On a related issue to our last post it is important to point out that Andrew Wolf's critique of Rivera's efforts to use the zoning tool to curb fast food outlets is, on this issue, just factually inaccurate. He argues that the councilman's proposal "will not be the first time that zoning regulations will be misused to advance an unrelated non-land use decision" (He refers to the Alliance's successful effort to stop a BJ's from being built on Brush Avenue).
The fact say otherwise. As we have pointed out, there is no stronger zoning rationale than the protection of the public's health and safety. In fact, the 1916 NYC comprehensive zoning law, the first of its kind in the nation, rested squarely on the correlation between the municipalities police power to regulate public health.
Now you might not believe that there is a correlation between obesity and fast food (as we're sure Wolf does not) but if a strong link can be established, as it has been in recent research in public health, that there is no stronger rationale for zoning than that.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Wolfing Down the Fast Food
In today's NY Sun columnist Andrew Wolf continues his attack on the those who believe that we need to do something drastic about what our kids eat. Initially he had ridiculed the efforts of former president Clinton to eliminate soft drinks from our schools, and now he takes aim at Joel Rivera's proposal to use zoning as a tool to restrict the number of neighborhood fast food outlets.
What's interesting in the Wolf piece is his skepticism about the entire issue of childhood obesity. As he says about the Rivera proposal, "This seems to be strong medicine for a disease that I'm not sure really exists. There is precious little evidence of any long term health danger posed by this 'epidemic' either to children or to adults."
Wolf opines that although Americans are getting fatter they are still living longer. "Nor is there any evidence that attempts to manipulate portions of the diets of children will really result in weight loss." This is all very provocative but also useful, because what Wolf is arguing is subject to rigorous scientific evaluation.
He also argues that all of this diet restriction "hysteria" will have harmful repercussions, "but it won't be a glut of fat children. Rather we will see an epidemic of eating disorders, similar to what we have seen among young women in recent years."
The reason? It's because we are supposedly taking a pleasurable activity and investing it with "anxiety and alarm." Here Wolf's argument devolves into the hysteria that he criticizes in others. Not only that he has created the "restrictive diet" strawman that is not central to the thrust of the anti obesity effort aimed at children.
Wolf cites the author of a book called "The Tyranny of Health" who critiques the efforts to "coerce children into a 'five a day' fruit and vegetable consumption..." that will rob our children of the "sensual enjoyment of eating and drinking." This is not what the opponents of fast food and its corresponding gluttony have in mind in their efforts to fight the growing obesity problem.
In questioning the existence of an obesity epidemic Wolf reminds us of the Marx Brothers' line: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?" But give Wolf credit for bringing this to the fore and now that he has done so we would suggest that Councilman Rivera, along with his collaborator on the Health Corps, Dr. Mehmet Oz of Columbia-Presbyterian, convene a conference in the Fall that addresses all of the various points of view on the subject.
What's interesting in the Wolf piece is his skepticism about the entire issue of childhood obesity. As he says about the Rivera proposal, "This seems to be strong medicine for a disease that I'm not sure really exists. There is precious little evidence of any long term health danger posed by this 'epidemic' either to children or to adults."
Wolf opines that although Americans are getting fatter they are still living longer. "Nor is there any evidence that attempts to manipulate portions of the diets of children will really result in weight loss." This is all very provocative but also useful, because what Wolf is arguing is subject to rigorous scientific evaluation.
He also argues that all of this diet restriction "hysteria" will have harmful repercussions, "but it won't be a glut of fat children. Rather we will see an epidemic of eating disorders, similar to what we have seen among young women in recent years."
The reason? It's because we are supposedly taking a pleasurable activity and investing it with "anxiety and alarm." Here Wolf's argument devolves into the hysteria that he criticizes in others. Not only that he has created the "restrictive diet" strawman that is not central to the thrust of the anti obesity effort aimed at children.
Wolf cites the author of a book called "The Tyranny of Health" who critiques the efforts to "coerce children into a 'five a day' fruit and vegetable consumption..." that will rob our children of the "sensual enjoyment of eating and drinking." This is not what the opponents of fast food and its corresponding gluttony have in mind in their efforts to fight the growing obesity problem.
In questioning the existence of an obesity epidemic Wolf reminds us of the Marx Brothers' line: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?" But give Wolf credit for bringing this to the fore and now that he has done so we would suggest that Councilman Rivera, along with his collaborator on the Health Corps, Dr. Mehmet Oz of Columbia-Presbyterian, convene a conference in the Fall that addresses all of the various points of view on the subject.
Whose Community?
Hats off to the Riverdale Review (and to our friends at Save Our Parks for calling attention to the piece), for its commentary about the actions of BP Carrion in regards to the galling nerve of CB #4 to actually attempt to represent the community's interest. As we have said before, Carrion has done us all a public service by disabusing us of the idea that these boards are actually in place to live up to their name.
All kidding aside, the sacking of the board raises a number of serious issues that relate to the integrity of the ULURP process. Also being questioned here is the competency of Carrion to be a mayoral candidate in 2009. As the Review said, "If Carrion cannot deal with a little difference of opinion over one issue in the Bronx, how could he ever govern an entire city with eight million points of view?
All kidding aside, the sacking of the board raises a number of serious issues that relate to the integrity of the ULURP process. Also being questioned here is the competency of Carrion to be a mayoral candidate in 2009. As the Review said, "If Carrion cannot deal with a little difference of opinion over one issue in the Bronx, how could he ever govern an entire city with eight million points of view?
Pushcart Before the Horse
As the NY Post reports today there was a protest yesterday in front of City Hall by unlicensed street vendors who are complaining about their carts being "wheeled away by the city for lack of proper licensing." A group called Street Vendors for Justice is protesting the move complaining that about 20 carts have been, along with the goods they contained, confiscated by the city.
NY1 picks up the story and quotes one of the unlicensed (undocumented?) vendors saying, "We are asking for an unlimited amount of licenses," and Councilman Charles Barron seems to agree since he has introduced a bill to raise the 3,000 license cap. As the Councilman told the Post, "Why should we restrict access to be fully licensed when they are just trying to make an honest living?"
Why should we restrict? Well for one thing these folks who are just trying to make an honest living (By working illegally?) are actually taking business away from the tax paying store owners they often set up their carts right in front of. If they are only interested in feeding their families than they should look for work at one of the countless supermarkets that are constantly looking for new employees.
If they are afraid to actually apply for a real documented job than we do have a real problem with illegal immigrants coming into the city and threatening, through their unlicensed peddling, to undermine the city's tax base. Calcutta hear we come!
One last point. The Post points out that the city only licenses 3,000 pushcarts but, at the same time, licenses 9,000 vendors. What this means is that the city is creating a pool of contract laborers to work for unscrupulous goods wholesalers. The exploitation is inevitable and needs to be investigated.
NY1 picks up the story and quotes one of the unlicensed (undocumented?) vendors saying, "We are asking for an unlimited amount of licenses," and Councilman Charles Barron seems to agree since he has introduced a bill to raise the 3,000 license cap. As the Councilman told the Post, "Why should we restrict access to be fully licensed when they are just trying to make an honest living?"
Why should we restrict? Well for one thing these folks who are just trying to make an honest living (By working illegally?) are actually taking business away from the tax paying store owners they often set up their carts right in front of. If they are only interested in feeding their families than they should look for work at one of the countless supermarkets that are constantly looking for new employees.
If they are afraid to actually apply for a real documented job than we do have a real problem with illegal immigrants coming into the city and threatening, through their unlicensed peddling, to undermine the city's tax base. Calcutta hear we come!
One last point. The Post points out that the city only licenses 3,000 pushcarts but, at the same time, licenses 9,000 vendors. What this means is that the city is creating a pool of contract laborers to work for unscrupulous goods wholesalers. The exploitation is inevitable and needs to be investigated.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Rivera Post Toasted
In today's letter section of the NY Post the paper's readers take aim against Councilman Rivera's suggestion that we use zoning laws to curb the proliferation of fast food outlets. The thrust of the opposition view is expressed by Nat Weiner of the Bronx who suggests that Joel Rivera "attack the root causes of obesity."
Well Nat, Rivera must be listening to you because included in the just concluded budget deal is an initial $250,000 Rivera-sponsored grant to expand the Health Corps program to three additional high schools in the fall. The Health Corps goal is to change the attitudes of young people aboujt health and nutrition. So, while we partially agree with letter writer Karen Parisi of Maryland that, "it is not the government's job to control what our children eat," we also believe that government can and should play an educational role in this area.
Well Nat, Rivera must be listening to you because included in the just concluded budget deal is an initial $250,000 Rivera-sponsored grant to expand the Health Corps program to three additional high schools in the fall. The Health Corps goal is to change the attitudes of young people aboujt health and nutrition. So, while we partially agree with letter writer Karen Parisi of Maryland that, "it is not the government's job to control what our children eat," we also believe that government can and should play an educational role in this area.
Environmental Hypocrisy
The NY Times has a great story in today's paper about rats "swaggering" in East Harlem. Swagger they do because the latest city effort to curb their population hasn't really made a dent into the profusion of their numbers. An audit released last week by Comptroller Thompson found that the city's response to rat complaints "was slow" even though DOH has improved somewhat in its fight against the rodents.
All of which underscores what we have been saying all along about the need to go after the source of rat nourishment, the food waste that attracts them in the first place. This can be significantly accomplished through a program to install both commercial and residential food waste disposers. It is exactly why the NYCHA has installed disposers in housing projects on the Lower East Side and Bushwick.
Instead, precisely because of the misguided effort of some of the city's leading environmental groups Intro 133, a measure that would eliminate the rat food source, remains stalled. Stalled because groups such as the NRDC are more concerned about the algae in the Jamaica Bay than they are about the poor folks of East Harlem.
A concern for public health was the primary reason for the City of Philadelphia to mandate the use of food waste disposers for any store and restaurant that applied for a dumpster permit. The solid waste benefits of disposers are clear, but when we add the positive impact that their use will have on neighborhood public health it is inexplicable that the City Council has not seen fit to act on legislation that is sponsored by 36 members.
All of which underscores what we have been saying all along about the need to go after the source of rat nourishment, the food waste that attracts them in the first place. This can be significantly accomplished through a program to install both commercial and residential food waste disposers. It is exactly why the NYCHA has installed disposers in housing projects on the Lower East Side and Bushwick.
Instead, precisely because of the misguided effort of some of the city's leading environmental groups Intro 133, a measure that would eliminate the rat food source, remains stalled. Stalled because groups such as the NRDC are more concerned about the algae in the Jamaica Bay than they are about the poor folks of East Harlem.
A concern for public health was the primary reason for the City of Philadelphia to mandate the use of food waste disposers for any store and restaurant that applied for a dumpster permit. The solid waste benefits of disposers are clear, but when we add the positive impact that their use will have on neighborhood public health it is inexplicable that the City Council has not seen fit to act on legislation that is sponsored by 36 members.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Crain's Gives Us Props
We need to give a shout out to the Crain's Insider for singling this blog out in this morning's In$ider. The kind words-"an informative pro-union blog"-were appreciated and, hopefully, the observation that our observations "rarely generate comments" can be seen as a result of our emphasis on policy analysis rather than pure partisan rabble rousing.
We do have a point-of-view but our pro union stance is usually restricted to the box store issue, since our main focus is on defending neighborhood stores. Our goal is definitely to advance certain issues but we like to inform as many as possible on the various sides of any policy debate. Sometimes this wish is limited, as some readers never fail to point out, by the fact that we are in business to defend our clients' interests.
We do have a point-of-view but our pro union stance is usually restricted to the box store issue, since our main focus is on defending neighborhood stores. Our goal is definitely to advance certain issues but we like to inform as many as possible on the various sides of any policy debate. Sometimes this wish is limited, as some readers never fail to point out, by the fact that we are in business to defend our clients' interests.
Journal News Says No!- to Wal-Mart in Monsey
In today's Rockland Journal News the paper editorializes against the building of a Wal-Mart supercenter in Monsey, N.Y. In doing so the paper praises the Town of Ramapo for scoring "a win for planning common sense by requiring that the developer...provide a study of its economic ramifications." This precisely what the Alliance had been urging the planners to do and the the Board's chair, Sylvain Klein, properly made sure that the study was included.
The JN feels that the economic impact analysis could (should?) "highlight the good reasons why there should not be a super center or other major developments in the congested Monsey corridor." The paper feels that the project could "hinder renewal and force store closings" in Spring Valley and along Rt. 59 in Monsey.
One key point that the Journal adds is the need for the Ramapo planners to look at the report "with healthy skepticism." Which is precisely why the Alliance, much as it has done in NYC in its BJs and Wal-Mart fights, plans to do its own impact analysis in conjunction with both the Ramapo Jewish Chamber of Commerce and the Spring Valley Chamber. Ramapo simply cannot rely on the self serving data provided by National Realty and Development Corp.
Finally, the JN tells the Ramapo planners to"have the courage of your convictions" and be prepared to "say 'No' to whatever you must in the interest of the people." One important point is left out here, however. The one man who holds the fate of this project in his hand is Ramapo supervisor St. Lawrence and we've been hearing that he may not have the same degree of healthy skepticism toward Wal-Mart that the JN has.
If true, you can depend that he will be hearing from the good folks in Monsey and Spring Valley. If he listens to the voice of the people than there is a good chance that the Wal-Mart project won't "damn the St. Lawrence."
The JN feels that the economic impact analysis could (should?) "highlight the good reasons why there should not be a super center or other major developments in the congested Monsey corridor." The paper feels that the project could "hinder renewal and force store closings" in Spring Valley and along Rt. 59 in Monsey.
One key point that the Journal adds is the need for the Ramapo planners to look at the report "with healthy skepticism." Which is precisely why the Alliance, much as it has done in NYC in its BJs and Wal-Mart fights, plans to do its own impact analysis in conjunction with both the Ramapo Jewish Chamber of Commerce and the Spring Valley Chamber. Ramapo simply cannot rely on the self serving data provided by National Realty and Development Corp.
Finally, the JN tells the Ramapo planners to"have the courage of your convictions" and be prepared to "say 'No' to whatever you must in the interest of the people." One important point is left out here, however. The one man who holds the fate of this project in his hand is Ramapo supervisor St. Lawrence and we've been hearing that he may not have the same degree of healthy skepticism toward Wal-Mart that the JN has.
If true, you can depend that he will be hearing from the good folks in Monsey and Spring Valley. If he listens to the voice of the people than there is a good chance that the Wal-Mart project won't "damn the St. Lawrence."
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Garbage Deja Vu
Yesterday's City Council hearing on the city's SWMP took a very predictable course. As the NY Times points out, opponents of Manhattan transfer stations came out to inveigh against the siting of facilities on 91st Street and 14th Street. In turn, proponents of the mayor's plan accused the protestors of being insensitive to the fact that minority communities have had to put up with these stations for years.
As we have been saying all along, this is all an exquisite result of two things: the mayor's clever emphasis on "environmental justice," and the plan's failure to address any substantive proposal for waste reduction. The result is the current fight over a couple of transfer stations, and the total disavowal of the need to come up with a cost-effective waste reduction and disposal plan.
This is all kind of a Kabuki theater presentation as lawmakers debate issues that are only partially germane to dealing with the need for a less expensive and more comprehensive garbage solution. And, as David Yassky tells the Crain's In$ider this morning, "he won't vote for the plan because he believes that the Sanitation Department has not fully developed the commercial part of it."
Crain's goes on to point out that "commercial trash haulers have been lobbying against the mayor's proposal." This is because the city is looking to channel all of the commercial waste into a city-controlled 59th Street transfer station. Something that the NY Times has approved of without giving much thought to its feasibility or legality. In addition, the paper exhorts the city to recycle private waste with no clear idea just how this is supposed to get done.
All of which gets us to the essence of Intro 133. This proposal to experiment with the feasibility of legalizing commercial food waste disposers would demonstrate the dramatic potential to reduce the export of commercial waste by over 90%. Once the numbers are crunched we strongly believe that the necessity of building an expensive commercial waste station at 59th Street would be obviated. Not to mention the potential to address the public health issue that is created by the city's rat epidemic.
It will be interesting to see whether council people like Yassky, Monseratte, Garodnick, Lappin and Rivera can push the body in a positive public health and solid waste direction. If they do the current plan can have the number of transfer stations, and the amount of overall garbage exports, reduced in all neighborhoods.
As we have been saying all along, this is all an exquisite result of two things: the mayor's clever emphasis on "environmental justice," and the plan's failure to address any substantive proposal for waste reduction. The result is the current fight over a couple of transfer stations, and the total disavowal of the need to come up with a cost-effective waste reduction and disposal plan.
This is all kind of a Kabuki theater presentation as lawmakers debate issues that are only partially germane to dealing with the need for a less expensive and more comprehensive garbage solution. And, as David Yassky tells the Crain's In$ider this morning, "he won't vote for the plan because he believes that the Sanitation Department has not fully developed the commercial part of it."
Crain's goes on to point out that "commercial trash haulers have been lobbying against the mayor's proposal." This is because the city is looking to channel all of the commercial waste into a city-controlled 59th Street transfer station. Something that the NY Times has approved of without giving much thought to its feasibility or legality. In addition, the paper exhorts the city to recycle private waste with no clear idea just how this is supposed to get done.
All of which gets us to the essence of Intro 133. This proposal to experiment with the feasibility of legalizing commercial food waste disposers would demonstrate the dramatic potential to reduce the export of commercial waste by over 90%. Once the numbers are crunched we strongly believe that the necessity of building an expensive commercial waste station at 59th Street would be obviated. Not to mention the potential to address the public health issue that is created by the city's rat epidemic.
It will be interesting to see whether council people like Yassky, Monseratte, Garodnick, Lappin and Rivera can push the body in a positive public health and solid waste direction. If they do the current plan can have the number of transfer stations, and the amount of overall garbage exports, reduced in all neighborhoods.
Monday, June 26, 2006
McZoning: Fat Chance?
In today's NY Post the paper picks up on the fact that, "The City Council's push for a McZoning law to restrict the number of fast-food restaurants is not so far-fetched-a study conducted by Bloomberg's alma mater strongly endorsed such a crackdown." The Post also reports, as we have commented, on the fact that other municipalities have enacted restrictions on fast food outlets, including Detroit, where no fast food place is allowed within 500 feet of a school.
All of which is to once again point out that the obesity issue isn't something that should be a subject of ridicule. The problem is so serious that a National Obesity Action Forum has been established and in its meeting earlier this month the group began strategizing how to further reduce obesity. As the Journal News reports this morning, "A Food and Drug Administration-funded report released this month assesses the annual medical cost of the overweight problem at nearly $93 billion."
The crisis in poor Black and Latino communities is so severe that the clergy in Harlem has become activated to combat the epidemic. Led by Dr. Olajide Williams, a member of the Central Harlem Obesity Workshop, a "Health Revival" plan has been launched by Harlem ministers "to attack obesity among the super-sized in their pews."
Zoning-out fast food outlets, as Elizabeth Whelan opines in today's NY Sun, may not be the best strategy to combat the obesity epidemic but its threat may be necessary to energize an industry that the Journal News tells us "is balking at proposals to require sharing detailed nutrition information with customers..." They respond to the suggestion by claiming that "it is not food establishments' role to police what people eat."
The first recognition that tobacco was a danger to public health surfaced in 1920. It took us over 85 years to reach where we are on this subject today. With obesity we simply don't have that much time to get a serious grip on the problem. We need immediate drastic action today, and the fears of Big Government that Whelan expresses are not as frightening as the proliferation of preventable chronic diseases that are directly attributable to obesity.
All of which is to once again point out that the obesity issue isn't something that should be a subject of ridicule. The problem is so serious that a National Obesity Action Forum has been established and in its meeting earlier this month the group began strategizing how to further reduce obesity. As the Journal News reports this morning, "A Food and Drug Administration-funded report released this month assesses the annual medical cost of the overweight problem at nearly $93 billion."
The crisis in poor Black and Latino communities is so severe that the clergy in Harlem has become activated to combat the epidemic. Led by Dr. Olajide Williams, a member of the Central Harlem Obesity Workshop, a "Health Revival" plan has been launched by Harlem ministers "to attack obesity among the super-sized in their pews."
Zoning-out fast food outlets, as Elizabeth Whelan opines in today's NY Sun, may not be the best strategy to combat the obesity epidemic but its threat may be necessary to energize an industry that the Journal News tells us "is balking at proposals to require sharing detailed nutrition information with customers..." They respond to the suggestion by claiming that "it is not food establishments' role to police what people eat."
The first recognition that tobacco was a danger to public health surfaced in 1920. It took us over 85 years to reach where we are on this subject today. With obesity we simply don't have that much time to get a serious grip on the problem. We need immediate drastic action today, and the fears of Big Government that Whelan expresses are not as frightening as the proliferation of preventable chronic diseases that are directly attributable to obesity.
Solid Waste Movement
The NY Times editorialized yesterday on the need for the City Council to adopt the mayor's SWMP with little or no tinkering: "Because the plan's placement of transfer sites hangs like a Caldor mobile, the City Council should adopt it without too much tampering."
What's troubling about the paper's view is its lack of emphasis on just how the city is going to "expand recycling to businesses," something that the Times thinks needs to be done. As it points out, "Ultimately the task of successfully managing trash will require not just burial or incineration, but reuse and reduction of rubbish as well."
Just so. However, isn't it incumbent of a solid waste plan to actually lay out some coherent methodology for waste reduction? This is totally missing in the city's elaborate siting plan. The sections on recycling are devoid of any useful proposal that would make anyone but the mayor's most ardent acolytes sanguine about the possibility of waste reduction.
And what about the 59th Street commercial waste transfer station?- something the Times tells us is "without question necessary for Manhattan, which produces 40 percent of business trash." The paper doesn't say just how the city is going to incentivize or, perhaps, force the private carters to divert waste to that transfer point from others that they are already using.
All of this is, of course, frustrating to us because of the myopia that exists around the one methodology, the installation of commercial food waste disposers, that could "expand recycling to businesses" and reduce rubbish as well. This is particularly true of Manhattan where food waste is a significant component of the commercial waste stream.
Without any real waste reduction strategy the city moves ineluctably towards a fiscal and solid waste nightmare. The Times, unfortunately, neglects to raise any questions about the escalating costs of disposal, costs that are exacerbated by reliance on questionable export-landfill destinations as well as on the failure of the city to reduce the amount of waste being transported.
What's troubling about the paper's view is its lack of emphasis on just how the city is going to "expand recycling to businesses," something that the Times thinks needs to be done. As it points out, "Ultimately the task of successfully managing trash will require not just burial or incineration, but reuse and reduction of rubbish as well."
Just so. However, isn't it incumbent of a solid waste plan to actually lay out some coherent methodology for waste reduction? This is totally missing in the city's elaborate siting plan. The sections on recycling are devoid of any useful proposal that would make anyone but the mayor's most ardent acolytes sanguine about the possibility of waste reduction.
And what about the 59th Street commercial waste transfer station?- something the Times tells us is "without question necessary for Manhattan, which produces 40 percent of business trash." The paper doesn't say just how the city is going to incentivize or, perhaps, force the private carters to divert waste to that transfer point from others that they are already using.
All of this is, of course, frustrating to us because of the myopia that exists around the one methodology, the installation of commercial food waste disposers, that could "expand recycling to businesses" and reduce rubbish as well. This is particularly true of Manhattan where food waste is a significant component of the commercial waste stream.
Without any real waste reduction strategy the city moves ineluctably towards a fiscal and solid waste nightmare. The Times, unfortunately, neglects to raise any questions about the escalating costs of disposal, costs that are exacerbated by reliance on questionable export-landfill destinations as well as on the failure of the city to reduce the amount of waste being transported.
Will Power, Fast Food and "Common Sense"
The crescendo of ridicule that was generated by Councilman Joel Rivera's trial balloon about using the city's zoning laws to reduce the availability of fast food joints continues. This time it is the acid-tongued Ellis Henican in Friday's Newsday. In what must be considered unintentional irony, the liberal Henican morphed into Nancy Reagen with his injunction to, "Just say no to the jumbo fries."
Henican does ask a series of legitimate questions regarding the overall legality of the proposal and the definition of what exactly qualifies as fast food. He than also points out that there are a whole host of things that government can do-like "smart nutritional education" and "not canceling the phys ed classes in school"-but goes on to pose the following question: "does anyone really believe the answer lies in making colonel Sanders move down the street?
Well, a lot of public health researchers think that zoning is part of a comprehensive approach to the serious public health crisis generated by this country's obesity epidemic. In fact they point out that the most fundamental underpinning of all zoning regulations is public health and safety. Not only that, a great many municipalities have already taken zoning action against fast food, although not for obesity per se, and these ordinances have survived legal challenge.
It doesn't mean that a number of Henican's other suggestions shouldn't also be included in any anti-obesity health policy. In fact, as we have pointed out, Rivera is doing just that in his sponsorship of Dr. Mehmet Oz's Health Corps initiative. Better education should be the main thrust of any policy but the proliferation of fast food establishments, especially in low income areas, is a problem that can be addressed through zoning.
If, as it is in San Francisco, Newport RI, Concord, MA etc, zoning is being invoked against fast food and "formula" restaurants on the grounds of "community character," than it can be used for a legitimate public health purpose in the fight against obesity. It might be a last resort remedy, to be used only in the event that the fast food industry maintains a deaf ear about the obesity epidemic, but it should certainly be examined for its efficacy and be held in abeyance so that the fast fooders know that policy makers are serious.
Henican does ask a series of legitimate questions regarding the overall legality of the proposal and the definition of what exactly qualifies as fast food. He than also points out that there are a whole host of things that government can do-like "smart nutritional education" and "not canceling the phys ed classes in school"-but goes on to pose the following question: "does anyone really believe the answer lies in making colonel Sanders move down the street?
Well, a lot of public health researchers think that zoning is part of a comprehensive approach to the serious public health crisis generated by this country's obesity epidemic. In fact they point out that the most fundamental underpinning of all zoning regulations is public health and safety. Not only that, a great many municipalities have already taken zoning action against fast food, although not for obesity per se, and these ordinances have survived legal challenge.
It doesn't mean that a number of Henican's other suggestions shouldn't also be included in any anti-obesity health policy. In fact, as we have pointed out, Rivera is doing just that in his sponsorship of Dr. Mehmet Oz's Health Corps initiative. Better education should be the main thrust of any policy but the proliferation of fast food establishments, especially in low income areas, is a problem that can be addressed through zoning.
If, as it is in San Francisco, Newport RI, Concord, MA etc, zoning is being invoked against fast food and "formula" restaurants on the grounds of "community character," than it can be used for a legitimate public health purpose in the fight against obesity. It might be a last resort remedy, to be used only in the event that the fast food industry maintains a deaf ear about the obesity epidemic, but it should certainly be examined for its efficacy and be held in abeyance so that the fast fooders know that policy makers are serious.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Daily News Zones Out: From Obesity to Opacity
In today's NY Daily News the paper editorializes against the suggestion, advanced by Health Committee Chair Joel Rivera, that city zoning law be used to control the proliferation of fast food joints in neighborhoods where childhood obesity has reached epidemic proportion. The councilman's proposal earned him a "Knucklehead Award" from the paper's pontificators.
In this case, however the shoe, or should we say the dunce cap, is being worn by the wrong party. In their efforts to belittle the proposal the News' erudite crew resorts to ridicule:"Lose Your Butt Bill," "Slaw and Order candidate," etc. The epidemic of obesity, and its attendant diseases, is no laughing matter. In one estimate 365,000 deaths a year can be attributed to obesity, making the disease second only to tobacco use as a killer in this country.
We can ask the smug editorialists, just what has the Daily News done to be part of the solution for a health crisis that is plaguing the kinds of neighborhoods that are represented by Mr. Rivera? The unfortunate answer is- absolutely nothing. Instead of being proactive and helpful the paper's rhetoric degenerates into sarcasm.
What makes the ridicule even more misplaced is the ignorance that the editorial page exhibits on the entire zoning/obesity questioning. You see, the musings on the subject do not originate from the solitary ruminations of Rivera but, instead, are drawn directly from the cutting edge scientific research being done in public health at-hold onto your seats-The Center for Law and the Public's Health at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
So before we kill the messenger here isn't appropriate to first question all of the highbrow folks that are being partially funded by our own mayor's largesse? When we look at the work being done in the field we find that there are a lot of serious researchers who believe that zoning can be used as a tool to control obesity (See "The Use of Zoning To Restrict Fast Food Outlets: A Potential Strategy to Combat Obesity, October, 2005). Not only that, the mayor's health commissioner certainly hasn't ruled the zoning tool out.
Now the News might not agree with the researchers' conclusions but it needs to become better informed on the subject before the lapse into ridicule makes them look, well, ridiculous. If they review the literature they might discover that the historical foundation for all zoning is the protection of the public's health and safety. Not only that, zoning is already being used in other parts of the country for the purpose that Councilman Rivera suggests.
The obesity epidemic (which costs New York state $3.5 billion just in Medicaid payments) and the concomitant health crisis is probably the most important public health challenge we face in this country. Fast food is not the only contributing factor but it certainly plays its part. The fast food industry needs to wake up and become part of the solution-and so does the Daily News. If this doesn't happen than more punitive measures will be forthcoming. The handwriting is on the wall and you don't have to be a seer to read it.
In this case, however the shoe, or should we say the dunce cap, is being worn by the wrong party. In their efforts to belittle the proposal the News' erudite crew resorts to ridicule:"Lose Your Butt Bill," "Slaw and Order candidate," etc. The epidemic of obesity, and its attendant diseases, is no laughing matter. In one estimate 365,000 deaths a year can be attributed to obesity, making the disease second only to tobacco use as a killer in this country.
We can ask the smug editorialists, just what has the Daily News done to be part of the solution for a health crisis that is plaguing the kinds of neighborhoods that are represented by Mr. Rivera? The unfortunate answer is- absolutely nothing. Instead of being proactive and helpful the paper's rhetoric degenerates into sarcasm.
What makes the ridicule even more misplaced is the ignorance that the editorial page exhibits on the entire zoning/obesity questioning. You see, the musings on the subject do not originate from the solitary ruminations of Rivera but, instead, are drawn directly from the cutting edge scientific research being done in public health at-hold onto your seats-The Center for Law and the Public's Health at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
So before we kill the messenger here isn't appropriate to first question all of the highbrow folks that are being partially funded by our own mayor's largesse? When we look at the work being done in the field we find that there are a lot of serious researchers who believe that zoning can be used as a tool to control obesity (See "The Use of Zoning To Restrict Fast Food Outlets: A Potential Strategy to Combat Obesity, October, 2005). Not only that, the mayor's health commissioner certainly hasn't ruled the zoning tool out.
Now the News might not agree with the researchers' conclusions but it needs to become better informed on the subject before the lapse into ridicule makes them look, well, ridiculous. If they review the literature they might discover that the historical foundation for all zoning is the protection of the public's health and safety. Not only that, zoning is already being used in other parts of the country for the purpose that Councilman Rivera suggests.
The obesity epidemic (which costs New York state $3.5 billion just in Medicaid payments) and the concomitant health crisis is probably the most important public health challenge we face in this country. Fast food is not the only contributing factor but it certainly plays its part. The fast food industry needs to wake up and become part of the solution-and so does the Daily News. If this doesn't happen than more punitive measures will be forthcoming. The handwriting is on the wall and you don't have to be a seer to read it.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Zoning for Fast Food?
At yesterday's City Council Health Committee hearing the committee's chair, Councilman Joel Rivera, "proposed overhauling the city's zoning rules to limit the number of fast food restaurants in neighborhoods where obesity is epidemic among youths." Obesity was the subject of the hearing.
The Alliance applauds Rivera's desire to do something about the obesity epidemic. We do, however, think there are better ways to do it that don't involve restrictive zoning changes that may not even be feasible. The Alliance doesn't hold a great deal of sympathy for the fast food chains that have pushed out indigenous neighborhood eateries, but zoning changes could have unintentional consequences and could hurt the growth of neighborhood economies.
In the first place even coming up with a definition of fast food wouldn't be easy. As Mitchell Moss of NYU points out in today's NY Daily News, "it's unlikely any zoning resolution could dictate that level of detail. The zoning code for eating and drinking establishments does not distinguish types of food. "
Testifying yesterday at the hearing, though, was our good friend, Dr. Lynn Silver of the NYC DOH. Silver is in charge of the city's efforts to reduce obesity rates in the city's poorest neighborhoods. The doctor told the committee that "restrictive zoning seemed to be a 'perfect example' of how government could help control the epidemic."
Not so fast. As one Yonkers teacher told the NY Post, "'Trying to hide a donut won't work...,' said Gary Londis...He said teaching kids to exercise and eat better would be more practical." Exactly so. In a city where 21% of kindergarteners are already obese drastic intervention is necessary.
Which brings us to Rivera's major new health initiative: the expansion of Dr. Oz's Health Corps concept. Health Corps, using a Peace Corps-like model, trains volunteers who then are placed in underserved high schools to teach various health-based lessons. The program is already being piloted in two city high schools and is designed to create a grass roots activism for health among the city's young people. Judging from its initial reception, the program could be the beginning of an attitude revolution, one that could lead to the kind of life-style changes that would make any zoning change superfluous.
Assisting in these lifestyle alternations should be the fast food companies that Councilman Rivera cites. It would make perfect sense for the McDonalds of the world to team up with Health Corps to encourage healthy eating and proper exercise. Childhood obesity and diabetes are socially and economically costly and the best way to combat these epidemics is, in partnership with food retailers, to convince young people to make improved choices.
The Alliance applauds Rivera's desire to do something about the obesity epidemic. We do, however, think there are better ways to do it that don't involve restrictive zoning changes that may not even be feasible. The Alliance doesn't hold a great deal of sympathy for the fast food chains that have pushed out indigenous neighborhood eateries, but zoning changes could have unintentional consequences and could hurt the growth of neighborhood economies.
In the first place even coming up with a definition of fast food wouldn't be easy. As Mitchell Moss of NYU points out in today's NY Daily News, "it's unlikely any zoning resolution could dictate that level of detail. The zoning code for eating and drinking establishments does not distinguish types of food. "
Testifying yesterday at the hearing, though, was our good friend, Dr. Lynn Silver of the NYC DOH. Silver is in charge of the city's efforts to reduce obesity rates in the city's poorest neighborhoods. The doctor told the committee that "restrictive zoning seemed to be a 'perfect example' of how government could help control the epidemic."
Not so fast. As one Yonkers teacher told the NY Post, "'Trying to hide a donut won't work...,' said Gary Londis...He said teaching kids to exercise and eat better would be more practical." Exactly so. In a city where 21% of kindergarteners are already obese drastic intervention is necessary.
Which brings us to Rivera's major new health initiative: the expansion of Dr. Oz's Health Corps concept. Health Corps, using a Peace Corps-like model, trains volunteers who then are placed in underserved high schools to teach various health-based lessons. The program is already being piloted in two city high schools and is designed to create a grass roots activism for health among the city's young people. Judging from its initial reception, the program could be the beginning of an attitude revolution, one that could lead to the kind of life-style changes that would make any zoning change superfluous.
Assisting in these lifestyle alternations should be the fast food companies that Councilman Rivera cites. It would make perfect sense for the McDonalds of the world to team up with Health Corps to encourage healthy eating and proper exercise. Childhood obesity and diabetes are socially and economically costly and the best way to combat these epidemics is, in partnership with food retailers, to convince young people to make improved choices.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
New Direction for CBAs?
In today's Crain's Insider($) the newsletter is reporting that a local development corp has been formed to "negotiate a benefits agreement on behalf of neighbors of Columbia University's planned second campus in Manhattanville." The group, seeded with $350,000 provided by City Hall, consists of 13 reps from community, bushiness and residential factions.
As Crain's wonders, could this be a change of policy on the part of the Bloomberg Administration when it comes to the approval of CBAs? The mayor's criticism of the negotiations around the Mets stadium apparently devolved more from his lack of control over the process than from any philosophical disagreement with the CBA concept.
That being said there is some merit in the Columbia approach -as long as the LDC is actually representative of the impacted community. It gives some rationality, and hopefully some transparency, to the CBA process. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out and what the reactions will be from some of Columbia's opponents.
In any case it is a sharp departure from the manner in which these things are done in the Bronx. We finally got some reaction from BP Carrion over his jettisoning of some CB#4 members because of their opposition to the Beep's Yankee Stadium plans. As the NY Daily News reports this morning, Adolfo's view of the community resembles that of Louis the XIV ("Le etat c'est moi"): "My very clear expectation is that these appointees are there to carry out a vision for the borough president and the leadership of this borough, and that's simply what I expect." We'll see whether these turn out to be words to live by or to eat.
As Crain's wonders, could this be a change of policy on the part of the Bloomberg Administration when it comes to the approval of CBAs? The mayor's criticism of the negotiations around the Mets stadium apparently devolved more from his lack of control over the process than from any philosophical disagreement with the CBA concept.
That being said there is some merit in the Columbia approach -as long as the LDC is actually representative of the impacted community. It gives some rationality, and hopefully some transparency, to the CBA process. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out and what the reactions will be from some of Columbia's opponents.
In any case it is a sharp departure from the manner in which these things are done in the Bronx. We finally got some reaction from BP Carrion over his jettisoning of some CB#4 members because of their opposition to the Beep's Yankee Stadium plans. As the NY Daily News reports this morning, Adolfo's view of the community resembles that of Louis the XIV ("Le etat c'est moi"): "My very clear expectation is that these appointees are there to carry out a vision for the borough president and the leadership of this borough, and that's simply what I expect." We'll see whether these turn out to be words to live by or to eat.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Spitzer Withholds Support for Fair Share
As the NY Post is reporting today, and it's a sure sign that Eliot Spitzer feels his poll position is comfortable indeed, the Democratic candidate for governor has split with his party on the so-called Wal-Mart health care bill. Spitzer believes that "Fair Share" is not the kind of comprehensive health care reform that he feels New York State needs.
Knowing Spitzer and watching his demonstration of political independence over the past few years we'd be shocked if this split is viewed will be viewed as an anomaly when the dust settles on Eliot's career. If we were a status quo Democrats we'd be just a little bit worried with Mr. Spitzer as governor, Since we don't fit into that category you can describe us as quite sanguine about a Spitzer governorship.
Knowing Spitzer and watching his demonstration of political independence over the past few years we'd be shocked if this split is viewed will be viewed as an anomaly when the dust settles on Eliot's career. If we were a status quo Democrats we'd be just a little bit worried with Mr. Spitzer as governor, Since we don't fit into that category you can describe us as quite sanguine about a Spitzer governorship.
Jewbilation in Bentonville
For all those critics of Wal-Mart who railed against the company's homogenization of America with its vanilla box architecture there is news that should get us all to re-think our harsh critiques. What kind of news could cause such a sea change in attitude? Here it is: The Jews are coming to Bentonville.
As the NY Times reports this morning in a front page story, the growth of global Wal-Mart is threatening to turn Bentonville, Arkansas into a cosmopolitan metropolis. Hundreds of executives and employees of suppliers have been drawn to the Wal-Mart corporate home and there are now enough Jewish families to support a synagogue.
Talk about irony. All throughout the country the Wal-Mart behemoth is eliminating the diversity of small businesses and neighborhood retail. In fact, as we have ben commenting, this is just what will happen in Monsey, New York if the Walmonster gets the approval to build a supercenter in this heavily Orthodox Jewish community.
So while a cosmopolitan feel of cultural diversity begins to give Bentonville a different communal flavor, the drive toward eliminating these positive features of American communal life continues with Wal-Mart's drive towards lebensraum. Can this trend be stopped? Let us all pray.
As the NY Times reports this morning in a front page story, the growth of global Wal-Mart is threatening to turn Bentonville, Arkansas into a cosmopolitan metropolis. Hundreds of executives and employees of suppliers have been drawn to the Wal-Mart corporate home and there are now enough Jewish families to support a synagogue.
Talk about irony. All throughout the country the Wal-Mart behemoth is eliminating the diversity of small businesses and neighborhood retail. In fact, as we have ben commenting, this is just what will happen in Monsey, New York if the Walmonster gets the approval to build a supercenter in this heavily Orthodox Jewish community.
So while a cosmopolitan feel of cultural diversity begins to give Bentonville a different communal flavor, the drive toward eliminating these positive features of American communal life continues with Wal-Mart's drive towards lebensraum. Can this trend be stopped? Let us all pray.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Shuffle Board in the Bronx
In today's NY Times the paper gets around to the controversy surrounding the cashiering of many of the members of CB #4 in the Bronx by BP Carrion. One member, housing and land use chair Mary Blasingame, was one of the most concerned and conscientious community board members we've ever met. This is all about political payback. The BP was embarrassed by the board members he had appointed and he wasn't going to sit still for that.
Put simply the Yankees plan was no good for the High Bridge community and the board knew that. AC didn't give a rat's ass because he has his sights set on bigger things, something which a new ball park will help him achieve.
As the Times points out this was the second time that the BP had shafted this local community. "In February, several board members said a community benefits agreement negotiated by Mr. Carrion with the Related Companies for a new shopping mall at the site of the Bronx Terminal Market had shortchanged Bronx residents."
Whether this all comes back to haunt Carrion remains to be seen. One local resident is circulating a critical letter concerning Adolfo's failure to reappoint community-minded board members. AS Maria Simmons told the Times, "Don't play with people who put their trust in you."
Put simply the Yankees plan was no good for the High Bridge community and the board knew that. AC didn't give a rat's ass because he has his sights set on bigger things, something which a new ball park will help him achieve.
As the Times points out this was the second time that the BP had shafted this local community. "In February, several board members said a community benefits agreement negotiated by Mr. Carrion with the Related Companies for a new shopping mall at the site of the Bronx Terminal Market had shortchanged Bronx residents."
Whether this all comes back to haunt Carrion remains to be seen. One local resident is circulating a critical letter concerning Adolfo's failure to reappoint community-minded board members. AS Maria Simmons told the Times, "Don't play with people who put their trust in you."
Focus on Economic Impact for Monsey Wal-Mart
In yesterday's Journal News Sulaiman Beg continues his excellent work reporting on the evaluation process for the proposed Monsey Wal-Mart, in particular the Ramapo Town Board's decision to require a full review of the store's socio-economic impact. As Beg points out, "A decision to have the developer...study the economic ramifications of the project has proved to be a plus for the development's opponents."
Indeed it is a plus for opponents but, as the Alliance's Richard Lipsky points out, "This is a victory for the community...It's great that discretion was used to expand the scope and look at these essential issues. It's important information that needs to be examined." What needs to be done now is to insure that the kind of study that is done actually examines the real impact that a Wal-Mart can have on a local economy.
This is particularly true for the Monsey-Spring Valley area. As deputy town attorney Richard Ackerman says, "Why build new stores when there are already vacant ones?" The reaction of the developer also is cause for concern. Jerrold Bermingham says that Wal-Mart could "revitalize" this section of RT. 59 "making it more appealing to other national retailers."
If Bermingham believes that the building of a Wal-Mart will prompt a flood of additional national chains into the area than he better include these projections in the economic impact analysis. We know the kind of devastation that a supercenter can cause and an additional two or three chain stores will only exacerbate the situation. This is not good news for Monsey and Spring Valley retailers.
In fact the JN talks to our friend Abe Stauber who is busy organizing the Monsey retail community. Stauber doesn't see "how the project could be good for the heavily Orthodox Jewish Community." "Look what happened to downtown Spring Valley when the Nanuet Mall opened. I don't see a silver lining in the whole thing."
The next step is to prepare for the July town meeting. The purpose of the gathering will be to alert the impacted communities to the "high cost of low prices." The more people are educated the more difficult it will be for the developer to argue the putative merits of a Wal-Mart on the overcrowded traffic corridor of Rt. 59.
Indeed it is a plus for opponents but, as the Alliance's Richard Lipsky points out, "This is a victory for the community...It's great that discretion was used to expand the scope and look at these essential issues. It's important information that needs to be examined." What needs to be done now is to insure that the kind of study that is done actually examines the real impact that a Wal-Mart can have on a local economy.
This is particularly true for the Monsey-Spring Valley area. As deputy town attorney Richard Ackerman says, "Why build new stores when there are already vacant ones?" The reaction of the developer also is cause for concern. Jerrold Bermingham says that Wal-Mart could "revitalize" this section of RT. 59 "making it more appealing to other national retailers."
If Bermingham believes that the building of a Wal-Mart will prompt a flood of additional national chains into the area than he better include these projections in the economic impact analysis. We know the kind of devastation that a supercenter can cause and an additional two or three chain stores will only exacerbate the situation. This is not good news for Monsey and Spring Valley retailers.
In fact the JN talks to our friend Abe Stauber who is busy organizing the Monsey retail community. Stauber doesn't see "how the project could be good for the heavily Orthodox Jewish Community." "Look what happened to downtown Spring Valley when the Nanuet Mall opened. I don't see a silver lining in the whole thing."
The next step is to prepare for the July town meeting. The purpose of the gathering will be to alert the impacted communities to the "high cost of low prices." The more people are educated the more difficult it will be for the developer to argue the putative merits of a Wal-Mart on the overcrowded traffic corridor of Rt. 59.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Bottle Bill Bottled Up
The yearly dance in Albany over the expansion of the "Bottle Bill" has just about ended with the legislation failing to be sent to the Senate floor for a vote. This is good news for all of the state's food stores that have been turned into garbage dumps ("transfer stations?") in this flawed and misguided environmental effort.
What gets us is the determination of the folks at NYPIRG and the Environmental Planning Lobby to put businesses on the front line of the solid waste issue when better alternatives exist (We're still waiting for NYPIRG to support any policy that would be good for business-Whose public interest is it anyway?).This is especially true for NYC stores that lack the space to adequately handle the deposit containers.
When it comes to these solid waste problems all of these groups are missing calculators. Their view seems to be: "We don't care what these initiatives will cost the stores or the tax payers." The problem is that the expense of the effort is not effective at really addressing the problem.
This callous disregard is particularly evident in the call to continue to expand deposits will simultaneously running an expensive and inefficient curbside collection program. Since we have examined the entire solid waste/deposit equation we've concluded that the only sensible way to expand the deposit system is to take it out of local stores and establish well-funded free standing redemption centers. Deposits can work more effectively in a system where everyone has the proper incentive to redeem and recycle.
What gets us is the determination of the folks at NYPIRG and the Environmental Planning Lobby to put businesses on the front line of the solid waste issue when better alternatives exist (We're still waiting for NYPIRG to support any policy that would be good for business-Whose public interest is it anyway?).This is especially true for NYC stores that lack the space to adequately handle the deposit containers.
When it comes to these solid waste problems all of these groups are missing calculators. Their view seems to be: "We don't care what these initiatives will cost the stores or the tax payers." The problem is that the expense of the effort is not effective at really addressing the problem.
This callous disregard is particularly evident in the call to continue to expand deposits will simultaneously running an expensive and inefficient curbside collection program. Since we have examined the entire solid waste/deposit equation we've concluded that the only sensible way to expand the deposit system is to take it out of local stores and establish well-funded free standing redemption centers. Deposits can work more effectively in a system where everyone has the proper incentive to redeem and recycle.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)