According to Daily Politics, Mike Bloomberg was actually in town during the snow storm: "Our Glenn Blain caught up with the mayor earlier today, and here's what he had to say when questioned about his whereabouts during the storm: "Dec. 25th was Christmas, I started out, if you were there, at St. Patrick’s Midnight Mass, where all Jewish boys go. Ed Koch has been there for 30-odd years. The archbishop said he was pleased to see me. I assume he was. And then the next day it was dealing with the snowstorm and you saw me at the press conference.”
Could this really be true? And, if it is true, does this actually indict the mayor's snow conduct even more? At least with his absence you could attribute the screw up to, well, his absence. But if this managerial meltdown occurred with Bloomberg in the house, it raises the failure to an entirely different level of ineptitude.
But we take nothing said by the mayor at face value-and even if he was in town, it doesn't take away from CM Vallone's excellent suggestion that the mayor-any mayor-must officially notify the city clerk if he or she plans to leave the country (or leave town for more than 24 hours). Still, if Bloomberg was gallivanting around the city on Christmas Day, than the failure to declare a snow emergency indicates that the mayor was simply out to lunch-and not up to the leadership role.
But our obsession with the mayor's whereabouts is not idiosyncratic-and the NY Daily Mews picks up the theme we have been hammering for the past week in its editorial today, saying that Bloomberg owes an accounting of just where he was when the snow was falling: "Mayor Bloomberg's aides have given conflicting accounts of who was - or was not - in charge of municipal action as the Christmas weekend blizzard bore down on the city while Hizzoner was elsewhere. Referring to Bloomberg and to Deputy Mayor for Operations Stephen Goldsmith, our former colleague Errol Louis asked Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson on New York 1: "If the deputy mayor and the mayor are not in New York, who's running the city? Who's running operations?" Wolfson answered: "Depending on the week, whenever this was, it would be one of the other deputy mayors."Louis followed up: "Do you know who it was?" Wolfson: "I do not."
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Albany Winds of Change
The state of the state speech of Governor Cuomo can be characterized as a mournful depiction of a state in decline-unless drastic changes are made in the way New York conducts its business. As the NY Times reports: " Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo delivered his first address to the Legislature on Wednesday, laying out a number of proposals intended to curb state spending and shrink government. The recommendations would put a more centrist stamp on the Democratic Party’s leadership in the state, but also set up a clash with liberal Democrats who control the State Assembly."
The speech was similar to the one Hugh Carey gave during the fiscal crisis of the 1970s, where he told New Yorkers, "Now the times of plenty, the days of wine and roses, are over.” Cuomo laid out his plan to get control over the fiscal management of NY-and his blueprint was also similar to the one that former Governor Pataki laid out after defeating Cuomo's father in 1994: "Mr. Cuomo proposed to freeze the salaries of the vast majority of public employees for one year, to limit new spending to no higher than the rate of inflation, to limit school property tax increases and to “hold the line” on taxes in general. “New York has no future as the tax capital of the nation,” Mr. Cuomo said. “Our young people will not stay, businesses will not come, this has to change. Put it simply, the people of this state simply cannot afford to pay more taxes, period.”
This is, to say the least, a bracing message-and one that will not go unchallenged by the same forces that have promoted the current growth of a government that is too big to be affordable. And Cuomo was specific in laying out some of his reform ideas. As the NY Post reports: "Gov. Cuomo outlined in his first State of the State address today an unprecedented plan for closing a $10 billion budget gap, tasking a series of panels with tackling the state's most pressing issues. The unusual strategy, which appeared designed to break the traditional political fight that accompanies each budget proposal, by tasking teams of experts, reform advocates and interest groups with meeting cost-cutting targets."
But it was more than a austerity plan-and had a strong re-inventing government flavor: "Proposals would include a capping annual state spending, promising more education aid to school districts that cut cost and providing local government with grants to consolidate services. "This is not about budget trimming or cutting, it's about looking at how we can fix government and make it work for the people," Cuomo said, according to prepared remarks. "Together, we must take the significant steps needed to reinvent, reorganize and redesign government to restore credibility and to rebuild our economy by creating jobs across this state."
"Mr. Cuomo promised what he called “a fundamental realignment of this state." “We need radical reform, we need a new approach, we need a new perspective,” he said, “and we need it now.”
The speech was similar to the one Hugh Carey gave during the fiscal crisis of the 1970s, where he told New Yorkers, "Now the times of plenty, the days of wine and roses, are over.” Cuomo laid out his plan to get control over the fiscal management of NY-and his blueprint was also similar to the one that former Governor Pataki laid out after defeating Cuomo's father in 1994: "Mr. Cuomo proposed to freeze the salaries of the vast majority of public employees for one year, to limit new spending to no higher than the rate of inflation, to limit school property tax increases and to “hold the line” on taxes in general. “New York has no future as the tax capital of the nation,” Mr. Cuomo said. “Our young people will not stay, businesses will not come, this has to change. Put it simply, the people of this state simply cannot afford to pay more taxes, period.”
This is, to say the least, a bracing message-and one that will not go unchallenged by the same forces that have promoted the current growth of a government that is too big to be affordable. And Cuomo was specific in laying out some of his reform ideas. As the NY Post reports: "Gov. Cuomo outlined in his first State of the State address today an unprecedented plan for closing a $10 billion budget gap, tasking a series of panels with tackling the state's most pressing issues. The unusual strategy, which appeared designed to break the traditional political fight that accompanies each budget proposal, by tasking teams of experts, reform advocates and interest groups with meeting cost-cutting targets."
But it was more than a austerity plan-and had a strong re-inventing government flavor: "Proposals would include a capping annual state spending, promising more education aid to school districts that cut cost and providing local government with grants to consolidate services. "This is not about budget trimming or cutting, it's about looking at how we can fix government and make it work for the people," Cuomo said, according to prepared remarks. "Together, we must take the significant steps needed to reinvent, reorganize and redesign government to restore credibility and to rebuild our economy by creating jobs across this state."
"Mr. Cuomo promised what he called “a fundamental realignment of this state." “We need radical reform, we need a new approach, we need a new perspective,” he said, “and we need it now.”
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Pot and Kettle
In a example of unintended irony, Mike Bloomberg is calling the former Democratic majority in the state senate a, "disgrace." As we used to say in grammar school, "It takes one to know one!" As DP tells us: "Count Mayor Bloomberg among those glad to leave behind the "disgrace" that was the Democratic state Senate majority..."I thought, if you take a look, it was a disgrace what happened in the last couple of years in the Senate. Most people, regardless of party, think that," the mayor said."
The mayor, who was in Albany to take possession of his newly purchased political allies, should be careful about alienating any more people. After all, when council members like Peter Vallone and David Greenfield are throwing you under the bus, there aren't many folks left to come to your aid-and if Bloomberg thinks that the new Senate majority is bailing out NYC any time soon, well, he's getting a snow job from someone.
What the mayor also probably doesn't realize since he lives within a gated upper class community bubble-is that the number of people who take his pronouncements seriously is a rapidly diminishing cohort. And, as far as disgraceful is concerned, perhaps he should ask the aforementioned CM Greenfield who sent the mayor the following Dear John letter through a Yiddish/Jewish website: "It’s been many hours after the Mayor’s 7am deadline and our streets remain unplowed. I don’t know how the Mayor can sleep tonight knowing that 80 hours after the storm ended the streets of thousands of his citizens are not passable,” said an exasperated Greenfield. “If the Mayor can’t get Sanitation to do the job, he should grab a shovel and come down here to Brooklyn to clear the streets that he promised would be cleaned.”
Doesn't Greenfield understand that Mike Bloomberg doesn't do manual labor? His colleague, CM Jumaane Williams also weighs in on the mayor's less than stellar performance: "The Mayor is either severely misinformed or lying. He is claiming to have plowed streets that were not plowed,” said Williams. “I’m shocked that the Mayor can get on national TV and make false claims about his failure to clean our streets. My constituents, including the disabled and seniors, are stuck in their homes tonight while the Mayor glides through the streets of Manhattan. It’s disgusting.”
One could even say that it is a disgrace.
Update
Daily Politics has this pointed rebuttal from Senate Democrats: "The actual disgrace is failing to manage a fatal blizzard because you and all of your top aides were on vacation and nobody was left in charge," a Senate Democratic source told our Ken Lovett. The source also argued that it was actually the Senate Democrats who carried Bloomberg's agenda against Republican opposition. He said either all or a majority of GOP senators voted against measures the mayor backed, such as the Race To The Top legislation, hydrofracking moratorium and gun microstamping bill."
Guess the mayor's into serial monogamy: "This is not how you treat a friend who carried your water the past two years," the source said. "The mayor is wrapping his arms around the captain who singlehandedly submarined his legislative agenda the past two years."
The mayor, who was in Albany to take possession of his newly purchased political allies, should be careful about alienating any more people. After all, when council members like Peter Vallone and David Greenfield are throwing you under the bus, there aren't many folks left to come to your aid-and if Bloomberg thinks that the new Senate majority is bailing out NYC any time soon, well, he's getting a snow job from someone.
What the mayor also probably doesn't realize since he lives within a gated upper class community bubble-is that the number of people who take his pronouncements seriously is a rapidly diminishing cohort. And, as far as disgraceful is concerned, perhaps he should ask the aforementioned CM Greenfield who sent the mayor the following Dear John letter through a Yiddish/Jewish website: "It’s been many hours after the Mayor’s 7am deadline and our streets remain unplowed. I don’t know how the Mayor can sleep tonight knowing that 80 hours after the storm ended the streets of thousands of his citizens are not passable,” said an exasperated Greenfield. “If the Mayor can’t get Sanitation to do the job, he should grab a shovel and come down here to Brooklyn to clear the streets that he promised would be cleaned.”
Doesn't Greenfield understand that Mike Bloomberg doesn't do manual labor? His colleague, CM Jumaane Williams also weighs in on the mayor's less than stellar performance: "The Mayor is either severely misinformed or lying. He is claiming to have plowed streets that were not plowed,” said Williams. “I’m shocked that the Mayor can get on national TV and make false claims about his failure to clean our streets. My constituents, including the disabled and seniors, are stuck in their homes tonight while the Mayor glides through the streets of Manhattan. It’s disgusting.”
One could even say that it is a disgrace.
Update
Daily Politics has this pointed rebuttal from Senate Democrats: "The actual disgrace is failing to manage a fatal blizzard because you and all of your top aides were on vacation and nobody was left in charge," a Senate Democratic source told our Ken Lovett. The source also argued that it was actually the Senate Democrats who carried Bloomberg's agenda against Republican opposition. He said either all or a majority of GOP senators voted against measures the mayor backed, such as the Race To The Top legislation, hydrofracking moratorium and gun microstamping bill."
Guess the mayor's into serial monogamy: "This is not how you treat a friend who carried your water the past two years," the source said. "The mayor is wrapping his arms around the captain who singlehandedly submarined his legislative agenda the past two years."
By All Means, Investigate!
The NY Post is reporting that a federal investigation is being launched as to the causes of the snow removal failure in NYC-and there appears to be a heavy emphasis on the sanitation union's culpability: "The feds have opened a criminal investigation into allegations that city employees conspired to paralyze the city during last week's blizzard by failing to remove the snow, authorities confirmed today. The probe launched by the Brooklyn US Attorney's Office comes in response to City Councilman Dan Halloran (R-Queens) revelations to The Post last week that sanitation workers told him they were involved in a work slowdown, sources told The Post. At the same time, both the Brooklyn and Queens DAs offices have started their own investigations into whether there was a work slowdown."
But in our view, if there is to be an investigation, it needs to be a wide ranging one-and simply looking for the union label will lead to a whitewash of the city's management team, from the mayor on down. At the end of the Post's story, however-in a case of burying the lede-we get the following insight: "In the last two years, the agency's workforce has been slashed by 400 trash haulers and supervisors -- down from 6,300 -- because of the city's budget crisis. And, effective tomorrow, 100 department supervisors are to be demoted and their salaries slashed as an added cost-saving move. Sources said budget cuts were also at the heart of poor planning for the blizzard last weekend. The city broke from its usual routine and did not call in a full complement on Saturday for snow preparations in order to save on added overtime that would have had to be paid for them to work on Christmas Day. The result was an absolute collapse of New York's once-vaunted systems of clearing the streets and keeping mass transit moving under the weight of 20 inches of snow."
The NY Daily News refocuses us on where the, well, focus of an investigation should lie-right at the top of the management pyramid: "Someone must have been in charge when the blizzard roared into town last week, but City Hall won't say who.Mayor Bloomberg - who often jets off on weekends, sometimes to a vacation home in Bermuda - refuses to divulge where he was over Christmas weekend. The City Charter says Bloomberg must appoint a deputy to take control when he leaves town, but Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith - who oversees snow clearing and other crucial services - was in Washington. Another deputy mayor, Howard Wolfson, was vacationing in London and said he doesn't know whose hand was on the wheel."
But in our view, if there is to be an investigation, it needs to be a wide ranging one-and simply looking for the union label will lead to a whitewash of the city's management team, from the mayor on down. At the end of the Post's story, however-in a case of burying the lede-we get the following insight: "In the last two years, the agency's workforce has been slashed by 400 trash haulers and supervisors -- down from 6,300 -- because of the city's budget crisis. And, effective tomorrow, 100 department supervisors are to be demoted and their salaries slashed as an added cost-saving move. Sources said budget cuts were also at the heart of poor planning for the blizzard last weekend. The city broke from its usual routine and did not call in a full complement on Saturday for snow preparations in order to save on added overtime that would have had to be paid for them to work on Christmas Day. The result was an absolute collapse of New York's once-vaunted systems of clearing the streets and keeping mass transit moving under the weight of 20 inches of snow."
The NY Daily News refocuses us on where the, well, focus of an investigation should lie-right at the top of the management pyramid: "Someone must have been in charge when the blizzard roared into town last week, but City Hall won't say who.Mayor Bloomberg - who often jets off on weekends, sometimes to a vacation home in Bermuda - refuses to divulge where he was over Christmas weekend. The City Charter says Bloomberg must appoint a deputy to take control when he leaves town, but Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith - who oversees snow clearing and other crucial services - was in Washington. Another deputy mayor, Howard Wolfson, was vacationing in London and said he doesn't know whose hand was on the wheel."
Sanitizing the NYC Budget
The controversy surrounding the snow removal from last week's blizzard inevitably centered on whether or not the man and women of the Sanitation Department were involved in some kind of job action-and some saw in this targeting as a classic case of misdirection away from the mayor's ultimate responsibility. The credibility of this assertion, however, devolved from the undeniable fact that the current fiscal crisis has led to the Bloomberg administration's move for a reduction of the sanitation work force.
This move-emblematic of an entire across the board policy initiative involving layoffs and borrowing-may say more about the mayor's managerial skills than the snow removal failure itself, Nicole Gelinas lays this out: "Mayor Bloomberg suffered a governance meltdown last week, as unplowed snow blocked streets for days. But snow, at least, melts. The bigger disaster is still accumulating -- and New Yorkers haven't yet seen the extent of the damage. When Bloomberg took office, Gotham spent $1.3 billion annually on the Sanitation Department. Today, we spend more than $2.2 billion on "New York's Strongest." That increase is almost 3½ times the inflation rate. It follows that we should have a sanitation army sufficiently equipped to clean up the white (or gray) stuff fast."
This move-emblematic of an entire across the board policy initiative involving layoffs and borrowing-may say more about the mayor's managerial skills than the snow removal failure itself, Nicole Gelinas lays this out: "Mayor Bloomberg suffered a governance meltdown last week, as unplowed snow blocked streets for days. But snow, at least, melts. The bigger disaster is still accumulating -- and New Yorkers haven't yet seen the extent of the damage. When Bloomberg took office, Gotham spent $1.3 billion annually on the Sanitation Department. Today, we spend more than $2.2 billion on "New York's Strongest." That increase is almost 3½ times the inflation rate. It follows that we should have a sanitation army sufficiently equipped to clean up the white (or gray) stuff fast."
Wayne Barrett: Hail and Farewell
It is with great regret that we receive the news that Wayne Barrett will no longer be annoying any and everyone from his usual Village Voice perch. Here's his farewell epistle: "Ed Koch and I were inaugurated on the same day in 1978. He became mayor and I became his weekly tormentor...Since then, I have written, by my own inexact calculation, more column inches than anyone in the history of the Voice. These will be my last."
What a great loss-and clearly it wasn't done in the classiest way-even though Wayne remains classy to the end in his characterization of the canning: "I am 65 and a half now, and it is time for something new. If I didn't see that, others did. The paper has always been more than an employer to me. I turned down other jobs that paid better three times to stay here. Though my mentor Newfield used to say we got our owners "from office temporaries," and though I worked for 14 different editors, the Voice was always a place where I could express my voice. And that meant more to me than larger circulations or greater influence or bigger paychecks."
And what a voice it is-taking on the powerful with-as is often erroneously said about lesser lights-without fear or favor. He was an equal opportunity scold whose scolding enlightened us all: "When the Voice celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2005, I said "we thought a deadline meant we had to kill somebody by closing time," and that, as a liberal Democratic paper, we were "better at goring one of our own." It never mattered to me what the party or ideology was of the subject of an investigative piece; the reporting was as nonpartisan as the wrongdoing itself. I never looked past the wrist of any hand in the public till. It was the grabbing that bothered me, and there was no Democratic or Republican way to pick up the loot."
Who can forget his Rudy Giuliani tour de force? A professor of ours once said that to criticize someone or something you should be able to do so immanently-from within, and by doing so giving justice to the subject or the idea. Wayne did that with Rudy, did he ever. He was so far within Giuliani that to say he got under the former mayor's skin is to do the phrase a gross injustice. And in reading the Barrett biography of Rudy we got an intimate glimpse of why-as we have said so often-Rudy's slogan of, "One City One Standard," should have been, (only if by that he meant) the, "double standard."
Shockingly, in the NY Times account of the Barrett and Roberts leaving of the Voice, there is no valedictory comment from the acerbic former mayor-although Ed Koch, who Barrett helped skewer in his famous City fo Sale, demonstrated true menschlikeit by telling the Times: “In terms of the quality of his reportage: superb.”
Jim Dwyer underscores this in the Observer: "It is a colossal loss," he said. "There is more historical knowledge about city government and politics between those two guys than you find in most newsrooms. So much of what we know about power in the city comes from those two guys." "Dwyer singled out Barrett's work on Rudy Giuliani, which he said provided insight into what motivates the sometimes bizarre behavior of the former mayor..."
When all the media was airbrushing Al Sharpton, Barrett told the truth about the skeeviness of this shakedown artist, racial arsonist, and former FBI informer. Wayne didn't pick sides, he picked you apart: "It was always the conduct that prodded me to write, not the person. And that is what I lived for, a chance to say something that revealed and mattered. To me, the story will always be the thing. It is all I can see."
Not the conduct, perhaps, but the misconduct-as he did for both Bloomberg and Thompson in the last election cycle: "For a week in the 2009 mayoral campaign, I couldn't turn on the TV without seeing a Bloomberg commercial drawn from my expose of Bill Thompson's conflict-ridden home mortgage. But I'd delivered one cover-story blow after another throughout the cycle about everything from the mayor's culpability in the Deutsche Bank fire debacle to his own governmental incest with Bloomberg L.P."
We don't always agree with Wayne's take on things-and we come at politics from a different ideological perspective. But one thing we share with him is an absolute intolerance for cant-even if his job allows for an even greater freedom of expression of exposing that cant without needing to pull his punches.
And what more can we say about Barrett's partner in grime, the intrepid Tom Robbins-who told his bosses, in good Johnny Paycheck fashion, to, "Take this Job and Shove it," when he heard that Barrett was being let go: "I even met one, Tom Robbins, so brave that when he heard I was leaving, he quit himself and didn't even tell me he was. "I'm going out with the guy who brought me to the dance," Robbins told me after he resigned, crafting a lede with the very fiber of his life."
Barrett's departure leaves us that much poorer-and that much less protected from the malefactors who are attracted to the political process. His style and substantive contribution simply cannot be duplicated. If anyone deserves the characterization of sui generis, it is the inimitable Wayne Barrett: reporter!
What a great loss-and clearly it wasn't done in the classiest way-even though Wayne remains classy to the end in his characterization of the canning: "I am 65 and a half now, and it is time for something new. If I didn't see that, others did. The paper has always been more than an employer to me. I turned down other jobs that paid better three times to stay here. Though my mentor Newfield used to say we got our owners "from office temporaries," and though I worked for 14 different editors, the Voice was always a place where I could express my voice. And that meant more to me than larger circulations or greater influence or bigger paychecks."
And what a voice it is-taking on the powerful with-as is often erroneously said about lesser lights-without fear or favor. He was an equal opportunity scold whose scolding enlightened us all: "When the Voice celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2005, I said "we thought a deadline meant we had to kill somebody by closing time," and that, as a liberal Democratic paper, we were "better at goring one of our own." It never mattered to me what the party or ideology was of the subject of an investigative piece; the reporting was as nonpartisan as the wrongdoing itself. I never looked past the wrist of any hand in the public till. It was the grabbing that bothered me, and there was no Democratic or Republican way to pick up the loot."
Who can forget his Rudy Giuliani tour de force? A professor of ours once said that to criticize someone or something you should be able to do so immanently-from within, and by doing so giving justice to the subject or the idea. Wayne did that with Rudy, did he ever. He was so far within Giuliani that to say he got under the former mayor's skin is to do the phrase a gross injustice. And in reading the Barrett biography of Rudy we got an intimate glimpse of why-as we have said so often-Rudy's slogan of, "One City One Standard," should have been, (only if by that he meant) the, "double standard."
Shockingly, in the NY Times account of the Barrett and Roberts leaving of the Voice, there is no valedictory comment from the acerbic former mayor-although Ed Koch, who Barrett helped skewer in his famous City fo Sale, demonstrated true menschlikeit by telling the Times: “In terms of the quality of his reportage: superb.”
Jim Dwyer underscores this in the Observer: "It is a colossal loss," he said. "There is more historical knowledge about city government and politics between those two guys than you find in most newsrooms. So much of what we know about power in the city comes from those two guys." "Dwyer singled out Barrett's work on Rudy Giuliani, which he said provided insight into what motivates the sometimes bizarre behavior of the former mayor..."
When all the media was airbrushing Al Sharpton, Barrett told the truth about the skeeviness of this shakedown artist, racial arsonist, and former FBI informer. Wayne didn't pick sides, he picked you apart: "It was always the conduct that prodded me to write, not the person. And that is what I lived for, a chance to say something that revealed and mattered. To me, the story will always be the thing. It is all I can see."
Not the conduct, perhaps, but the misconduct-as he did for both Bloomberg and Thompson in the last election cycle: "For a week in the 2009 mayoral campaign, I couldn't turn on the TV without seeing a Bloomberg commercial drawn from my expose of Bill Thompson's conflict-ridden home mortgage. But I'd delivered one cover-story blow after another throughout the cycle about everything from the mayor's culpability in the Deutsche Bank fire debacle to his own governmental incest with Bloomberg L.P."
We don't always agree with Wayne's take on things-and we come at politics from a different ideological perspective. But one thing we share with him is an absolute intolerance for cant-even if his job allows for an even greater freedom of expression of exposing that cant without needing to pull his punches.
And what more can we say about Barrett's partner in grime, the intrepid Tom Robbins-who told his bosses, in good Johnny Paycheck fashion, to, "Take this Job and Shove it," when he heard that Barrett was being let go: "I even met one, Tom Robbins, so brave that when he heard I was leaving, he quit himself and didn't even tell me he was. "I'm going out with the guy who brought me to the dance," Robbins told me after he resigned, crafting a lede with the very fiber of his life."
Barrett's departure leaves us that much poorer-and that much less protected from the malefactors who are attracted to the political process. His style and substantive contribution simply cannot be duplicated. If anyone deserves the characterization of sui generis, it is the inimitable Wayne Barrett: reporter!
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
"Where the Mayor Is, or Isn't, Is Not Important"
The quotation in our headline comes from the collected wit and wisdom of Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson, who treated us with his latest bon mot while making an appearance on NY1 last night-and he couldn't be more wrong! Mike Bloomberg's whereabouts was important on Christmas morning when WCBS radio predicted the city would get 16 inches of snow; and it remained important throughout the day and night when the decision to declare a snow emergency was not made.
It wasn't made because the man who is ostensibly in charge of emergency management, Joe Bruno, choked on his whistle in the mayor's absence. In essence, NYC was like the Headless Horseman from the old Sleepy Hollow story-and as a result of the leadership vacuum, bad things happened. But in the last few days, some folks are trying to transmute this leadership failure into a labor scandal-with alleged sanitation worker slowdowns becoming the main culprit for all the bad that transpired while the city was headless.
Michael Daley at the NY Daily News nails this while lamenting the death of an infant stranded by the snow: "But the primary contributing causes certainly must include the city's failure to clear the streets so the mother could reach the hospital in time. The responsibility for that ultimately rests with the man who so often extols the magic of management, Mayor Bloomberg...Those almost certainly not to blame are the sanitation workers who were out there trying to clear the streets after City Hall's disastrous refusal to declare a snow emergency."
It wasn't made because the man who is ostensibly in charge of emergency management, Joe Bruno, choked on his whistle in the mayor's absence. In essence, NYC was like the Headless Horseman from the old Sleepy Hollow story-and as a result of the leadership vacuum, bad things happened. But in the last few days, some folks are trying to transmute this leadership failure into a labor scandal-with alleged sanitation worker slowdowns becoming the main culprit for all the bad that transpired while the city was headless.
Michael Daley at the NY Daily News nails this while lamenting the death of an infant stranded by the snow: "But the primary contributing causes certainly must include the city's failure to clear the streets so the mother could reach the hospital in time. The responsibility for that ultimately rests with the man who so often extols the magic of management, Mayor Bloomberg...Those almost certainly not to blame are the sanitation workers who were out there trying to clear the streets after City Hall's disastrous refusal to declare a snow emergency."
Wal-Mart Invasion Wears Thin
Women's Wear Daily had an interesting story last week (subsc.) on the Wal-Mart invasion into NYC: "The world’s largest retailer tried unsuccessfully in 2005 to open a store in New York — it searched for a site for a SuperCenter, but finding the necessary 185,000 square feet of space was, and still remains, difficult. Now, five years later, the Bentonville, Ark.-based company is adopting a new strategy armed with an arsenal of store formats, including some never-before-seen concepts and a rejigged SuperCenter — its size reduced to as little as 80,000 square feet and categories not crucial to urban areas, such as lawn and garden centers, eliminated. The redefined approach stems partly from necessity — the suburbs have become saturated and Wal-Mart needs to enter more urban markets if it is to grow in the U.S."
This, as we have said before, is the National Socialist philosophy of lebensraum adopted for the retail expansion environment. The Walmonster needs more "living room," or it will expire-it has an insatiable need to expand into ever more territory, To accomplish this, it will do so by any means necessary-and is even contemplating stores as small as superettes:
"We’re addressing size and being more flexible in our approach,” said Steven Restivo, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s director of community relations for the Northeast. “The way we’re bridging the gap between larger traditional stores and smaller, more efficient formats is our site-to-store multichannel experience option.”
The retailer’s latest format is a 3,500-square-foot store called Wal-Mart on Campus, which will open at the University of Arkansas next month, replacing a university-run pharmacy. “It’s probably the smallest-format store,” Restivo said. “It’s a [pharmacy] and campus merchandising store with licensed apparel.” Wal-Mart on Campus was developed at the university’s behest as a one-off to meet the university’s needs. While there are no similar stores in the works, lessons might be gleaned from the project and its size could be appealing in urban areas."
If this assault on the city isn't met with a determined opposition, it will be the final dagger in the heart for workers and small businesses in NYC. Some of this is brought out by our colleagues who are quoted in an Atlanta Post story on the giant retailer's expansionist philosophy: "Gotham Government Relations, a firm that represents small to medium sized grocery stores throughout New York City, is greatly opposed to Wal-Mart’s entry because not only will they “drive a dagger into the heart of the entrepreneurial spirit” of the neighborhood, but will also fail to provide worthwhile employment , according to David Schwartz, Esq., a representative of Gotham.
“Wal-Mart takes away good union jobs with full benefits and replaces [them] with minimum wage jobs, no benefits, no healthcare and an inability for employees to support their family and provide for children,” he says."
As one marketing expert puts it, the fact that the Walmonster is a predatory pricer is what makes its stores so dangerous: "
The retailer is a complex case study because all of the opposition they face falls on what initially sounds like the best thing going for them—low prices. “You can pretty much be guaranteed as a shopper that you’re getting the lowest price you can in the marketplace,” said Jim Joseph, marketing expert and author of The Experience Effect. “The problem is what Wal-Mart has is an infrastructure that is built around low prices so nobody can really compete, particularly in an urban area where there are a lot of small businesses.”
And it is the low prices that creates the kind of environmental impact that no other retailer does-something that, as we have said, demands an entire sui generis review. And marketing expert Joseph further underscores the world of difference between Big Wally and other box stores: "Retailers like CVS, Target or Best Buy don’t focus on low prices so they don’t necessarily knock out their competition, just offer an alternative so they don’t annihilate small business they way Wal-Mart does,” said Joseph. “If you look at Target, they talk about low prices but that’s not their emphasis. Their emphasis is on design and style so when they go into a market, people embrace that part of it. People don’t necessarily run away from the other businesses in the area.”
Part of the strong political opposition to Wal-Mart is embodied in the leadership of Council Speaker Quinn. As she tells WWD: "Nothing has changed about [Wal-Mart’s] corporate philosophy and behavior,” Quinn said in an interview. “Nothing has changed about whether I want them in New York City. I don’t. Wal-Mart is still the company with the worst record on gender discrimination lawsuits. Their labor practices are in no way near the standards we have in New York City. Supermarket workers get time-and-a-half here on Sunday. Wal-Mart used to pay an extra dollar an hour and then stopped doing that.”
And she is subtly pressuring the developer Related Companies to understand that discretion is the better part of valor: "In 2005, Wal-Mart could have moved into the Queens Center mall, but because it knew the city didn’t want it here, it retreated,” Quinn said. “We’re in touch with Related Companies [the developer of Gateway II, Related Retail Corporation is an affiliate of The Related Companies] on different projects and my staff has made very clear my opposition to Wal-Mart. Related is very clear on how I feel. What they do with an as-of-right site is up to them.”
She is joined in this by her erstwhile protagonist and colleague, CM Charles Barron-who tells WWD that Related reneged on its word to leave Big Wally out: "Charles Barron, a councilman representing the section of Brooklyn where the Gateway project is located, said, “We negotiated with Related and the city. We had an agreement with Related with regard to small stores [in Gateway II]. That was the plan. Related will have to come before the City Council again for other projects, and they don’t want to sever ties."
Let's hope he's right. So, we are preparing for the big hearing showdown next week-and it should be some show. What we believe everyone will find out, is that there are countless reasons to dislike the Walmonster. But to get a really good idea of what damage the retail giant could do, you need to see the "Walmart-osaurus Rex" video: "The latest video from Net news sensation NMA, entitled "Walmart threatens NYC merchant," features a fire-breathing T. Rex storming through the streets of Manhattan, laying waste to all retailers foolish enough to try and stop it—they roll up with a tank, which itself would be a site on New York's crowded streets. Guest-starring Walmart booster and recent NMA target Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who delivers a pat performance."
Stay tuned.
This, as we have said before, is the National Socialist philosophy of lebensraum adopted for the retail expansion environment. The Walmonster needs more "living room," or it will expire-it has an insatiable need to expand into ever more territory, To accomplish this, it will do so by any means necessary-and is even contemplating stores as small as superettes:
"We’re addressing size and being more flexible in our approach,” said Steven Restivo, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s director of community relations for the Northeast. “The way we’re bridging the gap between larger traditional stores and smaller, more efficient formats is our site-to-store multichannel experience option.”
The retailer’s latest format is a 3,500-square-foot store called Wal-Mart on Campus, which will open at the University of Arkansas next month, replacing a university-run pharmacy. “It’s probably the smallest-format store,” Restivo said. “It’s a [pharmacy] and campus merchandising store with licensed apparel.” Wal-Mart on Campus was developed at the university’s behest as a one-off to meet the university’s needs. While there are no similar stores in the works, lessons might be gleaned from the project and its size could be appealing in urban areas."
If this assault on the city isn't met with a determined opposition, it will be the final dagger in the heart for workers and small businesses in NYC. Some of this is brought out by our colleagues who are quoted in an Atlanta Post story on the giant retailer's expansionist philosophy: "Gotham Government Relations, a firm that represents small to medium sized grocery stores throughout New York City, is greatly opposed to Wal-Mart’s entry because not only will they “drive a dagger into the heart of the entrepreneurial spirit” of the neighborhood, but will also fail to provide worthwhile employment , according to David Schwartz, Esq., a representative of Gotham.
“Wal-Mart takes away good union jobs with full benefits and replaces [them] with minimum wage jobs, no benefits, no healthcare and an inability for employees to support their family and provide for children,” he says."
As one marketing expert puts it, the fact that the Walmonster is a predatory pricer is what makes its stores so dangerous: "
The retailer is a complex case study because all of the opposition they face falls on what initially sounds like the best thing going for them—low prices. “You can pretty much be guaranteed as a shopper that you’re getting the lowest price you can in the marketplace,” said Jim Joseph, marketing expert and author of The Experience Effect. “The problem is what Wal-Mart has is an infrastructure that is built around low prices so nobody can really compete, particularly in an urban area where there are a lot of small businesses.”
And it is the low prices that creates the kind of environmental impact that no other retailer does-something that, as we have said, demands an entire sui generis review. And marketing expert Joseph further underscores the world of difference between Big Wally and other box stores: "Retailers like CVS, Target or Best Buy don’t focus on low prices so they don’t necessarily knock out their competition, just offer an alternative so they don’t annihilate small business they way Wal-Mart does,” said Joseph. “If you look at Target, they talk about low prices but that’s not their emphasis. Their emphasis is on design and style so when they go into a market, people embrace that part of it. People don’t necessarily run away from the other businesses in the area.”
Part of the strong political opposition to Wal-Mart is embodied in the leadership of Council Speaker Quinn. As she tells WWD: "Nothing has changed about [Wal-Mart’s] corporate philosophy and behavior,” Quinn said in an interview. “Nothing has changed about whether I want them in New York City. I don’t. Wal-Mart is still the company with the worst record on gender discrimination lawsuits. Their labor practices are in no way near the standards we have in New York City. Supermarket workers get time-and-a-half here on Sunday. Wal-Mart used to pay an extra dollar an hour and then stopped doing that.”
And she is subtly pressuring the developer Related Companies to understand that discretion is the better part of valor: "In 2005, Wal-Mart could have moved into the Queens Center mall, but because it knew the city didn’t want it here, it retreated,” Quinn said. “We’re in touch with Related Companies [the developer of Gateway II, Related Retail Corporation is an affiliate of The Related Companies] on different projects and my staff has made very clear my opposition to Wal-Mart. Related is very clear on how I feel. What they do with an as-of-right site is up to them.”
She is joined in this by her erstwhile protagonist and colleague, CM Charles Barron-who tells WWD that Related reneged on its word to leave Big Wally out: "Charles Barron, a councilman representing the section of Brooklyn where the Gateway project is located, said, “We negotiated with Related and the city. We had an agreement with Related with regard to small stores [in Gateway II]. That was the plan. Related will have to come before the City Council again for other projects, and they don’t want to sever ties."
Let's hope he's right. So, we are preparing for the big hearing showdown next week-and it should be some show. What we believe everyone will find out, is that there are countless reasons to dislike the Walmonster. But to get a really good idea of what damage the retail giant could do, you need to see the "Walmart-osaurus Rex" video: "The latest video from Net news sensation NMA, entitled "Walmart threatens NYC merchant," features a fire-breathing T. Rex storming through the streets of Manhattan, laying waste to all retailers foolish enough to try and stop it—they roll up with a tank, which itself would be a site on New York's crowded streets. Guest-starring Walmart booster and recent NMA target Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who delivers a pat performance."
Stay tuned.
NY Times: Once Again, Part of the Problem
Greg David analyzes the role of the NY Times in the context of the governor's reform NY campaign-and unsurprisingly, sees the paper as a hindrance: "While most New Yorkers were getting ready for New Year's Eve celebrations, those who want to solve New York's economic problems with higher taxes dug in for their upcoming struggle with Gov. Andrew Cuomo. First, The New York Times, in an editorial headlined simply "Andrew Cuomo," called for the governor to jettison two of the centerpieces of his campaign--a cap on local property taxes and an extension of the so-called millionaires income tax surcharge."
Leave it to the Times to advise the new governor to simply sh*tcan all of his campaign promises in order to toe the paper's line on the salutary impact of higher taxes. The public employees, also as expected, have begun their own push back: "Then, in a Wall Street Journal story, labor leaders reiterated their demand for a stock transfer tax to raise a couple of billion dollars. They want the millionaires surcharge, which actually affects individuals that make more than $200,000 and families with incomes above $250,000--continued as well."
For its part, the Times may well be in Neverland-eschewing any policy prescription that would address the size and scope of government: "The Times is steadfast in its support for tougher ethics rules, campaign spending reform, nonpartisan redistricting and other measures to restore accountability in Albany. Unlike most of the members of the reform movement, it doesn't believe that taxes in the state are too high, that state government is simply unaffordable or that both of those drag down New York's economy, especially upstate."
Gee, those folks need to get out more-and talk to all of the struggling small businesses that are choking on the tax burden that the paper views with psychotic sanguininity. David, however, has none of the Times' Eyes Wide Shut perspective: "No one denies that cutting state spending to eliminate a $9 billion budget gap will be painful. No one should misunderstand the stakes: The tax issue is central to changing the political and economic situation. This may be the only time a permanent reduction in the size of state government is possible. The Journal story quoted the normally pro-tax Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver ruling out any stock transfer tax and saying the millionaires tax would not be continued."
If Speaker Silver understands this-as does the governor, of course-why does the Times remain the outlier? The answer lies in the realm of social psychology-and the manner in which ideology comforts to such an extent that folks cling to its nurturance even in the face of an oncoming train wreck. As Governor Cuomo told YNN: "The old way of solving the problem was continuing to raise taxes on people and we just can’t do that anymore…The working families of New York cannot afford tax increases. The answer is going to have to be that we’re going to have to reduce government spending.”
That is so well said, it will have to be more or less the last word-except for us to say that, when the Times advises, it is best to do the opposite.
Leave it to the Times to advise the new governor to simply sh*tcan all of his campaign promises in order to toe the paper's line on the salutary impact of higher taxes. The public employees, also as expected, have begun their own push back: "Then, in a Wall Street Journal story, labor leaders reiterated their demand for a stock transfer tax to raise a couple of billion dollars. They want the millionaires surcharge, which actually affects individuals that make more than $200,000 and families with incomes above $250,000--continued as well."
For its part, the Times may well be in Neverland-eschewing any policy prescription that would address the size and scope of government: "The Times is steadfast in its support for tougher ethics rules, campaign spending reform, nonpartisan redistricting and other measures to restore accountability in Albany. Unlike most of the members of the reform movement, it doesn't believe that taxes in the state are too high, that state government is simply unaffordable or that both of those drag down New York's economy, especially upstate."
Gee, those folks need to get out more-and talk to all of the struggling small businesses that are choking on the tax burden that the paper views with psychotic sanguininity. David, however, has none of the Times' Eyes Wide Shut perspective: "No one denies that cutting state spending to eliminate a $9 billion budget gap will be painful. No one should misunderstand the stakes: The tax issue is central to changing the political and economic situation. This may be the only time a permanent reduction in the size of state government is possible. The Journal story quoted the normally pro-tax Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver ruling out any stock transfer tax and saying the millionaires tax would not be continued."
If Speaker Silver understands this-as does the governor, of course-why does the Times remain the outlier? The answer lies in the realm of social psychology-and the manner in which ideology comforts to such an extent that folks cling to its nurturance even in the face of an oncoming train wreck. As Governor Cuomo told YNN: "The old way of solving the problem was continuing to raise taxes on people and we just can’t do that anymore…The working families of New York cannot afford tax increases. The answer is going to have to be that we’re going to have to reduce government spending.”
That is so well said, it will have to be more or less the last word-except for us to say that, when the Times advises, it is best to do the opposite.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Unanswered Questions
Marty Steadman, veteran political reporter, sent us the following commentary on the failures of the Bloomberg administration during last week's blizzard. It should be incumbent for every reporter to get all of the answers to the questions that Marty poses here:
"I think that because the Christmas blizzard resulted in several deaths that may have been avoided-and a thorough, honest investigation should be done by one or more of the five District Attorneys. Much, if not most of the ugly news came from Brooklyn, and that might be the District Attorney most motivated to jump in.
The most troubling aspect of the city's poor response is the failure to declare a Snow Emergency. I have a very clear recollection that I first heard a warning of a significant snowfall at approximately 9 a.m.Saturday (Christmas Day) on WCBS Radio. Weatherman John Elliott said we could expect up to 16 inches of snow. At approximately 12 Noon that day, the Weather Channel predicted over a foot of snow for the region.
According to Pat Bahnken, President of the EMS union, emergency service agencies asked Joseph F. Bruno, Commissioner of the Office of Emergency Management to declare a Snow Emergency at 3 a.m. Monday. Did that actually happen? If so, why was the suggestion rejected? If it did happen, did Bruno confer with anyone in the Mayor's Office to help him reach his decision? We know the Deputy Mayor was in Washington, but we do not know exactly where the Mayor was before he appeared on TV late Sunday afternoon.
That thorough, honest investigation I recommend should start with who was in charge of this emergency? When was the first suggestion made to declare a Snow Emergency? I can't believe it was never discussed until 3 a.m. Monday. By that time, 42 hours had passed since John Elliott alerted me and about a million other listeners of WCBS radio news to a very bad situation headed our way. Worse, at 3 a.m. Monday there was probably a foot of snow in Central Park.
The central questions about what went wrong start with 9 a.m. Saturday to 3 a.m. Monday. Who did not do what, and when did they not do it?"
"I think that because the Christmas blizzard resulted in several deaths that may have been avoided-and a thorough, honest investigation should be done by one or more of the five District Attorneys. Much, if not most of the ugly news came from Brooklyn, and that might be the District Attorney most motivated to jump in.
The most troubling aspect of the city's poor response is the failure to declare a Snow Emergency. I have a very clear recollection that I first heard a warning of a significant snowfall at approximately 9 a.m.Saturday (Christmas Day) on WCBS Radio. Weatherman John Elliott said we could expect up to 16 inches of snow. At approximately 12 Noon that day, the Weather Channel predicted over a foot of snow for the region.
According to Pat Bahnken, President of the EMS union, emergency service agencies asked Joseph F. Bruno, Commissioner of the Office of Emergency Management to declare a Snow Emergency at 3 a.m. Monday. Did that actually happen? If so, why was the suggestion rejected? If it did happen, did Bruno confer with anyone in the Mayor's Office to help him reach his decision? We know the Deputy Mayor was in Washington, but we do not know exactly where the Mayor was before he appeared on TV late Sunday afternoon.
Why would the city not declare a Snow Emergency as soon as weather forecasters warned of a severe storm? It's being denied, but the possibility remains very strong that finances had something to do with it. I believe such a declaration mandates a call up of workers from several agencies, including Sanitation. Sunday would be a very expensive day. I don't know what the various union contracts say, but I heard the Sanitation Commissioner say Sunday was double pay.
That thorough, honest investigation I recommend should start with who was in charge of this emergency? When was the first suggestion made to declare a Snow Emergency? I can't believe it was never discussed until 3 a.m. Monday. By that time, 42 hours had passed since John Elliott alerted me and about a million other listeners of WCBS radio news to a very bad situation headed our way. Worse, at 3 a.m. Monday there was probably a foot of snow in Central Park.
The central questions about what went wrong start with 9 a.m. Saturday to 3 a.m. Monday. Who did not do what, and when did they not do it?"
Small Business Aid is Key
We have been discussing the new governor's economic recovery agenda, and in the Times Union this morning (via Liz) F. Michael Tucker weighs in and points out the importance of small business to the prospects of NY's turn around: "Gov. Andrew Cuomo's ability to define and implement progressive policies in a time of fiscal challenges will dictate his administration's ultimate success. Citizens should look for Cuomo to bring a renewed sense of clarity to state government. From the Center for Economic Growth's perspective, key success measures for our new governor will include promoting small business, fostering regional innovation and training a 21st century work force."
How important is small business in this equation? Tucker lets us know: "Since 70 percent of all net new job growth comes from businesses with less than 50 employees, attention to small business needs is crucial. With unemployment and underemployment affecting so many New Yorkers, job creation will be at the forefront of the governor's assured success story."
The unanswered question is, what strategy is best for promoting the job growth that the small business sector can bring about? Tucker highlights tax credits: "With a clear strategy to create, retain, and attract new jobs, Cuomo's NY Works agenda is dedicated to improving New York's business climate. He plans to offer businesses a tax credit of up to $3,000 for each unemployed New Yorker hired for a new job..."
In our view, the better solution-one that Cuomo has begun to outline-is dramatically reducing the cost of doing business here. Tax credits are fine, but are no substitute for tax reductions-along with a regulatory reform that makes it easier to comply with state regs without onerous fines and sanctions. The first step, as Cuomo has told us, is to reduce the cost of government-a cost that is inordinately borne by the state's small businesses.
E.J. McMahon lays this out in the Times Union this morning: "As Cuomo said during his campaign, "raising taxes is not an option." State taxes and fees already have been raised by at least $9 billion in the past three years. Meanwhile, counting temporary federal stimulus aid, New York's state operating funds budget has grown by 11 percent since fiscal year 2007-08, when the Great Recession began. To clean up the budget mess, Cuomo must push for deep reductions in recurring "baseline" spending. Temporary cuts won't be enough; as former Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch put it, New York has a massive "structural" problem demanding fundamental changes to the way government does business."
But to really aid small businesses, the governor needs to partner with them-and listen to what their various needs might be. Empowering the people shouldn't be a top-down exercise-but a two way street where communication flows; and real policy change is implemented as a result. Cuomo has just begun this process, and he has many years of malfunctioning government to overcome. That being said, you have to start someplace, and it helps to start in the right place-exactly where Andrew Cuomo finds himself today.
How important is small business in this equation? Tucker lets us know: "Since 70 percent of all net new job growth comes from businesses with less than 50 employees, attention to small business needs is crucial. With unemployment and underemployment affecting so many New Yorkers, job creation will be at the forefront of the governor's assured success story."
The unanswered question is, what strategy is best for promoting the job growth that the small business sector can bring about? Tucker highlights tax credits: "With a clear strategy to create, retain, and attract new jobs, Cuomo's NY Works agenda is dedicated to improving New York's business climate. He plans to offer businesses a tax credit of up to $3,000 for each unemployed New Yorker hired for a new job..."
In our view, the better solution-one that Cuomo has begun to outline-is dramatically reducing the cost of doing business here. Tax credits are fine, but are no substitute for tax reductions-along with a regulatory reform that makes it easier to comply with state regs without onerous fines and sanctions. The first step, as Cuomo has told us, is to reduce the cost of government-a cost that is inordinately borne by the state's small businesses.
E.J. McMahon lays this out in the Times Union this morning: "As Cuomo said during his campaign, "raising taxes is not an option." State taxes and fees already have been raised by at least $9 billion in the past three years. Meanwhile, counting temporary federal stimulus aid, New York's state operating funds budget has grown by 11 percent since fiscal year 2007-08, when the Great Recession began. To clean up the budget mess, Cuomo must push for deep reductions in recurring "baseline" spending. Temporary cuts won't be enough; as former Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch put it, New York has a massive "structural" problem demanding fundamental changes to the way government does business."
But to really aid small businesses, the governor needs to partner with them-and listen to what their various needs might be. Empowering the people shouldn't be a top-down exercise-but a two way street where communication flows; and real policy change is implemented as a result. Cuomo has just begun this process, and he has many years of malfunctioning government to overcome. That being said, you have to start someplace, and it helps to start in the right place-exactly where Andrew Cuomo finds himself today.
Mortally Wounded?
We begin the New Year as we left the old one-speculating on how much the mayor has been wounded by the twin catastrophes that walloped his administration as 2010 drew to a close. Much of fallout from the City Time scandal, as well as the snow snafu, has yet to be fully felt-with investigations and recriminations to come. In our view, however, we may be witnessing the denouement of the Bloomberg narrative-with the resulting deconstruction of the Myth of Mike.
The deconstruction of the Myth of Mike will devolve from the unmasking of the illusion that Bloomberg was, owing in the first instance to his great wealth, an ubber-manager as well as a fiscal maven. He was able to propagate this fantasy because of his initial outlay of record amounts of campaign cash that funded an effective disinformation effort-which was aided and abetted by tabloids whose owners viewed the mayor as a blood brother; and also someone who could save us from the usual Democratic political suspects who they loathe.
The role of the NY Times in all of this has yet to be fully explicated-but the fact that they have yet to comment on the CityTime scandal, and came up with a tardy and tepid editorial response to the snow screw up, is certainly suggestive of an attitude of pull the punches caution. Why this is so, we'll leave to the ferreting of the inimitable Wayne Barrett-but the end result was the creation of a Bloomberg aura that turned out to be, to put it mildly, somewhat less than authentic.
Of course, as is always true in politics, it helps to be lucky-and Bloomberg was certainly that. In the first place, he came in on the heels of a real catastrophe, one that he wasn't ever tasked with having to tackle. And, with a city looking for a return to normalcy, a bland Bloomberg was an anodyne. In addition, he replaced a larger than life chief executive who, while accomplishing some major sea changes in the political culture, had clearly worn out his welcome-and thus Bloomberg was seen in many quarters as a relief from the sturm und drang of Rudy Giuliani.
Also, in a brilliant stroke, Bloomberg made sure to co-opt the nuisance making Al Sharpton with a lucrative sinecure. But as important as all of the preceding may have been, the mayor was fortunate not to face any major crisis of leadership-such as the ones that sandbagged him in the close of last year.
This allowed Bloomberg to stealthily build a core of support from the usual machinations of the judicious exercise of political power -as well as from his unprecedented utilization of a political fortune to create a retinue of political retainers in the city's large not for profit sector. These were some very well regarded and high profile folks, and they helped to create the patina of Bloomberg's greatness. These compensated toadies could be counted on to come out of the woodwork in droves for some of the mayor's signature issues, like congestion pricing and mayoral control of the schools.
But, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein's observation about Oakland, there really wasn't, and isn't, any there, there. The mayor's one signature accomplishment-at least according to his hagiographers-is school governance. As far as the educational miracle is concerned, however, it is much like Oakland as well-with a huge increase of funding leading to rather modest gains in school achievement. All that awaits, is for someone to do the cost-benefit analysis-and not forget to add the forever costs of all those additional health and pension benefits that come with the big increase on school personnel.
And then we come to the mayor's claim to have brought about a degree of fiscal stability-and here, once again, there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis. Mike Bloomberg vastly increased the size and scope of municipal government; and raised taxes and fees to cover the increase-while at the same time raising the city's debt ceiling to dangerous levels. It is a government-much like that of the state-that we can no longer afford; but it is being run by a man who has always embraced large government as a good thing.
We mention all of this in order to set the stage for the larger discussion of how the mayor's current fall from grace can easily deteriorate further as the Bloomberg house of cards starts to fall apart with increased critical scrutiny. There is, as we have been persistently pointing out for the past nine years, so much that is ripe for re-evaluation. The current scandals will, in our view, trigger the re-evaluation.
But first, the recriminations over the snow balling will need to be fully aired-and the WSJ layed out the torrent of criticism that is being heaped on the mayor: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Thursday his administration fulfilled a promise to plow every city street, but elected officials and others insisted some streets never saw a plow before the 7 a.m. deadline, marking another setback for the beleaguered mayor. Mr. Bloomberg, who on Friday completes the first year of his third four-year term as the chief executive of the nation's largest city, has been besieged by a number of embarrassing episodes in recent weeks, with some saying he's endangering his image as an expert manager."
We can begin to hear Paul Simon's, "Slip slidin' away," start ringing in our ears: "The mayor said the administration plans to conduct a full investigation into the city's response to the storm. That probe will include examining allegations that disgruntled members of the Department of Sanitation deliberately slowed the snow removal as a protest."
However, the days of allowing Bloomberg to grade his own tests are long gone-and there will be others with an eye on Gracie Mansion who will be conducting their own examination of the mayor's failure of leadership-beginning with where the hell he was when the storm surge was on the horizon. Already the media is deserting him-with the NY Post comparing his praise of Sanit chief Doherty to George Bush, Katrina, and emergency management head "Brownie."
It is the NY Daily News, though, that has done an exhaustive job at catalouging the failures-a reality that will continue to unfold in sharp contrast to the mayor's out of touch praise of the DSNY head. What will be seen as especially unforgiving, is the contrast between snow removal in Manhattan and that of the other boroughs: "In the blizzard of 2010, some boroughs were more equal than others. Mayor Bloomberg scoffed at claims that city snowplows favored Manhattan - where he lives - over the outer boroughs. "I care about all parts of this city," he said. But a Daily News review of Department of Sanitation records shows a stark disparity in the time it took to clear Manhattan streets and the time it took to plow out much of Brooklyn and Queens. The records show south Brooklyn neighborhoods - Carroll Gardens, Bay Ridge, Midwood, Flatbush, Mill Basin, Coney Island and Flatlands - were left largely untouched long after Manhattan was plowed nearly top to bottom."
The deconstruction of the Myth of Mike will devolve from the unmasking of the illusion that Bloomberg was, owing in the first instance to his great wealth, an ubber-manager as well as a fiscal maven. He was able to propagate this fantasy because of his initial outlay of record amounts of campaign cash that funded an effective disinformation effort-which was aided and abetted by tabloids whose owners viewed the mayor as a blood brother; and also someone who could save us from the usual Democratic political suspects who they loathe.
The role of the NY Times in all of this has yet to be fully explicated-but the fact that they have yet to comment on the CityTime scandal, and came up with a tardy and tepid editorial response to the snow screw up, is certainly suggestive of an attitude of pull the punches caution. Why this is so, we'll leave to the ferreting of the inimitable Wayne Barrett-but the end result was the creation of a Bloomberg aura that turned out to be, to put it mildly, somewhat less than authentic.
Of course, as is always true in politics, it helps to be lucky-and Bloomberg was certainly that. In the first place, he came in on the heels of a real catastrophe, one that he wasn't ever tasked with having to tackle. And, with a city looking for a return to normalcy, a bland Bloomberg was an anodyne. In addition, he replaced a larger than life chief executive who, while accomplishing some major sea changes in the political culture, had clearly worn out his welcome-and thus Bloomberg was seen in many quarters as a relief from the sturm und drang of Rudy Giuliani.
Also, in a brilliant stroke, Bloomberg made sure to co-opt the nuisance making Al Sharpton with a lucrative sinecure. But as important as all of the preceding may have been, the mayor was fortunate not to face any major crisis of leadership-such as the ones that sandbagged him in the close of last year.
This allowed Bloomberg to stealthily build a core of support from the usual machinations of the judicious exercise of political power -as well as from his unprecedented utilization of a political fortune to create a retinue of political retainers in the city's large not for profit sector. These were some very well regarded and high profile folks, and they helped to create the patina of Bloomberg's greatness. These compensated toadies could be counted on to come out of the woodwork in droves for some of the mayor's signature issues, like congestion pricing and mayoral control of the schools.
But, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein's observation about Oakland, there really wasn't, and isn't, any there, there. The mayor's one signature accomplishment-at least according to his hagiographers-is school governance. As far as the educational miracle is concerned, however, it is much like Oakland as well-with a huge increase of funding leading to rather modest gains in school achievement. All that awaits, is for someone to do the cost-benefit analysis-and not forget to add the forever costs of all those additional health and pension benefits that come with the big increase on school personnel.
And then we come to the mayor's claim to have brought about a degree of fiscal stability-and here, once again, there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis. Mike Bloomberg vastly increased the size and scope of municipal government; and raised taxes and fees to cover the increase-while at the same time raising the city's debt ceiling to dangerous levels. It is a government-much like that of the state-that we can no longer afford; but it is being run by a man who has always embraced large government as a good thing.
We mention all of this in order to set the stage for the larger discussion of how the mayor's current fall from grace can easily deteriorate further as the Bloomberg house of cards starts to fall apart with increased critical scrutiny. There is, as we have been persistently pointing out for the past nine years, so much that is ripe for re-evaluation. The current scandals will, in our view, trigger the re-evaluation.
But first, the recriminations over the snow balling will need to be fully aired-and the WSJ layed out the torrent of criticism that is being heaped on the mayor: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Thursday his administration fulfilled a promise to plow every city street, but elected officials and others insisted some streets never saw a plow before the 7 a.m. deadline, marking another setback for the beleaguered mayor. Mr. Bloomberg, who on Friday completes the first year of his third four-year term as the chief executive of the nation's largest city, has been besieged by a number of embarrassing episodes in recent weeks, with some saying he's endangering his image as an expert manager."
We can begin to hear Paul Simon's, "Slip slidin' away," start ringing in our ears: "The mayor said the administration plans to conduct a full investigation into the city's response to the storm. That probe will include examining allegations that disgruntled members of the Department of Sanitation deliberately slowed the snow removal as a protest."
However, the days of allowing Bloomberg to grade his own tests are long gone-and there will be others with an eye on Gracie Mansion who will be conducting their own examination of the mayor's failure of leadership-beginning with where the hell he was when the storm surge was on the horizon. Already the media is deserting him-with the NY Post comparing his praise of Sanit chief Doherty to George Bush, Katrina, and emergency management head "Brownie."
It is the NY Daily News, though, that has done an exhaustive job at catalouging the failures-a reality that will continue to unfold in sharp contrast to the mayor's out of touch praise of the DSNY head. What will be seen as especially unforgiving, is the contrast between snow removal in Manhattan and that of the other boroughs: "In the blizzard of 2010, some boroughs were more equal than others. Mayor Bloomberg scoffed at claims that city snowplows favored Manhattan - where he lives - over the outer boroughs. "I care about all parts of this city," he said. But a Daily News review of Department of Sanitation records shows a stark disparity in the time it took to clear Manhattan streets and the time it took to plow out much of Brooklyn and Queens. The records show south Brooklyn neighborhoods - Carroll Gardens, Bay Ridge, Midwood, Flatbush, Mill Basin, Coney Island and Flatlands - were left largely untouched long after Manhattan was plowed nearly top to bottom."
"Do You Hear the People Sing?"
Governor Andrew Cuomo, taking a page out of the Les Miz libretto, laid out what will be the determining factor of his success-an ability to mobilize the folks in order to counteract the influence of the special interests. As the WSJ reports: "Where are the people in Albany? Where are the people in the capital? That is the profound absence in this system. The people aren't engaged," he said. "If there's a silver bullet in the battle to recapture Albany, it is the re-engagement of our citizens. This capital has become a physical metaphor for the isolation and alienation of our people."
But how to engage the people so that they can truly sing? Fred Dicker outlines the plan: "Cuomo, to that end, plans to launch an aggressive statewide barnstorming tour next week to begin to mobilize the public on behalf of his planned reforms in a way that's not been seen before. Separately, he's helping raise a $10 million-plus war chest to back up the mobilization with a sophisticated media campaign. "There is no more time to waste. It is a time for deeds not words, and results not rhetoric," Cuomo declared yesterday."
But how to engage the people so that they can truly sing? Fred Dicker outlines the plan: "Cuomo, to that end, plans to launch an aggressive statewide barnstorming tour next week to begin to mobilize the public on behalf of his planned reforms in a way that's not been seen before. Separately, he's helping raise a $10 million-plus war chest to back up the mobilization with a sophisticated media campaign. "There is no more time to waste. It is a time for deeds not words, and results not rhetoric," Cuomo declared yesterday."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)