The Observer posts on the excellent Bar Association report on community benefits agreements-and the report raises some of the issues that the Alliance has been pointing out for some time (along with others that we haven't addressed): "The Association of the Bar of New York City doesn't seem to think all that highly of the process of landlords cutting formal, non-standardized deals with community groups—known as Community Benefits Agreements—to win approvals for planned developments."
But we think that to say that the Bar disapproves of CBAs is a bit of a stretch-better to say that they find the concept and the process used to implement these agreements to be problematic: "The use of CBAs has been criticized, in part because of the somewhat arbitrary manner in which they are formed (there is no standard for which groups end up being signatories in a CBA or participate in the negotiations with a developer, for instance), and the offerings from developers may not necessarily benefit the larger public interest, but rather just assuage a certain small constituency that happens to be negotiating the CBA."
At the same time, the Bar recognizes that this vehicle for getting communities to be more involved in the land use process is probably here to stay-and that therefore the process needs to have certain ground rules so as to avoid any number of pitfalls (we haven't read the entire report thoroughly, and will comment further when we do).
The Bar does, however, warn of the danger that CBAs will be used illegally in a quid pro quo manner-and therefore argues for standardization: "The well-researched Bar Association's report piles on more criticism and suggests that the tit-for-tat linking of a council land-use approval with a CBA is improper, if not illegal, given that developers are effectively buying zoning changes by paying certain community groups. It recommends that the city lead a discussion on how to adjust or standardize CBAs, and to formally separate them from the land-use approval process."
Which gets to one of our main points-how CBAs and the economic impacts of developments need to be separated from the ULURP that is supposed to focus exclusively-but never does-on environmental concerns. What comes out from the report-something that the Bar's land use chair Ken Fisher points out-is that ULURP is not the greatest vehicle for resolving these land use issues.
As the former council member tells the Observer: "Community involvement is a good thing," said Ken Fisher, an attorney at Cozen O'Connor and a former councilman who chairs the Bar Association's land-use committee, "but the vehicle that's written into the land-use process—namely the community boards— doesn't necessarily meet all of the needs, and that's why these ad-hoc agreements have sprung up."
Which is why Comptroller John Liu's proposed task force on CBAs is a welcome first step: "The report, which comes as City Comptroller John Liu is organizing a committee to propose changes to the CBA process, also suggests reconsidering the manner in which communities are involved in land-use approvals, as the boom in CBAs could be attributed to a lack of voice that many community groups feel they have throughout the process."
But the report goes further and suggests that the mayor and his economic and planning folks get into the middle of all of this reform-and perhaps the charter commission could play a role here as well. What emerges for us, is that ULURP is somewhat anachronistic, and a standardization of the CBA process-along with their official acceptance-needs to be done in conjunction with the ULURP reform that we have championed for the better part of three decades.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query ULURP reform. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query ULURP reform. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Unchartered Water
The NY Sun is reporting this morning that Mayor Mike is gearing up for some version of charter reform, and there appears to be some nervous rumblings: "Mayor Bloomberg's plan to permanently change the structure of local government is prompting anxiety among public officials and community leaders. There is talk in political circles that a commission to be appointed by the mayor to perform a top-to-bottom review of the city charter would seek to curtail the authority of borough presidents and the public advocate, or do away with their positions altogether. Officials say they also are hearing that the commission may attempt to restructure the charter to remove community boards from the often contentious approval process for development projects."
Well, count us among those who view the prospects of Bloomberg's tinkering with the structure of city government with some degree of trepidation. That's because, in our view, the mayor is no democrat, in the sense that he is a fan of the untidiness of the rough and tumble of democratic politics. Any reform from Bloomberg is likely to result in more top down control-and as far as the land use process is concerned, this would be a giant mistake.
That being said, Bloomberg has already been defeated on non partisan elections, and an effort to make ULURP less accountable to local communities would, we believe, suffer the same fate. The process does need reform, but the changes that we'd like to see would be to insure greater local accountability and not less. As we said once before: "Well, well. Just how do you think Mayor Mike would want to reform the land use review process? Make it more accountable, kinda of like mirroring the Brodsky proposal on accountable development? No, that's unlikely from someone who has no faith in the voice of any impacted community."
If reform of land use is on the upcoming charter revision agenda, then it will more likely take the "streamlined and efficiency" direction; an approach that will further enervate the ability of the people to be heard. The Manhattan Institute's critique of ULURP comes to mind here. Well, we welcome the mayor if he decides to enter into the land use waters; it will expose his Father Knows Best mentality and ultimately, just as with non-partisan elections, it will be rejected by the voters.
Well, count us among those who view the prospects of Bloomberg's tinkering with the structure of city government with some degree of trepidation. That's because, in our view, the mayor is no democrat, in the sense that he is a fan of the untidiness of the rough and tumble of democratic politics. Any reform from Bloomberg is likely to result in more top down control-and as far as the land use process is concerned, this would be a giant mistake.
That being said, Bloomberg has already been defeated on non partisan elections, and an effort to make ULURP less accountable to local communities would, we believe, suffer the same fate. The process does need reform, but the changes that we'd like to see would be to insure greater local accountability and not less. As we said once before: "Well, well. Just how do you think Mayor Mike would want to reform the land use review process? Make it more accountable, kinda of like mirroring the Brodsky proposal on accountable development? No, that's unlikely from someone who has no faith in the voice of any impacted community."
If reform of land use is on the upcoming charter revision agenda, then it will more likely take the "streamlined and efficiency" direction; an approach that will further enervate the ability of the people to be heard. The Manhattan Institute's critique of ULURP comes to mind here. Well, we welcome the mayor if he decides to enter into the land use waters; it will expose his Father Knows Best mentality and ultimately, just as with non-partisan elections, it will be rejected by the voters.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Who Benefits?
Comptroller John Liu is proposing to develop standards for the promulgation of community benefits agreements. As the Observer reports: "For the second time in as many days, Comptroller John Liu has announced plans to revamp a process related to real estate development. On Tuesday, he called for general changes to the way subsidies are awarded
Wednesday belonged to community benefit agreements, the un-regulated deals often struck between eager developers and community groups concerned about their projects, usually after concessions and money have changed hands."
This is a welcome policy initiative, but one that needs to be approached with care because of the many substantive and procedural difficulties that will undoubtedly present themselves in any reform effort. As the Observer points out: "There's much criticism to go around about CBAs in New York: Just who sits at the table to negotiate with the developer (i.e. who represents the "community") is always subject to debate, and the same elected officials who are approving the project are often negotiating the CBAs as well. The CBAs, which usually have nothing to do with zoning, have become a prerequisite nonetheless for a necessary zoning approval, a common complaint from developers."
On a procedural level, negotiating a CBA is complicated by the fact that any discussions need to take place alongside of the mandated ULURP process-a procedure with a clear cut time frame that can't be modified once it commences. So, creating clear cut parameters may have to be done simultaneously with amending the ULURP process itself-something we have recommended but that is subject to mayoral approval.
Still, Liu is doing the right thing becasue of all of the chaos that has been associated with CBAs in NYC-and the way in which some of these benefit agreements have benefited only the elected officials who have crafted them (Gateway Mall and Yankee Stadium in particular).
So some standards here are a good thing, as the comptroller's statement makes clear: "
Community Benefit Agreements have become commonplace whenever private developers seek public assistance, ranging in form from tax subsidies and no-bid contracting to zoning changes and invocation of eminent domain. In the absence of standards, however, these agreements will become more problematic and ultimately irrelevant.
From Atlantic Yards to Yankee Stadium to the Columbia University expansion, the public has seen a string of broken promises to communities and questionable involvement by some government officials. Furthermore, an additional layer of unpredictability confronts developers when they engage in private negotiations over benefits associated with their projects. In fact, studies have singled out New York City's community benefit agreements as examples of what not to do."
But, as always, the devil is in the details-and crafting standards and a procedural protocol in the context of ULURP is a daunting task indeed. The Alliance has been involved in all of the aforementioned CBA negotiations, and on both sides of the equation, so we know how complex and contentious this all is. Nothing is more emblematic of this than the recently failed Kingsbridge Armory project. The RWDSU and KARA, key players in the Armory dust up, need to be point persons in any discussions on this issue.
Ultimately, if CBAs are going to be given an official policy status, then they will need to be made an integral part of ULURP. In our view, however, the need to reform the ULURP process may be an even more compelling policy goal than developing CBA standards-although we can easily see how the two can be seen in tandem. Comptroller Liu is undertaking a worthwhile effort; here's hoping that he is able to navigate this minefield with the same skill he has demonstrated on other issues.
Wednesday belonged to community benefit agreements, the un-regulated deals often struck between eager developers and community groups concerned about their projects, usually after concessions and money have changed hands."
This is a welcome policy initiative, but one that needs to be approached with care because of the many substantive and procedural difficulties that will undoubtedly present themselves in any reform effort. As the Observer points out: "There's much criticism to go around about CBAs in New York: Just who sits at the table to negotiate with the developer (i.e. who represents the "community") is always subject to debate, and the same elected officials who are approving the project are often negotiating the CBAs as well. The CBAs, which usually have nothing to do with zoning, have become a prerequisite nonetheless for a necessary zoning approval, a common complaint from developers."
On a procedural level, negotiating a CBA is complicated by the fact that any discussions need to take place alongside of the mandated ULURP process-a procedure with a clear cut time frame that can't be modified once it commences. So, creating clear cut parameters may have to be done simultaneously with amending the ULURP process itself-something we have recommended but that is subject to mayoral approval.
Still, Liu is doing the right thing becasue of all of the chaos that has been associated with CBAs in NYC-and the way in which some of these benefit agreements have benefited only the elected officials who have crafted them (Gateway Mall and Yankee Stadium in particular).
So some standards here are a good thing, as the comptroller's statement makes clear: "
Community Benefit Agreements have become commonplace whenever private developers seek public assistance, ranging in form from tax subsidies and no-bid contracting to zoning changes and invocation of eminent domain. In the absence of standards, however, these agreements will become more problematic and ultimately irrelevant.
From Atlantic Yards to Yankee Stadium to the Columbia University expansion, the public has seen a string of broken promises to communities and questionable involvement by some government officials. Furthermore, an additional layer of unpredictability confronts developers when they engage in private negotiations over benefits associated with their projects. In fact, studies have singled out New York City's community benefit agreements as examples of what not to do."
But, as always, the devil is in the details-and crafting standards and a procedural protocol in the context of ULURP is a daunting task indeed. The Alliance has been involved in all of the aforementioned CBA negotiations, and on both sides of the equation, so we know how complex and contentious this all is. Nothing is more emblematic of this than the recently failed Kingsbridge Armory project. The RWDSU and KARA, key players in the Armory dust up, need to be point persons in any discussions on this issue.
Ultimately, if CBAs are going to be given an official policy status, then they will need to be made an integral part of ULURP. In our view, however, the need to reform the ULURP process may be an even more compelling policy goal than developing CBA standards-although we can easily see how the two can be seen in tandem. Comptroller Liu is undertaking a worthwhile effort; here's hoping that he is able to navigate this minefield with the same skill he has demonstrated on other issues.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Zoning Out: The Need to Reform ULURP
We have been actively involved in the city's land use review process for the past twenty five years, primarily in opposition to large shopping center and box store projects. As a result of this experience we can say, without any doubt, that the process is a sham; it avoids real planning and provides a technical evaluation charade that is developer-driven and inconsiderate of an real concern with community impact.
That's not to sat that we haven't learned how to use the process to maximize the power of communities and small businesses. We have, and in the process have stopped over 20 separate development projects. So we understand ULURP- as the philosophers would say, immanently. It is a process that can no longer be depended to provide good public policy outcomes, only victories or defeats that usually have no relationship to environmental issues.
Which is why the recently issued report from the Manhattan Institute, Rethinking Environmental Review: A Handbook on What Can Be Done, is such an important, and long overdo, policy evaluation. It is especially timely in the context of the mayor's long range concern with sustainability. A truly sustainable planning approach must include the reform of a land use review process that is an active impediment to the goals that PlaNYC has laid out.
That being said, there are things in the MI document that we would take issue with (Our new good friend Norman Oder has laid out some of these qualms in a recent post). Let's begin by underscoring what we find to be excellent criticisms in the MI report. In the first place, "the process has little to do with planning." Here the report is right on target.
The entire ULURP review inevitably begins with a developer's vision, and is then narrated by consultants who are hired to embellish the vision with facts that fit the preconceived narrative. The resulting environmental impact statements are certainly "impenetrable," designed as "litigation insurance" rather than as an explication of any real environmental impact.
The impenetrability is by design, since the goal is, as the report points out, "to be sure nobody reads it." We found this out exactly twenty five years ago. In one of the first projects we worked on, the Cherry Street Pathmark, we closed the parking lot for six months because we actually read the traffic study-and found that the developer had submitted the very same study that had been done for Pathmark's first urban store in Gowanus.
The consultant's have gotten a great deal more sophisticated since then, but the game is the same. And Oder's comments about the role of AKRF in all of this-both judge and jury-is right on target (something we can see most clearly in the Columbia expansion). It is the same phenomenon that we see on the Federal regulatory level: a revolving door between the private sector and government that makes legitimate regulation problematic.
The MI report captures this in quoting a unnamed consultant who said:
That's not to sat that we haven't learned how to use the process to maximize the power of communities and small businesses. We have, and in the process have stopped over 20 separate development projects. So we understand ULURP- as the philosophers would say, immanently. It is a process that can no longer be depended to provide good public policy outcomes, only victories or defeats that usually have no relationship to environmental issues.
Which is why the recently issued report from the Manhattan Institute, Rethinking Environmental Review: A Handbook on What Can Be Done, is such an important, and long overdo, policy evaluation. It is especially timely in the context of the mayor's long range concern with sustainability. A truly sustainable planning approach must include the reform of a land use review process that is an active impediment to the goals that PlaNYC has laid out.
That being said, there are things in the MI document that we would take issue with (Our new good friend Norman Oder has laid out some of these qualms in a recent post). Let's begin by underscoring what we find to be excellent criticisms in the MI report. In the first place, "the process has little to do with planning." Here the report is right on target.
The entire ULURP review inevitably begins with a developer's vision, and is then narrated by consultants who are hired to embellish the vision with facts that fit the preconceived narrative. The resulting environmental impact statements are certainly "impenetrable," designed as "litigation insurance" rather than as an explication of any real environmental impact.
The impenetrability is by design, since the goal is, as the report points out, "to be sure nobody reads it." We found this out exactly twenty five years ago. In one of the first projects we worked on, the Cherry Street Pathmark, we closed the parking lot for six months because we actually read the traffic study-and found that the developer had submitted the very same study that had been done for Pathmark's first urban store in Gowanus.
The consultant's have gotten a great deal more sophisticated since then, but the game is the same. And Oder's comments about the role of AKRF in all of this-both judge and jury-is right on target (something we can see most clearly in the Columbia expansion). It is the same phenomenon that we see on the Federal regulatory level: a revolving door between the private sector and government that makes legitimate regulation problematic.
The MI report captures this in quoting a unnamed consultant who said:
"Politicians have no time to read thousand-page volumes of technical data,
and bureaucrats are overwhelmed by their workload...{which leads to}...The
revolving door between powerful government and highly paid private-sector
CEQR jobs means that no wants to go om record blowing the whistle...A guy works
for the city, then goes to work for AKRF...and you can't get out of the circle."
The quality of the technical review is also called into question in the report. In developing mitigation for traffic impacts, consultants for developers tend to evaluate a narrow range of local impacts, and avoid looking at the wider possible damage that can be done to surrounding neighborhoods. This can be seen in the traffic signal retiming mitigations: "It is perfectly possible for a retiming, proposed to address congestion at an intersection, within the study area, to make things worse in the larger neighborhood just outside the study area."
So, for instance, with the Yankee Stadium and the Bronx Terminal Market projects that will certainly have a cumulative impact on the South Bronx, but were examined as if they were two discrete projects without any contiguity whatsoever. And of course no one bothered to look at traffic on the Deegan, since there appears to be no requirement to look at state roads-even if they are on "Asthma Alley."
So the MI report has a number of important observations, but its major weakness is its attempt to narrow the scope of review to what it feels are legitimate environmental issues. Neighborhood character and socio-economic conditions are eschewed in favor of very narrow parameters. This overlooks a number of salient points.
In the first place, the review process is a political process as much as it is an environmental one. Developer visions have a political component, and their impact needs to be evaluated on a number of levels that transcend narrow environmental concerns. When ULURP becomes a "weapon of choice" for activists-something that MI sees pejoratively-it is because it is the only available venue to express the concerns of communities and small businesses.
In addition, the issues of community character and socio-economic impacts often do have an important environmental impact. As we have commented concerning the mayor's congestion pricing plan, the building of auto-dependent shopping centers creates congestion and threatens the sustainability of local {often walk-to-shop} commercial strips. And why shouldn't the nurturing of local economies be a focus of any review? If not in ULURP, where?
Which brings us to what we feel is a major lapse in the MI report. It is spot on in showing how consultants collude with developers-and how beleaguered city bureaucrats play matador with the review-but it fails to call for the removal of developer-paid experts from the review process. As we have said before, experts should be hired by the city and paid for by the developers; and they should be given a wider planning agenda for their review.
So the MI report is a good start in the reformation of a broken ULURP process. Ultimately, however, it is too developer-friendly and insensitive to the needs of communities and small businesses. A comprehensive reformation should be made an integral part of PlaNYC so that, going forward towards sustainability, we have as disinterested (and as community-friendly) a review process as possible.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Reform ULURP
The Gateway Mall application is also a case study in the need to reform the entire ULURP process. After all, isn't this supposed to be an environmental review? If so, than how do we account for the fact that the council never once bothered to even glance at the EIS. In fact, there is no one on the council staff who is qualified to review the traffic and air quality data that is supposed to the foundation of the ULULP review.
All of this was underscored in the 2 1/2 hearing that was held by the council's Zoning and Franchises subcommittee. The developer wasn't asked a single question about the mall's potential to generate traffic congestion in an area of the city that has been labeled "asthma alley."
Making a bad situation worse was the short shrift given to the Alliance's traffic expert, Brian Ketcham. Brian, who has described the developer's analysis as the worst he's seen in 30years, was allowed to make a three minute presentation and wasn't asked a single question. Ketcham's evaluation has been echoed by the non-partisan Tri-State Transportation Campaign.
Given this less than honest evaluation of the data that is supposed to be essential for any fair and comprehensive environmental review it is beyond funny to read in today's NY Daily News that the Gateway application "meets all the technical land use criteria required for Council approval." This is much like the joke about the guy who said that the thermos was the greatest invention of all time. When asked , "Why?" he said , "Because when you put something hot in it it stays hot, and when you put something cold in it it stays cold." (The punch line of course is, "How does it know?").
Let's end this hypocrisy once and for all. The ULURP process is a response to the impact of the environmental movement of the 1970's. It led to the passage of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). All land use review procedures flow from this. Are they anachronistic? Or do we need to make this review adhere more closely to the non-partisan evaluation that SEQR's founders undoubtedly intended it to be?
What is clear, however, is that the current ULURP process has been rendered a politicized, partisan joke by the Gateway example. To keep it as it is would be a disgrace, and not in the larger public interest.
All of this was underscored in the 2 1/2 hearing that was held by the council's Zoning and Franchises subcommittee. The developer wasn't asked a single question about the mall's potential to generate traffic congestion in an area of the city that has been labeled "asthma alley."
Making a bad situation worse was the short shrift given to the Alliance's traffic expert, Brian Ketcham. Brian, who has described the developer's analysis as the worst he's seen in 30years, was allowed to make a three minute presentation and wasn't asked a single question. Ketcham's evaluation has been echoed by the non-partisan Tri-State Transportation Campaign.
Given this less than honest evaluation of the data that is supposed to be essential for any fair and comprehensive environmental review it is beyond funny to read in today's NY Daily News that the Gateway application "meets all the technical land use criteria required for Council approval." This is much like the joke about the guy who said that the thermos was the greatest invention of all time. When asked , "Why?" he said , "Because when you put something hot in it it stays hot, and when you put something cold in it it stays cold." (The punch line of course is, "How does it know?").
Let's end this hypocrisy once and for all. The ULURP process is a response to the impact of the environmental movement of the 1970's. It led to the passage of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). All land use review procedures flow from this. Are they anachronistic? Or do we need to make this review adhere more closely to the non-partisan evaluation that SEQR's founders undoubtedly intended it to be?
What is clear, however, is that the current ULURP process has been rendered a politicized, partisan joke by the Gateway example. To keep it as it is would be a disgrace, and not in the larger public interest.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Land Use and Community Benefits
As we have commented, Comptroller John Liu is looking to devise ways to make the process of crafting community benefits agreements more rational-and community friendly as well. In yesterday's NY Daily News he outlined his case: "One of the main reasons why many CBAs in New York City have been disappointing - and have been singled out nationally as examples of what not to do - is that they forgot one important factor: the community. It would, however, be a mistake to consider CBAs a lost cause. In fact, CBA success stories are sweeping across the country."
In making his case, Liu points to a litany of failed CBAs-many of which we were right in the middle of. Our particular favorite? The Bronx Terminal Market: "At Bronx Terminal Market, community benefits depended on developer actions that were largely voluntary and, to date, still have not happened." Which raises an important corollary-something that the Comptroller gets as well.
CBAs are complementary and can enhance the development process if done correctly: "Moreover, CBAs should never become a substitute for responsible government policy on development issues. CBAs should complement policy." If, as in the case of the BTM, the entire process was tainted, no community benefits agreement will be able to rescue the effort from its failed underpinnings. And, in the case of that particular Bronx malling, the CBA process managed to make a bad development worse-so it's not surprising that the terms of the CBA have not been lived up to.
Which gets us to a central conundrum: Who represents the community and therefore gets to negotiate on its behalf? Liu posits the following: "Community groups, elected officials and other parties negotiating with developers must be truly representative of the community, and the benefits from the project to the community should be appropriate to its needs and the impact of the development upon it."
Ah, yes-but how do we decide who is, "truly representative?" It is difficult to see what kind of criteria should be used-and the Liu task force certainly has its work cut out for it-to determine the quality of representativeness. Perhaps, just as Supreme Court Justice Stewart famously remarked about pornography: "I'll know it when I see it"
Certainly it was in place during last year's Kingsbridge Armory battle-as KARA comprised a wide array of community stakeholders. But this gets us to the other sticking point, one that we mentioned in an earlier post-how to coordinate a CBA negotiating process with ULURP: "On a procedural level, negotiating a CBA is complicated by the fact that any discussions need to take place alongside of the mandated ULURP process-a procedure with a clear cut time frame that can't be modified once it commences. So, creating clear cut parameters may have to be done simultaneously with amending the ULURP process itself-something we have recommended but that is subject to mayoral approval."
If coordination is lacking, the negotiation of a benefits agreement becomes slipshod and haphazard-and the Armory debacle is a case in point since the haughty developer, a long time mayoral favorite, was content to play rope-a-dope as the ULURP clock ticked away. In the end, this haughtiness, and the ad hoc nature of the CBA process as well, combined to defeat the entire development.
So, much work needs to be done on this important issue-and the Liu task force is a big step in the right direction. Ultimately, however, the mayor and the city council will need to be brought in, since devising an official status for CBAs needs to be done legislatively and in tandem with reform of ULURP; and with the consent of the mayor as well, the man who has veto over any changes in the city's land use law.
But the Liu task force should begin to bring the CBA issue into the spotlight-and we'll give the comptroller the last word: "This task force will be a partnership with representatives of the community, business and labor who will help shed light through the smoke-filled rooms and work to ensure that CBAs contain clear standards so New York City can once again become a model for effective and equitable economic development."
In making his case, Liu points to a litany of failed CBAs-many of which we were right in the middle of. Our particular favorite? The Bronx Terminal Market: "At Bronx Terminal Market, community benefits depended on developer actions that were largely voluntary and, to date, still have not happened." Which raises an important corollary-something that the Comptroller gets as well.
CBAs are complementary and can enhance the development process if done correctly: "Moreover, CBAs should never become a substitute for responsible government policy on development issues. CBAs should complement policy." If, as in the case of the BTM, the entire process was tainted, no community benefits agreement will be able to rescue the effort from its failed underpinnings. And, in the case of that particular Bronx malling, the CBA process managed to make a bad development worse-so it's not surprising that the terms of the CBA have not been lived up to.
Which gets us to a central conundrum: Who represents the community and therefore gets to negotiate on its behalf? Liu posits the following: "Community groups, elected officials and other parties negotiating with developers must be truly representative of the community, and the benefits from the project to the community should be appropriate to its needs and the impact of the development upon it."
Ah, yes-but how do we decide who is, "truly representative?" It is difficult to see what kind of criteria should be used-and the Liu task force certainly has its work cut out for it-to determine the quality of representativeness. Perhaps, just as Supreme Court Justice Stewart famously remarked about pornography: "I'll know it when I see it"
Certainly it was in place during last year's Kingsbridge Armory battle-as KARA comprised a wide array of community stakeholders. But this gets us to the other sticking point, one that we mentioned in an earlier post-how to coordinate a CBA negotiating process with ULURP: "On a procedural level, negotiating a CBA is complicated by the fact that any discussions need to take place alongside of the mandated ULURP process-a procedure with a clear cut time frame that can't be modified once it commences. So, creating clear cut parameters may have to be done simultaneously with amending the ULURP process itself-something we have recommended but that is subject to mayoral approval."
If coordination is lacking, the negotiation of a benefits agreement becomes slipshod and haphazard-and the Armory debacle is a case in point since the haughty developer, a long time mayoral favorite, was content to play rope-a-dope as the ULURP clock ticked away. In the end, this haughtiness, and the ad hoc nature of the CBA process as well, combined to defeat the entire development.
So, much work needs to be done on this important issue-and the Liu task force is a big step in the right direction. Ultimately, however, the mayor and the city council will need to be brought in, since devising an official status for CBAs needs to be done legislatively and in tandem with reform of ULURP; and with the consent of the mayor as well, the man who has veto over any changes in the city's land use law.
But the Liu task force should begin to bring the CBA issue into the spotlight-and we'll give the comptroller the last word: "This task force will be a partnership with representatives of the community, business and labor who will help shed light through the smoke-filled rooms and work to ensure that CBAs contain clear standards so New York City can once again become a model for effective and equitable economic development."
Monday, December 14, 2009
Kudos to Ketcham!
Almost lost in the euphoria over the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory project was the crucial role played by Brian Ketcham's masterful traffic analysis-because ultimately it is traffic and socio-economic impacts that must be the determining factor in any land use decision.
This was brought home by the comments of Speaker Quinn relayed in a live blog by the Bronx News Network: "12:35 Quinn is talking now. Says they're disappointed they couldn't come to an agreement with the administration. Urging all colleagues to vote to disapprove the proposal today."After numerous and lengthy discussions, there's a significant public health and traffic impact. We cannot approve a project that brings more people to an already crowded area. .. without a true plan to deal with that traffic congestion."Other issues important and significant but not part of vote today, she said: Current plan is simply not the right proposal for the residents of this community at this time." Praises Annabel Palma, Bx delegation leader, and her Bronx colleagues."
The reality here is, that the amount of traffic that this project would generate-once again contradicting the Kermit the Mayor image of the city's richest man-would have been a real hardship on the Kingsbridge Heights neighborhood. And the inadequacies of the Related traffic study should initiate a call for ULURP reform so that the traffic analysis is taken out of the hands of developer puppets claiming independent expertise.
So hats off to Ketcham-and a cautionary tale for EDC in its effort to cover up just how inadequate the Willets Point traffic study really is. If the mayor is gonna be going green, than he needs to become more honest-and insure that his policies reflect the high minded rhetoric that he graces world gatherings with.
This was brought home by the comments of Speaker Quinn relayed in a live blog by the Bronx News Network: "12:35 Quinn is talking now. Says they're disappointed they couldn't come to an agreement with the administration. Urging all colleagues to vote to disapprove the proposal today."After numerous and lengthy discussions, there's a significant public health and traffic impact. We cannot approve a project that brings more people to an already crowded area. .. without a true plan to deal with that traffic congestion."Other issues important and significant but not part of vote today, she said: Current plan is simply not the right proposal for the residents of this community at this time." Praises Annabel Palma, Bx delegation leader, and her Bronx colleagues."
The reality here is, that the amount of traffic that this project would generate-once again contradicting the Kermit the Mayor image of the city's richest man-would have been a real hardship on the Kingsbridge Heights neighborhood. And the inadequacies of the Related traffic study should initiate a call for ULURP reform so that the traffic analysis is taken out of the hands of developer puppets claiming independent expertise.
So hats off to Ketcham-and a cautionary tale for EDC in its effort to cover up just how inadequate the Willets Point traffic study really is. If the mayor is gonna be going green, than he needs to become more honest-and insure that his policies reflect the high minded rhetoric that he graces world gatherings with.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Derailing the Collusion Express
In the run up to the city council land use vote on Willets Point one thing is crystal clear: no one bothered to even read the fictional narrative prepared by AKRF in lieu of an actual environmental review. If they had, a great deal of negotiated modification would have occurred-spurred by local council members concerned about just how to mitigate the 80,000 cars a day that the project will generate (and that's according to the low ball figures provided by the city's favorite consulting lap dog).
And in addition, there might have been more safeguards negotiated to insure that the final environmental review for the one actual mitigating factor-proposed ramps off of the Van Wyck-was done by an independent team of consultants, with a proviso that the entire review process be re-submitted to the council for approval. All of this might have happened if there was any genuine concern for environmental impacts at either the city council or the city planning commission.
The reality is, however, that the entire ULURP process has degenerated into a Kabuki theater performance-with the AKRF's and URS's of the world getting paid huge coin for an expensive pantomime act that is never really examined by any of the decision makers in the legislative play acting. In fact, as we told our consultant Ketcham-a true Diogenes in a world of liars for hire-the only time these traffic studies actually get read is when the Alliance hires him to review them.
So, while a reform of the ULURP fraud is way over due, we come back to the sleight-of-hand exercise on the Willets Point traffic stop. The original EIS-and its accompanying traffic study-was handled by the folks at AKRF, the same candid cameras who gave us the duel representation effort on the Columbia expansion scheme; representing the city for a blight study, and Columbia for the environmental review.
Now AKRF doesn't do the traffic work-and in the case of Willets Point the work was farmed out to an outfit called Eng-Wong Taub. Still, as we pointed out, E-WT's analysis, although alarming and severe, was still de minimis, underestimating just what the overall traffic volume would do to the contiguous communities. But what is truly alarming, is that the second subcontractor for the AMR (ramps) report-URS-has managed to submit traffic data that totally contradicts what is contained in the original traffic study done under ULURP for the original zoning application.
As Brian Ketcham's letter has told NYSDOT-the review agency for the ramps-the AMR report fails to account for the original documentation provided the city under CEQR: "However, I will show you that the draft AMR does not appear to fully account for the Willets Point Development Plan and other approved development in close proximity to the ramps that will generate approximately 100,000 trips per day in 2017 (including 80,000 from the Willets Point project) and will continue to do so in 2035."
Which means that AKRF-yes, once again-as the general contractor for both the FGEIS and the AMR report (or at least the consultant that was most familiar with both documents) has managed to keep quiet about what it should know intimately: that the two reports are contradictory, with the AMR document a clear attempt to both minimize and mislead the NYSDOT and the FHWA authority so that the ramps can be approved-even though they will apparently do little to mitigate the severe traffic impacts that the Willets Point development will foist on its neighboring communities.
All of which should provide ample fodder for a State Senate Transportation Committee hearing-and the fact that Senator Perkins, the official who has lead the fight against agency/consultant collusion, also sits on the committee is fortuitous for those who want to put an end to fixed development games sponsored by quasi-independent state or city agencies. In the case of Willets Point, sunlight will be the best disinfectant.
And in addition, there might have been more safeguards negotiated to insure that the final environmental review for the one actual mitigating factor-proposed ramps off of the Van Wyck-was done by an independent team of consultants, with a proviso that the entire review process be re-submitted to the council for approval. All of this might have happened if there was any genuine concern for environmental impacts at either the city council or the city planning commission.
The reality is, however, that the entire ULURP process has degenerated into a Kabuki theater performance-with the AKRF's and URS's of the world getting paid huge coin for an expensive pantomime act that is never really examined by any of the decision makers in the legislative play acting. In fact, as we told our consultant Ketcham-a true Diogenes in a world of liars for hire-the only time these traffic studies actually get read is when the Alliance hires him to review them.
So, while a reform of the ULURP fraud is way over due, we come back to the sleight-of-hand exercise on the Willets Point traffic stop. The original EIS-and its accompanying traffic study-was handled by the folks at AKRF, the same candid cameras who gave us the duel representation effort on the Columbia expansion scheme; representing the city for a blight study, and Columbia for the environmental review.
Now AKRF doesn't do the traffic work-and in the case of Willets Point the work was farmed out to an outfit called Eng-Wong Taub. Still, as we pointed out, E-WT's analysis, although alarming and severe, was still de minimis, underestimating just what the overall traffic volume would do to the contiguous communities. But what is truly alarming, is that the second subcontractor for the AMR (ramps) report-URS-has managed to submit traffic data that totally contradicts what is contained in the original traffic study done under ULURP for the original zoning application.
As Brian Ketcham's letter has told NYSDOT-the review agency for the ramps-the AMR report fails to account for the original documentation provided the city under CEQR: "However, I will show you that the draft AMR does not appear to fully account for the Willets Point Development Plan and other approved development in close proximity to the ramps that will generate approximately 100,000 trips per day in 2017 (including 80,000 from the Willets Point project) and will continue to do so in 2035."
Which means that AKRF-yes, once again-as the general contractor for both the FGEIS and the AMR report (or at least the consultant that was most familiar with both documents) has managed to keep quiet about what it should know intimately: that the two reports are contradictory, with the AMR document a clear attempt to both minimize and mislead the NYSDOT and the FHWA authority so that the ramps can be approved-even though they will apparently do little to mitigate the severe traffic impacts that the Willets Point development will foist on its neighboring communities.
All of which should provide ample fodder for a State Senate Transportation Committee hearing-and the fact that Senator Perkins, the official who has lead the fight against agency/consultant collusion, also sits on the committee is fortuitous for those who want to put an end to fixed development games sponsored by quasi-independent state or city agencies. In the case of Willets Point, sunlight will be the best disinfectant.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Lobbying Reform
In yesterday's NY Times the paper editorializes in favor of the recently announced lobbying reforms put forward by the mayor and endorsed by the council speaker. What's amusing in the paper's editorial is the assumption, without any evidence to substantiate the opinion, that there is a "kind of Jack Abramoff-on-the-Hudson scenario" operating on the City Council side of City Hall.
The Times goes on to say that this "coziness has been a huge disservice to New York's voters, whose interests have regularly been trumped by those with the money to hire lobbyists." Once again, it would be nice if the so-called paper of record would offer at least one example of this obviously egregious situation, instead of treating the observation as a revealed truth that is self-evident to all New Yorkers.
The paper also misconstrues how the political process works in this city. Wealthy interests often get their way because, well, they have inherent clout themselves. The Related Company spent tens of thousands of dollars on directly wooing Bronx officials. Its lobbyists were not the evil middlemen in this quest but played a secondary role.
In spite of this (the Times would call it influence peddling), there is nothing in the Bloomberg-Quinn reforms that addresses this potentially untoward situation. What the paper also misses is that there is a Weltanschauung in this city in favor of development. The existence of this worldview leads most of the media to reflexively endorse projects that "create jobs" and promote "development" without examining the relative merits with any real due diligence or, better yet, healthy skepticism.
The shame here, and we come back as always to the Bronx Terminal Market, is that the NY Times acts as a conservative force in NYC politics because its own interests are conjoined with what has been characterized as the city's permanent government. This leaves the paper unable to credibly evaluate the "special interests" that the Times itself is so much an integral part of.
Once again we must say that if lobbying reform is to have any credibility it needs to focus on the city's real estate industry and be linked closely to a concept of accountable development and a reform of ULURP. For a more comprehensive look at this perspective see the recent Gotham Gazette post on "Redefining Economic Development."
The Times goes on to say that this "coziness has been a huge disservice to New York's voters, whose interests have regularly been trumped by those with the money to hire lobbyists." Once again, it would be nice if the so-called paper of record would offer at least one example of this obviously egregious situation, instead of treating the observation as a revealed truth that is self-evident to all New Yorkers.
The paper also misconstrues how the political process works in this city. Wealthy interests often get their way because, well, they have inherent clout themselves. The Related Company spent tens of thousands of dollars on directly wooing Bronx officials. Its lobbyists were not the evil middlemen in this quest but played a secondary role.
In spite of this (the Times would call it influence peddling), there is nothing in the Bloomberg-Quinn reforms that addresses this potentially untoward situation. What the paper also misses is that there is a Weltanschauung in this city in favor of development. The existence of this worldview leads most of the media to reflexively endorse projects that "create jobs" and promote "development" without examining the relative merits with any real due diligence or, better yet, healthy skepticism.
The shame here, and we come back as always to the Bronx Terminal Market, is that the NY Times acts as a conservative force in NYC politics because its own interests are conjoined with what has been characterized as the city's permanent government. This leaves the paper unable to credibly evaluate the "special interests" that the Times itself is so much an integral part of.
Once again we must say that if lobbying reform is to have any credibility it needs to focus on the city's real estate industry and be linked closely to a concept of accountable development and a reform of ULURP. For a more comprehensive look at this perspective see the recent Gotham Gazette post on "Redefining Economic Development."
Friday, November 12, 2010
A Bad Bet Against a Living Wager
In this morning's NY Post, Adam Brodsky continues with the NYC elite's misguided assault on the concept of living wage legislation-and in the process, fails to grasp just how badly Mayor Bloomberg's economic development policies have damaged job growth and entreprenuerism in New York. The title of the piece, "Death by Living Wage," dramatizes how Brodsky's rhetorical dagger is thrust at the wrong target.
His main premise, that promotion of a living wage means a deadly loss of jobs, doesn't stand up to an even cursory analysis: "What, exactly, do Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, city Comptroller John Liu, Bronx BP Ruben Diaz and 28 City Council members have against poor, young immigrants and blacks? Not satisfied that demands for a "living wage" cost The Bronx 2,200 jobs last year, these zealots want to take their job-thwarting efforts citywide. Two bills now in the council would do the trick. Poor, young minorities would suffer most. And Stringer, Liu and Diaz, in particular, are doing everything possible to make sure that happens."
This argument is similar to what the lawyer's term, "fruit of the poisonous tree." Brodsky uncritically accepts the assumption that the Kingsbridge Armory project would mean a gain of 2,200 Bronx jobs. But, what he fails to mention is that it was the developer Related and its consultant that made this unsupported claim-and example of just how badly we need to reform the ULURP process by taking assessments-environmental and economic-out of the hands of the Horn and Hardardt crowd of self servers.
We have made this point before, the assumption of job creation is a chimera that ignores the extent to which projects like this one at the Armory directly compete and erode the existing retail shopping strips-in this case Kingsbridge and Fordham Roads. The handpicked consultants downplay the way in which this malling creates a zero sum game-the developer adding up the sums, while the neighborhood stores count the zeros.
The studies submitted by developers-or by EDC itself-for large scale retail development are fraudulent boilerplate "analyses" that gild the developer's lilly by failing to consider the possible collateral damages generated by the tax subsidized chain stores. Or, is considered, quickly dismissed as if unworthy of serious attention. And, as far as Related's armory plan is concerned, even that 2,200 job number has to be taken with a grain of self served salt.
But the collateral damages are real, and they are being felt all over the city as the mayor unleashed his edifice complex on NY's hapless small businesses. This mega developing exacerbates city policies that prey on neighborhood retailers-as we have said countless times before: "But, back to the Armory. In the case of this development, tens of millions of tax dollars are being used to subsidize the project-one that, when finished, will likely siphon millions of dollars away from the small businesses at nearby Kingsbridge and Fordham Roads; retailers that have been devastated by the current recession as well as the economic policies that the NY Post writes about so movingly. For these entrepreneurs, the proposed mall is like a bus ticket out of town."
What Brodsky fails to evaluate with the same critical eye, is the entire edifice of Bloomberg's tax subsidized development policies-giving million dollar tax breaks, for instance, to one of the country's richest beer wholesalers, while that wholesaler's customers, the city's bodegas, are being shuttered in record numbers (when their owners aren't actually being gunned down by thugs.) While Bloomberg's billionaire reals estate buddy pals are getting these handouts, the city's manufacturers-particularly NY's bakeries-are fleeing to more business friendly climes.
Nothing could better underscore the economic policy failures of this administration than the precious piece done in today's NY Daily News by the inimitable Juan Gonzales. It seems that we are not only undressing NYC tax payers by giving millions to developers, but are also giving millions away in ICIP subsidies to folks for actually undressing: "Its bevy of gorgeous lap dancers and luxurious decor have made Manhattan's Penthouse Executive Club one of the city's hottest high-end strip clubs. But until now, few people realized taxpayers have been subsidizing the fantasy sex."
But stripping us of our tax money doesn't stop there: "And the Penthouse Club is not alone. Starlets Gentleman's Club near the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in Astoria, Queens, has enjoyed an exemption for years - one worth more than $10,000 in 2010. Up in the Bronx, the Hunts Point Triangle, a bar notorious for a lot more than its bikini-clad dancers, landed an exemption back in 2001. The break was worth more than $12,000 off its taxes this year."
We point this out not just to be snarky, but to make a larger point about how the city uses its tax subsidies without great care-and the fact that there are no adequate oversight or review mechanisms available to question these decisions. Clearly, the current ULURP process is inadequate to the task-especially since economic impact analyses in environmental reviews are shoddy and given short schrift in the truncated deliberations at the city council. We saw this rather starkly in the Flushing Commons development fight, where the consultant for the developer failed to accurately count the number of businesses in the impact area.
Which brings us back directly to the Brodsky broadside against living wage: "Witness last year's tragedy in The Bronx. A developer offered to build a $300 million mall at the Kingsbridge Armory, using $50 million in tax subsidies, but balked at Diaz's demand that all future jobs there pay $10 an hour or more, which would have made the project uneconomical. So Diaz got council members to nix the project. And goodbye 2,200 jobs."
The better fate of all those existing neighborhood retail jobs-particularly those 700 over at MortonWilliams-goes characteristically unmentioned. As does whether the millions of tax dollars would adequately give tax payers a decent bang for the buck. What the city is missing is an economic evaluation and review procedure-separate and apart from the ULURP process. Last year such a proposal was introduced by CM Al Vann, but never received a hearing or any real traction at the council.
It's time to bring it back-but perhaps in a strengthened form that puts some real teeth into the legislation when it is determined that a project's costs-and the subsidies for it-are not commensurate with the benefits being received; especially in light of the collateral damages that need to be fully measured because they certainly aren't now, given consultant collusion (and the fact that local business provides more economic benefits than do out of state chain stores). This is especially important for the ongoing debate about Wal-Mart's entry into the city.
So, here's where Adam Brodsky makes a bad bet. He makes the mistake of all of those gamblers who make their betting decisions based on shaky, often "insider" information. His wager against living wage is based on false assumptions handed out by folks who are little better than race fixers.
Bottom line for us is that these tax breaks are bogus to begin with-but if they're going to be handed out like party favors to the mayor's billionaire buddies, than it is only just that the workers employed at these subsidized malls get properly compensated. To this date, there has been no honest cost/benefit analysis of the mayor's economic development/tax subsidy policies. Until that is done, attacks on the living wage bill are misplaced anger that leaves the real culprit for job loss unscathed.
His main premise, that promotion of a living wage means a deadly loss of jobs, doesn't stand up to an even cursory analysis: "What, exactly, do Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, city Comptroller John Liu, Bronx BP Ruben Diaz and 28 City Council members have against poor, young immigrants and blacks? Not satisfied that demands for a "living wage" cost The Bronx 2,200 jobs last year, these zealots want to take their job-thwarting efforts citywide. Two bills now in the council would do the trick. Poor, young minorities would suffer most. And Stringer, Liu and Diaz, in particular, are doing everything possible to make sure that happens."
This argument is similar to what the lawyer's term, "fruit of the poisonous tree." Brodsky uncritically accepts the assumption that the Kingsbridge Armory project would mean a gain of 2,200 Bronx jobs. But, what he fails to mention is that it was the developer Related and its consultant that made this unsupported claim-and example of just how badly we need to reform the ULURP process by taking assessments-environmental and economic-out of the hands of the Horn and Hardardt crowd of self servers.
We have made this point before, the assumption of job creation is a chimera that ignores the extent to which projects like this one at the Armory directly compete and erode the existing retail shopping strips-in this case Kingsbridge and Fordham Roads. The handpicked consultants downplay the way in which this malling creates a zero sum game-the developer adding up the sums, while the neighborhood stores count the zeros.
The studies submitted by developers-or by EDC itself-for large scale retail development are fraudulent boilerplate "analyses" that gild the developer's lilly by failing to consider the possible collateral damages generated by the tax subsidized chain stores. Or, is considered, quickly dismissed as if unworthy of serious attention. And, as far as Related's armory plan is concerned, even that 2,200 job number has to be taken with a grain of self served salt.
But the collateral damages are real, and they are being felt all over the city as the mayor unleashed his edifice complex on NY's hapless small businesses. This mega developing exacerbates city policies that prey on neighborhood retailers-as we have said countless times before: "But, back to the Armory. In the case of this development, tens of millions of tax dollars are being used to subsidize the project-one that, when finished, will likely siphon millions of dollars away from the small businesses at nearby Kingsbridge and Fordham Roads; retailers that have been devastated by the current recession as well as the economic policies that the NY Post writes about so movingly. For these entrepreneurs, the proposed mall is like a bus ticket out of town."
What Brodsky fails to evaluate with the same critical eye, is the entire edifice of Bloomberg's tax subsidized development policies-giving million dollar tax breaks, for instance, to one of the country's richest beer wholesalers, while that wholesaler's customers, the city's bodegas, are being shuttered in record numbers (when their owners aren't actually being gunned down by thugs.) While Bloomberg's billionaire reals estate buddy pals are getting these handouts, the city's manufacturers-particularly NY's bakeries-are fleeing to more business friendly climes.
Nothing could better underscore the economic policy failures of this administration than the precious piece done in today's NY Daily News by the inimitable Juan Gonzales. It seems that we are not only undressing NYC tax payers by giving millions to developers, but are also giving millions away in ICIP subsidies to folks for actually undressing: "Its bevy of gorgeous lap dancers and luxurious decor have made Manhattan's Penthouse Executive Club one of the city's hottest high-end strip clubs. But until now, few people realized taxpayers have been subsidizing the fantasy sex."
But stripping us of our tax money doesn't stop there: "And the Penthouse Club is not alone. Starlets Gentleman's Club near the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in Astoria, Queens, has enjoyed an exemption for years - one worth more than $10,000 in 2010. Up in the Bronx, the Hunts Point Triangle, a bar notorious for a lot more than its bikini-clad dancers, landed an exemption back in 2001. The break was worth more than $12,000 off its taxes this year."
We point this out not just to be snarky, but to make a larger point about how the city uses its tax subsidies without great care-and the fact that there are no adequate oversight or review mechanisms available to question these decisions. Clearly, the current ULURP process is inadequate to the task-especially since economic impact analyses in environmental reviews are shoddy and given short schrift in the truncated deliberations at the city council. We saw this rather starkly in the Flushing Commons development fight, where the consultant for the developer failed to accurately count the number of businesses in the impact area.
Which brings us back directly to the Brodsky broadside against living wage: "Witness last year's tragedy in The Bronx. A developer offered to build a $300 million mall at the Kingsbridge Armory, using $50 million in tax subsidies, but balked at Diaz's demand that all future jobs there pay $10 an hour or more, which would have made the project uneconomical. So Diaz got council members to nix the project. And goodbye 2,200 jobs."
The better fate of all those existing neighborhood retail jobs-particularly those 700 over at MortonWilliams-goes characteristically unmentioned. As does whether the millions of tax dollars would adequately give tax payers a decent bang for the buck. What the city is missing is an economic evaluation and review procedure-separate and apart from the ULURP process. Last year such a proposal was introduced by CM Al Vann, but never received a hearing or any real traction at the council.
It's time to bring it back-but perhaps in a strengthened form that puts some real teeth into the legislation when it is determined that a project's costs-and the subsidies for it-are not commensurate with the benefits being received; especially in light of the collateral damages that need to be fully measured because they certainly aren't now, given consultant collusion (and the fact that local business provides more economic benefits than do out of state chain stores). This is especially important for the ongoing debate about Wal-Mart's entry into the city.
So, here's where Adam Brodsky makes a bad bet. He makes the mistake of all of those gamblers who make their betting decisions based on shaky, often "insider" information. His wager against living wage is based on false assumptions handed out by folks who are little better than race fixers.
Bottom line for us is that these tax breaks are bogus to begin with-but if they're going to be handed out like party favors to the mayor's billionaire buddies, than it is only just that the workers employed at these subsidized malls get properly compensated. To this date, there has been no honest cost/benefit analysis of the mayor's economic development/tax subsidy policies. Until that is done, attacks on the living wage bill are misplaced anger that leaves the real culprit for job loss unscathed.
Monday, July 21, 2008
This Land Ain't Your Land-Anymore!
In Sunday's NY Post, the paper reviews "Government Pirates" by Don Corace, an attack on the government's use of eminent domain to erode property rights: "June 23, 2005 was a very dark day in our nation's history," Don Corace writes at the beginning of his new jeremiad defending property rights against rapacious government buttinskis. That was the day the Supreme Court handed down its shocking 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, affirming local governments' rights to seize your home and flip it to another private owner if the new guy promises to bring in more tax revenue."
The book takes a hard look at the way in which courts and local governments have acted-unfairly in his view-to take people's property in the name of development. Corace examines the efforts to reform eminent domain laws around the country as well as the often incomprehensible and contradictory judicial rulings on the subject: "The public rightly shuddered with revulsion at the specter of their bedrock rights being subject to the whims of "redevelopment"-addicted local pols. Alarmed statehouses prepared scores of eminent domain-limiting bills, while city halls from coast to coast dug in their heels. The tension between those three - and the scattershot, logic-defying umpiring offered by the judiciary - forms the basic narrative conflict in Corace's "Government Pirates."
What is, of course, disturbing in all of this is the way in which local governments use the ED weapon, along with other land use sleights-of-hand to railroad local folks-usual those without resources: "For Corace, eminent domain is just the gateway into a world where local governments respect no man's castle. "Kelo has sparked a healthy dialogue, but eminent domain abuse is only the 'tip of the iceberg,' " he writes. "Through local zoning and the regulation of wetlands and endangered species, governments take property without compensating owners and also extort land and money in return for approvals."
This phenomenon is in need of some pretty fundamental reform; and as is the whole ULURP process in NYC which is too often the handmaiden of these tactics-a fact exposed by the ESDC/Columbia University collusion we wrote about last week. More transparency, and greater protections for small businesses, property owners and tenants, is badly needed.
The ED weapon is wielded as a bludgeon: "But Corace ably points out what many New Yorkers and other urbanites - particularly the poor - have long known: Eminent domain is like the Ring of Power in redevelopment schemes. Local officials insist they're reluctant to use such terrible power, but sometimes you just gotta break an egg or three to make an omelet."
What the Corace book apparently points out, is just how often locals get shafted by their own elected officials, something that Bronxites and the folks in West Harlem are familiar with: "Corace's on firmer ground detailing the collective incoherence of various court rulings, and the limitless reservoir of bad faith and money that local governments will tap into when they have a better idea for your property than you do."
It's time for NY State to address the inequities in its anachronistic eminent domain laws. As bad as the court rulings have been, and we're coming from a place that sees ED as a sometimes necessary tool-the real solution lies with the legislature; and pressuring those electeds who too often feed at the development trough.
The book takes a hard look at the way in which courts and local governments have acted-unfairly in his view-to take people's property in the name of development. Corace examines the efforts to reform eminent domain laws around the country as well as the often incomprehensible and contradictory judicial rulings on the subject: "The public rightly shuddered with revulsion at the specter of their bedrock rights being subject to the whims of "redevelopment"-addicted local pols. Alarmed statehouses prepared scores of eminent domain-limiting bills, while city halls from coast to coast dug in their heels. The tension between those three - and the scattershot, logic-defying umpiring offered by the judiciary - forms the basic narrative conflict in Corace's "Government Pirates."
What is, of course, disturbing in all of this is the way in which local governments use the ED weapon, along with other land use sleights-of-hand to railroad local folks-usual those without resources: "For Corace, eminent domain is just the gateway into a world where local governments respect no man's castle. "Kelo has sparked a healthy dialogue, but eminent domain abuse is only the 'tip of the iceberg,' " he writes. "Through local zoning and the regulation of wetlands and endangered species, governments take property without compensating owners and also extort land and money in return for approvals."
This phenomenon is in need of some pretty fundamental reform; and as is the whole ULURP process in NYC which is too often the handmaiden of these tactics-a fact exposed by the ESDC/Columbia University collusion we wrote about last week. More transparency, and greater protections for small businesses, property owners and tenants, is badly needed.
The ED weapon is wielded as a bludgeon: "But Corace ably points out what many New Yorkers and other urbanites - particularly the poor - have long known: Eminent domain is like the Ring of Power in redevelopment schemes. Local officials insist they're reluctant to use such terrible power, but sometimes you just gotta break an egg or three to make an omelet."
What the Corace book apparently points out, is just how often locals get shafted by their own elected officials, something that Bronxites and the folks in West Harlem are familiar with: "Corace's on firmer ground detailing the collective incoherence of various court rulings, and the limitless reservoir of bad faith and money that local governments will tap into when they have a better idea for your property than you do."
It's time for NY State to address the inequities in its anachronistic eminent domain laws. As bad as the court rulings have been, and we're coming from a place that sees ED as a sometimes necessary tool-the real solution lies with the legislature; and pressuring those electeds who too often feed at the development trough.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Revolving Door Underscored
In a previous post, when commenting on the Manhattan Institute's critique of ULURP, we pointed out that the environmental review process is a sham because the developer-driven consulting is never any real accurate portrayal of the potential impacts of any given project. Exacerbating the situation, is the fact that the review agencies, are loath to do any in-depth review of the consultants' work-not only because it's time-consuming, but also because "no one wants to go on record blowing the whistle..."
Why not? Well, as the MI report highlights, a major reason is that the permanent government is a major potential source of after-government employment. In one very real sense, everyone in the regulatory and oversight agencies are auditioning for that opportunity to make some serious money once they leave the public sector.
As if on cue, Crain's In$ider reports yesterday on this very phenomenon saying, "The New York real estate market is so hot that developers are hiring City Hall insiders at a furious pace. Developers need their guidance through government catacombs and are wiling to pay them higher salaries." And where are the insiders going? To Vronado, Related, Brookfield Properties and The Durst Organization, just to name a few.
Which brings us back to our original observation that no change in ULURP is more imperative than to remove the review process from the hands of tainted consultants hired by developers. If the mayor is really interested in sustainability and the environment, then this is one reform that must be included in the PlaNYC package.
Why not? Well, as the MI report highlights, a major reason is that the permanent government is a major potential source of after-government employment. In one very real sense, everyone in the regulatory and oversight agencies are auditioning for that opportunity to make some serious money once they leave the public sector.
As if on cue, Crain's In$ider reports yesterday on this very phenomenon saying, "The New York real estate market is so hot that developers are hiring City Hall insiders at a furious pace. Developers need their guidance through government catacombs and are wiling to pay them higher salaries." And where are the insiders going? To Vronado, Related, Brookfield Properties and The Durst Organization, just to name a few.
Which brings us back to our original observation that no change in ULURP is more imperative than to remove the review process from the hands of tainted consultants hired by developers. If the mayor is really interested in sustainability and the environment, then this is one reform that must be included in the PlaNYC package.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Progressive Caucus Gaps
The two co-chairs of the new city council Progressive Caucus lay out their agenda in the Nation (Via Liz)-and there are some high notes that they hit: "The divide between Wall Street and the rest of New York predates the economic downturn. While the economy was booming, New York City largely failed to share the benefits of growth across lines of race, class and neighborhood. The Bloomberg administration's economic development policy focused on real estate development, subsidizing mega-deals to create luxury housing for the wealthiest and retail malls with mostly low-wage jobs."
The Bloombergistas do need to be challenged for their edifice complex-and their failure to address the impact of their mega-development policies on neighborhood quality of life. And one part of that challenge, not mentioned in the Lander-Mark-Viverito manifesto, is the need to reform the entire ULURP process so that there is more accountability. We believe that this is merely an oversight-and that the Caucus will get involved in not only this needed reform measure but also the issue of community benefits agreements that has been taken up by Comptroller Liu.
On the other hand, a real missing piece that needs to be added to the Caucus world view is the need to bolster and nurture small business-and if it does, then the tension between helping these entrepreneurs thrive in NYC and the urge to grow government services has to be resolved: "Today, as we struggle with continued foreclosures, an anemic economy and the large deficits facing the city and state, we hear constant calls for fiscal austerity--to balance the budget on the backs of those most in need, slashing child care and senior centers, laying off teachers and pushing families into homelessness by eliminating subsidies."
Well, if businesses-particularly those neighborhood retailers that are the engine for the local economy-are hurting and tax revenues are down, where will the money come from to do what the Caucus leaders want? And then there's the issue of the cost of living in the city-driven by the high tax environment in the town.
If you go to the various civic associations around town you'll hear cries about too much government and property tax hike and out-of-control water bills. Here is yet another tension between laudable Caucus goals and economic and political reality. Because if we further increase these costs to try to take care of the less fortunate we run the risk of golden goose killing.
It is at just this juncture that the compatibility between right and left wing populism becomes strained. Home owners and small business is right with the Caucus on the dangers of mega-development and the aggrandizement of the real estate elites-but the lack of genuine concern for property rights, and the recognition that these rights benefit a legion of small neighborhood homeowners as well as the hated landlords and real estate tycoons, leads the Caucus into a political cul du sac pitting the middle class against the enlarge-the-government progressive agenda.
Finding a way to bridge this gap should be a primary goal for this new caucus-and ending eminent domain abuse is one bridge that's not too far since it links neighborhoods, small business and the progressives' disdain for mega development. Adding this to their agenda would broaden the progressive base and strengthen their effort to create a more equitable political culture.
The Bloombergistas do need to be challenged for their edifice complex-and their failure to address the impact of their mega-development policies on neighborhood quality of life. And one part of that challenge, not mentioned in the Lander-Mark-Viverito manifesto, is the need to reform the entire ULURP process so that there is more accountability. We believe that this is merely an oversight-and that the Caucus will get involved in not only this needed reform measure but also the issue of community benefits agreements that has been taken up by Comptroller Liu.
On the other hand, a real missing piece that needs to be added to the Caucus world view is the need to bolster and nurture small business-and if it does, then the tension between helping these entrepreneurs thrive in NYC and the urge to grow government services has to be resolved: "Today, as we struggle with continued foreclosures, an anemic economy and the large deficits facing the city and state, we hear constant calls for fiscal austerity--to balance the budget on the backs of those most in need, slashing child care and senior centers, laying off teachers and pushing families into homelessness by eliminating subsidies."
Well, if businesses-particularly those neighborhood retailers that are the engine for the local economy-are hurting and tax revenues are down, where will the money come from to do what the Caucus leaders want? And then there's the issue of the cost of living in the city-driven by the high tax environment in the town.
If you go to the various civic associations around town you'll hear cries about too much government and property tax hike and out-of-control water bills. Here is yet another tension between laudable Caucus goals and economic and political reality. Because if we further increase these costs to try to take care of the less fortunate we run the risk of golden goose killing.
It is at just this juncture that the compatibility between right and left wing populism becomes strained. Home owners and small business is right with the Caucus on the dangers of mega-development and the aggrandizement of the real estate elites-but the lack of genuine concern for property rights, and the recognition that these rights benefit a legion of small neighborhood homeowners as well as the hated landlords and real estate tycoons, leads the Caucus into a political cul du sac pitting the middle class against the enlarge-the-government progressive agenda.
Finding a way to bridge this gap should be a primary goal for this new caucus-and ending eminent domain abuse is one bridge that's not too far since it links neighborhoods, small business and the progressives' disdain for mega development. Adding this to their agenda would broaden the progressive base and strengthen their effort to create a more equitable political culture.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Charter F(l)ight?
In yesterday's NY Daily News, Kirsten Danis speculates on the mayor's state of the city comments about launching another attempt at charter revision. Everyone remembers, of course, the great failure of the mayor in 2003 when he attempted to institute non-partisan elections (which reminds us that the mayor's current quixotic attempt to inculcate a national version of bipartisanship has already bombed on Broadway, so it's unlikely to be any more successful as a road show).
Clearly, Mayor Mike is up to something here. Here's Danis' take: "Mayor Bloomberg slipped a bomb disguised as a wonky policy moment into his State of the City speech. About halfway through the address last week, Bloomberg said he planned to set up a charter review commission that would spend 18 months doing a "top-to-bottom review" of the way city government works." What's Bloomberg up to?
Danis feels that there's a good chance that the mayor will take a shot at the vestigial offices of Public Advocate and the borough presidents. But that fight, popular in some good government quarters, may be merely a smokescreen for something more insidious: "Even the threat of getting rid of some of the city's high-profile offices could win the mayor support for what he really wants: putting his stamp on the way government works day-to-day - permanently -- and changing the way land use and development projects are approved."
Well, well. Just how do you think Mayor Mike would want to reform the land use review process? Make it more accountable, kinda of like mirroring the Brodsky proposal on accountable development? No, that's unlikely from someone who has no faith in the voice of any impacted community.
If reform of land use is on the upcoming charter revision agenda, then it will more likely take the "streamlined and efficiency" direction; an approach that will further enervate the ability of the people to be heard. The Manhattan Institute's critique of ULURP comes to mind here. Well, we welcome the mayor if he decides to enter into the land use waters; it will expose his Father Knows Best mentality and ultimately, just as with non-partisan elections, it will be rejected by the voters.
Clearly, Mayor Mike is up to something here. Here's Danis' take: "Mayor Bloomberg slipped a bomb disguised as a wonky policy moment into his State of the City speech. About halfway through the address last week, Bloomberg said he planned to set up a charter review commission that would spend 18 months doing a "top-to-bottom review" of the way city government works." What's Bloomberg up to?
Danis feels that there's a good chance that the mayor will take a shot at the vestigial offices of Public Advocate and the borough presidents. But that fight, popular in some good government quarters, may be merely a smokescreen for something more insidious: "Even the threat of getting rid of some of the city's high-profile offices could win the mayor support for what he really wants: putting his stamp on the way government works day-to-day - permanently -- and changing the way land use and development projects are approved."
Well, well. Just how do you think Mayor Mike would want to reform the land use review process? Make it more accountable, kinda of like mirroring the Brodsky proposal on accountable development? No, that's unlikely from someone who has no faith in the voice of any impacted community.
If reform of land use is on the upcoming charter revision agenda, then it will more likely take the "streamlined and efficiency" direction; an approach that will further enervate the ability of the people to be heard. The Manhattan Institute's critique of ULURP comes to mind here. Well, we welcome the mayor if he decides to enter into the land use waters; it will expose his Father Knows Best mentality and ultimately, just as with non-partisan elections, it will be rejected by the voters.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Community Benefits and Land Use
The NY Times takes an in-depth look at the Bar Association report on the relationship of community benefits agreements and the NYC land use review process-and begins, of course, with the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory plan: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg suffered an embarrassment last December when the City Council rejected a major developer’s plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars transforming an unused armory in the Bronx, the city’s poorest borough, into a shopping mall. The Kingsbridge Armory project collapsed — and the Bronx lost the prospect of hundreds of jobs — after the developer, the Related Companies, declined to require its tenants to pay a so-called living wage of at least $10 an hour and benefits. The wage minimum was one of several concessions sought by a coalition of 19 community, religious and labor organizations in exchange for supporting the project — to be formalized in a pact known as a community benefits agreement, or C.B.A."
But clearly, as we have commented on here and here, the process of crafting a community benefits agreement within the scope and time frame of the city's land use review is fraught with complications: "Now, in a report that is likely to have considerable influence on policy makers, the New York City Bar Association has urged the city to stop allowing community benefits agreements to be part of the zoning approval process. The report warns, among other things, that the agreements could create an opportunity for corruption."
Of course, corruption is always possible at any point in the economic development process-when the aforementioned Related Companies got a no bid contract for the Bronx Terminal Market the taint that was evident wasn't simply a typical Bronx odor; as former Deputy Mayor Doctoroff clearly rigged the entry of Related into the deal. So, in our view, the fact that the involvement of communities in the policy making could become corrupt is not a per se reason for knocking out CBAs.
In this opinion we are joined by our erstwhile jousting partner Jesse Masyr: "But the Related Companies’ lawyer Jesse Masyr said the agreements were ingrained in the land-use process and were not likely to be eliminated. “I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that this genie goes quietly back in the bottle,” he said. “A better approach would be to have rules and policies as to what are the appropriate ways to handle this.”
And a better approach would be to find a way to disengage the economic decision making from ULURP itself-giving the city council a legitimate oversight over the business of the development and not just the land use component. If this were to happen, community benefits could be seen as a companion process to the overall development plan. But then again, as we have said before, community benefits for a development that does more harm than good-and involves subsidies for retailers competing with established store owners-simply cannot be offset by any CBA deal.
Still, the review process is flawed; and the city's resistance to CBAs along with its defense of the current process underscores just why reform is needed. Here's EDC attempt at a form of rather subtle humor: "The city has not responded formally to the report. But in an e-mail message, Janel Patterson, spokeswoman for its Economic Development Corporation, endorsed the principal recommendation, saying: “The city should not be a party to community benefits agreements. The city works with the developer and the community board, as the recognized and appropriate community representative, through the public review process (Ulurp) to ensure that a project delivers benefits for the community directly related to the project.”
But,as Comptroller Liu has pointed out, the tax benefits negotiated with the developer by EDC are often quite extravagant-and the purported concomitant, "benefits for the community," are not only questionable, but fail to consider the project's collateral damages-both environmental and from the standpoint of local business.
Such was the case with the flawed Armory plan, as we pointed out loudly and often: "The reality is that the tax subsidized malling will cannibalize existing neighborhood stores that are on life supports as it is-reducing employment and destroying the dreams of countless numbers of struggling entrepreneurs. But why should Mike Bloomberg care about these folks, none of whom will ever be caught hobnobbing with the mayor at one of the city's private clubs that he frequents? And given the callous disregard shown for small retailers, the mayor's referencing of the recession is particularly bad form: "Given the continued negative economic impacts of the national recession, including high unemployment and a scaling back of job creating development, the Kingsbridge Armory plan came at a particularly important moment...Disapproval of the plan serves as a particularly untimely setback to the fulfillment of these goals."
So, it was in the context of a flawed development plan that the Kingsbridge CBA-along with its living wage-gained traction. This fight underscores just how much the underlying economic impacts animate the land use debate; and why we need to pay more attention to this oversight. But EDC needs to be reined in, and a more thorough and independent review process-one that examines collateral damages-needs to be added to the city council's responsibilities. It is within these added parameters that community benefits should be positioned for discussion.
But the Bar is right on about one point-the current chaos and uncertainty needs to be addressed: "Vicki L. Been, a professor of land-use law at the New York University School of Law, and the prime author of the bar association report, agreed that community benefits agreements were inevitable, but she said the government did not have to participate. “I agree that developers will do everything they possibly can not to have the uncertainty and unpredictability of community opposition,” she said. “What can be stopped is the government’s role in that, to the extent that developers felt like they were being told, ‘You had better reach a C.B.A. before you come to the City Council." Another of the report’s authors, Ross F. Moskowitz, a land-use lawyer at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, said the city needed to address this problem to let developers know in advance what they would be expected to provide and to prevent the failure of another major project. “Hopefully, what will come out of this debate is a process that will provide standards and certainty,” he said."
But the standards that do emerge-and the charter revision discussions should address this as well-need to go beyond the issue of community benefits to encompass economic benefits and damages; as well as the corrupted use of house slave consultants who will tell the city or a developer anything they want to hear.
But clearly, as we have commented on here and here, the process of crafting a community benefits agreement within the scope and time frame of the city's land use review is fraught with complications: "Now, in a report that is likely to have considerable influence on policy makers, the New York City Bar Association has urged the city to stop allowing community benefits agreements to be part of the zoning approval process. The report warns, among other things, that the agreements could create an opportunity for corruption."
Of course, corruption is always possible at any point in the economic development process-when the aforementioned Related Companies got a no bid contract for the Bronx Terminal Market the taint that was evident wasn't simply a typical Bronx odor; as former Deputy Mayor Doctoroff clearly rigged the entry of Related into the deal. So, in our view, the fact that the involvement of communities in the policy making could become corrupt is not a per se reason for knocking out CBAs.
In this opinion we are joined by our erstwhile jousting partner Jesse Masyr: "But the Related Companies’ lawyer Jesse Masyr said the agreements were ingrained in the land-use process and were not likely to be eliminated. “I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that this genie goes quietly back in the bottle,” he said. “A better approach would be to have rules and policies as to what are the appropriate ways to handle this.”
And a better approach would be to find a way to disengage the economic decision making from ULURP itself-giving the city council a legitimate oversight over the business of the development and not just the land use component. If this were to happen, community benefits could be seen as a companion process to the overall development plan. But then again, as we have said before, community benefits for a development that does more harm than good-and involves subsidies for retailers competing with established store owners-simply cannot be offset by any CBA deal.
Still, the review process is flawed; and the city's resistance to CBAs along with its defense of the current process underscores just why reform is needed. Here's EDC attempt at a form of rather subtle humor: "The city has not responded formally to the report. But in an e-mail message, Janel Patterson, spokeswoman for its Economic Development Corporation, endorsed the principal recommendation, saying: “The city should not be a party to community benefits agreements. The city works with the developer and the community board, as the recognized and appropriate community representative, through the public review process (Ulurp) to ensure that a project delivers benefits for the community directly related to the project.”
But,as Comptroller Liu has pointed out, the tax benefits negotiated with the developer by EDC are often quite extravagant-and the purported concomitant, "benefits for the community," are not only questionable, but fail to consider the project's collateral damages-both environmental and from the standpoint of local business.
Such was the case with the flawed Armory plan, as we pointed out loudly and often: "The reality is that the tax subsidized malling will cannibalize existing neighborhood stores that are on life supports as it is-reducing employment and destroying the dreams of countless numbers of struggling entrepreneurs. But why should Mike Bloomberg care about these folks, none of whom will ever be caught hobnobbing with the mayor at one of the city's private clubs that he frequents? And given the callous disregard shown for small retailers, the mayor's referencing of the recession is particularly bad form: "Given the continued negative economic impacts of the national recession, including high unemployment and a scaling back of job creating development, the Kingsbridge Armory plan came at a particularly important moment...Disapproval of the plan serves as a particularly untimely setback to the fulfillment of these goals."
So, it was in the context of a flawed development plan that the Kingsbridge CBA-along with its living wage-gained traction. This fight underscores just how much the underlying economic impacts animate the land use debate; and why we need to pay more attention to this oversight. But EDC needs to be reined in, and a more thorough and independent review process-one that examines collateral damages-needs to be added to the city council's responsibilities. It is within these added parameters that community benefits should be positioned for discussion.
But the Bar is right on about one point-the current chaos and uncertainty needs to be addressed: "Vicki L. Been, a professor of land-use law at the New York University School of Law, and the prime author of the bar association report, agreed that community benefits agreements were inevitable, but she said the government did not have to participate. “I agree that developers will do everything they possibly can not to have the uncertainty and unpredictability of community opposition,” she said. “What can be stopped is the government’s role in that, to the extent that developers felt like they were being told, ‘You had better reach a C.B.A. before you come to the City Council." Another of the report’s authors, Ross F. Moskowitz, a land-use lawyer at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, said the city needed to address this problem to let developers know in advance what they would be expected to provide and to prevent the failure of another major project. “Hopefully, what will come out of this debate is a process that will provide standards and certainty,” he said."
But the standards that do emerge-and the charter revision discussions should address this as well-need to go beyond the issue of community benefits to encompass economic benefits and damages; as well as the corrupted use of house slave consultants who will tell the city or a developer anything they want to hear.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
The Reification of Development
In some circles, "development" has been elevated into an idolatry-to be praised without any real reflection as to its impact. In academic circles, this is known as reification-the act of representing an abstraction as a physical thing. In the arguments of the idolators-and the City Journal's Julia Vitullo-Martin certainly fits into this catagory-development is elevated without reflection; and we are left with the sterile devleopment vs. anti-development catagories that obfuscate more than the illuminate a particular issue.
Such is the case of Vitullo-Martin's post mortem narrative on the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory development: "Does the defeat of the Bloomberg administration's plan to redevelop the long-vacant Kingsbridge Armory into a shopping mall signal that New York is returning to the bad old days of disinvestment, deteriorating buildings, joblessness and poverty? Certainly the rhetoric of the victors is a throwback to the destructive confrontations of the 1960s, when welfare came to be seen as an acceptable way of life, preferable to employment."
One could only make this argument under the weighty burden of preconceived and misguided opinions; and certainly the author is ignorant, not only of the history of the community's efforts to develop the Armory, but of the manner in which the Related Companies mocked the entire RFP process. Not only that-and this goes to the heart of the develop but destroy mentality of the pro-development mindset-there is but slight recognition, if any, of the potential harm (regardless of how many jobs are "created") that a particular project may have.
And so it goes with Vitullo-Martin, who conflates the promotion of higher paying jobs-using the tax payers' money-with the desire to perpetuate a welfare mentality; or even criminality: "The notion that any job is better than no job no longer applies," said Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, sounding remarkably like officials from the administration of John Lindsay, who doubled New York's welfare rolls to an economically unsustainable 1.65 million people. What, after all, is the alternative to "no job" except for welfare? (There's crime, of course, but presumably no elected officials are proposing that.)"
But what's worse in her analysis here, is the failure to adequately evaluate the causes of the economic decline in the Bronx-a failure that actually leads her to sing the praises of the not to be missed former borough president: "It's particularly troubling that this destructive rhetoric is thriving in the Bronx, which has begun heading downhill economically. It has an official unemployment rate of 13.4%, up 4% from last year, and an unofficial unemployment rate of at least double that, since so many discouraged seekers have fallen out of the market altogether. Even before Diaz and the City Council killed the $350 million project with its 2,200 jobs, the Bronx had a higher dependency rate than any other borough - almost 60% of Bronx residents receive some form of government assistance."
Now, you'd think that eight years after our economic guru of a mayor took over the helm, someone who want to point a pinkie at the city's chief executive for the "heading downhill" economy that Vittulo-Martin wants to tie to the powerless BP. Steve Malanga, her colleague at the City Journal, does that magnificently-and traces the decline to the high tax and anti-small business policies of our three term mayor.
And Vitullo-Martin drags out the old canard of "understored" to misdirect us away from the assault on the city's neighborhood retailers under this mayor: "Take, for example, the opening of the River Plaza Shopping Center on 225th Street in 2004, the first major private development in the Bronx in 20 years. Carrión expedited the review and permit processes to move it along as efficiently as possible. Its developer points out that even with his shopping center fully occupied, the Bronx today remains "severely understored," with immense pent-up retail demand."
Well, that's shocking- a developer who believes that a community needs more of what he is selling. And as long as a developer is singing a pro-development tune, we can count on Vitullo-Martin to hum loudly along: "In other words, there's strong economic demand from Bronx residents for precisely the retail that Kingsbridge Armory would have brought."
There's also a strong demand for the retail goods that the stores on Fordham Road are selling; and these retailers are struggling because of the high tax policies of the Bloombergistas. And on top of those, the mayor's nutty transportation commissioner has eliminated all parking along the length of the shopping corridor. As the NY Daily News reported last year: "The city's new special bus service along Fordham Road is making roadkill out of some area businesses, community leaders charge. Two dozen merchants and community officials rallied at City Hall last Wednesday, saying revised parking rules to help the new Select Bus Service run smoothly are crippling businesses because nobody can park near them."
But as long as the trains, err buses, run on time who the hell cares about small business: "At Lola's Deli, 617 E. Fordham Road, business is down 40%, said Sher Ahmad, who helps manage the store. "A lot of people used to stop for a breakfast sandwich and coffee. But now it's dead," he said, pointing to the row of empty parking meters outside the store. "Nobody can park. We're losing a lot of business."
All of this goes right passed the scrupulous eyes of Vitullo-Martin in her cheer leading for our edifice complex driven mayor-and she obfuscates the opposition to the mall with a confused take on the ULURP process: "Up until now, ULURP had been one of New York's success stories in effective government reform. In order to give neighborhoods and their representatives a say in local land use decisions while being fair to development, the city charter in the 1980s set up a clear, stringent, standardized seven-month timetable to march major proposals through a predictable review. Every important party gets its say on land use. But the Armory opponents weren't objecting on land-use grounds - other than in a haphazard sort of way. Their primary drive was to coerce the developer into forcing future retail tenants to pay employees a "living wage..."
She, of course, has nothing to say about the opposition of the neighborhood merchants-that would take away from the purity of her diatribe. And it was the "socio-economic impact" sections of the environmental review that provided the basis for the righteous objections from the local store owners-along with the fact-unremarked in the editorial-that the developer, of sainted memory, had bitch-slapped the city RFP that had counseled looking for non competing retailers (i.e. no supermarket).
So, once again we must read a cookie cutter pro-development narrative superimposed on the reality of the fight over the Armory. This was just another example of how the mayor, whose economic development officials actually started off on the right foot, went for the small biusiness jugular-and found his own knife used against him. To blame the council and Diaz is to distort the reality of an administration that has just one economic development knife in its quiver-and will keep trying to use it no matter how many gun fights it finds itself in.
Such is the case of Vitullo-Martin's post mortem narrative on the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory development: "Does the defeat of the Bloomberg administration's plan to redevelop the long-vacant Kingsbridge Armory into a shopping mall signal that New York is returning to the bad old days of disinvestment, deteriorating buildings, joblessness and poverty? Certainly the rhetoric of the victors is a throwback to the destructive confrontations of the 1960s, when welfare came to be seen as an acceptable way of life, preferable to employment."
One could only make this argument under the weighty burden of preconceived and misguided opinions; and certainly the author is ignorant, not only of the history of the community's efforts to develop the Armory, but of the manner in which the Related Companies mocked the entire RFP process. Not only that-and this goes to the heart of the develop but destroy mentality of the pro-development mindset-there is but slight recognition, if any, of the potential harm (regardless of how many jobs are "created") that a particular project may have.
And so it goes with Vitullo-Martin, who conflates the promotion of higher paying jobs-using the tax payers' money-with the desire to perpetuate a welfare mentality; or even criminality: "The notion that any job is better than no job no longer applies," said Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, sounding remarkably like officials from the administration of John Lindsay, who doubled New York's welfare rolls to an economically unsustainable 1.65 million people. What, after all, is the alternative to "no job" except for welfare? (There's crime, of course, but presumably no elected officials are proposing that.)"
But what's worse in her analysis here, is the failure to adequately evaluate the causes of the economic decline in the Bronx-a failure that actually leads her to sing the praises of the not to be missed former borough president: "It's particularly troubling that this destructive rhetoric is thriving in the Bronx, which has begun heading downhill economically. It has an official unemployment rate of 13.4%, up 4% from last year, and an unofficial unemployment rate of at least double that, since so many discouraged seekers have fallen out of the market altogether. Even before Diaz and the City Council killed the $350 million project with its 2,200 jobs, the Bronx had a higher dependency rate than any other borough - almost 60% of Bronx residents receive some form of government assistance."
Now, you'd think that eight years after our economic guru of a mayor took over the helm, someone who want to point a pinkie at the city's chief executive for the "heading downhill" economy that Vittulo-Martin wants to tie to the powerless BP. Steve Malanga, her colleague at the City Journal, does that magnificently-and traces the decline to the high tax and anti-small business policies of our three term mayor.
And Vitullo-Martin drags out the old canard of "understored" to misdirect us away from the assault on the city's neighborhood retailers under this mayor: "Take, for example, the opening of the River Plaza Shopping Center on 225th Street in 2004, the first major private development in the Bronx in 20 years. Carrión expedited the review and permit processes to move it along as efficiently as possible. Its developer points out that even with his shopping center fully occupied, the Bronx today remains "severely understored," with immense pent-up retail demand."
Well, that's shocking- a developer who believes that a community needs more of what he is selling. And as long as a developer is singing a pro-development tune, we can count on Vitullo-Martin to hum loudly along: "In other words, there's strong economic demand from Bronx residents for precisely the retail that Kingsbridge Armory would have brought."
There's also a strong demand for the retail goods that the stores on Fordham Road are selling; and these retailers are struggling because of the high tax policies of the Bloombergistas. And on top of those, the mayor's nutty transportation commissioner has eliminated all parking along the length of the shopping corridor. As the NY Daily News reported last year: "The city's new special bus service along Fordham Road is making roadkill out of some area businesses, community leaders charge. Two dozen merchants and community officials rallied at City Hall last Wednesday, saying revised parking rules to help the new Select Bus Service run smoothly are crippling businesses because nobody can park near them."
But as long as the trains, err buses, run on time who the hell cares about small business: "At Lola's Deli, 617 E. Fordham Road, business is down 40%, said Sher Ahmad, who helps manage the store. "A lot of people used to stop for a breakfast sandwich and coffee. But now it's dead," he said, pointing to the row of empty parking meters outside the store. "Nobody can park. We're losing a lot of business."
All of this goes right passed the scrupulous eyes of Vitullo-Martin in her cheer leading for our edifice complex driven mayor-and she obfuscates the opposition to the mall with a confused take on the ULURP process: "Up until now, ULURP had been one of New York's success stories in effective government reform. In order to give neighborhoods and their representatives a say in local land use decisions while being fair to development, the city charter in the 1980s set up a clear, stringent, standardized seven-month timetable to march major proposals through a predictable review. Every important party gets its say on land use. But the Armory opponents weren't objecting on land-use grounds - other than in a haphazard sort of way. Their primary drive was to coerce the developer into forcing future retail tenants to pay employees a "living wage..."
She, of course, has nothing to say about the opposition of the neighborhood merchants-that would take away from the purity of her diatribe. And it was the "socio-economic impact" sections of the environmental review that provided the basis for the righteous objections from the local store owners-along with the fact-unremarked in the editorial-that the developer, of sainted memory, had bitch-slapped the city RFP that had counseled looking for non competing retailers (i.e. no supermarket).
So, once again we must read a cookie cutter pro-development narrative superimposed on the reality of the fight over the Armory. This was just another example of how the mayor, whose economic development officials actually started off on the right foot, went for the small biusiness jugular-and found his own knife used against him. To blame the council and Diaz is to distort the reality of an administration that has just one economic development knife in its quiver-and will keep trying to use it no matter how many gun fights it finds itself in.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
CBA Zirconium
The faux community involvement in the crafting of a community benefits agreement was put under critical scrutiny this week at a panel discussion at the Municipal Arts Society. As the Observer's Eliot Brown reports (welcome aboard Eliot), the panelists, particularly Abyssinian Reverend Calvin Butts, weren't impressed: "At a panel discussion last night on development in the city, multiple community organizers and the Reverend Calvin Butts, pastor of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church, criticized the process of forming community benefits agreements (CBAs) in order to bolster public and governmental support for large development projects."
Butts was pointedly upset by the fact that the university refused to include his Abyssinian Development Corporation, the most successful and legitimately indigenous grass roots development group in the Columbia expansion area. Instead, Columbia placed all of its capital in the politically generated West Harlem Development Corporation, a group that is under the control of the mayor's office, and tangentially, the area political establishment (and bears a striking resemblance to the crew assembled by BP Carrion on the Gateway Mall).
Here's Butts' trenchant observation: "Reverend Butts joined in the criticism, saying he had met with Columbia about forming a CBA, only to have the university close the door on him in order to talk exclusively with the Local Development Corporation. “We sent a plan that we thought covered all of the areas that you would want to cover, and immediately after that meeting—this is one of the real issues that I have—the representatives of Columbia cut off all communication. Not a word,” Mr. Butts said. “When the political establishment got involved, it polluted it.”
Another panelist, the well-respected former planning commissioner Ron Schiffman, observed that there should be a city land use policy promulgated that stipulates certain key community desirables, a view seconded by Butts: "The solution, at least according to Messrs. Shiffman and Butts: have the city or state create policies around issues such as the inclusion of affordable housing and similar matters, taking them off the negotiating table for each individual development. "
This is precisely the "reform of ULURP" position that seems to be percolating within the councils of labor, at least according to a Juan Gonzales column last week. Until this happens, and it is something that we have stressed over and over, we're going to continue to witness the hijacking of legitimate community interest by pols pandering to developer wishes.
Which brings us to the Columbia process. It's hard to see how anything really beneficial to the community can emerge from such a rigged process. And the MAS panelists, "directed their harshest words about CBAs toward the process currently going on in West Harlem, where a board of elected officials and community members are hashing out a CBA with Columbia University. With Columbia exclusively talking with the board, known as the West Harlem Local Development Corporation, the debate has been essentially closed to the rest of the community, the panelists argued."
It seems to us that the emerging results will resemble the old saying that, "a camel is a horse designed by committee." Maybe that will fly in the West Harlem desert.
Butts was pointedly upset by the fact that the university refused to include his Abyssinian Development Corporation, the most successful and legitimately indigenous grass roots development group in the Columbia expansion area. Instead, Columbia placed all of its capital in the politically generated West Harlem Development Corporation, a group that is under the control of the mayor's office, and tangentially, the area political establishment (and bears a striking resemblance to the crew assembled by BP Carrion on the Gateway Mall).
Here's Butts' trenchant observation: "Reverend Butts joined in the criticism, saying he had met with Columbia about forming a CBA, only to have the university close the door on him in order to talk exclusively with the Local Development Corporation. “We sent a plan that we thought covered all of the areas that you would want to cover, and immediately after that meeting—this is one of the real issues that I have—the representatives of Columbia cut off all communication. Not a word,” Mr. Butts said. “When the political establishment got involved, it polluted it.”
Another panelist, the well-respected former planning commissioner Ron Schiffman, observed that there should be a city land use policy promulgated that stipulates certain key community desirables, a view seconded by Butts: "The solution, at least according to Messrs. Shiffman and Butts: have the city or state create policies around issues such as the inclusion of affordable housing and similar matters, taking them off the negotiating table for each individual development. "
This is precisely the "reform of ULURP" position that seems to be percolating within the councils of labor, at least according to a Juan Gonzales column last week. Until this happens, and it is something that we have stressed over and over, we're going to continue to witness the hijacking of legitimate community interest by pols pandering to developer wishes.
Which brings us to the Columbia process. It's hard to see how anything really beneficial to the community can emerge from such a rigged process. And the MAS panelists, "directed their harshest words about CBAs toward the process currently going on in West Harlem, where a board of elected officials and community members are hashing out a CBA with Columbia University. With Columbia exclusively talking with the board, known as the West Harlem Local Development Corporation, the debate has been essentially closed to the rest of the community, the panelists argued."
It seems to us that the emerging results will resemble the old saying that, "a camel is a horse designed by committee." Maybe that will fly in the West Harlem desert.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Good Over-Riddance
As expected, the City Council Land Use Committee moved-15-1-to over ride the mayor's Kingsbridge Armory veto. As Liz reports: "As expected, the City Council's Land Use Committee this morning overrode Mayor Bloomberg's vetoes of the Kingsbridge Armory project in a 16-1 vote, the DN's Frank Lombardi reports. Just as last week when the Councilvoted 45-1 to reject the zoning and other changes that would have facilitated the Bronx project; the lone "no" came from outgoing Queens Councilwoman Helen Sears."
But even with all of the mayor's huffing and puffing, there was no move to sustain his futile veto gesture: "Councilman Joel Rivera, who has been deeply involved in negotiating Kingsbridge with the administration, told Lombardi there were no efforts made by Mayor Bloomberg & Co. to re-start talks after the Council's first votes. Bloomberg himself admitted the Kingsbridge deal was all but dead. But he went ahead with the vetoes anyway to demonstrate just how much he disagreed with this vote, which was widely seen as an example of the Council flexing some newfound muscles against a third-term mayor who won re-election in a closer-than-expected election."
But, as Liz points out, the living wage issue is alive and well: "The issue of living wage is far from over, Lombardi notes. Councilman Oliver Koppell and Councilwoman Anabel Palma had introduced a bill that would give the Council the power to impose living wage requirements on all publicly-financed projects. Also, Bronx BP Ruben Diaz Jr. and RWDSU President Stuart Appelbaum have pledged to keep the living wage pressure on at the state level through proposed IDA reform."
As far as the Armory itself, it looks as if it is back to the drawing board-with any legal challenge seen as suicidal for the omnipresent developer: "As for Kingsbridge, Related Companies has at least two alternatives - neither of which seems likely at this point. Related could start a court action arguing the Council abused its powers in killing Kingsbridge. Alternatively, it could go back through the time-consuming and onerous ULURP process. Part of the reason why Related is likely disinclined to go back to the mat on Kingsbridge: The West Side Rail Yards, which is a much larger project and is on tap for final approval today."
But if the city is serious about another development concept, our suggestion is leave the Related folks out of it. The company's arrogance and bully mentality has no place where there is any active community involvement; and we really wonder how that Far West Side project will go if that community mobilizes.
In any case, it is a matter of some curiosity that, with all of the developers in the City of New York, Related manages to emerge triumphant in all of the various RFPs that are issued-just wondering. After all, in a city where the mayor is above the special interests, all of these things are done on the merits, right?
Anyhow, the KARA folks deserve their shout out today-in their, "Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead," moment. It just might be turning out to be a good new year after all-and we might be re-evaluating our own chagrin about the mayor's re-election, if there are more Kingsbridge Armory battles coming down the pike.
But even with all of the mayor's huffing and puffing, there was no move to sustain his futile veto gesture: "Councilman Joel Rivera, who has been deeply involved in negotiating Kingsbridge with the administration, told Lombardi there were no efforts made by Mayor Bloomberg & Co. to re-start talks after the Council's first votes. Bloomberg himself admitted the Kingsbridge deal was all but dead. But he went ahead with the vetoes anyway to demonstrate just how much he disagreed with this vote, which was widely seen as an example of the Council flexing some newfound muscles against a third-term mayor who won re-election in a closer-than-expected election."
But, as Liz points out, the living wage issue is alive and well: "The issue of living wage is far from over, Lombardi notes. Councilman Oliver Koppell and Councilwoman Anabel Palma had introduced a bill that would give the Council the power to impose living wage requirements on all publicly-financed projects. Also, Bronx BP Ruben Diaz Jr. and RWDSU President Stuart Appelbaum have pledged to keep the living wage pressure on at the state level through proposed IDA reform."
As far as the Armory itself, it looks as if it is back to the drawing board-with any legal challenge seen as suicidal for the omnipresent developer: "As for Kingsbridge, Related Companies has at least two alternatives - neither of which seems likely at this point. Related could start a court action arguing the Council abused its powers in killing Kingsbridge. Alternatively, it could go back through the time-consuming and onerous ULURP process. Part of the reason why Related is likely disinclined to go back to the mat on Kingsbridge: The West Side Rail Yards, which is a much larger project and is on tap for final approval today."
But if the city is serious about another development concept, our suggestion is leave the Related folks out of it. The company's arrogance and bully mentality has no place where there is any active community involvement; and we really wonder how that Far West Side project will go if that community mobilizes.
In any case, it is a matter of some curiosity that, with all of the developers in the City of New York, Related manages to emerge triumphant in all of the various RFPs that are issued-just wondering. After all, in a city where the mayor is above the special interests, all of these things are done on the merits, right?
Anyhow, the KARA folks deserve their shout out today-in their, "Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead," moment. It just might be turning out to be a good new year after all-and we might be re-evaluating our own chagrin about the mayor's re-election, if there are more Kingsbridge Armory battles coming down the pike.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)