's core. But all devastation aside, can the average homeowner in Juniper Park, Pelham Bay, New City or Canarsie, somehow manage to survive with the "drastic" cuts being proposed? We think that they will.
But alleviating the burdens of these families is not on the WFP agenda-so let's tell it like it is. The state government has gotten too big and NY is simply a horrid place to do business in. Confiscatory taxing of our one remaining profit center is a crackpot way to deal with the fiscal reality of our profligacy on both the state and local levels. After all, we don't want Wall Street to go the way of Jersey's boat building business.
Willets Point Observations
The question of whether or not the Willets Point development will ever get off the ground is much more an imponderable today than it was-pre recession-two years ago. In the first place, with the city out of funds, services being cut, and lay-offs looming, the cost of the development would appear to be prohibitive, and in any case hard to justify. The fact that the city's lap dog EDC has yet to lay out these costs honestly, indicates that it fears sticker shock in the citizenry.
In addition, the issue of traffic-one that wasn’t really raised with any precision during the ULURP process-has become crucial. In the first place, the development, according to the city’s own court papers, cannot be built without the approvals for ramps off of the Van Wyck Expressway. That approval process, conducted by both NYSDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, has revealed that there are serious problems with the data submitted by traffic consultants hired by EDC. The process is so tainted that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has written to the regulatory authorities calling for an independent traffic study under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
What is totally, clear, however, is that-now that Willets Point United has become engaged-is that the process will be drawn out and thorough, with an independent review of the traffic a very real possibility. This call for transparency and independence is being seconded by a variety of local civic groups, organizations concerned with the cumulative impact of, not only the Willets Point traffic, by all of the traffic generated by scores of projects in the vicinity of the Iron Triangle.
The more that the folks become aware of the true costs of developing Willets Point-and this includes the massive traffic that it, and other local projects, will generate, the less likelihood that the project will ever get off the ground. But given all of the serious questions raised above, it should be incumbent on all elected officials to endorse a moratorium on Willets Point development-particularly the use of eminent domain-and a call for a comprehensive and independent traffic study that will underscore the real impacts that all of the communities of Queens will be facing in the future.
In addition, the issue of traffic-one that wasn’t really raised with any precision during the ULURP process-has become crucial. In the first place, the development, according to the city’s own court papers, cannot be built without the approvals for ramps off of the Van Wyck Expressway. That approval process, conducted by both NYSDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, has revealed that there are serious problems with the data submitted by traffic consultants hired by EDC. The process is so tainted that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has written to the regulatory authorities calling for an independent traffic study under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
What is totally, clear, however, is that-now that Willets Point United has become engaged-is that the process will be drawn out and thorough, with an independent review of the traffic a very real possibility. This call for transparency and independence is being seconded by a variety of local civic groups, organizations concerned with the cumulative impact of, not only the Willets Point traffic, by all of the traffic generated by scores of projects in the vicinity of the Iron Triangle.
The more that the folks become aware of the true costs of developing Willets Point-and this includes the massive traffic that it, and other local projects, will generate, the less likelihood that the project will ever get off the ground. But given all of the serious questions raised above, it should be incumbent on all elected officials to endorse a moratorium on Willets Point development-particularly the use of eminent domain-and a call for a comprehensive and independent traffic study that will underscore the real impacts that all of the communities of Queens will be facing in the future.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Jumping Juniper
The NY Times did an in-depth look at one of the most influential civic groups in Queens over the past weekend-and we get a glimpse of the importance of real grass roots activism (and not the phony stuff that's ginned up by the mayor's or EDC's money): "All manner of politicians have made it a point to show up at meetings of the Juniper Park Civic Association in Queens: City Council members; Representative Anthony D. Weiner, who represents parts of the borough; and even George E. Pataki when he was governor of New York. Mayors past and present have also made the trip — from Edward I. Koch to Rudolph W. Giuliani to Michael R. Bloomberg. In fact, Mr. Bloomberg, who has visited the group four times, once called it “the most successful civic association in the city.”
But the mayor may be learning that it is often wise to be careful who you compliment: "Even Mr. Bloomberg, who was twice named man of the year by the association, in 2003 and 2006, has fallen out of the group’s favor. In recent issues of The Juniper Berry, he has been blamed for things like crime (“We pay huge amounts in taxes and yet know that the police are short-staffed,” the group’s secretary, Robert Doocey, wrote in the December issue), construction violations (“The buck must stop at the desk of Mayor Michael Bloomberg,” its president, Robert F. Holden, wrote in September) and illegal immigration (“He thinks he could sustain the drain on our tax dollars by illegal aliens who do not pay taxes into the system,” Ms. Sciulli wrote in March)."
Just the kind of grass roots group that we like-not waiting for permission to speak, but telling the electeds what is expected of them: "Still, some of the tactics the association uses to make its arguments have provoked a backlash. “They either work very well with you or they don’t work well at all, depending on whether you agree with them,” said City Councilwoman Elizabeth S. Crowley, who represents the area. The Queens borough president, Helen M. Marshall, said the group’s persistence could sometimes be alienating. “I’ve seen them go after politicians who don’t do what they want, and it’s murder,” Ms. Marshall said."
The council member may be right, although she also may have inverted the cause and effect relationship in her observation-from what it should be, since people are elected to represent the folks and all politicians should recognize what it means to be called a public servant. But Juniper understands what its role is: "It is no surprise, then, that politicians are keen to pay the group proper respect by making time to accept the association’s invitations. “We’re watchdogs,” said Lorraine Sciulli, 75, the association’s first vice president and the editor of The Juniper Berry, the group’s 64-page quarterly magazine. “We’re the people who stand up and say: ‘Wait a minute! You can’t do that in our neighborhood.’ ”
If we had more Junipers we wouldn't have as many Malcolm Smiths or Greg Meeks-not to mention Brian McLaughlin and Tony Seminerio (or Michael Bloomberg). Which is why the folks at Willets Point United have been reaching out to all of the Queens civics on the development that would displace them forcibly from their property. As the Times article underscores, these civics understand intimately just how high handed the city can become. The key in the Willets Point situation, however, is to demonstrate how the development issues at the Iron Triangle-particularly the traffic and the fudging of the data analysis-are a harbinger of what faces so many other communities (are you catching all this Lombino?).
Of course, the Bloombergistas don't particularly like any demonstration of real democracy that holds them accountable: "Then came the Bloomberg administration’s denial of landmark status for St. Saviour’s, an old Gothic-style church in Maspeth that was bound for demolition, but was spared after the association intervened. It has been dismantled and will be reassembled at a local cemetery; Ms. Marshall’s office has set aside $1.4 million for the project. At a rally in July 2008 that the association organized to save the church, someone in the crowd had a sign with a noose and the words “reserved for,” followed by the names of several city officials, including Mr. Bloomberg. The administration threatened to cease dealing with the group if Mr. Holden did not apologize, which he refused to do. “Bloomberg is our mayor,” said Mr. Holden, a graphics design professor at New York City College of Technology. “We elected him, and we have a duty to hold his feet to the fire, which is exactly what we’ve been doing.”
The reaction from the mayor's people was not unexpected: "Stu Loeser, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, did not want to publicly comment about the group’s views of the mayor except to say: “It’s great when civic groups honor the mayor. But they’re mistaken if they think that’s going to tip the balance in their favor.”
But the mayor will have to respond if all of the Queens civics present their elected officials with a united front against over development and eminent domain-something that we learned almost thirty years ago in our first successful effort in the East Bronx (defeating a Pathmark shopping center when all of the civics-from Zarega, to Pelham Bay, to Morris Park, to Throggs Neck, united in opposition; along with their neighborhood merchant associations).
But in Queens, Juniper's in your face attitude is inspiring-and we'll give its president the last word: "Mr. Holden said that City Hall no longer responded to his letters or complaints — for example, over what he said was the city’s failure to shovel public sidewalks after snowstorms. Mr. Bloomberg has also changed his position on the freight tunnel that Representative Nadler proposed: he is now a proponent. On recent balmy Wednesday morning, Mr. Holden was holed up in his home office in Middle Village, putting the final touches on the March/April cover of The Juniper Berry. It featured an illustration of Mr. Bloomberg conducting a freight train loaded with garbage bags under the headline, “City’s Waste Management Plan Dumps on Us.”
But the mayor may be learning that it is often wise to be careful who you compliment: "Even Mr. Bloomberg, who was twice named man of the year by the association, in 2003 and 2006, has fallen out of the group’s favor. In recent issues of The Juniper Berry, he has been blamed for things like crime (“We pay huge amounts in taxes and yet know that the police are short-staffed,” the group’s secretary, Robert Doocey, wrote in the December issue), construction violations (“The buck must stop at the desk of Mayor Michael Bloomberg,” its president, Robert F. Holden, wrote in September) and illegal immigration (“He thinks he could sustain the drain on our tax dollars by illegal aliens who do not pay taxes into the system,” Ms. Sciulli wrote in March)."
Just the kind of grass roots group that we like-not waiting for permission to speak, but telling the electeds what is expected of them: "Still, some of the tactics the association uses to make its arguments have provoked a backlash. “They either work very well with you or they don’t work well at all, depending on whether you agree with them,” said City Councilwoman Elizabeth S. Crowley, who represents the area. The Queens borough president, Helen M. Marshall, said the group’s persistence could sometimes be alienating. “I’ve seen them go after politicians who don’t do what they want, and it’s murder,” Ms. Marshall said."
The council member may be right, although she also may have inverted the cause and effect relationship in her observation-from what it should be, since people are elected to represent the folks and all politicians should recognize what it means to be called a public servant. But Juniper understands what its role is: "It is no surprise, then, that politicians are keen to pay the group proper respect by making time to accept the association’s invitations. “We’re watchdogs,” said Lorraine Sciulli, 75, the association’s first vice president and the editor of The Juniper Berry, the group’s 64-page quarterly magazine. “We’re the people who stand up and say: ‘Wait a minute! You can’t do that in our neighborhood.’ ”
If we had more Junipers we wouldn't have as many Malcolm Smiths or Greg Meeks-not to mention Brian McLaughlin and Tony Seminerio (or Michael Bloomberg). Which is why the folks at Willets Point United have been reaching out to all of the Queens civics on the development that would displace them forcibly from their property. As the Times article underscores, these civics understand intimately just how high handed the city can become. The key in the Willets Point situation, however, is to demonstrate how the development issues at the Iron Triangle-particularly the traffic and the fudging of the data analysis-are a harbinger of what faces so many other communities (are you catching all this Lombino?).
Of course, the Bloombergistas don't particularly like any demonstration of real democracy that holds them accountable: "Then came the Bloomberg administration’s denial of landmark status for St. Saviour’s, an old Gothic-style church in Maspeth that was bound for demolition, but was spared after the association intervened. It has been dismantled and will be reassembled at a local cemetery; Ms. Marshall’s office has set aside $1.4 million for the project. At a rally in July 2008 that the association organized to save the church, someone in the crowd had a sign with a noose and the words “reserved for,” followed by the names of several city officials, including Mr. Bloomberg. The administration threatened to cease dealing with the group if Mr. Holden did not apologize, which he refused to do. “Bloomberg is our mayor,” said Mr. Holden, a graphics design professor at New York City College of Technology. “We elected him, and we have a duty to hold his feet to the fire, which is exactly what we’ve been doing.”
The reaction from the mayor's people was not unexpected: "Stu Loeser, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, did not want to publicly comment about the group’s views of the mayor except to say: “It’s great when civic groups honor the mayor. But they’re mistaken if they think that’s going to tip the balance in their favor.”
But the mayor will have to respond if all of the Queens civics present their elected officials with a united front against over development and eminent domain-something that we learned almost thirty years ago in our first successful effort in the East Bronx (defeating a Pathmark shopping center when all of the civics-from Zarega, to Pelham Bay, to Morris Park, to Throggs Neck, united in opposition; along with their neighborhood merchant associations).
But in Queens, Juniper's in your face attitude is inspiring-and we'll give its president the last word: "Mr. Holden said that City Hall no longer responded to his letters or complaints — for example, over what he said was the city’s failure to shovel public sidewalks after snowstorms. Mr. Bloomberg has also changed his position on the freight tunnel that Representative Nadler proposed: he is now a proponent. On recent balmy Wednesday morning, Mr. Holden was holed up in his home office in Middle Village, putting the final touches on the March/April cover of The Juniper Berry. It featured an illustration of Mr. Bloomberg conducting a freight train loaded with garbage bags under the headline, “City’s Waste Management Plan Dumps on Us.”
Vendor: Veni, Vidi, Vici?
City Room posts yesterday on the looming battle over first amendment vending in and around city parks-with the vendors bristling, as they are wont to do, over any regulatory restrictions: "Many of the vendors in Union Square Park on Friday said they were against the regulations, and displayed yellow “Artist Power!” signs that implored visitors to support artists’ rights to sell in parks. Noel Donaldson, a 40-year-old abstract-realist painter from the Bronx, was selling paintings and denim dolls in Union Square Park. Mr. Donaldson said he thought the regulations would be ineffective. “I showed up at 5:30 this morning and it was already packed,” Mr. Donaldson said. “There will definitely be arguments between artists, and artists will be everywhere. No one’s going to stop it. It’s like asking us not to breathe.”
The reaction from our parks commissioner, Adrian Benepe, was rather droll, given how the city has taken such a laissez faire attitude to enforcing its peddler ordinances: "Mr. Benepe argues that the new regulations are constitutional. “There’s nothing at all in the Constitution or the First Amendment that gives private businesses the right to take over public property in a completely unregulated way,” he said."
Yo, Adrian! That's exactly what has happened-at least all over Manhattan-where fruit and vegetable peddlers are hooked up right in front of neighborhood supermarkets; operating without regard to a myriad of unenforced local regulations. So, if enforcement is in the cards, let it be universal-and not just in the holy green spaces. After all, no private business has the unfettered right to bogart public property. Right Benepe?
The reaction from our parks commissioner, Adrian Benepe, was rather droll, given how the city has taken such a laissez faire attitude to enforcing its peddler ordinances: "Mr. Benepe argues that the new regulations are constitutional. “There’s nothing at all in the Constitution or the First Amendment that gives private businesses the right to take over public property in a completely unregulated way,” he said."
Yo, Adrian! That's exactly what has happened-at least all over Manhattan-where fruit and vegetable peddlers are hooked up right in front of neighborhood supermarkets; operating without regard to a myriad of unenforced local regulations. So, if enforcement is in the cards, let it be universal-and not just in the holy green spaces. After all, no private business has the unfettered right to bogart public property. Right Benepe?
Monday, April 05, 2010
Daining to Counsel His Lessers
The NY Times has an insightful look at the condescending nature of NY State's health commissioner, Richard Daines, who's on a crusade to save us all from the predations of soda pop. Here's the money quote that captures his essence-and that of his world view: "Waxing passionate the other day, he managed to make soda purveyors sound almost like drug dealers. “I raised my kids on Park Avenue,” he said. “You can walk at least from 60th Street to 96th Street on Park Avenue. You won’t see a single soda billboard, you won’t see a single fast-food outlet, and I don’t think you could buy a soda. Basically, a child raised in that corridor has a soda-free day after school.”
Is this guy for real? First of all, there is no-except for an errant store here or there-retail activity at all on Fifth Avenue, it has been zoned out by the rich swells. But does Daines believe that Fifth Avenue in Manhattan is the real world. But really, all he has to do is walk a few blocks over to Madison or Lex, and he'll find enough grocery stores and bodegas to get a soda fix from.
Daines then compares his own affluent environment to that of Harlem: "But walk 30 blocks north to Harlem, he said, and the picture is different. “This is cheap, it’s heavily advertised, it tastes really good,” he said. “And then we plunge kids into that environment, and we say, if you have a problem, you lack self-control.”
This guy should really be muzzled. He gives elitism a bad name-and he is so out of touch that you just might find his name on some psychological disorder chart; under a psychotic break-like category. He really believes that advertising saturation is creating some kind of a false consciousness environment that is inveigling those poor low income dupes-folks who are eagerly awaiting liberation by the great white father.
Our good friend Nelson Eusebio highlights the commissioner's out-of-touchness-and he gets the last word: "Mr. Eusebio, the tax opponent, recommended that Dr. Daines devote his time to promoting a “holistic diet” and educating young people about the benefits of exercise. “Educating people helps them more than taxing them,” Mr. Eusebio said. “If taxation was a form of diet, New Yorkers would be the healthiest people on the planet because we are the most overtaxed people on the planet.”
Is this guy for real? First of all, there is no-except for an errant store here or there-retail activity at all on Fifth Avenue, it has been zoned out by the rich swells. But does Daines believe that Fifth Avenue in Manhattan is the real world. But really, all he has to do is walk a few blocks over to Madison or Lex, and he'll find enough grocery stores and bodegas to get a soda fix from.
Daines then compares his own affluent environment to that of Harlem: "But walk 30 blocks north to Harlem, he said, and the picture is different. “This is cheap, it’s heavily advertised, it tastes really good,” he said. “And then we plunge kids into that environment, and we say, if you have a problem, you lack self-control.”
This guy should really be muzzled. He gives elitism a bad name-and he is so out of touch that you just might find his name on some psychological disorder chart; under a psychotic break-like category. He really believes that advertising saturation is creating some kind of a false consciousness environment that is inveigling those poor low income dupes-folks who are eagerly awaiting liberation by the great white father.
Our good friend Nelson Eusebio highlights the commissioner's out-of-touchness-and he gets the last word: "Mr. Eusebio, the tax opponent, recommended that Dr. Daines devote his time to promoting a “holistic diet” and educating young people about the benefits of exercise. “Educating people helps them more than taxing them,” Mr. Eusebio said. “If taxation was a form of diet, New Yorkers would be the healthiest people on the planet because we are the most overtaxed people on the planet.”
Small Business Tax and Regulatory Rubicon
Our local press is beginning to catch on to what we have been harping on for the past few years-small neighborhood business has been hammered by a combination of the severe recession and government tax and regulatory policies that treat these enterprises just like a piñata. Here's a City Room glimpse at the problem, shuttered store fronts all over the city: "When James and Karla Murray started photographing storefronts in 2001 for their book “Storefront: The Disappearing Face of New York” (Ginkgo Press) they noticed that some shops were closing as quickly as they could gather their shots. The trend did not stop after the book went to press. In the 15 months since it was published, more than half of the roughly 225 storefronts that were photographed have shuttered."
The Bloomberg economic policy of mega development certainly hasn't helped the neighborhood stores-substituting car dependent retailing for the walk to shop local commercial strip: "Many shop owners say that they are closing now because in the recession, New Yorkers are heading to larger discount chains for bargains that they suspect they cannot find at smaller stores. “People aren’t spending money, and a lot of people perceive that things are going to be more expensive at a more mom-and-pop shop,” Ms. Murray said. “The ones that seem to be hanging in there own the building.”
The NY Times examines this phenomenon through a local Bronx lens-focusing on John Scanlon's home center store: "In the past year, Mr. Scanlon, 49, has laid off two workers and canceled the health insurance of a third, whose hours also were cut. He has scaled back his own family’s health plan, deputized his wife, Sherry M. Speirs Scanlon, 51, as an ambassador to scare up more business and enlisted their 27-year-old daughter, Tashel, to work as the office manager."
As an aside, one can see just how President Obama's concern with people not having health care may be a bit misplaced. Yes, we need to help folks to get health care, but not at the expense of the economy that should be the linchpin of any health care discussion-and the local impetus for paid sick days plays perfectly into this business destroying, government mandating mindset.
To put additional government mandated expenses on businesses that are reeling is just wacky and counterproductive-but with what's cooking in Washington, we ain't seen nothing yet. As the NY Post reported yesterday: "America's jobs growth engine is being choked to death. A record 25 percent increase in the taxes against US small businesses -- from costs associated with new health care law, to an increased Medicare tax, increased capital gains taxes and higher state and city taxes -- is repealing any ability of these entrepreneurs to add jobs to their payroll. And the numbers for New York's small- to medium-sized business are just as harrowing. By one estimate, the effective tax rate on the 26 million small businesses across the country -- which in the past have accounted for more than half of the job growth in the US -- has jumped to 50 percent from 40 percent, sucking valuable cash from the businesses."
The end result? Stifled job growth: "These dollars could have been used to add to payrolls or make capital improvements -- but instead will be siphoned off by Uncle Sam, state and municipal governments."
And of course the situation in NYC and State is that much worse because of the even more onerous tax and regulatory environment that we have had foisted on us here-as the shuttered store front so aptly dramatize. But what about the responsibility of local governments? It's time to highlight their role as well; unfortunately, local coverage of the role of a high tax and over regulated local economy in our current plight is virtually nonexistent.
The reason lies in the mobilization of bias locally-one that fails to understand the extent to which an enlarged government is itself the problem. We can glean this in the point missing, inside baseball discussions of Bloomberg's third term. Anni Karni does the honors in yesterday's Post: “Over the time Bloomberg’s been in office it’s become less about big ideas than about competent management and moderate ideas at the agency level,” said Andrew White, who runs the Center for New York City Affairs at The New School. “He’ll be looking for someone with expertise in managing the budget [to replace Skyler]. That has to be the core of their agenda, given the financial situation.”
Competent management assumes that the overall direction of government-its size and scope-is a settled issue, a given. But the good professor's comments elides the basic flaw in the entire Bloomberg opus-an understanding of how government itself-its expansion through a bigger work force and higher taxes-has exacerbated the national economic down turn. It also avoids confronting just how mediocre the Bloomberg tenure has been-big ideas like smoking cessation and congestion taxing that misdirect the public attention from the need for reforming the structure of government, and the concomitant therapeutic impact such an effort would have on the local economy.
Instead we get the intrusive nanny initiatives that look to stigmatize neighborhood restaurants with scarlet letters, and local bodegas with gruesome anti-smoking signs; not to mention menu labeling, trans fat banning, and peddler proliferation. Message to Bloomberg and the sightless professoriat: the local economic ship be sinking, going under from the lack of any competent vision at the top.
And the sinking ship is being captained by Iceberg Bloomberg. Adam Lisberg captures a bit of the captain cluelessness: "It's a far different mood than during Bloomberg's reelection campaign, when he barnstormed the city with sunny messages and bold promises. Remember his pledge last year to fix the MTA? Today he's reduced to telling New Yorkers to complain to Albany about service cuts and the potential loss of student MetroCards. Remember how he trumpeted the NYPD's crime reductions? Today he acknowledges the shrinking number of cops has factored into the rising murder rate. Remember how he bragged about keeping "streets and parks cleaner and safer"? His own statistics now show parks getting dirtier and more dangerous - while the time to fill a pothole has practically doubled."
Lisberg errs, however, when he observes the following: "Things are tough in New York. Bloomberg has kept the city's budget balanced with seven rounds of brutal spending cuts, but he is beginning to acknowledge the toll it takes on the services New Yorkers expect." We disagree.
What is brutal is the tax burden on all New Yorkers-and the idea that cutting government means eviscerating vital services when you still have a $400 million a year program to house homeless pregnant women-not to mention a department of health that sticks its expensive nose where it doesn't belong-is simply buying into a conventional wisdom that needs to be challenged.
When Rudy Giuliani came into office he challenged the conventional wisdom on welfare and crime-and suffered the slings and arrows from the bien pensants. But, in spite of all the carping, the city was better off-at least after his reforming first term. With Bloomberg, we not only get conventional wisdom on steroids, but we get it leavened with a nanny mentality that is suffocating to local business as well as to the liberty of all of us.
The city and the state needs leaders who are not only above reproach from a public corruption standpoint, but who also understand that we need to begin to trim the government sails so that we can insure that our once robust economy is not dragged under by mediocre meddlers and their bureaucratic accomplices. Until we do, there will be more empty store fronts-with accompanying press reports that can't seem to figure out just why it is thus.
The Bloomberg economic policy of mega development certainly hasn't helped the neighborhood stores-substituting car dependent retailing for the walk to shop local commercial strip: "Many shop owners say that they are closing now because in the recession, New Yorkers are heading to larger discount chains for bargains that they suspect they cannot find at smaller stores. “People aren’t spending money, and a lot of people perceive that things are going to be more expensive at a more mom-and-pop shop,” Ms. Murray said. “The ones that seem to be hanging in there own the building.”
The NY Times examines this phenomenon through a local Bronx lens-focusing on John Scanlon's home center store: "In the past year, Mr. Scanlon, 49, has laid off two workers and canceled the health insurance of a third, whose hours also were cut. He has scaled back his own family’s health plan, deputized his wife, Sherry M. Speirs Scanlon, 51, as an ambassador to scare up more business and enlisted their 27-year-old daughter, Tashel, to work as the office manager."
As an aside, one can see just how President Obama's concern with people not having health care may be a bit misplaced. Yes, we need to help folks to get health care, but not at the expense of the economy that should be the linchpin of any health care discussion-and the local impetus for paid sick days plays perfectly into this business destroying, government mandating mindset.
To put additional government mandated expenses on businesses that are reeling is just wacky and counterproductive-but with what's cooking in Washington, we ain't seen nothing yet. As the NY Post reported yesterday: "America's jobs growth engine is being choked to death. A record 25 percent increase in the taxes against US small businesses -- from costs associated with new health care law, to an increased Medicare tax, increased capital gains taxes and higher state and city taxes -- is repealing any ability of these entrepreneurs to add jobs to their payroll. And the numbers for New York's small- to medium-sized business are just as harrowing. By one estimate, the effective tax rate on the 26 million small businesses across the country -- which in the past have accounted for more than half of the job growth in the US -- has jumped to 50 percent from 40 percent, sucking valuable cash from the businesses."
The end result? Stifled job growth: "These dollars could have been used to add to payrolls or make capital improvements -- but instead will be siphoned off by Uncle Sam, state and municipal governments."
And of course the situation in NYC and State is that much worse because of the even more onerous tax and regulatory environment that we have had foisted on us here-as the shuttered store front so aptly dramatize. But what about the responsibility of local governments? It's time to highlight their role as well; unfortunately, local coverage of the role of a high tax and over regulated local economy in our current plight is virtually nonexistent.
The reason lies in the mobilization of bias locally-one that fails to understand the extent to which an enlarged government is itself the problem. We can glean this in the point missing, inside baseball discussions of Bloomberg's third term. Anni Karni does the honors in yesterday's Post: “Over the time Bloomberg’s been in office it’s become less about big ideas than about competent management and moderate ideas at the agency level,” said Andrew White, who runs the Center for New York City Affairs at The New School. “He’ll be looking for someone with expertise in managing the budget [to replace Skyler]. That has to be the core of their agenda, given the financial situation.”
Competent management assumes that the overall direction of government-its size and scope-is a settled issue, a given. But the good professor's comments elides the basic flaw in the entire Bloomberg opus-an understanding of how government itself-its expansion through a bigger work force and higher taxes-has exacerbated the national economic down turn. It also avoids confronting just how mediocre the Bloomberg tenure has been-big ideas like smoking cessation and congestion taxing that misdirect the public attention from the need for reforming the structure of government, and the concomitant therapeutic impact such an effort would have on the local economy.
Instead we get the intrusive nanny initiatives that look to stigmatize neighborhood restaurants with scarlet letters, and local bodegas with gruesome anti-smoking signs; not to mention menu labeling, trans fat banning, and peddler proliferation. Message to Bloomberg and the sightless professoriat: the local economic ship be sinking, going under from the lack of any competent vision at the top.
And the sinking ship is being captained by Iceberg Bloomberg. Adam Lisberg captures a bit of the captain cluelessness: "It's a far different mood than during Bloomberg's reelection campaign, when he barnstormed the city with sunny messages and bold promises. Remember his pledge last year to fix the MTA? Today he's reduced to telling New Yorkers to complain to Albany about service cuts and the potential loss of student MetroCards. Remember how he trumpeted the NYPD's crime reductions? Today he acknowledges the shrinking number of cops has factored into the rising murder rate. Remember how he bragged about keeping "streets and parks cleaner and safer"? His own statistics now show parks getting dirtier and more dangerous - while the time to fill a pothole has practically doubled."
Lisberg errs, however, when he observes the following: "Things are tough in New York. Bloomberg has kept the city's budget balanced with seven rounds of brutal spending cuts, but he is beginning to acknowledge the toll it takes on the services New Yorkers expect." We disagree.
What is brutal is the tax burden on all New Yorkers-and the idea that cutting government means eviscerating vital services when you still have a $400 million a year program to house homeless pregnant women-not to mention a department of health that sticks its expensive nose where it doesn't belong-is simply buying into a conventional wisdom that needs to be challenged.
When Rudy Giuliani came into office he challenged the conventional wisdom on welfare and crime-and suffered the slings and arrows from the bien pensants. But, in spite of all the carping, the city was better off-at least after his reforming first term. With Bloomberg, we not only get conventional wisdom on steroids, but we get it leavened with a nanny mentality that is suffocating to local business as well as to the liberty of all of us.
The city and the state needs leaders who are not only above reproach from a public corruption standpoint, but who also understand that we need to begin to trim the government sails so that we can insure that our once robust economy is not dragged under by mediocre meddlers and their bureaucratic accomplices. Until we do, there will be more empty store fronts-with accompanying press reports that can't seem to figure out just why it is thus.
Menu Labeling-Unhealthy Job Killing
Now that NYC's idiotic menu labeling regulation has been enshrined in the new ObamaCare law, we are about to witness-in this one comparatively small way-how the new law will be a downer for economic growth. Put simply, this is another mandate on retailers that will not only be expensive to institute-as we have pointed out in the past-but will give enterprising restaurant owners pause before they expand to the point where the law would apply to them.
Hot Air discusses some of these factors: "Yesterday, I spent a little time at a local pizzeria to find out more about the impact of the new federal menu mandate in the real world. Davanni’s has 21 locations throughout the Twin Cities, a smaller, local chain that suddenly must now comply with this federal requirement to publish the caloric content of each of its menu items on all of its printed presentations. However, these restaurants have a problem when they offer their customers a wide range and high number of options — as most pizzerias do. Ken Schelper, a Vice President of Davanni’s, sat down with me yesterday to explain just how costly this new mandate is, and how difficult compliance will be..."
First there is the question of truth and advertising, since the posted calories could be construed as such-opening up the owners to litigation from both customers and competitors; not to mention the cost of making constant changes and adjustments: "We both speculated whether a calorie disclaimer amounted to advertising, and whether restaurants would have to put lawyers on retainers as consumers (and perhaps competitors) drag them into court to substantiate the claims. For that matter, how will restaurants calculate these calorie counts? Can they simply use the numbers from their suppliers to calculate the nutritional data for the end product, or will they have to get lab testing done? As the video notes, every time they have an ingredient change, or even just a supplier, they have to recalculate everything — and then reprint all of their menu boards and literature in every location."
And, of course, in order to simplify things and avoid legal challenges the reduction of consumer choice is inevitable: "The pressure of this law will eventually force restaurants like Davanni’s to reduce consumer choice as a way of managing the overwhelming burden of maintaining their disclosures."
And, just as the 50 employee threshold for small business compliance with ObamaCare dictates, is a growth retardant, so is the 19 store chain barrier: "Smaller chains that succeed in satisfying their customers and managing their business used to be rewarded with growth, but this law will put an artificial cap on expansion at 19 locations. That means that fewer people will find jobs, and even in existing stores, money that may have funded more jobs will instead go to reprinting the same menu boards over and over again. And all of this comes because political elites think that people are too stupid to know that a pizza is fattening or how to access information that already exists in much more efficient formats than menu boards."
All of these points were raised when we first were retained to-unsuccessfully-fight the NYC Board of Health ruling, the one that was based on absolutely no scientific evidence of any efficacy. And, in the aftermath of the NYC rule, there still is no evidence that any of this works to achieve any recognized health goals.
As the Wall Street Journal points out: "The men were a bit more forthcoming. “Yeah, for the most part,” said Ben, 24, client at Popeyes. “But sometimes I go by my taste buds.” Ben, being a guy, was even willing to hand over his lunch receipt: chicken wrap, apple pie, fries — about 960 calories. Ben’s taste buds must have ordered dessert.The question facing health officials is: Can government really overpower Ben’s taste buds in the pudding-wrestling match between restraint and indulgence that overtakes his and every American’s mind come meal time? Two recent studies of New Yorkers’ habits before and after the introduction of calorie labeling offer less-than-encouraging results."
What did the studies show? Our comments were clear on this, but the Journal further highlights the inane nannyism of the entire enterprise: "One study, out last fall, suggests that people either ignore the labels or use them like teenage boys use the movie and TV rating systems — to make sure they’ll be getting enough of the good stuff. Researchers from New York University and Yale looked at a sample of 1,156 adults at fast-food restaurants in low-income, minority communities in New York City and compared their habits before and after calorie labeling to similar customers in Newark, N.J., a city that had not instituted calorie labeling. While many people claimed to be paying attention to the new information in New York, the researchers found that there was no change in the amount of calories purchased. In fact, there was even a slight uptick."
So, of course, when government initiatives are proven to be failures, the only response is to, all together now, expand them!-this time nationally so that the entire country can be part of a thought experiment that came out of the nutty Center for Science in the Public Interest; folks who, if they had their way, would impose a ban on anyone eating not only fast food, but Halloween candy as well.
But the menu labeling mandate is the tip of the proverbial iceberg-and underscores how, once the government controls health and concomitant behavior that impacts health, it will find endless ways to intrude into the everyday lives of all Americans. Once you're subsidized in this area, your behavior is no longer your own.
We'll give this libertarian the final word: "Is this law really worth the cost? Are Americans really going to benefit from having calorie counts on their menu at Chili’s? As what point does the nanny state end? Have calorie counts discouraged people from buying unhealthy food at grocery stores? If people want healthier choices at restaurants the market will take care of it. However, progressives do not believe Americans can think for themselves. Daddy Federal Government has to take care of us, or we’ll hurt ourselves."
Hot Air discusses some of these factors: "Yesterday, I spent a little time at a local pizzeria to find out more about the impact of the new federal menu mandate in the real world. Davanni’s has 21 locations throughout the Twin Cities, a smaller, local chain that suddenly must now comply with this federal requirement to publish the caloric content of each of its menu items on all of its printed presentations. However, these restaurants have a problem when they offer their customers a wide range and high number of options — as most pizzerias do. Ken Schelper, a Vice President of Davanni’s, sat down with me yesterday to explain just how costly this new mandate is, and how difficult compliance will be..."
First there is the question of truth and advertising, since the posted calories could be construed as such-opening up the owners to litigation from both customers and competitors; not to mention the cost of making constant changes and adjustments: "We both speculated whether a calorie disclaimer amounted to advertising, and whether restaurants would have to put lawyers on retainers as consumers (and perhaps competitors) drag them into court to substantiate the claims. For that matter, how will restaurants calculate these calorie counts? Can they simply use the numbers from their suppliers to calculate the nutritional data for the end product, or will they have to get lab testing done? As the video notes, every time they have an ingredient change, or even just a supplier, they have to recalculate everything — and then reprint all of their menu boards and literature in every location."
And, of course, in order to simplify things and avoid legal challenges the reduction of consumer choice is inevitable: "The pressure of this law will eventually force restaurants like Davanni’s to reduce consumer choice as a way of managing the overwhelming burden of maintaining their disclosures."
And, just as the 50 employee threshold for small business compliance with ObamaCare dictates, is a growth retardant, so is the 19 store chain barrier: "Smaller chains that succeed in satisfying their customers and managing their business used to be rewarded with growth, but this law will put an artificial cap on expansion at 19 locations. That means that fewer people will find jobs, and even in existing stores, money that may have funded more jobs will instead go to reprinting the same menu boards over and over again. And all of this comes because political elites think that people are too stupid to know that a pizza is fattening or how to access information that already exists in much more efficient formats than menu boards."
All of these points were raised when we first were retained to-unsuccessfully-fight the NYC Board of Health ruling, the one that was based on absolutely no scientific evidence of any efficacy. And, in the aftermath of the NYC rule, there still is no evidence that any of this works to achieve any recognized health goals.
As the Wall Street Journal points out: "The men were a bit more forthcoming. “Yeah, for the most part,” said Ben, 24, client at Popeyes. “But sometimes I go by my taste buds.” Ben, being a guy, was even willing to hand over his lunch receipt: chicken wrap, apple pie, fries — about 960 calories. Ben’s taste buds must have ordered dessert.The question facing health officials is: Can government really overpower Ben’s taste buds in the pudding-wrestling match between restraint and indulgence that overtakes his and every American’s mind come meal time? Two recent studies of New Yorkers’ habits before and after the introduction of calorie labeling offer less-than-encouraging results."
What did the studies show? Our comments were clear on this, but the Journal further highlights the inane nannyism of the entire enterprise: "One study, out last fall, suggests that people either ignore the labels or use them like teenage boys use the movie and TV rating systems — to make sure they’ll be getting enough of the good stuff. Researchers from New York University and Yale looked at a sample of 1,156 adults at fast-food restaurants in low-income, minority communities in New York City and compared their habits before and after calorie labeling to similar customers in Newark, N.J., a city that had not instituted calorie labeling. While many people claimed to be paying attention to the new information in New York, the researchers found that there was no change in the amount of calories purchased. In fact, there was even a slight uptick."
So, of course, when government initiatives are proven to be failures, the only response is to, all together now, expand them!-this time nationally so that the entire country can be part of a thought experiment that came out of the nutty Center for Science in the Public Interest; folks who, if they had their way, would impose a ban on anyone eating not only fast food, but Halloween candy as well.
But the menu labeling mandate is the tip of the proverbial iceberg-and underscores how, once the government controls health and concomitant behavior that impacts health, it will find endless ways to intrude into the everyday lives of all Americans. Once you're subsidized in this area, your behavior is no longer your own.
We'll give this libertarian the final word: "Is this law really worth the cost? Are Americans really going to benefit from having calorie counts on their menu at Chili’s? As what point does the nanny state end? Have calorie counts discouraged people from buying unhealthy food at grocery stores? If people want healthier choices at restaurants the market will take care of it. However, progressives do not believe Americans can think for themselves. Daddy Federal Government has to take care of us, or we’ll hurt ourselves."
Unsustainable
Mike Bloomberg is not known as a humorist but if the Yiddish saying, "Man plans and God Laughs," is true, than the mayor must have the man upstairs in stitches for his sustainable city PlaNYC 2030. What got us to thinking about this was the announced departure of Mike's resident greeniac. As Daily Politics reported: "Mayor Bloomberg's top environmental official, Rohit (Rit) Aggarwala, is leaving the city to follow his heart -- and his fiancee -- to California.
The man behind PlaNYC, the plastic bag tax, congestion pricing, wind farms, and other green initiatives that Bloomberg embraced in his second term is heading to Stanford in June, when his bride-to-be, Elizabeth Robilotti, begins a two-year fellowship in infectious diseases at the medical school there."
But what got us even more-again courtesy of the intrepid Liz-was the following from the mayor on the need to re-evaluate how the city does economic development in order to be more faithful to the sustainable city nostrum: "The mayor indicated that the city is preparing to adjust the way it shapes real estate development, in an effort to address what he called "unfinished business" in the PlaNYC agenda. "We realized that a lot of our development policies were working at cross-purposes with our sustainability goals," said Bloomberg, "so, we're going to try some new things and see how they work." While specifics have yet to surface, the mayor and his deputies hinted at a shift that could transform New York City's traffic-inducing parking policies."
Do tell-and if you are telling, tell it to the overdeveloped Queens neighborhoods who are being inundated by traffic generated from all of EDC's car dependent projects. But listen to the words of wisdom from EDC's own Seth Pinsky: "The most detailed commitments came from EDC's Pinsky, who said he'd ordered a top-to-bottom review of his agency's commercial development strategies. "In the last year or so we've seen evidence that the regional shopping destinations EDC has helped to finance really aren't leveraging investment in an optimal manner," he said. "A lot of valuable real estate has been wasted on parking and retailers are failing to draw potential customers who would come by transit, walking, or bicycling."
What, did someone hit these folks on the head? And while they are at it, someone should inform them that Willets Point is all that EDC has done wrong-on steroids; complete with the largest auto dependent shopping mall and a bogus traffic study that says-straight faced-that only 30% or so of the folks in the proposed development will use cars.
Pinsky went on to say that his agency would no longer only rely on economic considerations alone in its planning: "The days of bean counters designing this city are over," he said. "You can take that to the bank."
Where that leaves the massive Willets Point mess is anyone's guess-but our guess is that, like in so much else the Bloombergistas do, they will continue to simply talk the talk-and make the environmental traffic nightmare of that development an exception to the planning they say they will be doing in the future. But bookmark these mayoral assertions for future reference of credibility.
The man behind PlaNYC, the plastic bag tax, congestion pricing, wind farms, and other green initiatives that Bloomberg embraced in his second term is heading to Stanford in June, when his bride-to-be, Elizabeth Robilotti, begins a two-year fellowship in infectious diseases at the medical school there."
But what got us even more-again courtesy of the intrepid Liz-was the following from the mayor on the need to re-evaluate how the city does economic development in order to be more faithful to the sustainable city nostrum: "The mayor indicated that the city is preparing to adjust the way it shapes real estate development, in an effort to address what he called "unfinished business" in the PlaNYC agenda. "We realized that a lot of our development policies were working at cross-purposes with our sustainability goals," said Bloomberg, "so, we're going to try some new things and see how they work." While specifics have yet to surface, the mayor and his deputies hinted at a shift that could transform New York City's traffic-inducing parking policies."
Do tell-and if you are telling, tell it to the overdeveloped Queens neighborhoods who are being inundated by traffic generated from all of EDC's car dependent projects. But listen to the words of wisdom from EDC's own Seth Pinsky: "The most detailed commitments came from EDC's Pinsky, who said he'd ordered a top-to-bottom review of his agency's commercial development strategies. "In the last year or so we've seen evidence that the regional shopping destinations EDC has helped to finance really aren't leveraging investment in an optimal manner," he said. "A lot of valuable real estate has been wasted on parking and retailers are failing to draw potential customers who would come by transit, walking, or bicycling."
What, did someone hit these folks on the head? And while they are at it, someone should inform them that Willets Point is all that EDC has done wrong-on steroids; complete with the largest auto dependent shopping mall and a bogus traffic study that says-straight faced-that only 30% or so of the folks in the proposed development will use cars.
Pinsky went on to say that his agency would no longer only rely on economic considerations alone in its planning: "The days of bean counters designing this city are over," he said. "You can take that to the bank."
Where that leaves the massive Willets Point mess is anyone's guess-but our guess is that, like in so much else the Bloombergistas do, they will continue to simply talk the talk-and make the environmental traffic nightmare of that development an exception to the planning they say they will be doing in the future. But bookmark these mayoral assertions for future reference of credibility.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Constrained by Conventional Wisdom
The NY Post inveighs today against those who have been carping about the fact that Deputy Mayor Patty Harris is also moonlighting as the head of Mike Bloomberg's family foundation. As one of the carp in question, we need to point out that the Post's diatribe underscores the limits of conventional wisdom when dealing with the mayor's vast fortune.
Here's how the paper dismisses the critics: "Some good-government and philanthropy types are raising a minor stink about Mayor Bloomberg's announcement that First Deputy Mayor Patricia Harris will now chair his $1 billion-plus personal foundation -- while keeping her City Hall portfolio. Give it a rest. First of all, we're talking about Bloomberg giving his money away -- which is not the usual direction of cash flows when New York politicians are involved."
Yes, it is an unusual direction for political cash flow, but the Post misses how the political system can be corrupted by the use of personal wealth for personal political objectives. And even more so, it's cavalier dismissal of the critics, misses the extent to which the mayor's money has already corrupted the democratic process-from congestion taxing to term limits.
Let's put it a simply as possible. The mayor's own self interest is not coterminous with the public good. And we haven't even touched on the scam of Learn New York, where the mayor logrolled millions from his rich buddies to perpetuate his own control of the city's public schools-while simultaneously spewing propaganda about the achievements of the school system that he leads-gains that are now shown to be demonstrably false.
When John Corzine first ran for governor in 2000, he used street money to gain support-a tactic that Ed Rollins had been excoriated for when he ran Christie Whitman gubernatorial campaign against Jim Florio in 1993. Now in New Jersey, the law was changed so that only checks are legal-so there is a paper trail and disclosure.
Now all of Mike Bloomberg's charitable largess is almost entirely off of the political radar-and is basically unaccounted for. In addition, when he is able to bogart or cajole others to hand out big bucks, no one knows how that may be impacting the city's body politic-how many critics are silenced and cheerleaders spawned.
Take Al Sharpton-please. His unholy alliance with the school's chancellor-bankrolled by the same folks who funded Learn NY-is not being done for nothing. And anyone who thinks that this isn't hush money is really kidding himself. But the alliance-and its manner of funding, highlights just how Bloombucks, or those of his classmates, can alter the political dynamic. In this case, giving lockjaw to a person who has the justified reputation as a rabble rouser and racial arsonist.
Now as far as the Post is concerned the subornation of the good reverend-in as much as it shuts him up-may indeed be a good thing. But his lavish lap dog status is representative of a more malevolent phenomenon-the use of private fortunes to tamp down the salutary and raucous nature of political debate. This becomes even more important when the local papers act as an amen chorus for the man manipulating with his millions.
One final thought. When the Post exculpated the mayor for this exercise in charitable moonlighting, it compounded its error by citing the actions of the city's Conflicts of Interest Board: "Yes, this new title was awarded without consulting the city's Conflicts of Interest Board. But the board gave its approval in 2008 to Harris serving as both president and deputy mayor. Nothing's changed, apart from her title, so why should she need another bureaucratic review?"
Right-and who appoints this august body? Yup, none other than the very man who has requested its opinion about the rectitude of the moonlighting Ms. Harris-the same board that could not find any conflict between Deputy Dan Doctoroff and Related's Steve Ross, old friends and business partners, when the charitable Dan managed to cede the Bronx Terminal Market to Related, sans any public bidding process.
So we need a new lens to understand just how potentially corrupting the unaccountable use of a private fortune can be in any democratic system. The mayor's money flow can be seen in some ways as an even more dangerous perversion of democratic practices precisely because it falls outside of our conventional understanding of how money can corrupt a democracy-and remains therefore unexamined.
Here's how the paper dismisses the critics: "Some good-government and philanthropy types are raising a minor stink about Mayor Bloomberg's announcement that First Deputy Mayor Patricia Harris will now chair his $1 billion-plus personal foundation -- while keeping her City Hall portfolio. Give it a rest. First of all, we're talking about Bloomberg giving his money away -- which is not the usual direction of cash flows when New York politicians are involved."
Yes, it is an unusual direction for political cash flow, but the Post misses how the political system can be corrupted by the use of personal wealth for personal political objectives. And even more so, it's cavalier dismissal of the critics, misses the extent to which the mayor's money has already corrupted the democratic process-from congestion taxing to term limits.
Let's put it a simply as possible. The mayor's own self interest is not coterminous with the public good. And we haven't even touched on the scam of Learn New York, where the mayor logrolled millions from his rich buddies to perpetuate his own control of the city's public schools-while simultaneously spewing propaganda about the achievements of the school system that he leads-gains that are now shown to be demonstrably false.
When John Corzine first ran for governor in 2000, he used street money to gain support-a tactic that Ed Rollins had been excoriated for when he ran Christie Whitman gubernatorial campaign against Jim Florio in 1993. Now in New Jersey, the law was changed so that only checks are legal-so there is a paper trail and disclosure.
Now all of Mike Bloomberg's charitable largess is almost entirely off of the political radar-and is basically unaccounted for. In addition, when he is able to bogart or cajole others to hand out big bucks, no one knows how that may be impacting the city's body politic-how many critics are silenced and cheerleaders spawned.
Take Al Sharpton-please. His unholy alliance with the school's chancellor-bankrolled by the same folks who funded Learn NY-is not being done for nothing. And anyone who thinks that this isn't hush money is really kidding himself. But the alliance-and its manner of funding, highlights just how Bloombucks, or those of his classmates, can alter the political dynamic. In this case, giving lockjaw to a person who has the justified reputation as a rabble rouser and racial arsonist.
Now as far as the Post is concerned the subornation of the good reverend-in as much as it shuts him up-may indeed be a good thing. But his lavish lap dog status is representative of a more malevolent phenomenon-the use of private fortunes to tamp down the salutary and raucous nature of political debate. This becomes even more important when the local papers act as an amen chorus for the man manipulating with his millions.
One final thought. When the Post exculpated the mayor for this exercise in charitable moonlighting, it compounded its error by citing the actions of the city's Conflicts of Interest Board: "Yes, this new title was awarded without consulting the city's Conflicts of Interest Board. But the board gave its approval in 2008 to Harris serving as both president and deputy mayor. Nothing's changed, apart from her title, so why should she need another bureaucratic review?"
Right-and who appoints this august body? Yup, none other than the very man who has requested its opinion about the rectitude of the moonlighting Ms. Harris-the same board that could not find any conflict between Deputy Dan Doctoroff and Related's Steve Ross, old friends and business partners, when the charitable Dan managed to cede the Bronx Terminal Market to Related, sans any public bidding process.
So we need a new lens to understand just how potentially corrupting the unaccountable use of a private fortune can be in any democratic system. The mayor's money flow can be seen in some ways as an even more dangerous perversion of democratic practices precisely because it falls outside of our conventional understanding of how money can corrupt a democracy-and remains therefore unexamined.
The Real Queens Environmental Cleanup
We have commented on the yeoman-like effort of Claire Shulman, our Queens politician emeritus, to clean up polluted areas in and around Willets Point and Flushing. But given today's NY Daily News story on the sticky-fingered activities of an entire cohort of Queens pols, perhaps Claire's environmental efforts need to be redirected: "A federal grand jury is zeroing in on some of Queens' most powerful political figures - including Senate President Malcolm Smith - the Daily News has learned. Sources said the feds are investigating whether the Queens pols used a web of nonprofit groups to benefit themselves, their families and their friends."
Now we have been rather vigilant at decrying the kleptocratic behavior of Meeks and Flake-but now even Helen Marshall is being included in the political cesspool: "The raft of documents the Manhattan-based panel wants involve:
- The Merrick Academy charter school - a source of campaign funds and patronage for Smith.
- A lavish home built for Rep. Gregory Meeks in Jamaica.
- A four-family house owned by Queens Borough President Helen Marshall."
With so many of the borough's politicians being carted off to jail already, Queens elected office might soon be designated as a half house for offenders-and the entire Flake empire could also fall like the proverbial house of cards: "One subpoena revealed for the first time that prosecutors are looking at the housing and social service empire built by the Rev. Floyd Flake - Meeks' predecessor in Congress and political mentor to Smith and Meeks."
With state and local governments on the balls of their ass, the actions (proven as well as alleged)of pols feathering their nest at the tax payers' expense becomes more than simply a symbolic issue-real money is being siphoned off for personal gain while, at the same time, these very same leaders are making life miserable for the tax paying citizens who are forced to support their arrogant and lavish life styles.
So, while we believe that the entire political edifice needs an overhaul, it is going to take a Herculean effort to clean these Augean Stables. Still, the current grand jury investigation is certainly a good start-and it could mean that Queens will finally get the environmental cleanup it really needs.
Now we have been rather vigilant at decrying the kleptocratic behavior of Meeks and Flake-but now even Helen Marshall is being included in the political cesspool: "The raft of documents the Manhattan-based panel wants involve:
- The Merrick Academy charter school - a source of campaign funds and patronage for Smith.
- A lavish home built for Rep. Gregory Meeks in Jamaica.
- A four-family house owned by Queens Borough President Helen Marshall."
With so many of the borough's politicians being carted off to jail already, Queens elected office might soon be designated as a half house for offenders-and the entire Flake empire could also fall like the proverbial house of cards: "One subpoena revealed for the first time that prosecutors are looking at the housing and social service empire built by the Rev. Floyd Flake - Meeks' predecessor in Congress and political mentor to Smith and Meeks."
With state and local governments on the balls of their ass, the actions (proven as well as alleged)of pols feathering their nest at the tax payers' expense becomes more than simply a symbolic issue-real money is being siphoned off for personal gain while, at the same time, these very same leaders are making life miserable for the tax paying citizens who are forced to support their arrogant and lavish life styles.
So, while we believe that the entire political edifice needs an overhaul, it is going to take a Herculean effort to clean these Augean Stables. Still, the current grand jury investigation is certainly a good start-and it could mean that Queens will finally get the environmental cleanup it really needs.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Shelton from the Storm
The Observer is reporting that a labor leaders has labeled Congressman Mike McMahon a, "Judas," for his vote against ObamaCare: "Rep. Mike McMahon was called "the Judas from Staten Island" by Communications Workers of America International Vice President Christopher Shelton, for voting against the health care reform bill."
How Biblical of Shelton-and how politically insensitive as well. We guess that this labor leader would rather see a Republican represent the 13th Congressional district; and if we take the new Gallup survey seriously, that's likely to happen in many of the swing districts that are very similar to the one that McMahon represents.
Memo to Shelton: the health care law is not very popular among the broad middle spectrum of the American populace-and particularly among those small businesses that will pay through the nose for their workers health coverage. McMahon was simply alive to the sentiment in his district, and if labor is looking to squash this Judas than it needs to be aware of what the consequences are-a Republican controlled congress whose members are true believers who want to repeal the health care law.
Perhaps Shelton-so immersed in his own ideological bubble-doesn't care about what will happen if swing districts like the 13th are lost to his party. But one thing is clear. In his ideological zeal, he has lost touch with where most of America sits vis a vis the new law. This following comment underscores our point: "Later at the press conference, I asked Shelton what can McMahon do to win back his support. "I don't know what he could do to change what he did to the working people of New York City and the United States."
On the contrary, Mike McMahon stood up for the "working people" of this city and country-the folks who start businesses and pay a disproportionate share of the taxes that keep the machinery of government operating. Shelton calling him a Judas is a label that McMahon needs to wear proudly-and display it like a Congressional Medal of Honor.
How Biblical of Shelton-and how politically insensitive as well. We guess that this labor leader would rather see a Republican represent the 13th Congressional district; and if we take the new Gallup survey seriously, that's likely to happen in many of the swing districts that are very similar to the one that McMahon represents.
Memo to Shelton: the health care law is not very popular among the broad middle spectrum of the American populace-and particularly among those small businesses that will pay through the nose for their workers health coverage. McMahon was simply alive to the sentiment in his district, and if labor is looking to squash this Judas than it needs to be aware of what the consequences are-a Republican controlled congress whose members are true believers who want to repeal the health care law.
Perhaps Shelton-so immersed in his own ideological bubble-doesn't care about what will happen if swing districts like the 13th are lost to his party. But one thing is clear. In his ideological zeal, he has lost touch with where most of America sits vis a vis the new law. This following comment underscores our point: "Later at the press conference, I asked Shelton what can McMahon do to win back his support. "I don't know what he could do to change what he did to the working people of New York City and the United States."
On the contrary, Mike McMahon stood up for the "working people" of this city and country-the folks who start businesses and pay a disproportionate share of the taxes that keep the machinery of government operating. Shelton calling him a Judas is a label that McMahon needs to wear proudly-and display it like a Congressional Medal of Honor.
Flushing Times Focus on Traffic
The Flushing Times has come out with a focus on our efforts to call attention to the hide the ball nature of how EDC utilizes traffic consultants to consciously minimize the impacts that their projects will have on local communities. The story highlights our presentation last week on the Willets Point ramps before the Bay Terrace Community Alliance: "A group of Willets Point small business owners, with the assistance of powerhouse lobbyist Richard Lipsky, is taking its case against the $3 billion redevelopment plan the city has for the 62-acre neglected region to area residents.Citing the negative traffic impacts of bringing the massive project to the heart of Queens, Willets Point United is aggressively working to block plans to relocate the business owners’ auto shops, factories and other industrial shops to make way for an elaborate mixed-use development project."
The issue, as always is the discrepancies between the original EIS and the ramp report submitted by EDC to the state: "The group’s traffic concerns center around two ramps to the Van Wyck Expressway, which would be built in order to accommodate traffic to and from the new development.Lipsky argues that a traffic study the group commissioned found the project would lead to 80,000 new car trips per day and slow everyday traffic to a crawl on major surrounding roads, such as the Grand Central and Cross Island parkways and Northern and College Point boulevards."
EDC's confidence man Dave Lombino predictably demurs-eliding the facts on the ground in his usual skillful fashion: "David Lombino, a spokesman for the city Economic Development Corp., points out that the city’s traffic study has gone through the ULURP approval process, and was approved by Borough President Helen Marshall and the City Council."
Heh? The fact that the original traffic study-the one we actually do cite to critique the subsequent ramp report-went through the ULURP process is not any real confidence builder for unquestionable accuracy. Remember, as we have pointed out the other day, that the traffic study for Rego Center flew through the review process and now it's all hands on deck to try to mitigate the gridlock that the new mall is generating (Gee, didn't the developer's consultants foresee any of this?)
But the issue comes down to the quality of the review that the people of Queens are getting from developers and the city-and in the case of these ramps, the substandard nature of the report cries out for a more reliable second opinion: "Lipsky is calling on the state or federal government to choose a consultant to do an independent review of the ramps and traffic impact since he believes the city cannot be trusted to select an impartial one. The Federal Highway Administration, which did not respond to a request for comment, will review the ramps study soon and Lipsky predicts the agency will choose to slow the project based on the results. “These consultants are in the tank, are for the developer or for the EDC, and they’re not to be trusted, so we’re saying to the [state] DOT that we need to have an independent review,” he said Tuesday. “We have the opponents saying one thing, we have the proponents saying another, and it’s incumbent on [federal or state authorities] to take this to someone who doesn’t have a dog in the hunt.”
But Lombino, for one, is intrepid-and deserves overtime pay for the effort to continue trafficking in slight-of-hand. As he tells the paper: "The process has not changed. He’s trying to make something where there’s nothing. [FHA review] is part of the approval process for the ramps,” Lombino said. “We’re working with regulators with the state and the federal governments to get final approval for the ramps, and we don’t expect any significant delay.”
Notice how Dave can't explain the gross discrepancies between the two traffic studies-both of which were bought and paid for by EDC. But we guess the veracity of his comments depends on the definition of, "significant delay."
Still EDC's own Dr. Pangloss remains optimistic: “We’re continuing to acquire property through negotiated acquisition. We control 75 percent of the land for the first phase. We’re in contract for $150 million of off-site infrastructure, that’s in a design phase,” he said. “And most significantly we put out a [request for qualifications] for the first phase and got 29 responses, and we are going to whittle down the number of firms and go back with a [request for proposals] in coming months.”
Huh? Continuing to acquire what? Amazing just how many small property owners have yet to hear from the EDC negotiators-and with Bloomberg telling New Yorkers that the city is tapped out, where is all of the money going to come from to do all of this?
But WPU is going to continue to met with all of the Queens community groups to dramatize just what the city planners (a total oxymoron) have in store for the already traffic-challenged borough. As the folks become more aware, and the process is demystified, it will be apparent to everyone that the mayor's notion of sustainable development is, in strictly academic jargon, a crock!
The issue, as always is the discrepancies between the original EIS and the ramp report submitted by EDC to the state: "The group’s traffic concerns center around two ramps to the Van Wyck Expressway, which would be built in order to accommodate traffic to and from the new development.Lipsky argues that a traffic study the group commissioned found the project would lead to 80,000 new car trips per day and slow everyday traffic to a crawl on major surrounding roads, such as the Grand Central and Cross Island parkways and Northern and College Point boulevards."
EDC's confidence man Dave Lombino predictably demurs-eliding the facts on the ground in his usual skillful fashion: "David Lombino, a spokesman for the city Economic Development Corp., points out that the city’s traffic study has gone through the ULURP approval process, and was approved by Borough President Helen Marshall and the City Council."
Heh? The fact that the original traffic study-the one we actually do cite to critique the subsequent ramp report-went through the ULURP process is not any real confidence builder for unquestionable accuracy. Remember, as we have pointed out the other day, that the traffic study for Rego Center flew through the review process and now it's all hands on deck to try to mitigate the gridlock that the new mall is generating (Gee, didn't the developer's consultants foresee any of this?)
But the issue comes down to the quality of the review that the people of Queens are getting from developers and the city-and in the case of these ramps, the substandard nature of the report cries out for a more reliable second opinion: "Lipsky is calling on the state or federal government to choose a consultant to do an independent review of the ramps and traffic impact since he believes the city cannot be trusted to select an impartial one. The Federal Highway Administration, which did not respond to a request for comment, will review the ramps study soon and Lipsky predicts the agency will choose to slow the project based on the results. “These consultants are in the tank, are for the developer or for the EDC, and they’re not to be trusted, so we’re saying to the [state] DOT that we need to have an independent review,” he said Tuesday. “We have the opponents saying one thing, we have the proponents saying another, and it’s incumbent on [federal or state authorities] to take this to someone who doesn’t have a dog in the hunt.”
But Lombino, for one, is intrepid-and deserves overtime pay for the effort to continue trafficking in slight-of-hand. As he tells the paper: "The process has not changed. He’s trying to make something where there’s nothing. [FHA review] is part of the approval process for the ramps,” Lombino said. “We’re working with regulators with the state and the federal governments to get final approval for the ramps, and we don’t expect any significant delay.”
Notice how Dave can't explain the gross discrepancies between the two traffic studies-both of which were bought and paid for by EDC. But we guess the veracity of his comments depends on the definition of, "significant delay."
Still EDC's own Dr. Pangloss remains optimistic: “We’re continuing to acquire property through negotiated acquisition. We control 75 percent of the land for the first phase. We’re in contract for $150 million of off-site infrastructure, that’s in a design phase,” he said. “And most significantly we put out a [request for qualifications] for the first phase and got 29 responses, and we are going to whittle down the number of firms and go back with a [request for proposals] in coming months.”
Huh? Continuing to acquire what? Amazing just how many small property owners have yet to hear from the EDC negotiators-and with Bloomberg telling New Yorkers that the city is tapped out, where is all of the money going to come from to do all of this?
But WPU is going to continue to met with all of the Queens community groups to dramatize just what the city planners (a total oxymoron) have in store for the already traffic-challenged borough. As the folks become more aware, and the process is demystified, it will be apparent to everyone that the mayor's notion of sustainable development is, in strictly academic jargon, a crock!
Indian Cigarette Smuggling's Little Big Horn
In an expected but appreciated move, President Obama signed the bill that will restrict Indian cigarette tax evaders from shipping contraband through the USPS. As the Buffalo News reports: "President Obama on Wednesday signed legislation that bans the U.S. Postal Service from shipping cigarettes — a measure that's expected to cripple the mail-order tobacco businesses run by members of the Seneca Nation of Indians."
The paper, however, failed to mention that this is one more significant nail in the coffin of a criminal tax evasion conspiracy that is depriving NY State of around $1.6 billion a year in tax revenue. The law has a number of strong and welcome measures: "In addition to banning the mailing of cigarettes, the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act requires those selling cigarettes on the Internet to:
• Pay all federal, state, local or tribal tobacco taxes and affix tax stamps before delivering any tobacco products to any customer.
• Register with the state where they are based and make periodic reports to state tax-collection officials.
• Check the age and ID of customers when they purchase tobacco and when the tobacco products are delivered."
These provisions will strengthen NY's own efforts to cut off the smuggling spigot-and will further strengthen the ant-smoking campaigns at the same time: "Enactment of this legislation is a milestone in the fight to keep kids from smoking and prevent tax evasion that costs taxpayers billions each year," said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids."
But the best evidence that the law will cripple tax evasion comes directly from the horse's mouth: "The Seneca Nation has long contended that the bill would devastate the tax-free mail-order cigarette business that provided a bargain to a growing number of smokers while making some Senecas rich. For months, the Senecas had said their cigarette industry employed 1,000 people, but in recent statements, the tribe — without explanation — boosted that figure to 3,000. "We have at least 90 days from the signing before the postal delivery ban goes into effect, so we'll all be looking at ways to adapt and save as many jobs as possible," said J.C. Seneca, a tribal councillor and co-chairman of the Seneca Nation's Foreign Relations Committee."
And the Indians continue to try to propagate the myth that these kinds of legislative actions are somehow violative of their treaty rights. Here's a post from one of their web sites: "Handing big tobacco corporations a huge victory, the U.S. Senate has passed the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act - an act tribal leaders say is an attack on tribal sovereignty and economies that will devastate Indian tobacco businesses across the country."
So kudos to Congressman Weiner and Senator Herb Kohl-and to our own State Senators Kruger and Klein who continue to wage the righteous local battle to close off the final loopholes that are stymieing the state's efforts to bridge the massive state budget gap by collecting legitimately owed taxes. It's a good day for not only tax payers, but for the legitimate wholesalers and retailers who have been systematically victimized by an outrageous criminal conspiracy.
The paper, however, failed to mention that this is one more significant nail in the coffin of a criminal tax evasion conspiracy that is depriving NY State of around $1.6 billion a year in tax revenue. The law has a number of strong and welcome measures: "In addition to banning the mailing of cigarettes, the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act requires those selling cigarettes on the Internet to:
• Pay all federal, state, local or tribal tobacco taxes and affix tax stamps before delivering any tobacco products to any customer.
• Register with the state where they are based and make periodic reports to state tax-collection officials.
• Check the age and ID of customers when they purchase tobacco and when the tobacco products are delivered."
These provisions will strengthen NY's own efforts to cut off the smuggling spigot-and will further strengthen the ant-smoking campaigns at the same time: "Enactment of this legislation is a milestone in the fight to keep kids from smoking and prevent tax evasion that costs taxpayers billions each year," said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids."
But the best evidence that the law will cripple tax evasion comes directly from the horse's mouth: "The Seneca Nation has long contended that the bill would devastate the tax-free mail-order cigarette business that provided a bargain to a growing number of smokers while making some Senecas rich. For months, the Senecas had said their cigarette industry employed 1,000 people, but in recent statements, the tribe — without explanation — boosted that figure to 3,000. "We have at least 90 days from the signing before the postal delivery ban goes into effect, so we'll all be looking at ways to adapt and save as many jobs as possible," said J.C. Seneca, a tribal councillor and co-chairman of the Seneca Nation's Foreign Relations Committee."
And the Indians continue to try to propagate the myth that these kinds of legislative actions are somehow violative of their treaty rights. Here's a post from one of their web sites: "Handing big tobacco corporations a huge victory, the U.S. Senate has passed the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act - an act tribal leaders say is an attack on tribal sovereignty and economies that will devastate Indian tobacco businesses across the country."
So kudos to Congressman Weiner and Senator Herb Kohl-and to our own State Senators Kruger and Klein who continue to wage the righteous local battle to close off the final loopholes that are stymieing the state's efforts to bridge the massive state budget gap by collecting legitimately owed taxes. It's a good day for not only tax payers, but for the legitimate wholesalers and retailers who have been systematically victimized by an outrageous criminal conspiracy.
Unflattering Foundation Garment
City Room reported yesterday on the plans for one of the mayor's deputies to take over the running of his family foundation-while continuing to draw a public salary: "In a move without precedent in New York City government, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has appointed a sitting deputy mayor in his administration to simultaneously run his charitable foundation.As he seeks to ramp up the work of his charity, he named Patricia E. Harris, the second-most powerful official at City Hall, to be the chief executive and chairwoman of the multibillion-dollar Bloomberg Family Foundation."
Unprecedented indeed-and can any one say conflict of interest? Apparently not the lame-os over at the city's COIB: "In 2008, Ms. Harris and a City Hall aide, Allison Jaffin, obtained a waiver from the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board to work at the foundation while keeping her job at City Hall, arguing that her work was voluntary and involved minimal use of public resources. At the time, however, she held the title of president."
These are the same McArthur Awards winners who couldn't find any conflicts with Deputy Dan Doctoroff ceding public land without bidding to his old friend Steve Ross at Related. And the board, whose majority is appointed by someone named Bloomberg, miss the elephant in the room-the potential that a public servant will, while still being paid by the tax payers, be in charge of dispensing hundreds of millions of Bloombucks to some lucky sycophants. What's the old saying about silence being golden?
This is exactly how the mayor has plied his trade for eight years-using his invisible golden hand to exhort and intimidate groups and individuals. If Patty Harris wants to help Mike Bloomberg give away his fortune she should be gracious enough to simply beat a path to an exit door at city hall.
But what's truly egregious is that the mayor and his minions see nothing wrong with this blurring of the lines between the public interest and the mayor's own interest-particularly since it is rumored that he may be looking to launch a quixotic attempt at an independent run for the presidency.
As City Room points out: "The city’s charter generally prohibits government officials from entering into business relationships with subordinates, or performing private work on city time. The Bloomberg administration notified the conflicts board of Ms. Harris’s new title, but it is was unclear whether she sought a separate waiver before becoming the chief executive and chairwoman of the board at the foundation. Mr. Post said that Ms. Harris’s new responsibilities were “consistent with a prior C.O.I.B. opinion concerning her role with the foundation.”
We await-holding our breathe even-the editorial hue and cry over this tawdry maneuver that we are sure will come from the principled opionators at the local tabs. Until then, however, we bask in our own solitary rectitude.
Unprecedented indeed-and can any one say conflict of interest? Apparently not the lame-os over at the city's COIB: "In 2008, Ms. Harris and a City Hall aide, Allison Jaffin, obtained a waiver from the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board to work at the foundation while keeping her job at City Hall, arguing that her work was voluntary and involved minimal use of public resources. At the time, however, she held the title of president."
These are the same McArthur Awards winners who couldn't find any conflicts with Deputy Dan Doctoroff ceding public land without bidding to his old friend Steve Ross at Related. And the board, whose majority is appointed by someone named Bloomberg, miss the elephant in the room-the potential that a public servant will, while still being paid by the tax payers, be in charge of dispensing hundreds of millions of Bloombucks to some lucky sycophants. What's the old saying about silence being golden?
This is exactly how the mayor has plied his trade for eight years-using his invisible golden hand to exhort and intimidate groups and individuals. If Patty Harris wants to help Mike Bloomberg give away his fortune she should be gracious enough to simply beat a path to an exit door at city hall.
But what's truly egregious is that the mayor and his minions see nothing wrong with this blurring of the lines between the public interest and the mayor's own interest-particularly since it is rumored that he may be looking to launch a quixotic attempt at an independent run for the presidency.
As City Room points out: "The city’s charter generally prohibits government officials from entering into business relationships with subordinates, or performing private work on city time. The Bloomberg administration notified the conflicts board of Ms. Harris’s new title, but it is was unclear whether she sought a separate waiver before becoming the chief executive and chairwoman of the board at the foundation. Mr. Post said that Ms. Harris’s new responsibilities were “consistent with a prior C.O.I.B. opinion concerning her role with the foundation.”
We await-holding our breathe even-the editorial hue and cry over this tawdry maneuver that we are sure will come from the principled opionators at the local tabs. Until then, however, we bask in our own solitary rectitude.
Traficantes
The city traffic officials seem to be tripping over themselves-if not just trippin'-when it comes to developing rational traffic plans in Queens. The NY Daily News has the latest snafu: "The city' third-busiest pedestrian hub is getting a traffic makeover, but its new look isn't exactly what locals were expecting. The city Department of Transportation has shelved a three-year-old plan that would have made Main and Union Sts. in downtown Flushing one-way to improve traffic flow and make streets more pedestrian friendly."
Whoops! So after planning for one way for lo these many years, DOT has an Emily Latella moment-"Never mind!" But, aside from all of the confusion inherent in the 180, someone needs to alert CB #7-that is if they actually cared-that the EIS for Flushing Commons is predicated on Main Street being one way.
All of which led to our new transportation commissioner to become a bit red faced: "It's a little embarrassing for me that we went for two years selling you a one-way plan," McCarthy, who has been touting the plan since 2008, said of the unexpected about-face. "But I think people are going to like this one."
As well she should since the locals have been awaiting the one way plan and now feel bamboozled: "But some local leaders were a bit miffed by the switcheroo. "Everybody loved the one-way plan, and hundreds of thousands of dollars went into it," said Chuck Apelian, vice chairman of Community Board 7. "Now they're just going to modify a couple of intersections."
And Mr. Apelian saw the revised plan as being contradictory to the traffic flow from the Flushing Commons project: "Apelian said the two-way plan will not serve the long-term traffic problems created by the Flushing Commons development, to be built atop a municipal parking lot on Union St. "Just implement the one-way plan," he said. "This one is counter-productive to us trying to develop downtown Flushing."
The local Flushing BID is equally mystified: "I can't argue with science, but I don't see how this plan can work," said Jim Gerson, chairman of the Flushing Business Improvement District. "It pales in comparison to the one-way plan."
But DOT doesn't need to get any one's sign off on the revised traffic flow-and as far as Gerson's feeling that he can't argue with, "science," well, DOT is to science as metallurgy is to alchemy. But the furor over Flushing is just a microcosm of the fact that DOT is simply over its head with trying to mitigate all of the development that EDC has earmarked for Queens. And there is a definite need for a comprehensive plan for the borough that doesn't try to segment all of the various projects in order to minimize the overall impacts.
So, in essence, our fight over the Willets Point ramps can't be seen in isolation from all of the contiguous development that is either built or being planned. EDC, however, has a trained incapacity to deal with all of these impacts with anything approaching integrity-and all of the Queens civic groups need to band together if they are going to avoid a radical assault on their communities' quality of life.
Whoops! So after planning for one way for lo these many years, DOT has an Emily Latella moment-"Never mind!" But, aside from all of the confusion inherent in the 180, someone needs to alert CB #7-that is if they actually cared-that the EIS for Flushing Commons is predicated on Main Street being one way.
All of which led to our new transportation commissioner to become a bit red faced: "It's a little embarrassing for me that we went for two years selling you a one-way plan," McCarthy, who has been touting the plan since 2008, said of the unexpected about-face. "But I think people are going to like this one."
As well she should since the locals have been awaiting the one way plan and now feel bamboozled: "But some local leaders were a bit miffed by the switcheroo. "Everybody loved the one-way plan, and hundreds of thousands of dollars went into it," said Chuck Apelian, vice chairman of Community Board 7. "Now they're just going to modify a couple of intersections."
And Mr. Apelian saw the revised plan as being contradictory to the traffic flow from the Flushing Commons project: "Apelian said the two-way plan will not serve the long-term traffic problems created by the Flushing Commons development, to be built atop a municipal parking lot on Union St. "Just implement the one-way plan," he said. "This one is counter-productive to us trying to develop downtown Flushing."
The local Flushing BID is equally mystified: "I can't argue with science, but I don't see how this plan can work," said Jim Gerson, chairman of the Flushing Business Improvement District. "It pales in comparison to the one-way plan."
But DOT doesn't need to get any one's sign off on the revised traffic flow-and as far as Gerson's feeling that he can't argue with, "science," well, DOT is to science as metallurgy is to alchemy. But the furor over Flushing is just a microcosm of the fact that DOT is simply over its head with trying to mitigate all of the development that EDC has earmarked for Queens. And there is a definite need for a comprehensive plan for the borough that doesn't try to segment all of the various projects in order to minimize the overall impacts.
So, in essence, our fight over the Willets Point ramps can't be seen in isolation from all of the contiguous development that is either built or being planned. EDC, however, has a trained incapacity to deal with all of these impacts with anything approaching integrity-and all of the Queens civic groups need to band together if they are going to avoid a radical assault on their communities' quality of life.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)