Bronx Terminal Market: RIP

As Metro reports, today is the last day of operation for the Bronx Terminal Market whose wholesalers are being replaced by the Gateway Mall. This turn of events is the culmination of a spirited though unsuccessful battle on behalf of the BTM and it saddens us that many of these establishments, after being split up and offered inadequate compensation, may go out of business.

Reporter Patrick Arden talks to a couple of the merchants who are doing their best to relocate but are uncertain about whether they can survive apart from the other vendors. Complicating matters is that in the Bronx especially, space is quite limited:

“We didn’t find enough space in the Bronx,” said Ricardo Duarte, who started Cuba Tropical 28 years ago with his son, Omar. “Now we’ll have 30,000 square feet — and no parking.” He laughed ruefully, and then his eyes misted over. He’s had to move part of his operation to New Jersey.

Stanley Mayer, the head of the merchants association, has found space nearby and we hope his optimistic prediction turn out to be true:

“It’s not over yet,” he added. “You won’t know until some time goes by to see if it’s going to work. A year from now, we’ll all know. If everybody’s still in business, I guess we’re OK.”

ED in the Yards

We have been commenting extensively about the complexities of the entire eminent domain question. Much of the debate over last summer's SC Kelo decision centered around the court's expansive definition of what constitutes a "public use."

Those who disagreed with Kelo generally felt that public use should be more narrowly construed to mean things like schools, roads or bridges. In general, the higher court left this decision in the hands of local political authorities and many critics felt this created a dangerous situation because local politics is often dominated by real estate interests.

Our position has always been less absolutist than that of the severest critics of Kelo. Our position has been that great care needs to be exercised when property is taken and the greatest degree of transparency must be present when development entails the use of ED.

Which brings us to the Atlantic Yards controversy. Does the exercise of the eminent domain option so that FCRC can take other peoples' property to build an arena and 7,000 units of housing constitute public use?

In today's NY Times the paper reports that opponents of the plan have suffered another legal setback in their efforts to derail the project. Undaunted one of the unsuccessful lawyers tells the Times that "We believe in the moral correctness of our case, and are confident that this decision will inspire the public's vigilance and scrutiny to grow even stronger..." Where does morality really lie here, if it lies here at all?

While it is quite true that the Alliance's Richard Lipsky is retained by FCRC to help build support for the project in the sports communities of Brooklyn it is also true that the debate over public use needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Does providing affordable housing for thousands of Brooklyn residents constitute as much a public use as any road?

Will putting thousands of New Yorkers to work be a defendable public benefit? How about creating a not-for-profit alliance to promote youth sports in the borough? One can see just how nuanced this whole public use clause can become.

In fact in this month's libertarian Reason magazine Justice Alex Kozinski, considered to be somewhat of a libertarian himself, underscores this very point when he tells his interviewer, "So if the city thinks there should be a private business instead of a private house, it has to make that decision. If you want to decide on your own, you can go live in a forest."

Kozinski goes on to point out that even the so-called public roads are built for the convenience of millions of private vehicles: "What matters is that it makes it easier for other people to get from point A to point B using their private vehicles for private purposes.You could say 'but its my house and my private purpose is more important than your private purpose.' But we live in a society."

So it all comes down to politics. We elect our mayors and our councilpersons and we need to hold them accountable. If we're unable to do so-whether at the BTM or AY-than we need to do a better job of organizing and educating. And if FCRC does the kind of grass roots outreach that galvanizes large swaths of Brooklynites, well, that's poltics in the big city. The Alliance has suffered some devastating defeats and we try to never let today's defeat spoil tomorrow's victory. Be better organized, do better media outreach, get a stronger coalition in place. Most of all, learn from your mistakes so you don't repeat them.

Support for Atlantic Yards

In today's NY Daily News, Errol Louis takes a shot against a group of Brooklyn celebrity notables who've added their names to a "Develop-Don't Destroy" advisory board. DDD is the leading opponent of the Atlantic Yards project. Heath Ledger's wife Michelle Williams is singled out by Errol for her lament that "Heath and I moved to Brooklyn for light and space and air."

There are a number of legitimate reasons to oppose the development, foremost among them is the use of eminent domain to oust long time homeowners. There are, however, even more compelling reasons to support the project, a development that will create 7,000 units of housing and thousands of part time and full time jobs.

From the Alliance's perspective the most salient reason to join hands with FCRC, Build and Acorn is the bringing of the Nets to Brooklyn with a brand new arena. When the Alliance's Richard Lipsky was an up and comer plying his basketball wares all over the city, Brooklyn was a mecca for all BBall pilgrims. It still is, and the love for the game is beyond what even we would have imagined when we first began to evaluate the AY proposal.

The Brooklyn Nets are going to galvanize the entire borough and the team and its ownership is going to play a major role in working along with the youth leaders of Brooklyn in their tireless and unacknowledged efforts on behalf of the kids. That is why the support has been so unequivocal from these community folks.

All over Brooklyn the support has come in for the newly created Brooklyn Sports Alliance. Leaders such as Carlton Screen from the Flatbush Youth Association, Joe Murphy from the Brooklyn Saints, Rich Kosik from Books-N-Ball, Jocko Jackson from the Brownsville Recreation Center, Jim Dolan from the Police Athletic League and Reginald Murray from the Brooklyn Rams-just to name a few- have already donated their time and energies to helping get the BSA started.

They know a good thing for the young people of Brooklyn because many of them have devoted their time and efforts to the kids for the better part of three decades. They are being joined by the coaches of Brooklyn. Already the BSA has had over forty coaches and athletic directors pledge their support and cooperation. People such as Coach Rock Eisenberg of Tilden, AD Renan Ebeid of Lincoln, Coach Saunders of Banneker, Coach Seltzberg of Grady, Coach Nash of Bishop Ford and Coach Shavon Glover, one of the leaders of girls basketball in the PSAL, have rolled up their sleeves to work with and advise the BSA on how best to help the youth athletic efforts in Brooklyn.

As we have said, the BSA is not just about generating support for AY. It is about forging a long term relationship between the Nets and the kids of Brooklyn with the goal of using sports to promote, in Rich Kosik's phrase, a "game plan for life." Sports can be a positive influence on the development of healthy and decent young people. This is especially true when the activities are guided by strong, morally upright community leaders. In the end their can be no better example of sustainable development than this.

Moynihan Station

In yesterday's NY Times editorial the paper more or less kvells over the design for the new Moynihan Station. For those of you who aren't Yiddish speakers this means that they really like the plans to create a new modern train station on Eighth Avenue.

They do, however, make one interesting observation on the development that bears repeating. They point out that the original proposal, "a grand public plan with a minor private component" has been transformed into "an enormous private development with a significant public component."

What this means is that the two developers, our favorite real estate companies-Related and Vornado-will be getting an "extraordinary boon" (along with previous persona non grata at City Hall, James Dolan of MSG). Isn't it quite interesting how these two firms seem to have a monopoly on merit when it comes to Deputy Dan Doctoroff and ESDC?

Which brings us to the competition over the Willets Point development. We've already observed that Vornado has pulled out, but isn't it possible that they've removed themselves temporarily only to resurface later as partners with the folks at Related? When does the clamor for integrity in government extend to the fiefdom of EDC?

Congestion on RT. 59: Wal-Mart Watch

As we have been commenting, the proposal to build a 216,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart in Monsey is going to complicate the severe traffic conditions that already exist on the Rt. 59 corridor. What has also concerned us is the ad hoc manner in which planning is done in Rockland County. Since all projects are the responsibility of each town and village it becomes impossible to plan comprehensively for the region.

This complicated planning mess is illustrated by a story in Sunday's Rockland Journal News. It seems that the town of Airmont, right on the Ramapo border and just a short run up from the site of the proposed Wal-Mart, is poised to approve another strip mall on the corner of 59 and Airmont Road. According to the paper, citing county and state figures, "Nearly 30,000 vehicles approach the intersection daily on North Airmont Road, and 18,200 travel between the corner and downtown Suffern..."

All of which demonstrates just how problematic it is to plan. In essence each separate jurisdiction looks at a project in a vacuum without any real consideration for its impact on surrounding communities. In addition, most environmental reviews are narrowly focused, never deviating away from a relatively narrow radius around a proposed development.

The final scoping session for the Wal-Mart in Monsey is on June 13th. Early indications are that the Ramapo officials are aware of some of our concerns and those raised by Brian Ketcham, the Alliance's traffic consultant. In the weeks and months ahead we will be reaching out to the local communities to make them fully aware of the myriad problems created by a Walmonster.

Bid Adieu?

The Crain's Insider is reporting this morning that State Supreme Court Justice Lucy Billings, the judge who threw out the award of a 15 acre site in Hunts Point to Baldor's Foods, "may order sweeping changes in the way EDC operates..." The result could very well lead to a ruling that would "specify how EDC is to handle future bids."

For all of us who have marveled at the nimble nature of the EDC bidding process this prospect promotes nothing but anticipatory glee. Anything that creates a degree of transparency and fairness in the awarding of land use contracts is only to the good.

Not that we think any ruling will be earth shattering. These processes tend to revert to form through altered channels once a new direction is mandated. What would be really revolutionary would be the creation of a COIB that actually acted in an independent manner. In fact maybe the City Council, instead of firing pop guns at lobbyists, could look into the Deputy Dan/Steve Ross decision of the COIB as a first step towards making the agency truly independent.

Vornado Doesn't Get the Point

In yesterday's NY Sun Dave Lombino reports that mega real estate developer Vornado has withdrawn from the Willets Point competition. The reasons aren't quite clear since the realtor refrained from commenting on the story, but according to sources "high costs for land acquisition and environmental remediation make it a difficult project to build and finance."

These aren't the only reasons, however. A major source of consternation is the fact that EDC is trying to get all of the applicants to submit proposals and after they do the agency is planning to take One good idea from Column A and One from Column B and so on. After cherry picking all of the best concepts EDC plans to award the development to one firm with all of the other companies' good ideas served up on a silver platter for the winning bidder.

From a development standpoint there is one giant hurdle-EDC's desire to rezone the property prior to the selection of a developer. We just can't see the City Council accepting this kind of sight unseen maneuver. The only way that the council can have an impact is if a designated developer with a plan comes before it for an approval. Rezoning without these in place appears to us to be a non-starter.

L.I. Indians on Warpath

In yesterday's Newsday the paper is reporting on the effort by two Long Island Indian tribes to form a coalition to protect "a vital source of our economic activity..." The activity in question just happens to be the illegal avoidance of paying taxes on the sale of cigarettes sold to non-Indians.

The representatives of the two tribes in question argue that an "overwhelming majority" of New Yorkers "supprt our ability to become self sufficient..." We wonder what New Yorkers would say if they knew that this whole scam was costing tax payers in the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year in lost revenue.

Trouble in the Night

The latest furor over a bad apple bouncer at a New York City night club has predictably triggered the call for new legislation. As the NY Sun reports this morning Speaker Quinn and Council Public Safety Chair Peter Vallone Jr. are proposing a law that would "use the city's Nuisance Abatement Law to punish bars that hire criminal bouncers-a role that the State Liquor Authority has had from its inception."

Without being too flippant we've often found that it is the new law that is often more of a nuisance than the malady it seeks to address. And by the way, even though we've never been great friends of the tort lawyers we do think that the civil liability penalties for clubs that hire drug addicts or homicidal maniacs is a strong enough deterrent, along with a more vigilant police enforcement policy.

The complaints about the Authority amount to little more than a non sequitur when it comes to the issue of a trigger happy bouncer. To rag on the SLA only misconstrues its function in the course of a feel good breast beating about the evils of indiscriminate shooting of innocent clubbers. Our friend Rob Bookman gets it right: "I think there are enough laws on the books to deal with the bad apples."

Lobbying and Its Discontents

We're often put in the unenviable position of having to defend the work that we do. Lobbying, and the saga of Jack Abromoff is the latest example, is not an activity that people rate right up there with heart surgery or fire fighting. We do, however, think that lobbying has gotten a bad rap.

Part of this bad rap comes from the fact that most people tend to want to view politics in some kind of idealized, Hallmark card way. In this view elected officials should be folks imbued with the public good whose only concern is the overall welfare of the citizenry. Inevitably this view founders on the reality of politics and when it does, cynicism disillusion and discontent follows.

The reality of politics is the often messy tussle of various so-called special interests, something we have commented on before. It is not only messy it is also no place for the faint hearted. When public policy is at stake there are winners and losers. The allocation of scarce resources provokes a great deal of vicious in-fighting among competing interests.

What is often missing in the public commentary about this process is the observation that almost all of the competing interests have some degree of merit. For every policy winner who gets legislation passed or a contract let there is some amount of public benefit that accrues. The developer who wins an RFP gets to build a project that provides jobs and homes and amenities that benefit a larger public constituency.

Quite often the special interest is a union that represents the interests of thousands of workers. What's "special" to some observers is a public interest to others. The genius of the democratic system is the way in which it allows all of these interests to interplay in the over all policy dance that ends up with what we believe is the best approximation of what the public good stands for.

Which brings us to yesterday's City Council lobbying reform, legislation that Richard Lipsky describes in today's Newsday as "a bill {that} overestimates the impact that lobbying has..." Perhaps a better word in this context would be "mischaracterizes" rather than overestimates.

It goes back to the heart of our original observation that people tend to want to see the political process as "pure" and when it proves to be something different we get the kind of moral impulse that is inherent in the lobbying package passed yesterday. As Lipsky points out the impulse behind lobbying reform tends to ignore the fact that "lobbyists often push issues that genuinely lead to better public policy for New Yorkers..." Our final point here is that Machiavelli got a bad rap as well.

Wal-Mart Affront

In today's Crain's Insider the newsletter reports on the effort that Wal-Mart has launched to coopt the "booty capitalists" that we have been telling one and all about. The title of the Crain's post is "Wal-Mart Front?"

The front in question is the New York State Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and this group is being called out by the established NYS Federation of Hispanic Chambers, a group that actually represents real Hispanic businesses and has existed for decades. As Crain's points out, mirroring our own take on the booty kissing, the Walmonster is looking to replicate its success in Chicago where it used minority contractors to make its first store opening an issue of minority empowerment.

Ominously, Crain's says that Wal-Mart has joined six chambers in the city in its quest to cultivate (purchase?) legitimacy. We expect that there will be an expanded outreach by the company as it continues to scout out locations for stores.

A Wal-Mart Eminent Domain Twist

A small town in California aptly named Hercules is threatening to use eminent domain in order to acquire property Wal-Mart wants to build on. The City Council has already twice defeated the proposal and the general sentiment is anti-Wal-Mart but this hasn’t stopped the world's largest retailer from continuously trying to subvert the town’s wishes. Explaining why they are considering such a drastic measure, a Hercules resident remarks:

"We want something good to take that place," said Jeffra Cook, a Hercules resident since 1988. "There aren't a lot of good stories about Wal-Mart."

Citing destruction of small business and increased traffic, residents of this 24,000 person town don’t want to see their small town way of life destroyed by Wal-Mart. While threatening the use of eminent domain is definitely extreme, it’s a reasonable reaction to a company that doesn’t understand no. As a Wal-Mart Watch spokesman points out, considering Wal-Mart’s history, the Hercules’ decision to protect itself in this manner isn’t that drastic:

But Wal-Mart has been at least as successful at imposing its will on communities that are less than thrilled to host one of its stores, said Nu Wexler, a spokesman for the activist group Wal-Mart Watch.

In one instance, the company even raised the specter of eminent domain to get a store built in Florida, he said.

"Wal-Mart does not hesitate to employ scorched earth tactics to break into communities that don't welcome them," he said.

Wal-Mart tops local police calls

Via Wake Up Wal-Mart, a local sheriff in Washington State finds that Wal-Mart generates the highest number of calls to his police force. According to an article in the Columbian:

Wal-Mart isn't just the number-one retailer in the universe. It also leads
the way in calls for help to local police.

No west-county property generates more calls-for-service to the Clark County Sheriff's Office than Wal-Mart on Northeast Highway 99, according to a sheriff's report.

Local residents are already concerned about a new Wal-Mart recently approved in the area; these crime statistics are only going to increase their concerns. The sheriff report also tabulates the number of man hours devoted to law enforcement at Wal-Mart and the results are astounding:

After factoring in the multiple officers, multiple vehicles, paperwork and transportation to-jail time required for felonies and other serious calls, the sheriff's office estimates devoting 936 hours last year to law enforcement at the Hazel Dell Wal-Mart.

Wow!

Durst, Disposers and the DEP

The battle over the city's SWMP has been narrowly focused on the issue of the siting of new marine transfer stations. The thornier issue of waste reduction has been less salient, understandably so from the mayor's standpoint since there is little in the draft plan that offers much in this key area.

As we have been arguing all along, the use of food waste disposers is the only realistic methodology that can reduce waste in the most economical and environmentally effective manner. As it turns out the Alliance has a new ally in this waste reduction fight, an unlikely one given our usual set cohort of belligerents. The ally is the Durst Organization.

Durst is concerned about the siting of a commercial transfer station on the river at 59th Street in Manhattan. Aside from the fact that it has expensive property rights in the area the organization makes a number of good points about the inappropriateness of the site and the existence of a better location near the rail yards a mile south.

Of course what is most heartening to us is the support the company gives to the expanded use, in both the residential and commercial sectors, of food waste disposers. This support, given in City Council testimony and a more comprehensive report that accompanies it, lays out a number of important arguments that mirror the Alliance's position on disposers and waste reduction.

What gives the report heightened credibility is the fact that it was drafted by former sanitation commissioner Brendan Sexton who brings to the task an expertise and understanding of the issues from the perspective of an insider. Brendan not only has been in the middle of the garbage disposal issue he is also someone with a sensitivity to the tendency of city agencies to obfuscate on controversial policy matters.

His take on the disposer issue is instructive and can't be dismissed lightly. In the first place he argues that the expanded use of residential disposers, particularly in Manhattan, can save the city hundreds of millions of dollars a ear in disposal costs (18.5% of the city's garbage is now food waste). Importantly, he underscores the public health benefits of disposer use and the impracticality of composting in a hi-rise apartment environment.

Sexton also points out, and given the hysteria from some quarters you'd be shocked to discover this, that FWDs "are ubiquitous and many large cities-including Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit, Columbus (OH), and Denver, to name a few-mandate their use..." In fact Sexton is so confidence about the efficacy of their use that he advocates incentivizing their installation much like the city has done with low-flow toilets.

What About the Nitrogen?

The great bugaboo on the use of disposers is the danger that nitrogen effluent poses for some of our surrounding waterways. Now Professor Robert Ham has debunked some of the alarmism on this issue but Sexton also effectively addresses this issue. He cites the DEP's own report on the subject and demonstrates that the costs are greatly exaggerated by the agency.

In addition, he also points out that the costs cannot be analyzed without a simultaneous evaluation of the benefits of disposer use. As he says, "While additional costs may well be incurred by DEP in order to handle increased liquefied food waste, this must be properly weighed against the enormous costs the City and its tax payers will incur handling the same material as solid waste."

Most importantly, however, Sexton calls on the city to conduct a "rigorous, transparent and independent study," one that takes into consideration not only costs but also savings. This is precisely what we have suggested on the commercial side and it is integral to Intro 133.

Sexton underscores many of our arguments about the utility of commercial disposers but there is one point he makes that is central to our concerns about the public discussion of this issue and the lack of candor in some of the statements that have been issued by DEP.

The agency has said that it would cost billions to retrofit the waste water system to accomodate disposers. In a letter written by the former DEP commissioner it is stated that in order to handle the nitrogen loading from commercial disposers "an entirely different technology" would be required at an estimated cost of between $4 and $10 billion.

Sexton's take on this is instructive: "We find curious Mr. Ward's suggestion that somehow current goals can be met by retrofitting but that any substantial additional nitrogen loads would suddenly require a completely different technology costing billions; perhaps upon a serious and transparent review, the situation would not prove to be 'all or nothing' in the way that Mr. Ward suggests." Indeed!

More Hokey Pokey

The South Bronx is looking for a "Get Out of Jail Free Card." As we have been commenting, and as the NY Times reported on yesterday, the jail bait and switch maneuver by Deputy Dan and EDC has foisted a new corrections facility on a community that has had more of its share.

When the BTM/House of D sleight-of-hand was accomplished to make the world safe for Steve Ross and Related it was never publicly stated that the Bronx would be needing additional jail space to make up for the demolition of the old jail. After all, especially with a $400 million price tag for a new jail, wouldn't it have been more cost effective to rehab the existing facility?

In addition, doesn't this new reality raise more questions about the BTM-House of D swap? Shouldn't new questions be raised about simply swapping these properties {without any appraisals of their relative worth} so Related could build a mall? If the tax payers are now being stuck with a huge bill for a new jail that the surrounding neighbors of Oak Point don't want shouldn't some of this cost be borne by the Related freeloaders?

What's missing in the Times story is any comment from the council members who supported the original Gateway deal. There are copious comments from all of the community leaders but none from the council woman who not only represents the area but who was also one of the leaders in the House of D charade and the BTM demolition.

The last word on all of this goes to Majora Carter of Sustainable South Bronx. She complains about the infusion of public money for the Yankees and Gateway and say, "The city's response is, 'Oh, we're going to spend $400 million here, too, but we're going to use it to put you guys in prison'...They need to recognize the irony of that."

Wal-Mart Warning for Monsey

In new study done by Stephan Goetz of Penn State University on the correlation between Walmartization and poverty rates (posted on Wal-MartWatch) there is one observation that is particularly germane for the good people of Monsey, New York. It is the impact of the displacement of local businesses by the Walmonster.

Here is the money quote: "In conclusion, the costs to communities in terms of labor replacement and higher poverty need to be weighed against the benefits of lower prices and greater shopping convenience. Similarly, once local businesses have been driven out, the possibilities of monopolies or ologopolies emerging in retailing...needs to be considered carefully by public policymakers." (emphasis added)

This is a message we've been sending to the good people of Monsey, a community where there is a high level of entrepreneurship that is important to the maintainance and support of communal institutions. The cost of the displacement of these local retailers must be weighed very carefully.

Protecting the Public Markets and Doing the Hokey Pokey

The controversy surrounding the eviction of the BTM merchants and the approval of the Gateway Mall refuses to go away. We were chatting with Councilmember Palma the other day about the proposal to build a new $370 million jail in Hunts Point and it becomes clearer by the minute that the transfer of the House of Detention to Related was a massive fraud.

According to Palma there is no way that the Bronx delegation would have approved the Gateway deal if it had known about the jail bait and switch. It was, according to her, bad enough that the House of D was basically given away without any bid competition. To now find out that the city is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more to replace the correction facility only adds more fuel to the scandalous fire.

Which brings us back to the original issue that was litigated: The right of the city to ignore basic provisions of the Charter that deal with the disposition of city property because of the imagined "market exception." Not so imagined, however, because of the inane ruling by a formerly respected jurist named Cahn.

If the judge's ruling is allowed to stand than the businesses and workers in the public markets face a greater risk than the one posed by Rudy Guiliani's putative attempt to rid these markets of the influence of organized crime. Put simply, Cahn's legal ruling is so expansive in its interpretation of the so-called power of the Commissioner of Small Business Services that it would seem to obviate the need for Local Law 28, the legislation that put the markets under a vast network of city oversight in 1997.

Clearly Guiliani and his deputy Randy Mastro didn't think so. After all, no one ever accused the former mayor of reticence when it came to an expansive interpretation of mayoral authority. If he felt it necessary to codify his new market regulations than you can be confident that this so-called market exception is a chimera, a sheer fantasy of Jesse James Masyr, Related and Deputy Dan.

What needs to be done? A coalition of the vulnerable needs to be set up to address the travesty of the Cahn job. Locals 342 and 202 need to join with the Hunts Point meat and produce companies and their cohort in the other public markets.

Legislation needs to be introduced at the City Council that exposes the fallacy of this illegal power grab and clarifies the limits of the mayor's power when it comes to the public markets. If this is not done than we can expect that the mayor will find other opportunities to act arbitrarily and capriciously when it comes to regulating the businesses and thousands of workers in the city's public wholesale markets.

As far as the jail bait controversy is concerned, it provides the Council with yet another opportunity to investigate the actions and improper conflicts of the city's deputy mayor for economic development. Everyone gets righteously upset when an elected official puts his hand down the pants of an intern. We need the same level of righteous anger when economic development officials screw hard working small businesses because of personal relationships with developers.

Wal-Mart Watch: Close the "Below Grade" Loophole

We have already discussed the ingenuity of Jesse James Masyr when it comes to exploiting loopholes in the NYC zoning laws. The major loophole we have highlighted is the one that allows a developer to avoid the need to obtain a "special permit" for a food or department store larger than 10,000 feet in an industrial zone by building the store a certain number of feet below the street level.

This is an exception that makes absolutely no sense since there is nothing about below grade that should allow for the obviation of an environmental review. Yet it exists and it is used. The Pathmark on Waters Place in the Bronx and the Stop-and-Shop on Grand Avenue in Maspeth are two of the most salient examples of the loophole in action.

Now we are hearing that Masyr and Related are thinking of using it to build a BJ's warehouse store that the City Council gave a thumbs down to in February of last year. Even more ominous, if the loophole is not closed we can expect that some crafty developer will use it to bring in Wal-Mart and avoid any ULURP death knell.

Karbenated

When we first heard the news that Rockland assemblyman Ryan Karben had resigned we anticipated the worst. Of all the electeds we know Ryan is perhaps the least likely (with one major exception who will remain nameless) to just suddenly resign. No, there had to be be a firing squad poised to execute and, as it turns out, there undoubtedly was.

All of which got us thinking about the late great Harold Lasswell whose book, Psychopathology and Politics, explains the process by which "private emotions are displaced onto public objects." Clearly politics attracts a number of otherwise disfunctional personality types who are attracted to the public adulation.

Still it is quite sad to see a capable and talented young man go down in flames, destroyed by the very demons that probably pushed him into the political arena in the first place. Here's hoping that he can reconstruct his life and get the kind of help that will enable him to sort out his own needs in a more low-key arena.

Garbage Costs Spiral

The NY Times is reporting today on the sanitation budget hearing that was held yesterday before Mike McMahon's City Council committee. Commissioner Doherty testified and it now appears that the cost of closing the Fresh Kills landfill is now going to exceed $1.4 billion. Just another example of how these original cost estimates need to be taken with a grain of salt.

In this regard it is important to highlight that none of the city's estimates when it comes to the construction of waste transfer stations and the resulting garbage exports can be taken at face value. The city's SWMP will inevitably be a fiscal black hole and the primary reasons are the dependence on an export-landfill methodology and the failure to devise a credible waste reduction plan.

What mystifies us, however, is the uncritical support for the plan coming from the local environmental lobby. The Times points out that, "Environmentalists support the plan because it emphasizes recycling and seeks to haul more garbage by barge and rail than by truck..." This is a complete fantasy, at least in regards to the recycling issue.

How many times do we need to point out that the "Emperor's New Clothes" has nothing on the mayor's recycling proposals. Put simply, there is no concrete proposal to increase the city's recycling efforts. All we have gotten is the typical jawboning that amounts to little more than feel good BS.

Which is why the Alliance's advocacy of food waste disposers makes so much sense on so many different levels. Whether we're talking about waste reduction, increased recycling, reduced truck traffic or improved public health, the use of FWDs can play a critical role. That is why we're confident that Intro 133 will be moved in the coming short term. It just makes sense to try this approach on an experimental level and, hopefully, expand it into a key waste disposal methodology.