Yesterday's overflow state senate hearing on Indian cigarette tax avoidance was a tour de force-and that it was so can be attributed to the performance of our old friend Steve Rosenthal. Steve has as much knowledge about how cigarettes are sold as anyone in New York; and he cogently laid out how much it is costing the state because of the ability of one special interest to flout the law.
But we should also add that the entire hearing was an education-and Deputy Tax Commissioner Comiskey did a solid job explaining why his department has held back from enforcing the law. He made it clear to the senators that his tax department is ready to start to enforce 471-E today; as long as the governor gives them the green light-something that hasn't happened because Paterson is dithering on this issue.
And Comiskey made it clear why that's so-talking about the, "complexity," of this issue; and the need to try to find a, "peaceful resolution." Indicating clearly to us that it is the fear of Indian violence that is holding the governor back.
But as we said in our testimony-and the point was emphasized by Rosenthal as well: "I think it is also important to point out that the failure of the executive to enforce a cigarette tax law that the legislature has mandated leads inevitably to the erosion of the respect for the rule of law itself. The fact that a New York State Tax Commissioner, in response to the legislative mandate, has stated that he won’t enforce the cigarette tax equally because of a supposed fear of Indian violence, is both a shocking statement and precedent. There should never be any “rioter’s veto” that prevents law enforcement from doing its job."
But Comiskey clearly stated that the governor has stayed his hand-but in the face of a barrage of questions, was unable to pinpoint just how much this diffidence is costing the tax payers of the state. Rosenthal, however, was happy to oblige with as accurate an evaluation of the tax loss as we have heard.
Using federal tobacco consumption data, he computed the formula that analyzed what the state has lost through the declining rate of cigarette consumption, versus what it has lost-and continues to lose-through illegal, non taxed sales. The estimated loss from illegal sales comes to around 40 million cartons a year; and at approximately $40 per carton the loss to New York State is a staggering $1.6 billion/year.
But Rosenthal also documented the loss of business that this Indian avoidance has generated-90% of cigarette wholesalers that were operating 10 years ago have closed-and that doesn't account for all of the bodegas that have shuttered as 60% of their tobacco business has gone to the black market that is fueled by reservation sales.
But it gets worse. With buttleggers operating with impunity right in front of local bodegas, store owners have been forced to resort to fighting fire with fire-buying Internet smokes and selling them on the street in competition with the smugglers. In essence, as Rosenthal points out, we have made thieves out of many an honest merchant.
And kudos to Senator Ruben Diaz who asked the commissioner: "Do the Indian children go to public schools? Do the Indians use the public hospitals and transportation? If so, why don't they pay taxes for the services that they are using?" And Commissioner Comiskey said: "That's a good question, senator, one that I don't have a good answer for."
But the governor's lawyer, Peter Kiernan, demonstrated just what kind of cowardice lies behind the executive diffidence. As NY1 reports: "...the cost of police may wipe out all that extra revenue. 'And that is without trying to assess the cost of physical injury, or the loss of life, or possible property damage,' Kiernan said." Don't enforce the law, then-and allow that rioter's veto to prevail, we guess. All of which makes Paterson the Neville Chamberlain of New York governors. How sad a spectacle.
So the senators received an earful-with the convenience store owners stating their case as well (led by the inimitable Jim Calvin of NYACS). It is now up to the senate to devise a solution to the governor's hard to fathom timidity. There's too much money at stake to drop the ball now, and if the governor's too afraid to act, someone needs to find a way to give him a spinal transplant.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
For the Love of Money
The Bloomberg campaign's ability to buy support is now taking on Biblical proportions-with the admonition that money is the root of all evil becoming a kind of catch phrase to describe the fervor with which a wide range of folks are finding the mayor irresistible. Here courtesy of the omnipresent Liz Benjamin is the first example:
"TWO COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS ENDORSE MIKE -- BRINGING THE MAYOR’S TOTAL NEWSPAPER ENDORSEMENTS TO 60 FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION
Today, Polish-language Nowy Dziennik - Polish Daily News and Spanish-language El Universal Prensa endorsed Mayor Bloomberg’s bid for re-election. Nowy Dziennik has a circulation of roughly 22,000 and is distributed across the five boroughs."
Now, in a more scrutinized election campaign this kind of chest bumping would be treated with a heavy dose of scorn, given the fact that all of these endorsements have come with an obvious price tag. Mike Bloomberg's ability to lavish tens of thousands of dollars on almost every paper that is published in NYC has achieved the desired result-the quid pro quo of support.
A case in point serves as an example. Andy Wolf, who runs the Riverdale Review, has been a persistent thorn in the mayor's side-attacking him at every turn, and even printing some of our own broadsides on the paper's front page. Do you know how much money the Riverdale Review has received in advertising from the Bloomberg campaign? Absolutely zilch!
This is pure pay to play-but as we have pointed out time and time again, it is a P-T-P scheme that has the money flowing in the opposite direction; from Mike Bloomberg's inexhaustible supply of cash. Which brings us to Mayor Corey Booker of Newark, an anodyne for Bloomberg in running against an African-American challenger. Booker has been doing down field blocking for Mike-and did so this past Sunday in African-American churches all over Queens.
Now, as the NY Times report, we find out that young Mr. Booker has also been lavished with some monetary affection from the Bloombucks stash-albeit through a convenient second hand source: "On April 17, Mr. Booker, a Democrat, crossed party and state lines by endorsing Mr. Bloomberg, an independent running as a Republican, in Harlem. About a month later, Mr. Bloomberg’s longtime accountant contributed $26,000 — the maximum allowed — to Mr. Booker’s re-election committee, according to campaign finance records."
It's amazing what a little monetary affection can bring-and has anyone heard from the irrepressible Al Sharpton recently? Money can buy both love and silence, it appears. So we move inevitably to the upcoming election with Mike Bloomberg having enough folks on retainer to beat off his challenger. But what about the dire fiscal challenge that made his third term so compelling in the first place?
As Michael Powell tells us in this morning's Times, Bloomberg has difficulty articulating just why he has opened his personal bank vault for another electoral spending spree: "But by night’s end, what was missing was the urgency that motivated the mayor to embark on this most controversial of his election bids. Months ago, he suggested that the city’s dire fiscal condition, the ledgers dipped in red ink, required his cool competence and financial legerdemain. But asked the question on Tuesday night — what do you hope to accomplish in the next four years that you haven’t done yet? — Mr. Bloomberg turned prosaic. “So,” he said, hesitating just a second, “I think it’s more of the same, making sure that we continue the things, making sure that we expand the universe of people that benefit from those things.”
No compelling rationale can be proffered because the third term overreach was never really about anything but self-aggrandizement. And, as the campaign ends, Mike Bloomberg finds that given the amount of largess he has spread around-and the level of editorial ass-kissing he has received-he doesn't even need to fake it. Everything gets buried in an avalanche of spending, and in the most ironic fashion, Bloomberg has demonstrated that NYC really is a luxury item-one that only he can afford to buy.
"TWO COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS ENDORSE MIKE -- BRINGING THE MAYOR’S TOTAL NEWSPAPER ENDORSEMENTS TO 60 FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION
Today, Polish-language Nowy Dziennik - Polish Daily News and Spanish-language El Universal Prensa endorsed Mayor Bloomberg’s bid for re-election. Nowy Dziennik has a circulation of roughly 22,000 and is distributed across the five boroughs."
Now, in a more scrutinized election campaign this kind of chest bumping would be treated with a heavy dose of scorn, given the fact that all of these endorsements have come with an obvious price tag. Mike Bloomberg's ability to lavish tens of thousands of dollars on almost every paper that is published in NYC has achieved the desired result-the quid pro quo of support.
A case in point serves as an example. Andy Wolf, who runs the Riverdale Review, has been a persistent thorn in the mayor's side-attacking him at every turn, and even printing some of our own broadsides on the paper's front page. Do you know how much money the Riverdale Review has received in advertising from the Bloomberg campaign? Absolutely zilch!
This is pure pay to play-but as we have pointed out time and time again, it is a P-T-P scheme that has the money flowing in the opposite direction; from Mike Bloomberg's inexhaustible supply of cash. Which brings us to Mayor Corey Booker of Newark, an anodyne for Bloomberg in running against an African-American challenger. Booker has been doing down field blocking for Mike-and did so this past Sunday in African-American churches all over Queens.
Now, as the NY Times report, we find out that young Mr. Booker has also been lavished with some monetary affection from the Bloombucks stash-albeit through a convenient second hand source: "On April 17, Mr. Booker, a Democrat, crossed party and state lines by endorsing Mr. Bloomberg, an independent running as a Republican, in Harlem. About a month later, Mr. Bloomberg’s longtime accountant contributed $26,000 — the maximum allowed — to Mr. Booker’s re-election committee, according to campaign finance records."
It's amazing what a little monetary affection can bring-and has anyone heard from the irrepressible Al Sharpton recently? Money can buy both love and silence, it appears. So we move inevitably to the upcoming election with Mike Bloomberg having enough folks on retainer to beat off his challenger. But what about the dire fiscal challenge that made his third term so compelling in the first place?
As Michael Powell tells us in this morning's Times, Bloomberg has difficulty articulating just why he has opened his personal bank vault for another electoral spending spree: "But by night’s end, what was missing was the urgency that motivated the mayor to embark on this most controversial of his election bids. Months ago, he suggested that the city’s dire fiscal condition, the ledgers dipped in red ink, required his cool competence and financial legerdemain. But asked the question on Tuesday night — what do you hope to accomplish in the next four years that you haven’t done yet? — Mr. Bloomberg turned prosaic. “So,” he said, hesitating just a second, “I think it’s more of the same, making sure that we continue the things, making sure that we expand the universe of people that benefit from those things.”
No compelling rationale can be proffered because the third term overreach was never really about anything but self-aggrandizement. And, as the campaign ends, Mike Bloomberg finds that given the amount of largess he has spread around-and the level of editorial ass-kissing he has received-he doesn't even need to fake it. Everything gets buried in an avalanche of spending, and in the most ironic fashion, Bloomberg has demonstrated that NYC really is a luxury item-one that only he can afford to buy.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Third Term Mike: Nostradamus
Mike Bloomberg is proving to be more than a mirthless technocrat and businessman-he's now become a seer. And his remarks yesterday at NYU envisioning the city in 2013 are truly inspiring; if you are someone who is inspired by the musings of a fellow who has spent a little bit too long in his own echo chamber: "I’m so proud of what we’ve done over the past eight years, but I’m running because I believe the next four can be even better. So let’s fast forward four years...By 2013, we will also have created - far and away - the best - public - school system - of any big city in the country. Not only will more middle class families be staying in the City and sending their kids to school here, I believe we will start to see an entirely new phenomenon: Families from around the nation and the region will be moving into the City for the schools."
Is this unhinged, or what? Let's juxtapose this solipsistic vision with a sharper dose of reality-like what's in this morning's NY Post: "New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows. More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country. The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out."
So the schools with be so outstanding that they will stem the exodus of tax payers? Sounds like a psychotic break to us-and Bloomberg's vision for 2013 conveniently avoids the harsh economic reality-one that, as Nicole Gelinas points out, he deserves a great deal of credit for fostering: "Mayor Bloomberg, you presided over the biggest economic boom that the city has ever seen. But you also presided over the biggest spending boom that modern New York has ever seen. When you took office, the portion of city spending paid by local taxpayers, as opposed to federal and state subsidies, was about $26.3 billion annually. Today, it's $41.5 billion, a 31 percent jump after inflation, and more than 20 percent higher, adjusted for population, than under Mayor John Lindsay. Much of that spending went to higher benefit costs for public employees, as well as for Medicaid."
And the NY Daily News, avoiding the finger pointing that the mayor deserves, makes a similar point today: "From 2000 to 2008, 1.5 million people left the state, including 1.1 million from the city. Most went to the Sun Belt, but it wasn't the weather that drew them. What stole them away was the promise of a better life at lower cost. And, make no mistake, the departees were not down-on-their-luck types. They were solid wage earners with average adjusted gross incomes in 2006 and 2007 of $57,144, according to Internal Revenue Service statistics analyzed by the Empire Center for New York State Policy. This migration is a result of an economic squeeze that has become unendurable for working- and middle-class families. While a lucky few at the very top have prospered handsomely, the broad middle has suffered wage stagnation and a rising cost of living."
And this happened under whose watch? Funny, but this didn't even get a brief mention yesterday when Bloomberg did his P. T. Barnum sucker act over at NYU. Third term Mike did, however, get to try out his newly honed comedy routine.
As Clyde Haberman tells us: "Buoyed by the polls and his own astonishing campaign spending, Mr. Bloomberg seems confident that four more years at City Hall are in the bag for him. Monday morning, he spoke about the New York that he envisioned in 2013, when his third term would end. This was in a speech to students attending New York University’s Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service. He was pleased, he told them, to speak at a school named for “a distinguished three-term mayor.” That produced thin laughter. Maybe the students had the Monday morning blahs. Or maybe they simply didn’t think it was funny. “I thought I’d get a better laugh than that,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “It’s not easy to do three-term jokes, folks.”There’s a reason for that."
And that reason lies with the underlying cause of why the folks are fleeing this "luxury item" city-as the News cogently observes: "This migration is a result of an economic squeeze that has become unendurable for working- and middle-class families. While a lucky few at the very top have prospered handsomely, the broad middle has suffered wage stagnation and a rising cost of living."
The paper goes on to hold the governor accountable, while not even giving a passing shout out to Third Term Mike. But isn't that basically unfair? After all, most New Yorkers feel that Paterson is really over his head with this governing thing; but Bloomberg? Isn't he Mr. Indispensable, the guy we simply can't do without in this most serious of economic crises? You know, we're staring to feel some sympathy with Paterson's complaints about unfair double standards.
Is this unhinged, or what? Let's juxtapose this solipsistic vision with a sharper dose of reality-like what's in this morning's NY Post: "New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows. More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country. The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out."
So the schools with be so outstanding that they will stem the exodus of tax payers? Sounds like a psychotic break to us-and Bloomberg's vision for 2013 conveniently avoids the harsh economic reality-one that, as Nicole Gelinas points out, he deserves a great deal of credit for fostering: "Mayor Bloomberg, you presided over the biggest economic boom that the city has ever seen. But you also presided over the biggest spending boom that modern New York has ever seen. When you took office, the portion of city spending paid by local taxpayers, as opposed to federal and state subsidies, was about $26.3 billion annually. Today, it's $41.5 billion, a 31 percent jump after inflation, and more than 20 percent higher, adjusted for population, than under Mayor John Lindsay. Much of that spending went to higher benefit costs for public employees, as well as for Medicaid."
And the NY Daily News, avoiding the finger pointing that the mayor deserves, makes a similar point today: "From 2000 to 2008, 1.5 million people left the state, including 1.1 million from the city. Most went to the Sun Belt, but it wasn't the weather that drew them. What stole them away was the promise of a better life at lower cost. And, make no mistake, the departees were not down-on-their-luck types. They were solid wage earners with average adjusted gross incomes in 2006 and 2007 of $57,144, according to Internal Revenue Service statistics analyzed by the Empire Center for New York State Policy. This migration is a result of an economic squeeze that has become unendurable for working- and middle-class families. While a lucky few at the very top have prospered handsomely, the broad middle has suffered wage stagnation and a rising cost of living."
And this happened under whose watch? Funny, but this didn't even get a brief mention yesterday when Bloomberg did his P. T. Barnum sucker act over at NYU. Third term Mike did, however, get to try out his newly honed comedy routine.
As Clyde Haberman tells us: "Buoyed by the polls and his own astonishing campaign spending, Mr. Bloomberg seems confident that four more years at City Hall are in the bag for him. Monday morning, he spoke about the New York that he envisioned in 2013, when his third term would end. This was in a speech to students attending New York University’s Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service. He was pleased, he told them, to speak at a school named for “a distinguished three-term mayor.” That produced thin laughter. Maybe the students had the Monday morning blahs. Or maybe they simply didn’t think it was funny. “I thought I’d get a better laugh than that,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “It’s not easy to do three-term jokes, folks.”There’s a reason for that."
And that reason lies with the underlying cause of why the folks are fleeing this "luxury item" city-as the News cogently observes: "This migration is a result of an economic squeeze that has become unendurable for working- and middle-class families. While a lucky few at the very top have prospered handsomely, the broad middle has suffered wage stagnation and a rising cost of living."
The paper goes on to hold the governor accountable, while not even giving a passing shout out to Third Term Mike. But isn't that basically unfair? After all, most New Yorkers feel that Paterson is really over his head with this governing thing; but Bloomberg? Isn't he Mr. Indispensable, the guy we simply can't do without in this most serious of economic crises? You know, we're staring to feel some sympathy with Paterson's complaints about unfair double standards.
Bloomberg-Induced Coma
It appears as if the Bloombergistas may be worried that New Yorkers, lacking enthusiasm for the ebullient billionaire, and exhausted by his relentless huckstering, will simply stay home next week. As the NY Times reports: "His administration’s record aside, and his campaign’s unmatched spending notwithstanding, Michael R. Bloomberg’s aides in the field mince no words about exactly what will determine the outcome of next Tuesday’s mayoral election. “At the end of the day, every election is about one thing: making sure your supporters get to the polls and vote,” Lenny Speiller, the campaign’s get-out-the-vote director, declares on the Bloomberg Web site. Recalling the record-low turnouts in last month’s primary and runoff, Mr. Speiller exhorts Bloomberg volunteers to shift into overdrive."
And, of course, there's plenty of money for that as well-leaving us to wonder whether the Beatles can be resurrected to do a reprise-with altered lyrics-of their "Money Can't Buy You Love" single. As Speiller (what an apt name for those of you who understand Yiddish) says: "“Our efforts have been and will continue to be the most expansive and effective grass-roots operation this city has ever seen,” he said in a blog post dated Friday. “Tonight we will knock on our 1,500,000th door, make our 550,000th volunteer phone call and hand out literature at our 4,000th transit stop and high traffic location — and if you think that’s impressive, you haven’t seen anything yet!”
These folks are actually patting themselves on the back for an ability to spend Bloomberg's unlimited funds-as if that's a sign of acumen and sophistication. The reality, it seems, is that there could be a record low turnout next Tuesday: "With the mayor leading in public opinion polls by 16 percentage points or more, most New Yorkers might think he has nothing to worry about. But elections have been lost — most notably David N. Dinkins’s 1993 re-election race — because people who insisted to pollsters that they supported a candidate ultimately did not bother to vote. And a number of political analysts say that a predicted record-low turnout next Tuesday may jeopardize Mr. Bloomberg’s projected double-digit victory margin and even deliver him a third term with the lowest total vote received by a New York City mayor in nearly a century."
And this is in spite of how grateful we all should be for Bloomberg providing us with more choice in this election season. What the mayor failed to tell us, was that the best choice he has given us is the one to stay home in protest of his arrogant over turning of the term limits law, and his record attempts at numbing us to death with Soviet-style campaign pronouncements.
But the low projected turnout could well mean a much closer race than the latest polls are indicating: "Those analysts discount the projections of a large margin of victory because, they argue, the most motivated voters are likely to be those who are angry with the mayor and inclined to vote against him, largely because of his reversal last year over term limits. Still, few, if any, independent analysts are going so far as to predict that Mr. Bloomberg will lose, given his sophisticated and amply financed get-out-the-vote operation, abetted by the support of major unions. “There’s no doubt that the term limit issue will be driving a lot of voters to the polls,” said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, “but my guess is so will Bloomberg’s vans.”
So it may come down to Bloomberg's ability to hire chauffeured limos for every voter-along with the free beer that Tammany Hall used to use as a motivator back in the day: "Mr. Bloomberg won in 2001 with 744,000 votes. He won a second term four years later with 753,000 of the 1.3 million cast. If as few as 20 percent of eligible voters turn out and Mr. Bloomberg wins even by a 10-percentage-point landslide, he would be re-elected with fewer than 500,000 votes — the lowest total since John F. Hylan’s in 1917."
So we're back to the future it seems.-with enthusiasm as low as it can be. This is some legacy for the greatest campaign profligacy of all times. The Bloombucks have done their job in driving voters into a coma; a sad day for democracy in NYC.
And, of course, there's plenty of money for that as well-leaving us to wonder whether the Beatles can be resurrected to do a reprise-with altered lyrics-of their "Money Can't Buy You Love" single. As Speiller (what an apt name for those of you who understand Yiddish) says: "“Our efforts have been and will continue to be the most expansive and effective grass-roots operation this city has ever seen,” he said in a blog post dated Friday. “Tonight we will knock on our 1,500,000th door, make our 550,000th volunteer phone call and hand out literature at our 4,000th transit stop and high traffic location — and if you think that’s impressive, you haven’t seen anything yet!”
These folks are actually patting themselves on the back for an ability to spend Bloomberg's unlimited funds-as if that's a sign of acumen and sophistication. The reality, it seems, is that there could be a record low turnout next Tuesday: "With the mayor leading in public opinion polls by 16 percentage points or more, most New Yorkers might think he has nothing to worry about. But elections have been lost — most notably David N. Dinkins’s 1993 re-election race — because people who insisted to pollsters that they supported a candidate ultimately did not bother to vote. And a number of political analysts say that a predicted record-low turnout next Tuesday may jeopardize Mr. Bloomberg’s projected double-digit victory margin and even deliver him a third term with the lowest total vote received by a New York City mayor in nearly a century."
And this is in spite of how grateful we all should be for Bloomberg providing us with more choice in this election season. What the mayor failed to tell us, was that the best choice he has given us is the one to stay home in protest of his arrogant over turning of the term limits law, and his record attempts at numbing us to death with Soviet-style campaign pronouncements.
But the low projected turnout could well mean a much closer race than the latest polls are indicating: "Those analysts discount the projections of a large margin of victory because, they argue, the most motivated voters are likely to be those who are angry with the mayor and inclined to vote against him, largely because of his reversal last year over term limits. Still, few, if any, independent analysts are going so far as to predict that Mr. Bloomberg will lose, given his sophisticated and amply financed get-out-the-vote operation, abetted by the support of major unions. “There’s no doubt that the term limit issue will be driving a lot of voters to the polls,” said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, “but my guess is so will Bloomberg’s vans.”
So it may come down to Bloomberg's ability to hire chauffeured limos for every voter-along with the free beer that Tammany Hall used to use as a motivator back in the day: "Mr. Bloomberg won in 2001 with 744,000 votes. He won a second term four years later with 753,000 of the 1.3 million cast. If as few as 20 percent of eligible voters turn out and Mr. Bloomberg wins even by a 10-percentage-point landslide, he would be re-elected with fewer than 500,000 votes — the lowest total since John F. Hylan’s in 1917."
So we're back to the future it seems.-with enthusiasm as low as it can be. This is some legacy for the greatest campaign profligacy of all times. The Bloombucks have done their job in driving voters into a coma; a sad day for democracy in NYC.
Curb Your Enthusiasm!
Curbed is reporting on the latest EDC efforts to appear as if it has a great deal of momentum going in its plan to redevelop Willets Point-and remove the legitimate property owners: "Now, with the one-year anniversary of the rezoning win fast approaching, there is Willets Point news to report. The city's Economic Development Corporation has announced a new set of acquisition deals with landowners in the, er, colorful area, bringing the total amount of iTri land acquired to about 70 percent. And now the bigger headline: The EDC has issued a Request for Qualifications to interested developers. Could this crazy plan actually be happening? You gotta believe!"
What's left out of EDC's Lombino breathlessness, is that the city agency doesn't have agreements with over half of the current property owners-and that its methodology has apparently been changed, indicating an almost complete absence of truthfulness. As its press release tells us: "The City is contemplating moving forward with a staged development strategy for Willets Point that will first focus on the southwest portion of the District that includes approximately 18 acres of development area and streets and about four acres of an interim buffer zone."
This is a complete about face from its original assertion that, because of the soil contamination, the entire 60 or so acre parcel needed to be developed all at once. So, as Meatloaf used to sing: "What'll it be boy?" To us, it looks as if the city is continuing to posture-and we're in for a long an expensive process that the city lacks funds to see to a conclusion. Just wait until the budget starts to crater and the re-elected Bloomberg tells New Yorkers that he's going to spend $700 million to evict hundreds of tax paying businesses and thousands of workers-mostly immigrants (another example of how the mayor's campaign rhetoric directed at immigrants rings hollow.)
As fantasy prone as the EDC statement is, it lacks the imagination of the Queens BP who commented as follows: "Each step forward gives us a clearer vision of a plan that will redevelop Willets Point in way that will capitalize on the resources surrounding it, including recreational uses and a network of highways, while strengthening the entire region. The redevelopment of Willets Point will also provide construction and permanent jobs that will broaden our City’s tax base and create a much improved, greener environment for a new generation of residents and businesses.”
Our funny bone got tickled with the "network of highways" remark-an indication that Helen has overlooked the fact that there is no rational plan in place to get people in and out from upwards of 1,000,000 square feet of development. And we're still waiting for the city to put a price on all of this malarkey. The city should be informed at the costs-after all, the pie in the sky benefits are being trumpeted, so why not put a price tag on all of this so we can do our own cost-benefit analysis?
What's left out of EDC's Lombino breathlessness, is that the city agency doesn't have agreements with over half of the current property owners-and that its methodology has apparently been changed, indicating an almost complete absence of truthfulness. As its press release tells us: "The City is contemplating moving forward with a staged development strategy for Willets Point that will first focus on the southwest portion of the District that includes approximately 18 acres of development area and streets and about four acres of an interim buffer zone."
This is a complete about face from its original assertion that, because of the soil contamination, the entire 60 or so acre parcel needed to be developed all at once. So, as Meatloaf used to sing: "What'll it be boy?" To us, it looks as if the city is continuing to posture-and we're in for a long an expensive process that the city lacks funds to see to a conclusion. Just wait until the budget starts to crater and the re-elected Bloomberg tells New Yorkers that he's going to spend $700 million to evict hundreds of tax paying businesses and thousands of workers-mostly immigrants (another example of how the mayor's campaign rhetoric directed at immigrants rings hollow.)
As fantasy prone as the EDC statement is, it lacks the imagination of the Queens BP who commented as follows: "Each step forward gives us a clearer vision of a plan that will redevelop Willets Point in way that will capitalize on the resources surrounding it, including recreational uses and a network of highways, while strengthening the entire region. The redevelopment of Willets Point will also provide construction and permanent jobs that will broaden our City’s tax base and create a much improved, greener environment for a new generation of residents and businesses.”
Our funny bone got tickled with the "network of highways" remark-an indication that Helen has overlooked the fact that there is no rational plan in place to get people in and out from upwards of 1,000,000 square feet of development. And we're still waiting for the city to put a price on all of this malarkey. The city should be informed at the costs-after all, the pie in the sky benefits are being trumpeted, so why not put a price tag on all of this so we can do our own cost-benefit analysis?
Paterson: NY Times Worse Than New York!
You gotta give David Paterson some credit for feistiness-and his calling out of the NY Times on its criticisms of his leadership put a smile on our face. As Liz reports: "Still stinging from the Oct. 19 New York Times editorial that deemed him “weak and ineffective,” Gov. David Paterson took some shots at the Gray Lady this weekend, DN Capitol Bureau Chief Ken Lovett reports.
Employing the old "those in glass houses" analogy, Paterson noted the Times is suffering from its own money problems and announced last week it will be cutting 100 newsroom positions - about 8 percent of the total - by the end of the year. “Two days after this high edict about what they think about what I’m doing, they laid off 100 people from their newsroom,” Paterson told the state chapter of the National Federation of the Blind on Saturday."
You go guv! The Times is probably one of the last places that should be issuing obiter dicta on someone else's fiscal competency. Of course, the governor couldn't leave well enough alone, and went on to complain that he was being unfairly ridiculed because of his limited vision: "During his speech, Paterson also said he has been subjected to "degrading" attacks and "blatant hostility" due to his visual impairment. This comes on the heels of his claim in August that black elected officials like himself, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and even President Obama are subjected to unfair scrutiny by the media because of the color of their skin."
Which would normally prompt us to comment on the Times tangle as an example of the blind leading, well, you know the rest, so we won't go there because it really appears that this administration is in its death rattle phase-and there's no sense beating on a dead horse; no matter what its sighted condition might be.
Employing the old "those in glass houses" analogy, Paterson noted the Times is suffering from its own money problems and announced last week it will be cutting 100 newsroom positions - about 8 percent of the total - by the end of the year. “Two days after this high edict about what they think about what I’m doing, they laid off 100 people from their newsroom,” Paterson told the state chapter of the National Federation of the Blind on Saturday."
You go guv! The Times is probably one of the last places that should be issuing obiter dicta on someone else's fiscal competency. Of course, the governor couldn't leave well enough alone, and went on to complain that he was being unfairly ridiculed because of his limited vision: "During his speech, Paterson also said he has been subjected to "degrading" attacks and "blatant hostility" due to his visual impairment. This comes on the heels of his claim in August that black elected officials like himself, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and even President Obama are subjected to unfair scrutiny by the media because of the color of their skin."
Which would normally prompt us to comment on the Times tangle as an example of the blind leading, well, you know the rest, so we won't go there because it really appears that this administration is in its death rattle phase-and there's no sense beating on a dead horse; no matter what its sighted condition might be.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Fresh Initiative Hearing Today
The City Planning Department's initiative to bring new supermarkets uinto areas that have been labeled as, "underserved," will be heard today at the City Council's Zoning and Franchises Committee. Our own analysis is as follows:
Mike Bloomberg’s administration is promoting a program of new supermarket development in the city-and hopes to bring an additional 15 stores into New York over the next decade. What is missing in this effort, is the recognition that, under Bloomberg’s watch, the city has lost 300 local markets
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/nyregion/05citywide.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion)
The Fresh Initiative, then, avoids confronting the larger problem of why the city is losing neighborhood supermarkets-a problem that devolves from the city’s high cost of doing business (high taxes, rents and over-regulation primarily). A focus on marker preservation, rather than new market construction, would force attention to be paid to the policies of the current administration that have contributed to the efflux of these important local businesses.
In addition, concomitant with the disappearance of these local food stores, , is the loss of good paying union jobs with pensions and other benefits; a situation that has been exacerbated-promoting more store closures- by mega-development policies that have led to the proliferation of non-union box stores such as BJs. So the loss of local markets has been accompanied by the loss of good jobs and their replacement by part time and low wage employment.
A sensible policy of supermarket retention-providing low income New Yorkers with better access to healthier foods-needs to be developed along side of any program of subsidized new store development. If retention policies are ignored, new store promotion becomes at best a palliative; but at worst a contributor to even more losses as subsidized markets put older stores at greater risk of failure. And, it goes without saying, that any public subsidy effort in this area-or any other, for that matter-must include a provision for living wage so that New Yorkers get the most mileage out of the use of their tax dollars.
http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/06/fallacies-in-going-to-market.html
Mike Bloomberg’s administration is promoting a program of new supermarket development in the city-and hopes to bring an additional 15 stores into New York over the next decade. What is missing in this effort, is the recognition that, under Bloomberg’s watch, the city has lost 300 local markets
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/nyregion/05citywide.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion)
The Fresh Initiative, then, avoids confronting the larger problem of why the city is losing neighborhood supermarkets-a problem that devolves from the city’s high cost of doing business (high taxes, rents and over-regulation primarily). A focus on marker preservation, rather than new market construction, would force attention to be paid to the policies of the current administration that have contributed to the efflux of these important local businesses.
In addition, concomitant with the disappearance of these local food stores, , is the loss of good paying union jobs with pensions and other benefits; a situation that has been exacerbated-promoting more store closures- by mega-development policies that have led to the proliferation of non-union box stores such as BJs. So the loss of local markets has been accompanied by the loss of good jobs and their replacement by part time and low wage employment.
A sensible policy of supermarket retention-providing low income New Yorkers with better access to healthier foods-needs to be developed along side of any program of subsidized new store development. If retention policies are ignored, new store promotion becomes at best a palliative; but at worst a contributor to even more losses as subsidized markets put older stores at greater risk of failure. And, it goes without saying, that any public subsidy effort in this area-or any other, for that matter-must include a provision for living wage so that New Yorkers get the most mileage out of the use of their tax dollars.
http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/06/fallacies-in-going-to-market.html
Brownnosing?
It seems that Queens weeklies are giddy about the brownfields grant that was received by the Flushing Willets Point Corona LDC-forgetting the controversy surrounding whether the group is legally allowed to lobby in the first place. This controversy was given a renewed focus this past week when the NY Post revealed that AG Cuomo was investigating the political activities of NY charities: "The issue of charities or not-for-profits giving political contributions is a matter we are currently investigating. It is not appropriate, and it is not legal, and we want to make sure it doesn't happen anymore," a spokesman for Cuomo told The Post.
Now we await to see whether or not the AG will be taking a closer look at local development corporations, also not-for-profits, acting as lobbying arms for economic development initiatives. In particular, the aforementioned Willets Point LDC has to answer whether its application for not for profit status with the federal government-where its president Claire Shulman specifically claimed to eschew any direct lobbying-proscribes it from lobbying for the brownfields grant-or for anything else.
Because, as the Times Ledger reports: "The Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp. got the largest grant among 24 projects across the state to receive money through the state’s Brownfield Opportunity Area Program." Now, this wasn't achieved through any kind of immaculate conception-not when the Parkside Group is involved in advocacy for the group.
All of this is, of course, speculation, since we can't read the AG's mind. But we do know that the local development groups are trying to defend themselves by claiming that what they do isn't real lobbying. Former president Bill Clinton might be of some help with this effort: "Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury..."It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
So it goes with lobbying, we guess. But let's make one thing perfectly clear. Shulman's group was formed by a public/private partnership designed to advance the interests of, not only the city, but of the private business owners who make up the board of Shulman's LDC. This effort was both controversial and difficult-and the LDC was conceived of to advance the interests involved through the creation of the impression that this was a true grass roots initiative-and not the manufactured Astroturfing that it really was.
If, as we believe, this effort was illegal-and not just because Shulman failed to register as a lobbyist-then the entire land use review was corrupted and needs to be overturned since Shulman and her faux group played a central role in the campaign to remove local businesses from their properties. The ball is in the AG's court on this-and the family legacy is at stake as well.
As Crain's reminded us a few years back: "If Willets Point businesses' fight against eviction propels a champion of the underdog into a political career, it wouldn't be the first time. In 1963, a young, unheralded lawyer named Mario Cuomo took on Robert Moses, who wanted to raze the very same Queens site for aesthetic reasons before the 1964 World's Fair. Mr. Cuomo won. "It started a whole chain of events that got me into public life,'' recalls the former governor, who grew up in the borough's rough South Jamaica section."
Can history repeat itself? Stay tuned.
Now we await to see whether or not the AG will be taking a closer look at local development corporations, also not-for-profits, acting as lobbying arms for economic development initiatives. In particular, the aforementioned Willets Point LDC has to answer whether its application for not for profit status with the federal government-where its president Claire Shulman specifically claimed to eschew any direct lobbying-proscribes it from lobbying for the brownfields grant-or for anything else.
Because, as the Times Ledger reports: "The Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp. got the largest grant among 24 projects across the state to receive money through the state’s Brownfield Opportunity Area Program." Now, this wasn't achieved through any kind of immaculate conception-not when the Parkside Group is involved in advocacy for the group.
All of this is, of course, speculation, since we can't read the AG's mind. But we do know that the local development groups are trying to defend themselves by claiming that what they do isn't real lobbying. Former president Bill Clinton might be of some help with this effort: "Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury..."It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
So it goes with lobbying, we guess. But let's make one thing perfectly clear. Shulman's group was formed by a public/private partnership designed to advance the interests of, not only the city, but of the private business owners who make up the board of Shulman's LDC. This effort was both controversial and difficult-and the LDC was conceived of to advance the interests involved through the creation of the impression that this was a true grass roots initiative-and not the manufactured Astroturfing that it really was.
If, as we believe, this effort was illegal-and not just because Shulman failed to register as a lobbyist-then the entire land use review was corrupted and needs to be overturned since Shulman and her faux group played a central role in the campaign to remove local businesses from their properties. The ball is in the AG's court on this-and the family legacy is at stake as well.
As Crain's reminded us a few years back: "If Willets Point businesses' fight against eviction propels a champion of the underdog into a political career, it wouldn't be the first time. In 1963, a young, unheralded lawyer named Mario Cuomo took on Robert Moses, who wanted to raze the very same Queens site for aesthetic reasons before the 1964 World's Fair. Mr. Cuomo won. "It started a whole chain of events that got me into public life,'' recalls the former governor, who grew up in the borough's rough South Jamaica section."
Can history repeat itself? Stay tuned.
Small Business Error
The coalition that is behind the Small Business Protection Act, legislation designed to protect retailers against exploitation and eviction, has now launched a pre-election campaign that basically counsels, "none of the above;" advising Hispanic New Yorkers to vote for neither Mike Bloomberg nor Bill Thompson. This, in our view, is a big mistake-precisely because if the fact that the grave conditions facing immigrant businesses have not only happened on Bloomberg's watch, but have been exacerbated by his policies.
In addition, the counseling of abstention is actually promoting Bloomberg, since it encourages potential anti-Bloombertg voters to stay home. Albor Ruiz highlights this issue in yesterday's NY Daily News: "Dominican business owners in New York, well-known for their enterprising spirit and their work ethic, will not vote for Mayor Bloomberg in the upcoming mayoral election. Not that they like William Thompson, his Democratic opponent, any better. Actually, they won't vote for either one of them. As far as they are concerned, it doesn't make any difference who becomes the next mayor."
And the group's logic is faulty as well: "Dominican small businesses are in crisis," the poster reads. "Yet neither Bloomberg nor Thompson have done anything to alleviate the high rents, extortions and landlord abuse Dominican small business owners endure." Perhaps, but only Bloomberg has been mayor for the past eight years, and accountability for his non- and mal- feasance is important-even if Thompson is unlikely to truly address this pressing issue.
The group's leader Steve Null, underscores our point: "According to Steve Null, director of the Coalition to Save Hispanic Small Businesses, the merchants are upset that both men will come into their communities seeking support. They make speeches about how important they are to the future of the city but will do nothing to stop greedy landlords from destroying thousands of businesses, says Null."
Now Null is our friend-and we support his goals-but his group's actions are both wrongheaded and self-defeating. The key objective should be to sanction the incumbent for his misdeeds; and thus send a message to the challenger should he, by some divine intervention, actually win. Sometimes, the lesser of two evils is actually the right course, unless moral purity is more important than pragmatic political success.
In addition, the counseling of abstention is actually promoting Bloomberg, since it encourages potential anti-Bloombertg voters to stay home. Albor Ruiz highlights this issue in yesterday's NY Daily News: "Dominican business owners in New York, well-known for their enterprising spirit and their work ethic, will not vote for Mayor Bloomberg in the upcoming mayoral election. Not that they like William Thompson, his Democratic opponent, any better. Actually, they won't vote for either one of them. As far as they are concerned, it doesn't make any difference who becomes the next mayor."
And the group's logic is faulty as well: "Dominican small businesses are in crisis," the poster reads. "Yet neither Bloomberg nor Thompson have done anything to alleviate the high rents, extortions and landlord abuse Dominican small business owners endure." Perhaps, but only Bloomberg has been mayor for the past eight years, and accountability for his non- and mal- feasance is important-even if Thompson is unlikely to truly address this pressing issue.
The group's leader Steve Null, underscores our point: "According to Steve Null, director of the Coalition to Save Hispanic Small Businesses, the merchants are upset that both men will come into their communities seeking support. They make speeches about how important they are to the future of the city but will do nothing to stop greedy landlords from destroying thousands of businesses, says Null."
Now Null is our friend-and we support his goals-but his group's actions are both wrongheaded and self-defeating. The key objective should be to sanction the incumbent for his misdeeds; and thus send a message to the challenger should he, by some divine intervention, actually win. Sometimes, the lesser of two evils is actually the right course, unless moral purity is more important than pragmatic political success.
"Unprecedented Economic Ills"
We had thought that it would do little good to comment on the editorials of support coming from both the NY Post and the NY Daily News for the re-election of Mike Bloomberg-and we let the Post fatuous hosannas stand without critique-but sometimes we just can't help ourselves. And when it comes to yesterday's Daily News canonization effort, its gag response-inducing encomiums had to to be challenged.
First, there's the issue of greater choice-a guffaw when the mayor first used it as a rationale for overturning the will of the voters on term limits: "As for term limits, Bloomberg was right, in our estimation, because the extension has given November's voters greater choice. Had he bowed out, the winner of the Democratic primary would be coasting to victory as the public's sole option."
Of course, this dishonestly elides the fact that the Democratic field would have looked like Grand Central during rush hour if the prospects of the $100 million man wasn't looming in November-and neither the News or the Post mentions, or gives a tinker's damn, about the obscene levels of Bloomberg spending that gives the notion of choice a distinctively hollow ring.
All of which underscores how the tabloid press has failed to live up to the journalistic injunction of, "speaking truth to power." Hard to do when your all so cozy as bugs in the same billionaire rug. And Morticia has some more side-slappers in his slavish obeisance: "And, freed of electoral considerations, Bloomberg could swing for the fences without regard to political fallout. The rule would have to be: all pragmatism, all the time. No calculations of the sort that won labor peace through outsize raises."
Translation: We can't be honest, so in the tank as we are, and say that Mike Bloomberg was as crassly political as any Tammany ward-healer in his first two terms-and gave away the store to the municipal labor force while raising taxes and bloating the public payroll. Now, however, as we have already commented, he can play Mack the Knife with impunity.
And, since Bloomberg has already exhibited a callous disregard for the fate of small businesses and community quality of life-see Jim Dwyer's piece in Sunday's NY Times on the plundering of Bronx parkland-we can only imagine what an unfettered Bloomberg will do in the next four years. This prospect, however, doesn't phase the Park Avenue crowd-safe in the knowledge that the mayor will always look after their interests.
But, why won't Mike raise taxes some more-like he did in 2002? "Freed from electoral consideration," Mike could continue to be Mike and, as he did with the sales tax hike in this election year, continue to adhere to his Lindsay-like philosophy of sticking it to middle class tax payers. And in its brief lukey warm shout out to Thompson, the News inadvertently hits on this theme: "He has also given voice, constructively, to New Yorkers' real frustrations with living in a city where everything seems to go up but paychecks."
But the role of Bloomberg, in both creating as well as exacerbating this situation, is left unexamined by the hagiographer at 33rd Street: "Finally, New York is beset by unprecedented economic ills that will force the next occupant of City Hall to do more with far less. Who would you trust to get that mountain of a job done?
Breathtaking! No critique at all of the way in which Bloomberg has outspent even David Dinkins, raising taxes to unprecedented levels-shuttering small stores all over the city as a consequence; and has obligated the tax payers for the next fifty years with bloated pensions for a municipal workforce that has increased in the manner of Mickey Mouse's duplicating brooms in Fantasia's Sorcerer's Apprentice.
Let's face it, we have as free a press when it comes to this mayor as the old Soviet Union-at least as far as the tabloid editorial boards are concerned, And did anyone think that Pinch would come out swinging against the $100 million man? Sorry, this Pinch hasn't grown an inch.
Here's his "excoriation" of the man who simply made a mockery of campaign finance reform-in the paper's overall enthusiastic endorsement of its future bail out hope: "Like Mr. Thompson, who has made the mayor’s wealth a major issue, most New Yorkers are concerned about Mr. Bloomberg’s spending $85 million — so far — to win re-election. In his first campaign in 2001, he argued that he was spending so much to introduce himself. Now a nationally recognized figure, he argues that as a candidate running on Republican and Independent Party lines, he needs to fight for votes in a city that is so predominantly Democratic. We think Mr. Bloomberg exaggerates his vulnerability. New York City’s campaign finance system is one of the best in the country. He does everyone a disservice by not complying with the system’s limits on spending."
But it should be pointed out that, as bad as the editorial boards have been, the reporters and columnists-especially at the News and the Times, have distinguished themselves in an effort to provide balance and perspective about the Reign of Mike. And Adam Lisberg does just that in yesterday's News, by pointedly critiquing the mayor's blatant tax dishonesty: "Bloomberg has been careful not to make an explicit no-new-taxes pledge, though, telling a Crain's breakfast last week: "Nobody can ever promise for sure that they won't raise taxes." He should know: The last time he said he wouldn't raise taxes was his 2001 campaign, which was followed by his 18% property tax hike to fill a $6 billion budget gap. Which could add up to a bit of a credibility problem."
Yah think? And going back to the phony claim that the voters have more choice with Mike running for a third term, it might be nice for Mort to muse a bit on how a $100 million dollar flood of ads and mailings not only sucks the air out of the democratic debate, but also limits the voters' awareness's that there is even another candidate running-making the argument for more choice ludicrous. In fact, the only way most New Yorkers are aware of a Bloomberg opponent comes from the attack ads that we've seen proliferating in the final weeks of this one sided campaign. Choice? More like Grade A fraud.
So, with "unprecedented economic ills" facing New Yorkers, we have one candidate running from his tax and spend record, while using his vast fortune to attack his opponent as duplicitous on-of all things, taxes. As Lisberg points out: "But he hasn't said how he'll balance the budget either. When reporters asked him the other day, this was his response: "I'll talk at another time. I can't in two seconds here outline how you're going to balance the budget. It's much too serious for that, and much more complex." We're still waiting for a more serious and complex answer. In the meantime, we have those TV ads and mailers slamming Thompson. Shown a copy of one of Bloomberg's mailers last week, one of Bloomberg's highest-paid advisers shrugged and said, "Thompson is not running on his record either." Then he walked away."
Just as the editorial boards of the Post and the News have walked away from the truth about Mike and his record-so intent, as they are at acting as an amen chorus for their leading classmate. We can't wait for the fallout when the financial sh#t hits the fan-and when it does, the shameful sycophancy of the editorialists will stand exposed..
First, there's the issue of greater choice-a guffaw when the mayor first used it as a rationale for overturning the will of the voters on term limits: "As for term limits, Bloomberg was right, in our estimation, because the extension has given November's voters greater choice. Had he bowed out, the winner of the Democratic primary would be coasting to victory as the public's sole option."
Of course, this dishonestly elides the fact that the Democratic field would have looked like Grand Central during rush hour if the prospects of the $100 million man wasn't looming in November-and neither the News or the Post mentions, or gives a tinker's damn, about the obscene levels of Bloomberg spending that gives the notion of choice a distinctively hollow ring.
All of which underscores how the tabloid press has failed to live up to the journalistic injunction of, "speaking truth to power." Hard to do when your all so cozy as bugs in the same billionaire rug. And Morticia has some more side-slappers in his slavish obeisance: "And, freed of electoral considerations, Bloomberg could swing for the fences without regard to political fallout. The rule would have to be: all pragmatism, all the time. No calculations of the sort that won labor peace through outsize raises."
Translation: We can't be honest, so in the tank as we are, and say that Mike Bloomberg was as crassly political as any Tammany ward-healer in his first two terms-and gave away the store to the municipal labor force while raising taxes and bloating the public payroll. Now, however, as we have already commented, he can play Mack the Knife with impunity.
And, since Bloomberg has already exhibited a callous disregard for the fate of small businesses and community quality of life-see Jim Dwyer's piece in Sunday's NY Times on the plundering of Bronx parkland-we can only imagine what an unfettered Bloomberg will do in the next four years. This prospect, however, doesn't phase the Park Avenue crowd-safe in the knowledge that the mayor will always look after their interests.
But, why won't Mike raise taxes some more-like he did in 2002? "Freed from electoral consideration," Mike could continue to be Mike and, as he did with the sales tax hike in this election year, continue to adhere to his Lindsay-like philosophy of sticking it to middle class tax payers. And in its brief lukey warm shout out to Thompson, the News inadvertently hits on this theme: "He has also given voice, constructively, to New Yorkers' real frustrations with living in a city where everything seems to go up but paychecks."
But the role of Bloomberg, in both creating as well as exacerbating this situation, is left unexamined by the hagiographer at 33rd Street: "Finally, New York is beset by unprecedented economic ills that will force the next occupant of City Hall to do more with far less. Who would you trust to get that mountain of a job done?
Breathtaking! No critique at all of the way in which Bloomberg has outspent even David Dinkins, raising taxes to unprecedented levels-shuttering small stores all over the city as a consequence; and has obligated the tax payers for the next fifty years with bloated pensions for a municipal workforce that has increased in the manner of Mickey Mouse's duplicating brooms in Fantasia's Sorcerer's Apprentice.
Let's face it, we have as free a press when it comes to this mayor as the old Soviet Union-at least as far as the tabloid editorial boards are concerned, And did anyone think that Pinch would come out swinging against the $100 million man? Sorry, this Pinch hasn't grown an inch.
Here's his "excoriation" of the man who simply made a mockery of campaign finance reform-in the paper's overall enthusiastic endorsement of its future bail out hope: "Like Mr. Thompson, who has made the mayor’s wealth a major issue, most New Yorkers are concerned about Mr. Bloomberg’s spending $85 million — so far — to win re-election. In his first campaign in 2001, he argued that he was spending so much to introduce himself. Now a nationally recognized figure, he argues that as a candidate running on Republican and Independent Party lines, he needs to fight for votes in a city that is so predominantly Democratic. We think Mr. Bloomberg exaggerates his vulnerability. New York City’s campaign finance system is one of the best in the country. He does everyone a disservice by not complying with the system’s limits on spending."
But it should be pointed out that, as bad as the editorial boards have been, the reporters and columnists-especially at the News and the Times, have distinguished themselves in an effort to provide balance and perspective about the Reign of Mike. And Adam Lisberg does just that in yesterday's News, by pointedly critiquing the mayor's blatant tax dishonesty: "Bloomberg has been careful not to make an explicit no-new-taxes pledge, though, telling a Crain's breakfast last week: "Nobody can ever promise for sure that they won't raise taxes." He should know: The last time he said he wouldn't raise taxes was his 2001 campaign, which was followed by his 18% property tax hike to fill a $6 billion budget gap. Which could add up to a bit of a credibility problem."
Yah think? And going back to the phony claim that the voters have more choice with Mike running for a third term, it might be nice for Mort to muse a bit on how a $100 million dollar flood of ads and mailings not only sucks the air out of the democratic debate, but also limits the voters' awareness's that there is even another candidate running-making the argument for more choice ludicrous. In fact, the only way most New Yorkers are aware of a Bloomberg opponent comes from the attack ads that we've seen proliferating in the final weeks of this one sided campaign. Choice? More like Grade A fraud.
So, with "unprecedented economic ills" facing New Yorkers, we have one candidate running from his tax and spend record, while using his vast fortune to attack his opponent as duplicitous on-of all things, taxes. As Lisberg points out: "But he hasn't said how he'll balance the budget either. When reporters asked him the other day, this was his response: "I'll talk at another time. I can't in two seconds here outline how you're going to balance the budget. It's much too serious for that, and much more complex." We're still waiting for a more serious and complex answer. In the meantime, we have those TV ads and mailers slamming Thompson. Shown a copy of one of Bloomberg's mailers last week, one of Bloomberg's highest-paid advisers shrugged and said, "Thompson is not running on his record either." Then he walked away."
Just as the editorial boards of the Post and the News have walked away from the truth about Mike and his record-so intent, as they are at acting as an amen chorus for their leading classmate. We can't wait for the fallout when the financial sh#t hits the fan-and when it does, the shameful sycophancy of the editorialists will stand exposed..
Buyer's Remorse?
In politics, as most of us know, there is a phrase that's used called, "buyer's remorse." It's used to connote how disillusionment sets in with the voters after their candidate wins-and fails to live up to their often unrealistic lofty expectations. In NYC, however, we're afraid that the term is going to get, in the jargon of the philosopher Nietzsche, "transvaluated."
Because in this city it isn't the voters who have bought anything, it is the free spending Mike Bloomberg-who has now broken the land speed record in this category. As the NY Times reports: "Michael R. Bloomberg, the Wall Street mogul whose fortune catapulted him into New York’s City Hall, has set another staggering financial record: He has now spent more of his own money than any other individual in United States history in the pursuit of public office."
Bloomberg, being the buyer in this context, is the most likely one to be subject to the proverbial buyer's remorse-having bought the voters and gotten what he wished for, he must confront the daunting political problems he will inherit and, in our view, may well regret what he so freely spent to get. So, to mix metaphors, since he has broken all known election spending records, he will soon find himself subject to Pottery Barn rules: "you break it, you buy it"
Or, in Bloomberg's case, own it-since now he will be subject to a much higher standard; particularly since he proffered his own indispensability as the rationale for overturning the term limits law. As the Times points out:
"The spending has drawn howls of protest from good-government groups and advocates of campaign finance reform. In interviews, several said, angrily, that the mayor’s decisions to rewrite New York City’s term limits law and then spend wildly to secure re-election, have undermined democratic principles. “Whether Bloomberg wins or loses, the toxic combination of mega-spending and crass use of his office to bypass the voters on term limits will always be a stain on his mayoralty,” said Gene Russianoff, staff attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group. “These twin assaults on municipal democracy will undermine his political clout in a third term and sadly fuel public skepticism about elections and elected officials,” Mr. Russianoff said."
Gee, we can't wait for the scathing Times editorial denouncing this profligacy as a stain on democracy-and its subsequent endorsement of challenger Thompson. Sorry for the reverie folks. But, back the Bloombucks bacchanal: "He has spent at least 14 times what his Democratic rival in the race, William C. Thompson Jr., has: $6 million. A Thompson campaign spokeswoman on Friday called the mayor’s spending “obscene.” Since late September, the pace of Mr. Bloomberg’s spending has drastically accelerated: He is now sending nearly $1 million a day into the city’s economy. The bulk of the money is devoted to advertising on television, radio and the Web, but much of it bankroll ls a first-class approach to parties, snacks and travel. The campaign has spent $322,521 on food, $293,953 on transportation, $176,066 on furniture and $39,858 on parking."
All seen as overkill, of course: "His lavish spending has confounded political consultants and campaign finance experts, who said that his popularity with New Yorkers, and his built-in advantages as a two-term incumbent, should be sufficient to win him re-election. “The main thing money does is allow you to get name recognition,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group in Washington. “But in this case, with Bloomberg, because he’s so well known, it’s more like, he can do it, so why not?”
So a Bloomberg third term is a potential combustible mix-and if things go south with the city's fiscal condition, as they appear to be going now, than Mike may really be in for it. Especially since, as Crain's Insider reported last week, he doesn't really have any clear third term goals: "In an appearance in which he otherwise seemed relaxed and well-prepared, Mayor Bloomberg's response to the final question at yesterday's Crain's Breakfast Forum suggests that a third term might lack the goal-driven agenda that has characterized his first two. When asked by Crain's editorial director Greg David what he would like to add to his legacy in a third term—beyond improving schools and lowering crime—the mayor did not have a clear answer."
The third term, then, may not be such a charm for our less than charming chief executive. Not that the tabloids would even notice-given their myopia over the Bloomberg campaign spending.
And this was made clear on Saturday when both the Post and the News buried the spending story-Liz, however, did her usual good job on her blog. And adding insult to injury, the Post's rather snarky lead political story is about a large fine that the Thompson campaign received for its posters!-from the Bloomberg sanitation department, no less: "It looks like Bill Thompson is going to easily win the write-in vote over Mayor Bloomberg -- unfortunately for him, the people doing the writing are city Sanitation agents. The Sanitation Department reported yesterday that Thompson's campaign is facing a hefty $125,775 bill for plastering city property with 1,677 illegal campaign posters."
You'd think that the Post would have the decency not to pile on-seeing that Bloomberg is doing such a good job all by himself at playing the schoolyard bully role in this election. And, in our opinion, given the spending disparities in this campaign, Thompson probably deserves a pass on this offense. In fact, he should be allowed, like Lady Godiva, to ride naked down Broadway just so he can attract a bit of attention amidst the electoral blizzard from Bloomberg ($30 million on TV ads alone!).
The city's political problems-along with those of the state as well-are going to present huge challenges. When he first came into office, Bloomberg broke his campaign pledges, and raised taxes to obscene levels-something that we're all still paying for today. With that gambit apparently foreclosed, he's left to emulating Mack the Knife-and with his dour unlovable personality we just might enjoy the spectacle, and the public distaste that it generates, once the cuts begin.
Because in this city it isn't the voters who have bought anything, it is the free spending Mike Bloomberg-who has now broken the land speed record in this category. As the NY Times reports: "Michael R. Bloomberg, the Wall Street mogul whose fortune catapulted him into New York’s City Hall, has set another staggering financial record: He has now spent more of his own money than any other individual in United States history in the pursuit of public office."
Bloomberg, being the buyer in this context, is the most likely one to be subject to the proverbial buyer's remorse-having bought the voters and gotten what he wished for, he must confront the daunting political problems he will inherit and, in our view, may well regret what he so freely spent to get. So, to mix metaphors, since he has broken all known election spending records, he will soon find himself subject to Pottery Barn rules: "you break it, you buy it"
Or, in Bloomberg's case, own it-since now he will be subject to a much higher standard; particularly since he proffered his own indispensability as the rationale for overturning the term limits law. As the Times points out:
"The spending has drawn howls of protest from good-government groups and advocates of campaign finance reform. In interviews, several said, angrily, that the mayor’s decisions to rewrite New York City’s term limits law and then spend wildly to secure re-election, have undermined democratic principles. “Whether Bloomberg wins or loses, the toxic combination of mega-spending and crass use of his office to bypass the voters on term limits will always be a stain on his mayoralty,” said Gene Russianoff, staff attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group. “These twin assaults on municipal democracy will undermine his political clout in a third term and sadly fuel public skepticism about elections and elected officials,” Mr. Russianoff said."
Gee, we can't wait for the scathing Times editorial denouncing this profligacy as a stain on democracy-and its subsequent endorsement of challenger Thompson. Sorry for the reverie folks. But, back the Bloombucks bacchanal: "He has spent at least 14 times what his Democratic rival in the race, William C. Thompson Jr., has: $6 million. A Thompson campaign spokeswoman on Friday called the mayor’s spending “obscene.” Since late September, the pace of Mr. Bloomberg’s spending has drastically accelerated: He is now sending nearly $1 million a day into the city’s economy. The bulk of the money is devoted to advertising on television, radio and the Web, but much of it bankroll ls a first-class approach to parties, snacks and travel. The campaign has spent $322,521 on food, $293,953 on transportation, $176,066 on furniture and $39,858 on parking."
All seen as overkill, of course: "His lavish spending has confounded political consultants and campaign finance experts, who said that his popularity with New Yorkers, and his built-in advantages as a two-term incumbent, should be sufficient to win him re-election. “The main thing money does is allow you to get name recognition,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group in Washington. “But in this case, with Bloomberg, because he’s so well known, it’s more like, he can do it, so why not?”
So a Bloomberg third term is a potential combustible mix-and if things go south with the city's fiscal condition, as they appear to be going now, than Mike may really be in for it. Especially since, as Crain's Insider reported last week, he doesn't really have any clear third term goals: "In an appearance in which he otherwise seemed relaxed and well-prepared, Mayor Bloomberg's response to the final question at yesterday's Crain's Breakfast Forum suggests that a third term might lack the goal-driven agenda that has characterized his first two. When asked by Crain's editorial director Greg David what he would like to add to his legacy in a third term—beyond improving schools and lowering crime—the mayor did not have a clear answer."
The third term, then, may not be such a charm for our less than charming chief executive. Not that the tabloids would even notice-given their myopia over the Bloomberg campaign spending.
And this was made clear on Saturday when both the Post and the News buried the spending story-Liz, however, did her usual good job on her blog. And adding insult to injury, the Post's rather snarky lead political story is about a large fine that the Thompson campaign received for its posters!-from the Bloomberg sanitation department, no less: "It looks like Bill Thompson is going to easily win the write-in vote over Mayor Bloomberg -- unfortunately for him, the people doing the writing are city Sanitation agents. The Sanitation Department reported yesterday that Thompson's campaign is facing a hefty $125,775 bill for plastering city property with 1,677 illegal campaign posters."
You'd think that the Post would have the decency not to pile on-seeing that Bloomberg is doing such a good job all by himself at playing the schoolyard bully role in this election. And, in our opinion, given the spending disparities in this campaign, Thompson probably deserves a pass on this offense. In fact, he should be allowed, like Lady Godiva, to ride naked down Broadway just so he can attract a bit of attention amidst the electoral blizzard from Bloomberg ($30 million on TV ads alone!).
The city's political problems-along with those of the state as well-are going to present huge challenges. When he first came into office, Bloomberg broke his campaign pledges, and raised taxes to obscene levels-something that we're all still paying for today. With that gambit apparently foreclosed, he's left to emulating Mack the Knife-and with his dour unlovable personality we just might enjoy the spectacle, and the public distaste that it generates, once the cuts begin.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Après Batts Le Déluge
As the NY Times is reporting, Judge Deborah Batts has issued a court order mandating-without any hearing from the involved parties, that the deposit on water bottles will commence October, 31st-giving retailers scant time to comply; and leaving water distributors scrambling to devise redemption systems: " federal judge issued an order on Friday lifting an injunction on an expansion of the state’s bottle bill, meaning that nickel deposits will be imposed on bottled water starting Oct. 31. All containers of water under a gallon will have a 5-cent refundable deposit, as beer and soda containers have had for years."
Get ready for the water tax folks: "The Food Industry Alliance of New York State, a trade group representing groceries, has said the expansion will increase the cost of a 24-pack of water by $2." And it will-but first the upcoming chaos.
As we argued the other day-at a time when we had no idea that Judge Batts would, well, go batty: "What is clear, is that the water distributors better gear up-and fast-if they want to avoid a disruption in their distribution system. As we have advised some of the impacted companies: "The expansion of the New York State Returnable Container Act to water creates some unique challenges for the new players in the redemption system.. The reason lies with the fact that the water companies-from the largest on down-are nor geared up to do this redemption work, and will need considerable help in order to simply avoid the kind of chaos that could easily spill over into their distribution network, and hurt sales."
So now, with no system really in place, water bottlers and distributors need to figure out how best to comply with the new law-and do so on the run. But just remember, when you pay $1.50 for the bottle of water that used to cost only a buck, it's courtesy of the governor and the environmental advocates. But at least you all can sleep well, knowing that all of the unredeemed deposits are going to be earmarked for a good cause. As the Times reminds us: "Governor Paterson issued a statement on Friday saying that 80 percent of unclaimed deposits would go to the state as much-needed revenue."
Whew! We feel so much better now.
Get ready for the water tax folks: "The Food Industry Alliance of New York State, a trade group representing groceries, has said the expansion will increase the cost of a 24-pack of water by $2." And it will-but first the upcoming chaos.
As we argued the other day-at a time when we had no idea that Judge Batts would, well, go batty: "What is clear, is that the water distributors better gear up-and fast-if they want to avoid a disruption in their distribution system. As we have advised some of the impacted companies: "The expansion of the New York State Returnable Container Act to water creates some unique challenges for the new players in the redemption system.. The reason lies with the fact that the water companies-from the largest on down-are nor geared up to do this redemption work, and will need considerable help in order to simply avoid the kind of chaos that could easily spill over into their distribution network, and hurt sales."
So now, with no system really in place, water bottlers and distributors need to figure out how best to comply with the new law-and do so on the run. But just remember, when you pay $1.50 for the bottle of water that used to cost only a buck, it's courtesy of the governor and the environmental advocates. But at least you all can sleep well, knowing that all of the unredeemed deposits are going to be earmarked for a good cause. As the Times reminds us: "Governor Paterson issued a statement on Friday saying that 80 percent of unclaimed deposits would go to the state as much-needed revenue."
Whew! We feel so much better now.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Profitable Investigation Points in the Right Direction
It looks as if AG Cuomo is serious about his pledge to investigate the political activities of so called not-for-profits in New York. If you remember, we jump started some of this when we helped to point out the questionable activities of Claire Shulman and her papier-mâché LDC. Our actions-along with a letter to Cuomo's office, was reported on by the NY Times.
As the Times report said: "The attorney general’s office is reviewing the complaint. In recent months, the office has been looking into lobbying by local development corporations, and has identified a “small but not insignificant set” of groups that appear to be improperly lobbying, said a person briefed on the attorney general’s initial review."
Now the first phase of the AG's efforts is beginning to bear fruit-as the NY Post exclusive story reveals today: "As part of a probe into sleazy "pay-to-play" donations made by nonprofit groups, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has ordered dozens of charities to take back illegal contributions they've made to politicians -- or lose their tax-exempt status, The Post has learned. Cuomo has begun notifying individual charities by letter that he's on to their wrongdoing. His office has uncovered improper campaign donations to state and city lawmakers that have been made by dozens of nonprofits, despite laws that bar them from such political activity. "The issue of charities or not-for-profits giving political contributions is a matter we are currently investigating. It is not appropriate, and it is not legal, and we want to make sure it doesn't happen anymore," a spokesman for Cuomo told The Post."
This is, as we have pointed out, only the tip of the iceberg. And Shulman's political effort went way beyond simply writing a check. As the Queens Tribune laid out: "In the build-up and battle for the redevelopment of the Iron Triangle, the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation championed the proposed rezoning and rebuilding of the 62-acre plot of land. With former Borough President Claire Shulman, 83, at the helm, the corporation actively promoted Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s plan. It initially hired prominent lobbying firm the Parkside Group before advocating the plan to elected officials – and then taking over those duties itself, spending about $450,000 on lobbying efforts."
If pay for play is your target, than Shulman's group is the poster child here. But the focus takes on a different dimension when Mike Blooomberg is involves-since whenever he is, the money flows, but it does so downstream from his own rich mother load. And we're hopeful that Cuomo will expand the scope of his investigation and recognize the Shulman scheme for what it is-an improper use of not-for-profit staus to achieve a political goal.
The AG's office gets the larger picture-so we're relatively confident that it will rathchet up its probe; even if it hits close to his home base of Queens: "Federal and state laws bar non-profits from making donations to candidates or officeholders, as well as participating in their campaigns.
Charities that break the law risk losing their tax-exempt status."
As should Claire's bogus LDC. But if Cuomo does do this, and the LDC is chastised properly, will the entire effort to rezone Willets Point be legally tainted (as fruit of the poisonous tree)? Let's see how the Ag's investigation continues-but Willets Point United urges him to show no fear or favor when it comes to the breaking of the law in these matters.
As the Times report said: "The attorney general’s office is reviewing the complaint. In recent months, the office has been looking into lobbying by local development corporations, and has identified a “small but not insignificant set” of groups that appear to be improperly lobbying, said a person briefed on the attorney general’s initial review."
Now the first phase of the AG's efforts is beginning to bear fruit-as the NY Post exclusive story reveals today: "As part of a probe into sleazy "pay-to-play" donations made by nonprofit groups, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has ordered dozens of charities to take back illegal contributions they've made to politicians -- or lose their tax-exempt status, The Post has learned. Cuomo has begun notifying individual charities by letter that he's on to their wrongdoing. His office has uncovered improper campaign donations to state and city lawmakers that have been made by dozens of nonprofits, despite laws that bar them from such political activity. "The issue of charities or not-for-profits giving political contributions is a matter we are currently investigating. It is not appropriate, and it is not legal, and we want to make sure it doesn't happen anymore," a spokesman for Cuomo told The Post."
This is, as we have pointed out, only the tip of the iceberg. And Shulman's political effort went way beyond simply writing a check. As the Queens Tribune laid out: "In the build-up and battle for the redevelopment of the Iron Triangle, the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation championed the proposed rezoning and rebuilding of the 62-acre plot of land. With former Borough President Claire Shulman, 83, at the helm, the corporation actively promoted Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s plan. It initially hired prominent lobbying firm the Parkside Group before advocating the plan to elected officials – and then taking over those duties itself, spending about $450,000 on lobbying efforts."
If pay for play is your target, than Shulman's group is the poster child here. But the focus takes on a different dimension when Mike Blooomberg is involves-since whenever he is, the money flows, but it does so downstream from his own rich mother load. And we're hopeful that Cuomo will expand the scope of his investigation and recognize the Shulman scheme for what it is-an improper use of not-for-profit staus to achieve a political goal.
The AG's office gets the larger picture-so we're relatively confident that it will rathchet up its probe; even if it hits close to his home base of Queens: "Federal and state laws bar non-profits from making donations to candidates or officeholders, as well as participating in their campaigns.
Charities that break the law risk losing their tax-exempt status."
As should Claire's bogus LDC. But if Cuomo does do this, and the LDC is chastised properly, will the entire effort to rezone Willets Point be legally tainted (as fruit of the poisonous tree)? Let's see how the Ag's investigation continues-but Willets Point United urges him to show no fear or favor when it comes to the breaking of the law in these matters.
Not Everyone's a Fan
Yesterday we expressed our thanks to the Village Voice for its recognition of our work-and that of this blog-on behalf of small business, But not everyone is a fan, and the Atlantic Yards blog responded to the award with the following riposte: "WTF? Can't the Voice look beyond his SAT words--words the press should know--and consider the contradictions: NYC Lobbyist Search shows (click on graphic to enlarge) Lipsky working for Willets Point United and Tuck-It-Away, which are fighting eminent domain in Willets Point and West Harlem, respectively, while working for the Atlantic Yards Development Company and Forest City Ratner, which are hoping to gain from eminent domain in Prospect Heights."
Our good friend Norman Oder is upset because the Voice didn't go into a greater in-depth evaluation of our record? What the AY foes fail to realize, is that their fight over the Ratner project is not the sine qua non of deciding whether someone deserves either credit or opprobrium-and, if it's more in-depth analysis that they're looking for, well, there simply isn't enough room to detail all that we've done for small businesses over the past 28 years.
And we've done this work when no other lobbyists would even stoop so low-busy as they are with trading up. This is, however, no critique of my colleagues, since we have no problem taking on clients both large and small; it is simply a statement of fact, and an effort to set the record straight. So while the opponents of AY lawyer on, we can point to dozens of large scale developments that we have stymied over the three decade span of our work. Now that's an asterisk that couldn't be fit into the small Voice tribute.
And speaking of fans, our blog post on DOH hypocrisy that was reprinted in the NY Post last week generated some interesting reader responses. Here's T Cahill's: "I like Richard Lipsky's logic ("Healthy-Eating Hypocrites," PostOpin- ion, Oct. 15). It's true that the McDonald's coupon giveaway is only symptomatic. All it does is reinforce bad behavior. If you treat people like adults, there's the chance they will begin to respect themselves and start to act like adults. If you treat them like children, you are always going to get childlike behavior. Educate them, help them think for themselves, and everybody wins. Then you can start handing out broccoli coupons."
Other folks aren't as optimistic; and Brian Daniels disagrees with our assessment that you should treat people as adults-feeling it just won't work: "I agree that our current nanny-state approach is overbearing, but Lipsky's argument for educating people and treating them as functional adults is weak. Last Sunday, at the movies, a woman who was clean and well-dressed sat in my row. She was smart enough to come to the half-price show and was there on time. To use Lipsky's term, she appeared to be functional. However, she was 75 to 100 pounds overweight, and as soon as she sat down, she ate two hot dogs and a large soda. What kind of education does Lipsky think she needs? If she is a functional adult who can think and act for herself, why is she doing what she is doing? What will a broccoli lesson do for her behavior?"
The moral of all this? You can't worry about what some people might say-and the arm chair critics who haven't done anything but carp are legion-and you have to try to do what you think is right. Just don't emulate Anita Dunn and use Mao as a role model for individual conscience.
Our good friend Norman Oder is upset because the Voice didn't go into a greater in-depth evaluation of our record? What the AY foes fail to realize, is that their fight over the Ratner project is not the sine qua non of deciding whether someone deserves either credit or opprobrium-and, if it's more in-depth analysis that they're looking for, well, there simply isn't enough room to detail all that we've done for small businesses over the past 28 years.
And we've done this work when no other lobbyists would even stoop so low-busy as they are with trading up. This is, however, no critique of my colleagues, since we have no problem taking on clients both large and small; it is simply a statement of fact, and an effort to set the record straight. So while the opponents of AY lawyer on, we can point to dozens of large scale developments that we have stymied over the three decade span of our work. Now that's an asterisk that couldn't be fit into the small Voice tribute.
And speaking of fans, our blog post on DOH hypocrisy that was reprinted in the NY Post last week generated some interesting reader responses. Here's T Cahill's: "I like Richard Lipsky's logic ("Healthy-Eating Hypocrites," PostOpin- ion, Oct. 15). It's true that the McDonald's coupon giveaway is only symptomatic. All it does is reinforce bad behavior. If you treat people like adults, there's the chance they will begin to respect themselves and start to act like adults. If you treat them like children, you are always going to get childlike behavior. Educate them, help them think for themselves, and everybody wins. Then you can start handing out broccoli coupons."
Other folks aren't as optimistic; and Brian Daniels disagrees with our assessment that you should treat people as adults-feeling it just won't work: "I agree that our current nanny-state approach is overbearing, but Lipsky's argument for educating people and treating them as functional adults is weak. Last Sunday, at the movies, a woman who was clean and well-dressed sat in my row. She was smart enough to come to the half-price show and was there on time. To use Lipsky's term, she appeared to be functional. However, she was 75 to 100 pounds overweight, and as soon as she sat down, she ate two hot dogs and a large soda. What kind of education does Lipsky think she needs? If she is a functional adult who can think and act for herself, why is she doing what she is doing? What will a broccoli lesson do for her behavior?"
The moral of all this? You can't worry about what some people might say-and the arm chair critics who haven't done anything but carp are legion-and you have to try to do what you think is right. Just don't emulate Anita Dunn and use Mao as a role model for individual conscience.
The Buck Passes Here
You have to give Governor Paterson credit for one thing-innovation; no one has thought of a new way to not enforce the tax laws against Indian cigarette retailers until he came along and somehow decided that this was really a federal issue: "Gov. David Paterson is concerned that members of the stat’s Indian tribes may engage in “violence and civil unrest” if he attempts to tax cigarettes sold at reservation smoke shops.In a letter dated Sept. 23, Paterson asked three of the state’s top federal prosecutors to help him assess the possibility of violent demonstrations if the state begins collecting its $2.75 per-pack tax on cigarettes sold at tribal shops.Paterson also asked the Justice Department for an “operational commitment to help mitigate any disturbances that might occur.”
How pathetic! Come on, David, New York State has the wherewithal to solve this problem-and the resources needed to combat the threat, or the reality, of Indian violence. This is all classic buck passing-and with Paterson it's kinda like an Olympic sport; but the need to once and for all let violence-prone law breakers know who's in charge is long over due: "Gov. David Paterson is concerned that members of the state’s Indian tribes may engage in “violence and civil unrest” if he attempts to tax cigarettes sold at reservation smoke shops.In a letter dated Sept. 23, Paterson asked three of the state’s top federal prosecutors to help him assess the possibility of violent demonstrations if the state begins collecting its $2.75 per-pack tax on cigarettes sold at tribal shops.Paterson also asked the Justice Department for an “operational commitment to help mitigate any disturbances that might occur.”
He might as well have requested some help in just doing his job-since this tax avoidance could be as much as $700 million a year: "Since then, the reservation shops have become among the biggest cigarette dealers in the state, selling more than 300 million packs annually. Some reservations are now also home to cigarette factories churning out native brands sold throughout the U.S.But with the state desperate for new revenue, Paterson is signaling he is giving the issue new thought."
But listen to the timidity expressed: "In his Sept. 23 letter, the governor told the U.S. attorneys for Western New York, Northern New York and Long Island that while his intent was to continue negotiating with the tribes, he wished to assess the possibility “of a repeat of the violent demonstrations that occurred in 1997” if the state were to act without an agreement.“I would be grateful if you would please review this matter and provide me with your assessment as to the likelihood of violence and civil unrest,” he wrote."
Please! As one upstate opponent of this foot dragging points out, you don't refuse to enforce the law out of fear that some will violently oppose: "If violent reactions are expected, it makes sense to prepare a counterforce to deal with it – including being ready to call in the U.S. National Guard, said attorney David Vickers, president of the Upstate Citizens for Equality,But the taxes should be collected regardless of what reaction is anticipated, he said.“I think that if public policy is created and pursued or not based on whether a segment of the population may get violent or not, you have an extremely weak public policy maker on your hands,” Vickers said. “I am astounded that we have had four governors who are afraid to do their job.”
But don't expect any action soon from the dithering governor-he's shucking and ducking, as Tom Precious of the Buffalo News reports: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, said that it is “fair” for the public to ask, “How much money, if any, can be reasonably expected from the collection of those taxes? And is there a plan to move forward consistent with the law?” Paterson, in response, dismissed some of the “bloated projections” involving how much the state could reap if the taxes were brought in. Lawmakers have said $1 billion is lost each year by Albany to Indian sales of tax-free cigarettes. “No state has collected more than $75 million from Indians,” Paterson said...The issue of collecting taxes from the Indians is a law enforcement issue, and very much a federal issue,” Paterson said."
But no state is tax free central like our is: "Advocates of the tax-collection effort, though, have said New York is a major tax-free haven for Indian retailers, especially those on the Seneca Nation reservations, because of the state’s relatively high tobacco tax rate and large population base." And it is the state's tax payers and convenience store owners that are victimized by leaders without spines.
But we would caution, that the call for the federal cavalry is not the optimistic sign of imminent action that the NY Post envisioned in its editorial yesterday: "Gov. Paterson has asked the US Justice Department to back him up if any at tempt to finally collect unpaid cigarette taxes at Indian reservations is met -- as it has been before -- with "violence and civil unrest." That's welcome news on two fronts: It suggests that the governor is prepared to correct this outrageous flouting of state law, as we've long urged, and that he understands the violent resistance that could result."
Nah. It's simply a dilatory measure; and real action awaits another chief executive with the cojones to simply enforce the law. Paterson should just stop pretending-and if he wants too do something, just do it without asking permission from the grown ups.
How pathetic! Come on, David, New York State has the wherewithal to solve this problem-and the resources needed to combat the threat, or the reality, of Indian violence. This is all classic buck passing-and with Paterson it's kinda like an Olympic sport; but the need to once and for all let violence-prone law breakers know who's in charge is long over due: "Gov. David Paterson is concerned that members of the state’s Indian tribes may engage in “violence and civil unrest” if he attempts to tax cigarettes sold at reservation smoke shops.In a letter dated Sept. 23, Paterson asked three of the state’s top federal prosecutors to help him assess the possibility of violent demonstrations if the state begins collecting its $2.75 per-pack tax on cigarettes sold at tribal shops.Paterson also asked the Justice Department for an “operational commitment to help mitigate any disturbances that might occur.”
He might as well have requested some help in just doing his job-since this tax avoidance could be as much as $700 million a year: "Since then, the reservation shops have become among the biggest cigarette dealers in the state, selling more than 300 million packs annually. Some reservations are now also home to cigarette factories churning out native brands sold throughout the U.S.But with the state desperate for new revenue, Paterson is signaling he is giving the issue new thought."
But listen to the timidity expressed: "In his Sept. 23 letter, the governor told the U.S. attorneys for Western New York, Northern New York and Long Island that while his intent was to continue negotiating with the tribes, he wished to assess the possibility “of a repeat of the violent demonstrations that occurred in 1997” if the state were to act without an agreement.“I would be grateful if you would please review this matter and provide me with your assessment as to the likelihood of violence and civil unrest,” he wrote."
Please! As one upstate opponent of this foot dragging points out, you don't refuse to enforce the law out of fear that some will violently oppose: "If violent reactions are expected, it makes sense to prepare a counterforce to deal with it – including being ready to call in the U.S. National Guard, said attorney David Vickers, president of the Upstate Citizens for Equality,But the taxes should be collected regardless of what reaction is anticipated, he said.“I think that if public policy is created and pursued or not based on whether a segment of the population may get violent or not, you have an extremely weak public policy maker on your hands,” Vickers said. “I am astounded that we have had four governors who are afraid to do their job.”
But don't expect any action soon from the dithering governor-he's shucking and ducking, as Tom Precious of the Buffalo News reports: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, said that it is “fair” for the public to ask, “How much money, if any, can be reasonably expected from the collection of those taxes? And is there a plan to move forward consistent with the law?” Paterson, in response, dismissed some of the “bloated projections” involving how much the state could reap if the taxes were brought in. Lawmakers have said $1 billion is lost each year by Albany to Indian sales of tax-free cigarettes. “No state has collected more than $75 million from Indians,” Paterson said...The issue of collecting taxes from the Indians is a law enforcement issue, and very much a federal issue,” Paterson said."
But no state is tax free central like our is: "Advocates of the tax-collection effort, though, have said New York is a major tax-free haven for Indian retailers, especially those on the Seneca Nation reservations, because of the state’s relatively high tobacco tax rate and large population base." And it is the state's tax payers and convenience store owners that are victimized by leaders without spines.
But we would caution, that the call for the federal cavalry is not the optimistic sign of imminent action that the NY Post envisioned in its editorial yesterday: "Gov. Paterson has asked the US Justice Department to back him up if any at tempt to finally collect unpaid cigarette taxes at Indian reservations is met -- as it has been before -- with "violence and civil unrest." That's welcome news on two fronts: It suggests that the governor is prepared to correct this outrageous flouting of state law, as we've long urged, and that he understands the violent resistance that could result."
Nah. It's simply a dilatory measure; and real action awaits another chief executive with the cojones to simply enforce the law. Paterson should just stop pretending-and if he wants too do something, just do it without asking permission from the grown ups.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Kudos From the Village Voice
We need to thank the folks over at the Village Voice for recognizing our work on behalf of small business-and awarding Richard Lipsky as the, "Best Small Business Lobbyist." It should, however, be pointed out that there aren't too many lobbyists to choose from in the category, as the Voice realizes: "In a city where lobbyists get paid big bucks to whisper quietly to influential politicians, Richard Lipsky will have none of it. He barks, bellows, and bites. When handed the microphone at a rally, he's as good a rabble-rouser as an irate Bronx tenant. This is not how lobbyists are supposed to do business, but Lipsky has long gone his own way. Victims who can attest to the sharpness of his bite include the likes of Wal-Mart—defeated three times in its bid to find sites for giant local box stores."
And thanks for the recognition of our blog as well: "Another un-lobbyist-like tool is his nonstop blog—cloyingly dubbed "momandpopnyc.com"—which regularly takes journalists to task on subjects ranging from Israel to school testing. He may also be the only lobbyist now working City Hall to hold a Ph.D., which he sometimes can't help showing off: His blog posts often include words like "avidity"—which he knows the press corps will have to look up."
Still, the greatest recognition we can receive, comes from helping yet another little guy defeat the less than honorable intentions of the city-usually done on behalf of some fat cat developer. It's been a rewarding almost three decades, and we don't feel the need to slow down since there are so many good fights left to wage.
And thanks for the recognition of our blog as well: "Another un-lobbyist-like tool is his nonstop blog—cloyingly dubbed "momandpopnyc.com"—which regularly takes journalists to task on subjects ranging from Israel to school testing. He may also be the only lobbyist now working City Hall to hold a Ph.D., which he sometimes can't help showing off: His blog posts often include words like "avidity"—which he knows the press corps will have to look up."
Still, the greatest recognition we can receive, comes from helping yet another little guy defeat the less than honorable intentions of the city-usually done on behalf of some fat cat developer. It's been a rewarding almost three decades, and we don't feel the need to slow down since there are so many good fights left to wage.
Armory PlanTrashed
The Riverdale Press weighs in on the Kingsbridge Armory plan-and doesn't like what it sees so far: "The Kingsbridge Armory has taken another crucial step toward becoming a mall. What a relief. The City Planning Commission has voted 8 to 4 to allow the private development project, which will be completed with massive public help, to proceed. Soon more jobs flipping burgers for starvation wages will be available to people who will be unable to afford to take them. What more can the Bronx ask for?"
Apparently, a great deal more: "In fact, the people of Kingsbridge Heights, labor unions and many elected representatives have asked for considerably more. They’ve asked for money to help build schools. They’ve asked for the jobs that will be created inside the enormous near-centuryold structure to pay enough to become the first rung on a ladder out of poverty, rather than another endless plateau of poverty and disenfranchisement."
But, according to the RP-as it was with the BTM-so far Related's got the goldmine, and the community the shaft: "The company gets to buy a massive, historic structure of 600,000 cavernous square feet, under a roof that stretches to the sky, for $5 million. Not a bad deal considering the fact that a 2,000-square foot apartment on 3rd Avenue in Manhattan can go for about the same price. It’s true that the space isn’t doing much right now, and the city can certainly use this drop in the bucket during tight economic times. Still, it’s hard to buy the idea that the economic stimulus provided by yet another mall (have we already forgotten the brand-spanking new Gateway Center?) will really help the community turn much of a profit, let alone the city as a whole. Related is being given massive tax incentives as well as the sweetheart pricing as an added enticement to make a large profit in Kingsbridge Heights. That means that the city won’t get much back, at least directly, from the mall it (meaning us) will help to subsidize."
No it won't-and this epitomizes the Bloomberg economic development strategy; a cornucopia for the special interests (of which Related is more equal than others), and crumbs for the communities: "Related says that if it is forced to provide a better deal for Kingsbridge Heights, including a guarantee that people who work inside will get paid a fair wage, it will have to scrap its entire plan. If that’s a threat, it’s unclear whom it would hurt. It is now looking like the people of the Northwest Bronx — even those the mall will employ — will end up standing on the outside. They will be unable to buy many of the things they will sell as clerks or keep track of as stockroom employees. Who will be making patties one minute and buying a $20 candle the next?
Who needs another place to buy a $20 candle in the first place?"
And the local paper has some advice for the local council member: "Today is the day to ask Oliver Koppell to help persuade other members of the City Council to vote no on this development unless there are specific guarantees to the people of the borough. Guarantees that there will be something in it for them — for us — other than bad jobs and luxuries far too many are unable to afford."
We'll give Bronx BP Ruben Diaz the last word on this idea: " People are starting to realize that this is something that has to happen citywide. We need to shift the paradigm. We want development. We want corporate America to make their money -- but in partnership with the people."
Apparently, a great deal more: "In fact, the people of Kingsbridge Heights, labor unions and many elected representatives have asked for considerably more. They’ve asked for money to help build schools. They’ve asked for the jobs that will be created inside the enormous near-centuryold structure to pay enough to become the first rung on a ladder out of poverty, rather than another endless plateau of poverty and disenfranchisement."
But, according to the RP-as it was with the BTM-so far Related's got the goldmine, and the community the shaft: "The company gets to buy a massive, historic structure of 600,000 cavernous square feet, under a roof that stretches to the sky, for $5 million. Not a bad deal considering the fact that a 2,000-square foot apartment on 3rd Avenue in Manhattan can go for about the same price. It’s true that the space isn’t doing much right now, and the city can certainly use this drop in the bucket during tight economic times. Still, it’s hard to buy the idea that the economic stimulus provided by yet another mall (have we already forgotten the brand-spanking new Gateway Center?) will really help the community turn much of a profit, let alone the city as a whole. Related is being given massive tax incentives as well as the sweetheart pricing as an added enticement to make a large profit in Kingsbridge Heights. That means that the city won’t get much back, at least directly, from the mall it (meaning us) will help to subsidize."
No it won't-and this epitomizes the Bloomberg economic development strategy; a cornucopia for the special interests (of which Related is more equal than others), and crumbs for the communities: "Related says that if it is forced to provide a better deal for Kingsbridge Heights, including a guarantee that people who work inside will get paid a fair wage, it will have to scrap its entire plan. If that’s a threat, it’s unclear whom it would hurt. It is now looking like the people of the Northwest Bronx — even those the mall will employ — will end up standing on the outside. They will be unable to buy many of the things they will sell as clerks or keep track of as stockroom employees. Who will be making patties one minute and buying a $20 candle the next?
Who needs another place to buy a $20 candle in the first place?"
And the local paper has some advice for the local council member: "Today is the day to ask Oliver Koppell to help persuade other members of the City Council to vote no on this development unless there are specific guarantees to the people of the borough. Guarantees that there will be something in it for them — for us — other than bad jobs and luxuries far too many are unable to afford."
We'll give Bronx BP Ruben Diaz the last word on this idea: " People are starting to realize that this is something that has to happen citywide. We need to shift the paradigm. We want development. We want corporate America to make their money -- but in partnership with the people."
Bottle Bill Delayed Again
For those who thought that today's judicial hearing on the expansion of the state's bottle bill would end the current bottleneck, think again: "The potential start of the state's collection of 5-cent deposits on bottles of water was delayed Tuesday by a federal court judge. U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Batts delayed a Thursday hearing in Manhattan in which the state had hoped to get the go ahead to implement the program, which was approved in April."
There are, however, behind the scenes negotiations being conducted in order to end the stalemate-but the end, or, perhaps, the beginning, doesn't appear to be near: "Batts notified the parties that the hearing would be delayed because of an ongoing criminal trial she's overseeing. The sides are also working on a potential settlement that could end the court's involvement, officials said. Either way, the expectation that the new deposit on water could start Thursday has been washed away. There was no new hearing date set."
What is clear, is that the water distributors better gear up-and fast-if they want to avoid a disruption in their distribution system. As we have advised some of the impacted companies: "The expansion of the New York State Returnable Container Act to water creates some unique challenges for the new players in the redemption system.. The reason lies with the fact that the water companies-from the largest on down-are nor geared up to do this redemption work, and will need considerable help in order to simply avoid the kind of chaos that could easily spill over into their distribution network, and hurt sales."
And from where we're observing, it doesn't appear that these needed preparations have been made. Gearing up is complicated by the fact that the state's largest third party collector, Boro Recycling, is under an indictment cloud: "Five Long Island beverage dealers are among seven people who have been arrested as part of an elaborate scam to re-redeem bottle deposits at 7 cents a clip. The dealers, four operating in the town of Islip, made hundreds of thousands of dollars by redeeming beverage containers more than once. The scheme involves BORO Recycling NYC shipping bottles and cans they receive for recycling back to Long Island for re-redemption. Joseph Luzzi, owner of BORO Recycling, allegedly recruited beverage dealers to participate in the scheme, Suffolk County District Attorney Tom Spota said. It involved BORO employee Robert Grady scheduling deliveries and at times himself delivering truckloads of cans and bottles to the beverage dealers for re-redemption."
All of which underscores the need for the state to come up with a more sophisticated enforcement mechanism-particularly now since 80% of the unredeemed nickels are going to the public trough. In addition, in our view, this new reality opens up an opportunity for the state to set up rules that would encourage third part pick ups-and remove redemption from beer wholesalers and bottlers, freeing them up to concentrate on their core businesses.
There are, however, behind the scenes negotiations being conducted in order to end the stalemate-but the end, or, perhaps, the beginning, doesn't appear to be near: "Batts notified the parties that the hearing would be delayed because of an ongoing criminal trial she's overseeing. The sides are also working on a potential settlement that could end the court's involvement, officials said. Either way, the expectation that the new deposit on water could start Thursday has been washed away. There was no new hearing date set."
What is clear, is that the water distributors better gear up-and fast-if they want to avoid a disruption in their distribution system. As we have advised some of the impacted companies: "The expansion of the New York State Returnable Container Act to water creates some unique challenges for the new players in the redemption system.. The reason lies with the fact that the water companies-from the largest on down-are nor geared up to do this redemption work, and will need considerable help in order to simply avoid the kind of chaos that could easily spill over into their distribution network, and hurt sales."
And from where we're observing, it doesn't appear that these needed preparations have been made. Gearing up is complicated by the fact that the state's largest third party collector, Boro Recycling, is under an indictment cloud: "Five Long Island beverage dealers are among seven people who have been arrested as part of an elaborate scam to re-redeem bottle deposits at 7 cents a clip. The dealers, four operating in the town of Islip, made hundreds of thousands of dollars by redeeming beverage containers more than once. The scheme involves BORO Recycling NYC shipping bottles and cans they receive for recycling back to Long Island for re-redemption. Joseph Luzzi, owner of BORO Recycling, allegedly recruited beverage dealers to participate in the scheme, Suffolk County District Attorney Tom Spota said. It involved BORO employee Robert Grady scheduling deliveries and at times himself delivering truckloads of cans and bottles to the beverage dealers for re-redemption."
All of which underscores the need for the state to come up with a more sophisticated enforcement mechanism-particularly now since 80% of the unredeemed nickels are going to the public trough. In addition, in our view, this new reality opens up an opportunity for the state to set up rules that would encourage third part pick ups-and remove redemption from beer wholesalers and bottlers, freeing them up to concentrate on their core businesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)