The protest by supermarket owners and bodegueros-joined by Hispanic owned soda company executives-went off well at city hall yesterday. As El Diario reports: "Una coalición de bodegueros, propietarios de supermercados, trabajadores y embotelladoras hispanas de bebidas gaseosas, se congregó ayer en las escalinatas de la Alcaldía para protestar por la pretendida extensión de la ley estatal que agregaría un impuesto adicional de 18% a las sodas y dos centavos adicionales al depósito por envase."
And the leaders of the two trade associations came out strongly against both the tax and the expansion of the bottle bill. Here's Nelson Eusebio of the National Supermarket Association: "En la alcaldía, el ambiente era ayer de rechazo. “Simplemente no podemos permitirnos más regulaciones con recortes o impuestos”, dijo Nelson Eusebio, de la Asociación Nacional de Supermercados."
The Bodega Association also weiged in, worrying about the ability of small stores to survive and continue to empoloy their workers: "Ramón Murphy, de la Asociación de Bodegueros de EE.UU., indicó que Nueva York ha vivido de los pequeños negocios y son los que están soportando los empleos. “Si nos obligan a cerrar, la ciudad será una crisis total”, aseveró."
The soda execs were equally emphatic about the ill advised timing of the proposals-in the middle of an economic crisis: "Por su parte, Luis Jardines, de la distribuidora de Inca Kola, dijo que “es triste que, en estos momentos críticos, en que cada día se pierden miles de empleos, se quiera poner un impuesto adicional a un producto que consume el pueblo”.
So, with the budget crisis heading into the home stretch, the coalition will now take its case directly to the legislature in Albany. And the messsage is clear: keep these job killing measures away from the stores and businesses that help the low income and immigrant communities surviving during these tough times.
And the message is beginning to resonate, at least on the soda tax. As the NY Post reports: "Gov. Paterson has admitted that one of his most talked-about tax proposals - an obesity tax on sugary drinks - is fizzling. While meeting with college students to discuss his budget, the governor said they shouldn't worry about the tax because the Legislature won't go for it. Dubbed "the fat tax," the idea has been the topic of articles, editorials, polls, and radio and TV commentaries." If so, this is good news-with one bad idea down, and one to go.
New Update
The NY Daily News ran a nice photo-story on the press onference: "Bottle Bill? Can It! Bodega Owners Blast Plan as a Fat Tax Burden."But for some reason, the paper never posted it on line-at least we couldn't find it. (Here it is-finally!)Still, Adam Lisberg's story was right on point; with store owners railing against both the bottle bill as well as the "fat tax."
Nelson Eusebio's quote is the money one: "The governor doesn't have enough money because we're chasing small business out of the city of New York..." Eusebio also pointed out that New York has lost 100 NSA member supermarkets in the last four years.
Hats off to Councilman Martinez, as well; Martinez told the Daily News the following: "Still, City Councilman Miguel Martinez (D-Manhattan) said the cost of Paterson's plan would be borne by small businesses and average New Yorkers - not the financial companies and high-fliers who brought down the economy in the first place. "What you see here is what New York City is all about," Martinez said, gesturing to the store workers and bodega owners behind him. "These are not the individuals who are laying off. ... The ones that are laying off, that are getting all the stimulus package, are the big corporations."
Friday, February 13, 2009
BJs Sitting Pretty?
The Observer's Real Estate blog is reporting that Joe Sitt is gearing up for a big box battle on the two sites he owns in Brooklyn: "Declining to comment further on Coney, Mr. Sitt was somewhat more forthcoming when it came to his planned developments for Red Hook and Shore Parkway in southern Brooklyn. While he hasn’t released many details about the two developments, it is expected both will be big-box retail, assuming he can get the city (which doesn’t seem to be all that happy with him these days on account of a perceived intransigence at Coney) to go along with needed zoning changes. While the city wasn't too keen on an earlier Red Hook plan that included residential, Mr. Sitt seemed more optimistic about his current plan for the former Revere Sugar Factory."
As we have commented before, Sitt has plans to build two BJs Warehouse Clubs on these locations-and the animosity between Sitt and the mayor's folks is nothing compared to the fight he'll have on his hand with the city council if he tries to site the box stores-Sitt's optimism notwithstanding: “We’ve got the capital for both these projects,” he said. “As soon as we finish formulating our plans, which we have not yet but we’re in the middle of it, then we’ll go knock on doors in terms of the city and trying to work with them in terms of the zoning parameters and what tenants we think we’ll be able to get at that time. “The bottom line is they are projects that have financing, and as soon as we go to government, if we get buy-in from government, overnight, we could be creating jobs for the city,” he said."
Creating jobs, in this case is sheer myth-the box stores act as cannibals for the existing supermarkets and neighborhood commercial strip. If the mayor and the speaker are truly serious about nurturing supermarket growth, and protecting the existing food outlets, than the box store concept will be the last thing that they will support. And the speaker's expressed concern for small business; with the proposal for things such as, "developing focused neighborhood marketing campaigns to help small businesses," then she can't-at the same time-promote neighborhood killing box stores.
As we have commented before, Sitt has plans to build two BJs Warehouse Clubs on these locations-and the animosity between Sitt and the mayor's folks is nothing compared to the fight he'll have on his hand with the city council if he tries to site the box stores-Sitt's optimism notwithstanding: “We’ve got the capital for both these projects,” he said. “As soon as we finish formulating our plans, which we have not yet but we’re in the middle of it, then we’ll go knock on doors in terms of the city and trying to work with them in terms of the zoning parameters and what tenants we think we’ll be able to get at that time. “The bottom line is they are projects that have financing, and as soon as we go to government, if we get buy-in from government, overnight, we could be creating jobs for the city,” he said."
Creating jobs, in this case is sheer myth-the box stores act as cannibals for the existing supermarkets and neighborhood commercial strip. If the mayor and the speaker are truly serious about nurturing supermarket growth, and protecting the existing food outlets, than the box store concept will be the last thing that they will support. And the speaker's expressed concern for small business; with the proposal for things such as, "developing focused neighborhood marketing campaigns to help small businesses," then she can't-at the same time-promote neighborhood killing box stores.
Quinn: New Small Business Commissioner?
It was fitting yesterday that on the morning of Speaker Quinn's State of the City speech-a speech that purported to develop some kind of small business agenda-Crain's Insider printed the following item:
"The city’s recently completed report on commercial food-waste disposals predicts that their legalization would require billions of dollars in sewage-system upgrades. Supporters of the disposals are dismayed, but they had expected the study to reflect the long-standing opposition of the Department of Environmental Protection. They say the agency had similar concerns 20 years ago about residential disposals before they were legalized. The report found that 10 other big cities allow, encourage or require food businesses to use disposals."
The back story here is that the Alliance had helped to promote a pilot program for the use of commercial food waste disposers-Intro 133. The bill, sponsored by Health Chair Joel Rivera, had garnered 33 council supporters when, in a last minute deal with the mayor, Quinn sandbagged the legislation in favor of the above mentioned pilot program; a study that we predicted would result in the dismissal of the entire concept.
So the Speaker-now posturing as a some kind of small business champion-used her influence to kill a measure that would have reduced disposal costs for the city's supermarkets, green grocers, and restaurants by up to 90%! What Quinn now proposes-when seen in contrast to concrete practical and ameliorative measures-is simply empty rhetoric; a Marie Antoinette parody that amounts to: "Let them eat my words."
What do the city's small businesses have to look forward to in the Quinn Plan? Here's the City Room take: "Ms. Quinn’s other proposals included a hodgepodge of suggestions...Streamlining the permit and licensing process for small businesses...Waiving for 12 months permit and license fees...Developing focused neighborhood marketing campaigns to help small businesses...Creating a pilot program to require city agencies to review the effects of new regulations affecting small businesses...Creating a one-time amnesty program for those with outstanding violations to pay portions of fines."
We really like the neighborhood marketing plan-where public money will be used to tell local retailers how to better market their wares in neighborhoods that they do business in. But really, isn't this pretty thin gruel? Nowhere does the speaker acknowledge that it is the high cost of doing business-the taxes and regulations Quinn supports-that is threatening the survival of many small retailers.
We certainly didn't see her come out for the Robert Jackson sponsored Small Business Protection Act, something that would offer retailers tangible relief from the bane of arbitrary eviction. And her regulatory relief is comical-along the lines of pay the dumb fine now and we'll graciously amnesty the penalties. Nothing on the order of rolling back the Quinn supported commercial real estate tax that effectively raised every retailer's rent by 20% in 2003. Nothing about streamlining the municipal code so that the anachronistic ordinances, those whose only vestigial function is to raise revenue, are eliminated. Or, more simply, nothing proposing that the first fine for any retailer act a a warning; allowing the city to function as an educator rather than a punisher of small business.
Instead we get the Machiavellian appearing to be good-all the while she uses her bully pulpit to go after the wealth providers in the city; exacting more tribute for the Leviathan that has nurtured her entire career. Our take on the Quinn speech is that it is an improvement over last year only to the extent that she didn't pay someone $12,000 to write it.
"The city’s recently completed report on commercial food-waste disposals predicts that their legalization would require billions of dollars in sewage-system upgrades. Supporters of the disposals are dismayed, but they had expected the study to reflect the long-standing opposition of the Department of Environmental Protection. They say the agency had similar concerns 20 years ago about residential disposals before they were legalized. The report found that 10 other big cities allow, encourage or require food businesses to use disposals."
The back story here is that the Alliance had helped to promote a pilot program for the use of commercial food waste disposers-Intro 133. The bill, sponsored by Health Chair Joel Rivera, had garnered 33 council supporters when, in a last minute deal with the mayor, Quinn sandbagged the legislation in favor of the above mentioned pilot program; a study that we predicted would result in the dismissal of the entire concept.
So the Speaker-now posturing as a some kind of small business champion-used her influence to kill a measure that would have reduced disposal costs for the city's supermarkets, green grocers, and restaurants by up to 90%! What Quinn now proposes-when seen in contrast to concrete practical and ameliorative measures-is simply empty rhetoric; a Marie Antoinette parody that amounts to: "Let them eat my words."
What do the city's small businesses have to look forward to in the Quinn Plan? Here's the City Room take: "Ms. Quinn’s other proposals included a hodgepodge of suggestions...Streamlining the permit and licensing process for small businesses...Waiving for 12 months permit and license fees...Developing focused neighborhood marketing campaigns to help small businesses...Creating a pilot program to require city agencies to review the effects of new regulations affecting small businesses...Creating a one-time amnesty program for those with outstanding violations to pay portions of fines."
We really like the neighborhood marketing plan-where public money will be used to tell local retailers how to better market their wares in neighborhoods that they do business in. But really, isn't this pretty thin gruel? Nowhere does the speaker acknowledge that it is the high cost of doing business-the taxes and regulations Quinn supports-that is threatening the survival of many small retailers.
We certainly didn't see her come out for the Robert Jackson sponsored Small Business Protection Act, something that would offer retailers tangible relief from the bane of arbitrary eviction. And her regulatory relief is comical-along the lines of pay the dumb fine now and we'll graciously amnesty the penalties. Nothing on the order of rolling back the Quinn supported commercial real estate tax that effectively raised every retailer's rent by 20% in 2003. Nothing about streamlining the municipal code so that the anachronistic ordinances, those whose only vestigial function is to raise revenue, are eliminated. Or, more simply, nothing proposing that the first fine for any retailer act a a warning; allowing the city to function as an educator rather than a punisher of small business.
Instead we get the Machiavellian appearing to be good-all the while she uses her bully pulpit to go after the wealth providers in the city; exacting more tribute for the Leviathan that has nurtured her entire career. Our take on the Quinn speech is that it is an improvement over last year only to the extent that she didn't pay someone $12,000 to write it.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Government In Competence
If patriotism is sometimes the last refuge of scoundrels, than tax hiking is certainly the last refuge of the ideologically brain dead. With massive state and city budgets-and hundreds of questionable programs and service redundancies-it takes a real lack of imagination and political will to call for higher taxes as a response to the current budget crisis. Enter Chris Quinn.
In her today's State of the City speech, the council speaker will call for a raising of the city's income tax: "In another one of her rare breaks with Mayor Bloomberg, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is poised to propose a three-tiered tax increase on New Yorkers earning more than $300,000 a year while also eliminating the PIT for low and moderate-income households. Quinn will unveil what her office is calling a "forward-thinking" and "progressive" plan at her annual State of the City address tomorrow."
Forward thinking, as in back to 1974 forward. Quinn, who has never held a real private sector job, and has certainly never run a business, is apparently blind to the fact that the city is poised to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs-and its small businesses in the neighborhoods are going into bankruptcy at a record pace. Cutting taxes and regulations-something that would ameliorate the economic climate for these entrepreneurs-is apparently regressive.
Here's a preview of her outlook: "We’re not afraid to ask those who’ve gotten the most from New York City, to give a little back when times get tough. And for New Yorkers on the other end of the spectrum, we need to offer some relief." The idea is based on a simple principle. Those hit hardest by the economic crunch deserve some assistance. And those of us doing better should be doing more to help."
This is certainly a strange formulation-those who have, "gotten the most from the city." As if it were, "the city," that somehow bequeathed largess to these few fortunate folks, and now is asking that they recognize their favored status by giving a little back to the unfavored. All of this, of course, is blind, class-based policy; one that fails to recognize just how much the entrepreneurial class, especially its immigrants, has contributed to the city through ingenuity and hard work. People like Pablo Guzman who employs six workers in his Harlem bodega, and who just may now be required, in Quinn's world, to give more help to others.
All of this overlooks the fact that these are the folks who have been giving back the most-as income tax revenue is already skewed, heavily dependent on these fortunate few; and using Bernie Madoff is as invidious as it gets: "Right now, New York City taxes everyone making above $90,000 the same. It’s shameful - Bernie Madoff pays the exact same tax rate as a public school principal," Quinn will say in tomorrow's speech (according to excerpts provided by her office). "That’s not sharing the burden. It’s a slap in the face."
But the speaker's mindset is mirrored by that of the assembly speaker-and it reflects a genuine refusal to acknowledge the correlation between economic stagnation, attendant job loss, and higher taxes-whether personal or otherwise; and this outlook apparently doesn't appreciate how important an entrepreneurial class is to the economy, since it is so eager to show it the door.
Which is why we pay tribute today to both Malcolm Smith and Andrew Cuomo-two elected officials who are mindful of the role of taxes and incompetent government. Smith, for his part, is holding his own against the "unfair share" tax philosophy. As the NY Post reports: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver found himself up against a surprise adversary yesterday when the new state Senate Democratic leader publicly challenged his claim that an income-tax hike would not force wealthy taxpayers from the state. Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith of Queens said a millionaire's tax had "the potential of driving some people back into a shelter" because the rich could move more easily."
And, as the Post reminds us, the Wall Street engine isn't any longer the engine that could-so that comparisons to post 9/11 are erroneous: "There's no evidence that income-tax hikes drive people out of the state, Silver declared, defending his cherished "millionaire's tax." In fact, he continued, the last time the state tried it - a temporary hike in 2003 - the economy boomed.
Well, sure. The 9/11 attacks had grievously - albeit temporarily - damaged New York's economy. And the '03 tax hike Silver extolls was tiny compared to what's now on the table - so Wall Street was back in business in no time. Thus New York still had a functioning financial sector to keep high-income-earners tethered despite the higher rates. That asset is gone now - as even Silver's own budget analysis acknowledges."
Which brings us to Andrew Cuomo. The AG set out an interesting concept yesterday at a Citizens Budget Commission pow wow-making government more efficient and competent: "In this time of crisis, Cuomo said, New York needs a government that can "actually perform and perform quickly." He reminded the well-heeled, civic-minded crowd that the state used to be seen as a model of progressive, competent and forward-thinking government rather than being known, rather infamously, for being home to the nation's most dysfunctional Legislature."
And when we are finding out that Senate Republicans have been squirreling away millions in partisan patronage gigs-wasteful spending that few were even aware of-we know instinctively that we've just hit the tip of the ice berg. But where is our city Cuomo? No one we have seen in this election year-from the mayor on down-has even talked about reducing the size of municipal government in the name of incompetence. Instead we get the fair share concept that always ends up meaning that the government gets to abscond with more of your money because; What could be fairer than that?
In her today's State of the City speech, the council speaker will call for a raising of the city's income tax: "In another one of her rare breaks with Mayor Bloomberg, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is poised to propose a three-tiered tax increase on New Yorkers earning more than $300,000 a year while also eliminating the PIT for low and moderate-income households. Quinn will unveil what her office is calling a "forward-thinking" and "progressive" plan at her annual State of the City address tomorrow."
Forward thinking, as in back to 1974 forward. Quinn, who has never held a real private sector job, and has certainly never run a business, is apparently blind to the fact that the city is poised to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs-and its small businesses in the neighborhoods are going into bankruptcy at a record pace. Cutting taxes and regulations-something that would ameliorate the economic climate for these entrepreneurs-is apparently regressive.
Here's a preview of her outlook: "We’re not afraid to ask those who’ve gotten the most from New York City, to give a little back when times get tough. And for New Yorkers on the other end of the spectrum, we need to offer some relief." The idea is based on a simple principle. Those hit hardest by the economic crunch deserve some assistance. And those of us doing better should be doing more to help."
This is certainly a strange formulation-those who have, "gotten the most from the city." As if it were, "the city," that somehow bequeathed largess to these few fortunate folks, and now is asking that they recognize their favored status by giving a little back to the unfavored. All of this, of course, is blind, class-based policy; one that fails to recognize just how much the entrepreneurial class, especially its immigrants, has contributed to the city through ingenuity and hard work. People like Pablo Guzman who employs six workers in his Harlem bodega, and who just may now be required, in Quinn's world, to give more help to others.
All of this overlooks the fact that these are the folks who have been giving back the most-as income tax revenue is already skewed, heavily dependent on these fortunate few; and using Bernie Madoff is as invidious as it gets: "Right now, New York City taxes everyone making above $90,000 the same. It’s shameful - Bernie Madoff pays the exact same tax rate as a public school principal," Quinn will say in tomorrow's speech (according to excerpts provided by her office). "That’s not sharing the burden. It’s a slap in the face."
But the speaker's mindset is mirrored by that of the assembly speaker-and it reflects a genuine refusal to acknowledge the correlation between economic stagnation, attendant job loss, and higher taxes-whether personal or otherwise; and this outlook apparently doesn't appreciate how important an entrepreneurial class is to the economy, since it is so eager to show it the door.
Which is why we pay tribute today to both Malcolm Smith and Andrew Cuomo-two elected officials who are mindful of the role of taxes and incompetent government. Smith, for his part, is holding his own against the "unfair share" tax philosophy. As the NY Post reports: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver found himself up against a surprise adversary yesterday when the new state Senate Democratic leader publicly challenged his claim that an income-tax hike would not force wealthy taxpayers from the state. Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith of Queens said a millionaire's tax had "the potential of driving some people back into a shelter" because the rich could move more easily."
And, as the Post reminds us, the Wall Street engine isn't any longer the engine that could-so that comparisons to post 9/11 are erroneous: "There's no evidence that income-tax hikes drive people out of the state, Silver declared, defending his cherished "millionaire's tax." In fact, he continued, the last time the state tried it - a temporary hike in 2003 - the economy boomed.
Well, sure. The 9/11 attacks had grievously - albeit temporarily - damaged New York's economy. And the '03 tax hike Silver extolls was tiny compared to what's now on the table - so Wall Street was back in business in no time. Thus New York still had a functioning financial sector to keep high-income-earners tethered despite the higher rates. That asset is gone now - as even Silver's own budget analysis acknowledges."
Which brings us to Andrew Cuomo. The AG set out an interesting concept yesterday at a Citizens Budget Commission pow wow-making government more efficient and competent: "In this time of crisis, Cuomo said, New York needs a government that can "actually perform and perform quickly." He reminded the well-heeled, civic-minded crowd that the state used to be seen as a model of progressive, competent and forward-thinking government rather than being known, rather infamously, for being home to the nation's most dysfunctional Legislature."
And when we are finding out that Senate Republicans have been squirreling away millions in partisan patronage gigs-wasteful spending that few were even aware of-we know instinctively that we've just hit the tip of the ice berg. But where is our city Cuomo? No one we have seen in this election year-from the mayor on down-has even talked about reducing the size of municipal government in the name of incompetence. Instead we get the fair share concept that always ends up meaning that the government gets to abscond with more of your money because; What could be fairer than that?
Save Our Stores
The real Main Street Coalition will be at City Hall today to protest the job killing taxes and regulations being proposed by Governor Paterson; the expansion of the bottle bill and the imposition of a soda tax will be in the store owners' sights. As NY1 reported yesterday (and check out the nice video): "Shops and markets across the city are getting squeezed by the economic downturn. But business owners say they are about to get hit even harder, this time by Governor David Paterson. "There is a crisis going on. We are losing supermarkets. We are losing a way of life," said Nelson Eusebio, Executive Director, National Supermarket Association."
Our city food stores are being squeezed out by high rents and city-imposed taxes-so for the bodegas, it feels as if the governor is piling on: "They are taking aim at Paterson's call to tax sugary drinks and broaden the state's bottle bill, so that stores would be required to accept empty water and juice bottles for recycling. Bodega owners say they'll lose money on the deal which will also cost consumers more."They try to add now water and juices. We can't collect money on that stuff because the problem is, we don't have the space for that," said Pedro Guzman, a store owner."
And that's why our coalition of food stores-bodegas, supermarkets and green grocers-will be down at city hall today: "On Thursday, a coalition of business groups, grocery store owners, and others will officially launch a new group -- New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes. They're asking visitors to their website to sign a petition opposing the so-called tax on sugary drinks."Can you imagine when you are going to buy a soda for $2 and then you are going to have to pay $2.50, that means you cannot buy a butter roll. You cannot buy a coffee, you cannot buy nothing if you buy one bottle," said Ramon Murphy, President, Bodega Association of the United States."
What's even more poignant is that fact that the bodega owner who NY1 interviewed is right in the heart of the governor's neighborhood-where Mr. Guzman has invested over $250,000 renovating his store, not only for himself but for his six employees and the neighborhood they serve; but all of this hard work is oblivious to the governor: "We believe that the measures included in the governor's budget will make New York a healthier state with a stronger environment, and that they will not have a major impact on the fiscal operations of the beverage industry," said Matt Anderson, a spokesperson for the state's Division of the Budget."
Notice that the governor's folks have little grasp of the economic impact on retailers. Which is why the groups will be at city hall today. Albany needs to know that the retail environment in the city is fragile; and new taxes and regulations in the middle of this severe recession is job killing and unwise. Here is the full press release for today's event.
Press Release
Press Conference on Expanded Bottle Bill and Small Business Protection
Where: City Hall Steps
When: February, 12, 2009
Time: 11:00 AM
On Thursday, February, 12, 2009, there will be a press conference held on the steps of City Hall to protest the expansion of the state’s bottle bill. The opposition will include a broad-based coalition of supermarket and bodega owners, green grocers, Hispanic-owned bottling companies, small business groups, community organizations and labor.
Some of the groups that are scheduled to appear are: The National Supermarket Association; The Bodega Association of the US; The New York Association of Convenience Stores; The Small Business Congress; The Korean-American Small Business Service Center; The United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1500; The Retail, Wholesale Department Store Union; Good-O Beverage; Top Pop Beverage; Inca Kola; and Teamsters, Local 812
The press conference will focus on the crisis in neighborhood retailing-and the government’s failure to provide relief; instead, how it’s imposition of new regulations and taxes is making the plight of local businesses that much worse
All of the opposition agrees that the expansion of the bottle law-and the imposition of a so-called obesity tax- during the middle of the country’s worst recession in over fifty years would have disastrous consequences for neighborhood businesses that are already suffering-with foreclosures, evictions and bankruptcies devastating local retailers all over the city and state. (http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2008/02/our-disappearing-supermarkets.html); (http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/01/bodegas-begone.html); http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2008/12/soda-tax-lacks-fizz.html)
Put simply, local stores need to be nurtured with pro-growth policies that include lower tax rates, affordable rents, and fewer regulations. The bottle law, however, acts just like an unfunded mandate, with retailers bearing the cost of redemption at great expense-restricting their ability to grow employment and prosper. And the soda tax will simply burden low income shoppers, reducing the available purchasing power at a time of decreasing family incomes.
As Nelson Eusebio from the National Supermarket points out; “We simply can’t afford any more crippling government regulations and taxes. Our stores are finding it difficult enough to survive without the government adding to the cost of doing business.”
Whatever the environmental benefits that may accrue from the expansion of the current law; they don’t mitigate the severe harm that will be done to inner city stores that have no room to store containers currently covered under existing law. And these retailers certainly can’t handle an almost doubling of the containers eligible for redemption, not when they lose money on each container redeemed. (http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/02/bodegas-to-extinction.html)
In addition, the government’s proposed taking of the unredeemed deposit nickels will put small bottlers at risk for going out of business. As Good-O president Martin Salo says: “The unredeemed deposits are helping small companies like ours stay in business servicing the low income areas of the city. Taking these nickels, and imposing a soda tax on top, would be the death knell of Good-O and all of the other small bottlers.”
The disappearance of local supermarkets and bodegas has had a devastating impact on the workforce. Thousands of neighborhood jobs have been lost-many of them unionized workers with good benefits and a family living wage. NYC is slated to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs during the current downturn. By adding regulatory burdens and more taxes, additional jobs will be lost and the vitality of local communities will be badly hurt in the process.
Scheduled Appearances: Business
(1) Nelson Eusebio- National Supermarket Association;
(2) Ramon Murphy-Bodega Association of the United States;
(3) Jim Calvin-New York Association of Convenience Stores;
(4) Sung Soo Kim-Korean-American Small Business Service Center;
(5) Rev Carmen Hernandez-NYC LGBT Chamber of Commerce;
(6) Alfredo Placeras-New York Hispanic Chambers of Commerce;
(7) Julio Coen-Inca Kola;
(8) Marlen Lugones-Top Pop;
(9) Martin Salo-Good-O Beverage.
Labor
(1) Jane Thompson-RWDSU;
(2) John O’Neil-Teamsters Local 812;
(3) Aly Wady-UFCW Local 1500;
Contact: Dr. Richard Lipsky (914-572-2865)
See also: http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/02/crisis-of-bodegueros.html
Our city food stores are being squeezed out by high rents and city-imposed taxes-so for the bodegas, it feels as if the governor is piling on: "They are taking aim at Paterson's call to tax sugary drinks and broaden the state's bottle bill, so that stores would be required to accept empty water and juice bottles for recycling. Bodega owners say they'll lose money on the deal which will also cost consumers more."They try to add now water and juices. We can't collect money on that stuff because the problem is, we don't have the space for that," said Pedro Guzman, a store owner."
And that's why our coalition of food stores-bodegas, supermarkets and green grocers-will be down at city hall today: "On Thursday, a coalition of business groups, grocery store owners, and others will officially launch a new group -- New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes. They're asking visitors to their website to sign a petition opposing the so-called tax on sugary drinks."Can you imagine when you are going to buy a soda for $2 and then you are going to have to pay $2.50, that means you cannot buy a butter roll. You cannot buy a coffee, you cannot buy nothing if you buy one bottle," said Ramon Murphy, President, Bodega Association of the United States."
What's even more poignant is that fact that the bodega owner who NY1 interviewed is right in the heart of the governor's neighborhood-where Mr. Guzman has invested over $250,000 renovating his store, not only for himself but for his six employees and the neighborhood they serve; but all of this hard work is oblivious to the governor: "We believe that the measures included in the governor's budget will make New York a healthier state with a stronger environment, and that they will not have a major impact on the fiscal operations of the beverage industry," said Matt Anderson, a spokesperson for the state's Division of the Budget."
Notice that the governor's folks have little grasp of the economic impact on retailers. Which is why the groups will be at city hall today. Albany needs to know that the retail environment in the city is fragile; and new taxes and regulations in the middle of this severe recession is job killing and unwise. Here is the full press release for today's event.
Press Release
Press Conference on Expanded Bottle Bill and Small Business Protection
Where: City Hall Steps
When: February, 12, 2009
Time: 11:00 AM
On Thursday, February, 12, 2009, there will be a press conference held on the steps of City Hall to protest the expansion of the state’s bottle bill. The opposition will include a broad-based coalition of supermarket and bodega owners, green grocers, Hispanic-owned bottling companies, small business groups, community organizations and labor.
Some of the groups that are scheduled to appear are: The National Supermarket Association; The Bodega Association of the US; The New York Association of Convenience Stores; The Small Business Congress; The Korean-American Small Business Service Center; The United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1500; The Retail, Wholesale Department Store Union; Good-O Beverage; Top Pop Beverage; Inca Kola; and Teamsters, Local 812
The press conference will focus on the crisis in neighborhood retailing-and the government’s failure to provide relief; instead, how it’s imposition of new regulations and taxes is making the plight of local businesses that much worse
All of the opposition agrees that the expansion of the bottle law-and the imposition of a so-called obesity tax- during the middle of the country’s worst recession in over fifty years would have disastrous consequences for neighborhood businesses that are already suffering-with foreclosures, evictions and bankruptcies devastating local retailers all over the city and state. (http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2008/02/our-disappearing-supermarkets.html); (http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/01/bodegas-begone.html); http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2008/12/soda-tax-lacks-fizz.html)
Put simply, local stores need to be nurtured with pro-growth policies that include lower tax rates, affordable rents, and fewer regulations. The bottle law, however, acts just like an unfunded mandate, with retailers bearing the cost of redemption at great expense-restricting their ability to grow employment and prosper. And the soda tax will simply burden low income shoppers, reducing the available purchasing power at a time of decreasing family incomes.
As Nelson Eusebio from the National Supermarket points out; “We simply can’t afford any more crippling government regulations and taxes. Our stores are finding it difficult enough to survive without the government adding to the cost of doing business.”
Whatever the environmental benefits that may accrue from the expansion of the current law; they don’t mitigate the severe harm that will be done to inner city stores that have no room to store containers currently covered under existing law. And these retailers certainly can’t handle an almost doubling of the containers eligible for redemption, not when they lose money on each container redeemed. (http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/02/bodegas-to-extinction.html)
In addition, the government’s proposed taking of the unredeemed deposit nickels will put small bottlers at risk for going out of business. As Good-O president Martin Salo says: “The unredeemed deposits are helping small companies like ours stay in business servicing the low income areas of the city. Taking these nickels, and imposing a soda tax on top, would be the death knell of Good-O and all of the other small bottlers.”
The disappearance of local supermarkets and bodegas has had a devastating impact on the workforce. Thousands of neighborhood jobs have been lost-many of them unionized workers with good benefits and a family living wage. NYC is slated to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs during the current downturn. By adding regulatory burdens and more taxes, additional jobs will be lost and the vitality of local communities will be badly hurt in the process.
Scheduled Appearances: Business
(1) Nelson Eusebio- National Supermarket Association;
(2) Ramon Murphy-Bodega Association of the United States;
(3) Jim Calvin-New York Association of Convenience Stores;
(4) Sung Soo Kim-Korean-American Small Business Service Center;
(5) Rev Carmen Hernandez-NYC LGBT Chamber of Commerce;
(6) Alfredo Placeras-New York Hispanic Chambers of Commerce;
(7) Julio Coen-Inca Kola;
(8) Marlen Lugones-Top Pop;
(9) Martin Salo-Good-O Beverage.
Labor
(1) Jane Thompson-RWDSU;
(2) John O’Neil-Teamsters Local 812;
(3) Aly Wady-UFCW Local 1500;
Contact: Dr. Richard Lipsky (914-572-2865)
See also: http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/02/crisis-of-bodegueros.html
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Supermarket Crisis
As liquor stores continue to complain about the threat posed by opening up the wine market to other retail outlets-conjuring visions of shuttered stores on main street-we continue to receive new evidence that local supermarkets are in dire need of government help. As the NY Times reported last week, Manhattan Borough President Stringer is calling for a tax incentive program to bring more markets into underserved areas: "In a report to be released on Saturday, he is calling for the city to make healthy food more widely available by giving farmers’ markets and supermarkets tax and zoning incentives..."
Stringer wants to create "food enterprise zones," where tax and zoning would be used to preserve local food stores and, hopefully, incentivize the building of new supermarkets. In our view, it's about time that some elected official in the city came up with at least some plan-the mayor's only achievement has been to huff and puff; except when the health commissioner is devising cockamamie schemes to push more peddlers into low income areas.
Still, we have a companion idea that should be developed along side any incentive program: roll back taxes on local stores and cut back on their regulatory burden. This means, right off the bat, that the state should avoid the expansion of a bottle bill that increases the costs for city stores. In addition, by lifting the ban on the sale of wine, the state would help local supermarkets be more profitable, without any special tax incentives needed.
If, as the city and the state have argued, local supermarkets are a key to public health, than making them more profitable so that they can stay in inner city neighborhoods, should be seen as a tad more important than insuring an everlasting liquor store monopoly. If there is to be a "last store standing" on main street, it should be the one selling healthy food; not the one whose only product is wine and distilled spirits.
Stringer wants to create "food enterprise zones," where tax and zoning would be used to preserve local food stores and, hopefully, incentivize the building of new supermarkets. In our view, it's about time that some elected official in the city came up with at least some plan-the mayor's only achievement has been to huff and puff; except when the health commissioner is devising cockamamie schemes to push more peddlers into low income areas.
Still, we have a companion idea that should be developed along side any incentive program: roll back taxes on local stores and cut back on their regulatory burden. This means, right off the bat, that the state should avoid the expansion of a bottle bill that increases the costs for city stores. In addition, by lifting the ban on the sale of wine, the state would help local supermarkets be more profitable, without any special tax incentives needed.
If, as the city and the state have argued, local supermarkets are a key to public health, than making them more profitable so that they can stay in inner city neighborhoods, should be seen as a tad more important than insuring an everlasting liquor store monopoly. If there is to be a "last store standing" on main street, it should be the one selling healthy food; not the one whose only product is wine and distilled spirits.
A Wining and Entitled Monopoly
The effort to maintain the state's liquor monopoly continues, not only unabated, but arrogantly entitled as well. As Newsday reported yesterday, local liquor stores have begun an intimidation campaign against Long Island wineries: "As liquor-store owners and distributors push hard against a proposal that would allow wine to be sold in grocery and other stores, backers of the plan say intimidation of winery owners has become a tactic in their arsenal...Throughout Long Island's wine region, reports that liquor-store owners have been besieging wineries with phone calls urging support have been widespread. Individual winery owners have been reluctant to label the calls intimidation, but one observer sees it differently."
As the head of the LI Farm Bureau tells the paper: "The liquor-store owners are threatening to not do business with wineries if they say they are neutral on the issue," said Joseph Gergela, executive director of the Long Island Farm Bureau, which supports the wine-in-groceries plan. He said his counterpart at the New York Farm Bureau last week had discussions with state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office to charge that liquor-store owners "are going too far with the threatening." The attorney general's office did not return calls."
This is what is known as good old fashion restraint of trade-with a group of separate businesses acting in concert to protect their state controlled market share: "Representatives of local liquor stores either deny or downplay the threats. "As a coalition, we don't talk like that," said Jeff Saunders, who heads the Last Store on Main Street group and owns McCabe's Wine and Spirits in Manhattan. But whether individual stores are telling winery owners they could be dropped if they support the plan is another matter. "We say, 'It's up to you if you want to sell them or not,'" Saunders said. "Understand that emotions are running very high because there's a chance someone's going to take some food from our families' mouths."
Just because a proposed law may be a threat is no excuse for a disparate group of store owners to threaten other businesses in order to protect a monopoly; but the behavior is part of a pattern. Just try to open up a liquor store in a neighborhood-and watch as exisitng store owners and the SLA conspire to prevent the granting of that new license in the name of a "saturated" market.
And it is this behavior that the AG should investigate; after all, with only 2500 liquor stores in the entire state, New York ranks 46 out of 48 states in the number of stores per 100,000 (over 21) potential customers. And if the competition threatens some retailers who aren't used to competition, why should anyone give a hoot? Not to worry-these stores will be easily replaced by more enterprising main street retailers.
As the head of the LI Farm Bureau tells the paper: "The liquor-store owners are threatening to not do business with wineries if they say they are neutral on the issue," said Joseph Gergela, executive director of the Long Island Farm Bureau, which supports the wine-in-groceries plan. He said his counterpart at the New York Farm Bureau last week had discussions with state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office to charge that liquor-store owners "are going too far with the threatening." The attorney general's office did not return calls."
This is what is known as good old fashion restraint of trade-with a group of separate businesses acting in concert to protect their state controlled market share: "Representatives of local liquor stores either deny or downplay the threats. "As a coalition, we don't talk like that," said Jeff Saunders, who heads the Last Store on Main Street group and owns McCabe's Wine and Spirits in Manhattan. But whether individual stores are telling winery owners they could be dropped if they support the plan is another matter. "We say, 'It's up to you if you want to sell them or not,'" Saunders said. "Understand that emotions are running very high because there's a chance someone's going to take some food from our families' mouths."
Just because a proposed law may be a threat is no excuse for a disparate group of store owners to threaten other businesses in order to protect a monopoly; but the behavior is part of a pattern. Just try to open up a liquor store in a neighborhood-and watch as exisitng store owners and the SLA conspire to prevent the granting of that new license in the name of a "saturated" market.
And it is this behavior that the AG should investigate; after all, with only 2500 liquor stores in the entire state, New York ranks 46 out of 48 states in the number of stores per 100,000 (over 21) potential customers. And if the competition threatens some retailers who aren't used to competition, why should anyone give a hoot? Not to worry-these stores will be easily replaced by more enterprising main street retailers.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
A Pre-1974 Mentality
The Working Families Party, and its political allies, is out to bankrupt New York State, drive small business and the middle class out, and reduce all employment growth to a public sector that simply won't be able to maintain it as the state's private sector shrinks into the ether. As the NY Times reports: "A plan to raise income taxes on wealthy New Yorkers is gaining momentum in the State Legislature as lawmakers continue to grapple with the state’s gaping budget deficit. A group of Senate Democrats plans to introduce a bill on Tuesday that would impose an income tax of 10.3 percent on the highest-earning New Yorkers, a rise of 3.45 percentage points, and increase taxes on all households that earn more than $250,000 a year."
This proposal-one that we predicted would soon eclipse the so-called millionaire threshold-comes at a time when the middle class is fleeing and small business job creation is threatened by the high cost of doing business in the state; just as the Center for an Urban Future has cogently underscored.
Here's Fred Siegel's cogent analysis of the CUF report: "The fledgling tech firms left for the same reason middle-class New Yorkers are leaving: The costs of living and working in New York were far too high. The combined city and state tax of 17.6 percent on corporate profits is the nation's highest, while start-ups are hit by the city's highest-in-America's 10.5 percent income tax, plus Gotham's nearly unique 4 percent unincorporated-business tax."
But it gets worse: " It is the high cost of maintaining New York's vast public payroll (and benefits, which since 2000 grew twice as fast as those in the private sector) that makes the city so expensive. In other words, the public-sector middle class is increasingly chasing its own tail - even as the costs of government drive away private-sector jobs. The costs of paying for public-sector compensation come back to haunt the city in the form of higher sales, property and income taxes - which were unaffordable even before the crash."
The same situation holds true for the state-and the proposed personal income tax hike will only make a bad situation that much worse; something that Bill Hammond points out this morning in the NY Daily News. Hammond demonstrates that it makes little sense for the state to absorb the federal stimulus dollars in order to avoid cutting the bloat that is a direct drag on economic growth: "The likelihood that Albany will soon be deluged with federal stimulus money has big-spending interest groups licking their chops.The House and Senate haven't even agreed on the final package yet, and already the teachers union and the health care industry are dickering over how to divvy up the billions."
These are the same interests behind the "Fair Share Tax Reform" bill that is circualting in the state senate. So not only do these folks want to abscond with the federal stimulus money; they also want to raise job killing taxes at the same time: a double whammy for the private sector at a time when most of the so-called wealthy (two family wage earners making $250,000/year are not either uncommon or wealthy in New York) are trying to figure out how to recoup their 30-40 percent losses in their retirement funds.
As Hammond tells us: "Gov. Paterson should tell all of them to get in line - behind the taxpayers.
New Yorkers already pay the highest state and local taxes in the country, thanks to runaway spending on schools and health care. That tax burden would get even heavier under Paterson's doom-and-gloom budget, which included $4 billion in new or higher levies on everything from movie tickets and sugary soda to health insurance and utility bills."
This is the challenge facing Governor Paterson: "Now that Washington is coming through with emergency aid, however, the picture changes completely. State government is expected to receive $17 billion or more over the next two years, some of which is specifically earmarked for closing deficits.That's not quite enough to make next year's $13 billion deficit go away completely. But it's more than enough to wipe out Paterson's proposed tax hikes.To his credit, the governor has pledged that minimizing the pain for taxpayers will be his first priority."
This doesn't stop the WFP and friends-folks who have yet to present one concept of how the public sector is going to be made more cost effective in these tough times; talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg: "Our state is like an overweight guy who's under doctor's orders to slim down. Just when it looked like the collapsed economy would force a long-overdue weight-loss regimen, Washington pulls up with a truckload of cannoli. For the long-term health of the state, Albany lawmakers must resist the temptation to go on another spending binge.They must remember that New York's spending was already too high to be affordable before the economy crashed. Now, Wall Street is a shadow of its former go-go self, and likely to stay that way for years. New York "needs to fit itself into a smaller envelope," says Elizabeth Lynam of the Citizens Budget Commission."
So we find ourselves right back in a pre-1974 mentality; with public sector, free enterprise hostile forces, looking to maintain the former while sticking a dagger into the latter. The WFP's Bill Cantor gives the Times the following revealing quote: “No one likes to pay taxes, but this is the group that is able to bear a little bit more of the burden,” said Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party, which has been aggressively lobbying for the tax increase. “It’s common sense and its morally just.”
"Morally just!" Who's he kidding? Cantor's just shilling for those whose livelihoods depend on private sector largess-and is doing so with little or no historical memory. After all, it was the belief that New York could continually operate a quasi-socialist government in the midst of a capitalist economy that lead to the city's bankruptcy in the 1970s. Now, however, history's repeating itself with the new formulation of the Gerald Ford line: "Cantor to New York-Drop Dead!"
This proposal-one that we predicted would soon eclipse the so-called millionaire threshold-comes at a time when the middle class is fleeing and small business job creation is threatened by the high cost of doing business in the state; just as the Center for an Urban Future has cogently underscored.
Here's Fred Siegel's cogent analysis of the CUF report: "The fledgling tech firms left for the same reason middle-class New Yorkers are leaving: The costs of living and working in New York were far too high. The combined city and state tax of 17.6 percent on corporate profits is the nation's highest, while start-ups are hit by the city's highest-in-America's 10.5 percent income tax, plus Gotham's nearly unique 4 percent unincorporated-business tax."
But it gets worse: " It is the high cost of maintaining New York's vast public payroll (and benefits, which since 2000 grew twice as fast as those in the private sector) that makes the city so expensive. In other words, the public-sector middle class is increasingly chasing its own tail - even as the costs of government drive away private-sector jobs. The costs of paying for public-sector compensation come back to haunt the city in the form of higher sales, property and income taxes - which were unaffordable even before the crash."
The same situation holds true for the state-and the proposed personal income tax hike will only make a bad situation that much worse; something that Bill Hammond points out this morning in the NY Daily News. Hammond demonstrates that it makes little sense for the state to absorb the federal stimulus dollars in order to avoid cutting the bloat that is a direct drag on economic growth: "The likelihood that Albany will soon be deluged with federal stimulus money has big-spending interest groups licking their chops.The House and Senate haven't even agreed on the final package yet, and already the teachers union and the health care industry are dickering over how to divvy up the billions."
These are the same interests behind the "Fair Share Tax Reform" bill that is circualting in the state senate. So not only do these folks want to abscond with the federal stimulus money; they also want to raise job killing taxes at the same time: a double whammy for the private sector at a time when most of the so-called wealthy (two family wage earners making $250,000/year are not either uncommon or wealthy in New York) are trying to figure out how to recoup their 30-40 percent losses in their retirement funds.
As Hammond tells us: "Gov. Paterson should tell all of them to get in line - behind the taxpayers.
New Yorkers already pay the highest state and local taxes in the country, thanks to runaway spending on schools and health care. That tax burden would get even heavier under Paterson's doom-and-gloom budget, which included $4 billion in new or higher levies on everything from movie tickets and sugary soda to health insurance and utility bills."
This is the challenge facing Governor Paterson: "Now that Washington is coming through with emergency aid, however, the picture changes completely. State government is expected to receive $17 billion or more over the next two years, some of which is specifically earmarked for closing deficits.That's not quite enough to make next year's $13 billion deficit go away completely. But it's more than enough to wipe out Paterson's proposed tax hikes.To his credit, the governor has pledged that minimizing the pain for taxpayers will be his first priority."
This doesn't stop the WFP and friends-folks who have yet to present one concept of how the public sector is going to be made more cost effective in these tough times; talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg: "Our state is like an overweight guy who's under doctor's orders to slim down. Just when it looked like the collapsed economy would force a long-overdue weight-loss regimen, Washington pulls up with a truckload of cannoli. For the long-term health of the state, Albany lawmakers must resist the temptation to go on another spending binge.They must remember that New York's spending was already too high to be affordable before the economy crashed. Now, Wall Street is a shadow of its former go-go self, and likely to stay that way for years. New York "needs to fit itself into a smaller envelope," says Elizabeth Lynam of the Citizens Budget Commission."
So we find ourselves right back in a pre-1974 mentality; with public sector, free enterprise hostile forces, looking to maintain the former while sticking a dagger into the latter. The WFP's Bill Cantor gives the Times the following revealing quote: “No one likes to pay taxes, but this is the group that is able to bear a little bit more of the burden,” said Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party, which has been aggressively lobbying for the tax increase. “It’s common sense and its morally just.”
"Morally just!" Who's he kidding? Cantor's just shilling for those whose livelihoods depend on private sector largess-and is doing so with little or no historical memory. After all, it was the belief that New York could continually operate a quasi-socialist government in the midst of a capitalist economy that lead to the city's bankruptcy in the 1970s. Now, however, history's repeating itself with the new formulation of the Gerald Ford line: "Cantor to New York-Drop Dead!"
Immigrant Business, the Middle Class and New York City
Jonathan Bowles, of the Center for an Urban Future has written some challenging stuff on the exodus of the middle class from NYC. As City Room reports: "A new report by the Center for an Urban Future raises profound questions about the future of the middle class in New York City. The problems the report raises are well-known: a sharp increase in the cost of living, along with a reduction in the kinds of jobs that once propelled people from the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder into the realm of economic stability."
Not the kind of report that the Bloomberg Windbag Machine is likely to trumpet if it gets the chance to run for the purchased third term: "Indeed, in 2006, New York City had a higher rate of domestic out-migration than struggling upstate cities like Buffalo, Ithaca, Rochester and Syracuse. The report also noted that several key demographics — college graduates, families with school-age children, successful immigrants, municipal workers and members of the large black middle class population in eastern Queens — have seemed especially likely to leave."
Ouch! But the report has a number of potential remedies; and one in particular caught our eye: "...diversifying the economy to produce more equitable jobs..." This suggestion is mindful of some of the observations that Bowles has made on immigrant business-and its crucial importance to the city's economic growth; something that the Bloombergistas have ignored for seven years.
In 2007, testifying before the City Council's Small Business and Immigration Committees, Bowles observed: "In February of this year, the Center published a comprehensive report which concluded that immigrant entrepreneurs have become an increasingly powerful economic engine for New York City. Our report, titled A World of Opportunity, documents that foreign-born entrepreneurs are starting a greater share of new businesses than native-born residents, stimulating growth in sectors from food manufacturing to health care, creating loads of new jobs and transforming once-sleepy neighborhoods into thriving commercial centers. The report, which I authored, also went into great detail about the multitude of challenges
facing immigrant entrepreneurs."
And what exactly has the city done to nurture this phenomenon? Bowles responds as follows: "
It’s apparent from our study that immigrant entrepreneurs are already having a
remarkable impact on New York’s economy. But all of this has occurred with virtually no support from city policymakers and despite the fact that immigrant entrepreneurs often face enormous obstacles in starting and growing businesses here. With just a little support, this could be a much more potent source of future growth."
Exactly as we have pointed out; the city's immigrant entrepreneurs have successfully persevered against an indifferent and often hostile city government; one that is more concerned with the big real estate developers than in the tens of thousands of enterprising small businesses that are vital to New York's future: "Immigrant entrepreneurs clearly aren’t going to replace Wall Street. But given that foreign-born residents now make up 37 percent of the city’s population, have accounted for pretty much all of the city’s population growth over the past 25 years and generally tend to be highly entrepreneurial, we had reason to believe that immigrant entrepreneurs could be an even more important economic generator in the years ahead."
The Bowles report was written two years ago, before the city and country were thrust into this horrendous recession. So, given the importance of the immigrant entrepreneur, and given the seriousness of the economic crisis; what has Mike Bloomberg proposed to do that would nurture these enterprising folks? A small business loan program is, well, represenatative of Bloomberg's smallness of outlook-but what to expect of a wrecking crew that evicted the minority wholesalers from the Bronx Terminal Market to make way for a suburban mall; and has little pity for all of those small businesses in the path of city-sponsored eminent domain projects in West Harlem and Willets Point.
The city needs to get a grasp of this immigrant phenomenon-and has Mike Bloomberg weighed in yet on the crisis of the bodegas? Here's Bowles' suggestion: "Going forward, elected officials and local economic development officials—not only those at city agencies, but also leaders of chambers of commerce, neighborhood-based nonprofits that work with small businesses and financial institutions—will need to take a much closer look at this part of our economy."
The likelihood that Mike Bloomberg will do any of this-or that he should be entrusted to do it-is about as probable as seeing the mayor chowing down at a soup kitchen because he can't afford his next meal. Put simply, he has been the most anti-small business mayor in our memory; and, given the importance of small and immigrant business to the city's future, deserves to be replaced on the basis of this issue alone.
Not the kind of report that the Bloomberg Windbag Machine is likely to trumpet if it gets the chance to run for the purchased third term: "Indeed, in 2006, New York City had a higher rate of domestic out-migration than struggling upstate cities like Buffalo, Ithaca, Rochester and Syracuse. The report also noted that several key demographics — college graduates, families with school-age children, successful immigrants, municipal workers and members of the large black middle class population in eastern Queens — have seemed especially likely to leave."
Ouch! But the report has a number of potential remedies; and one in particular caught our eye: "...diversifying the economy to produce more equitable jobs..." This suggestion is mindful of some of the observations that Bowles has made on immigrant business-and its crucial importance to the city's economic growth; something that the Bloombergistas have ignored for seven years.
In 2007, testifying before the City Council's Small Business and Immigration Committees, Bowles observed: "In February of this year, the Center published a comprehensive report which concluded that immigrant entrepreneurs have become an increasingly powerful economic engine for New York City. Our report, titled A World of Opportunity, documents that foreign-born entrepreneurs are starting a greater share of new businesses than native-born residents, stimulating growth in sectors from food manufacturing to health care, creating loads of new jobs and transforming once-sleepy neighborhoods into thriving commercial centers. The report, which I authored, also went into great detail about the multitude of challenges
facing immigrant entrepreneurs."
And what exactly has the city done to nurture this phenomenon? Bowles responds as follows: "
It’s apparent from our study that immigrant entrepreneurs are already having a
remarkable impact on New York’s economy. But all of this has occurred with virtually no support from city policymakers and despite the fact that immigrant entrepreneurs often face enormous obstacles in starting and growing businesses here. With just a little support, this could be a much more potent source of future growth."
Exactly as we have pointed out; the city's immigrant entrepreneurs have successfully persevered against an indifferent and often hostile city government; one that is more concerned with the big real estate developers than in the tens of thousands of enterprising small businesses that are vital to New York's future: "Immigrant entrepreneurs clearly aren’t going to replace Wall Street. But given that foreign-born residents now make up 37 percent of the city’s population, have accounted for pretty much all of the city’s population growth over the past 25 years and generally tend to be highly entrepreneurial, we had reason to believe that immigrant entrepreneurs could be an even more important economic generator in the years ahead."
The Bowles report was written two years ago, before the city and country were thrust into this horrendous recession. So, given the importance of the immigrant entrepreneur, and given the seriousness of the economic crisis; what has Mike Bloomberg proposed to do that would nurture these enterprising folks? A small business loan program is, well, represenatative of Bloomberg's smallness of outlook-but what to expect of a wrecking crew that evicted the minority wholesalers from the Bronx Terminal Market to make way for a suburban mall; and has little pity for all of those small businesses in the path of city-sponsored eminent domain projects in West Harlem and Willets Point.
The city needs to get a grasp of this immigrant phenomenon-and has Mike Bloomberg weighed in yet on the crisis of the bodegas? Here's Bowles' suggestion: "Going forward, elected officials and local economic development officials—not only those at city agencies, but also leaders of chambers of commerce, neighborhood-based nonprofits that work with small businesses and financial institutions—will need to take a much closer look at this part of our economy."
The likelihood that Mike Bloomberg will do any of this-or that he should be entrusted to do it-is about as probable as seeing the mayor chowing down at a soup kitchen because he can't afford his next meal. Put simply, he has been the most anti-small business mayor in our memory; and, given the importance of small and immigrant business to the city's future, deserves to be replaced on the basis of this issue alone.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Tear It Down!
The ongoing controversy over the construction and deconstruction of the Yankee Stadium and surrounding neighborhood continues-with Bronxites wondering why the old stadium is still standing and the promised parkland is as yet unavailable to this asthma-ridden community. The Norwood News leads the charge:
"The list of injustices emanating from the deals surrounding the construction of the new Yankee stadium is long and depressing. But the greatest civic offense is the theft of invaluable public green space and the broken promises to provide replacement parkland to the community in a timely fashion...perhaps the grandest monument to the city’s unforgivable heist of green space in a community struggling with asthma and other public health problems, is the old Yankee Stadium, which still stands despite city promises it would be razed to make way for new baseball fields, so local kids can start running the bases again."
It seems, hold your hats, that the old ball park needed to stay because the Yankees needed the office space! The Norwood folks, citing the Times' Harvey Araton, ridicule this: "The city says the Yankees needed their old offices while constructing the new stadium. Araton, a New York Times sports columnist, points out that it’s somehow acceptable that kids all over the city can learn in trailers hogging schoolyards in perpetuity. But the Yanks can’t spend a few months in similar quarters? And the city says tearing down the old Yankee Stadium “requires a complicated public procurement process.” So, how is it that the city had no problem getting a wrecking ball at Shea Stadium in October?"
Mike Bloomberg, you last remember him as the caped crusader for clean air, has a lot to answer for on this-but so do Bronx pols who have gotten lockjaw after ceding their responsibiliities to the Yankees with no oversight: "We have one more question: Why is it that only reporters are making noise about this? Is there not one elected official who considers this important enough to at least issue a press release, especially since every elected official save one supported the project? Our fax machine hums with elected officials’ press releases on issues they have little if any control over, but when it comes to a situation where taking a stand might accomplish something? Nada."
The Bronx is ill served by its local and city wide officials on this bad deal, Certainly the new Yankee Stadium could have gotten built, and local residents could have also received equal value for the parkland that was stolen. Instead we saw the denuding of the community's green space and the accompanying frenzy by the city's lead economic agency to score a luxury box at the new ball park. What a disgrace on Mike Bloomberg and the local electeds!
"The list of injustices emanating from the deals surrounding the construction of the new Yankee stadium is long and depressing. But the greatest civic offense is the theft of invaluable public green space and the broken promises to provide replacement parkland to the community in a timely fashion...perhaps the grandest monument to the city’s unforgivable heist of green space in a community struggling with asthma and other public health problems, is the old Yankee Stadium, which still stands despite city promises it would be razed to make way for new baseball fields, so local kids can start running the bases again."
It seems, hold your hats, that the old ball park needed to stay because the Yankees needed the office space! The Norwood folks, citing the Times' Harvey Araton, ridicule this: "The city says the Yankees needed their old offices while constructing the new stadium. Araton, a New York Times sports columnist, points out that it’s somehow acceptable that kids all over the city can learn in trailers hogging schoolyards in perpetuity. But the Yanks can’t spend a few months in similar quarters? And the city says tearing down the old Yankee Stadium “requires a complicated public procurement process.” So, how is it that the city had no problem getting a wrecking ball at Shea Stadium in October?"
Mike Bloomberg, you last remember him as the caped crusader for clean air, has a lot to answer for on this-but so do Bronx pols who have gotten lockjaw after ceding their responsibiliities to the Yankees with no oversight: "We have one more question: Why is it that only reporters are making noise about this? Is there not one elected official who considers this important enough to at least issue a press release, especially since every elected official save one supported the project? Our fax machine hums with elected officials’ press releases on issues they have little if any control over, but when it comes to a situation where taking a stand might accomplish something? Nada."
The Bronx is ill served by its local and city wide officials on this bad deal, Certainly the new Yankee Stadium could have gotten built, and local residents could have also received equal value for the parkland that was stolen. Instead we saw the denuding of the community's green space and the accompanying frenzy by the city's lead economic agency to score a luxury box at the new ball park. What a disgrace on Mike Bloomberg and the local electeds!
Bodega Revenue Up In Smoke: Bring in the Wine!
As the NY Post reported yesterday, the cost of a pack of cigarettes is going to hit $10 bucks-as a result of the tax hikes at all levels of government: "With a new 62 cent federal tax on cigarettes added this week with the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program law, the new price of a pack of cigarettes will soar past $10 in Manhattan. The NYC price is higher than anywhere in the country and more than twice the national average. And beginning April 1, two-thirds of that cost will be made up of city, state and federal taxes."
What the Post doesn't report, however, is what these taxes mean for local stores-particularly the bodegas that are threatened with extinction. Since 2202, when the city raised the cigarette tax by a whopping 1800%, bodegas and other small stores have lost close to 60% of their tobacco sales-an incredible $250 million a year; and tobacco, for better or worse has been a cash crop for the bodegueros.
So in the midst of a major recession, and in a city with a tax happy mayor, is it any wonder that the bodega owners are looking for some protection against arbitrary eviction? And is it any further wonder that the Bodega Association has come out strongly in support of wine sales in food stores?
The addition of wine would give the bodegueros another important profit center that would greatly increase their ability to not only survive, but also prosper. We have read that the liquor stores have started a coalition called, “Last Store Standing on Main Street,” to protect their state-sponsored monopoly. If this wasn’t so sad, it would be funny; because if nothing is done to help the bodegueros-and the supermercados that are also threatened-than the liquor stores may end up actually being the only stores left in our neighborhoods that aren’t big corporate chains.
The fact is that there is enough business for all of the small stores to share; since studies have shown that, when states increase the number of wine outlets, a greater amount of the product is actually sold-which is great for all of the struggling New York State wine growers as well.
New York City food stores are becoming an endangered species-with rents, taxes and regulations pushing many of them either out of business; or, as with independent supermarkets, to other less costly locations. The addition of wine won’t solve all of their problems, but it would be a great boost to all of the city’s neighborhood economies.
What the Post doesn't report, however, is what these taxes mean for local stores-particularly the bodegas that are threatened with extinction. Since 2202, when the city raised the cigarette tax by a whopping 1800%, bodegas and other small stores have lost close to 60% of their tobacco sales-an incredible $250 million a year; and tobacco, for better or worse has been a cash crop for the bodegueros.
So in the midst of a major recession, and in a city with a tax happy mayor, is it any wonder that the bodega owners are looking for some protection against arbitrary eviction? And is it any further wonder that the Bodega Association has come out strongly in support of wine sales in food stores?
The addition of wine would give the bodegueros another important profit center that would greatly increase their ability to not only survive, but also prosper. We have read that the liquor stores have started a coalition called, “Last Store Standing on Main Street,” to protect their state-sponsored monopoly. If this wasn’t so sad, it would be funny; because if nothing is done to help the bodegueros-and the supermercados that are also threatened-than the liquor stores may end up actually being the only stores left in our neighborhoods that aren’t big corporate chains.
The fact is that there is enough business for all of the small stores to share; since studies have shown that, when states increase the number of wine outlets, a greater amount of the product is actually sold-which is great for all of the struggling New York State wine growers as well.
New York City food stores are becoming an endangered species-with rents, taxes and regulations pushing many of them either out of business; or, as with independent supermarkets, to other less costly locations. The addition of wine won’t solve all of their problems, but it would be a great boost to all of the city’s neighborhood economies.
Taxing Stimulation
There is a broad-based labor effort to raise taxes on New Yorkers-at just the time when billions of dollars of stimulus money is expected to come into the state for the expressed purpose of allowing states and localities to avoid economy crushing levies. As the NY Post reports: "Efforts to raise income taxes risk prolonging the state's economic slump by permanently driving a generation of laid-off bankers, traders and other top earners out of the state, say some economists and tax experts."
Right now all we can see in the federal pork-a-thon stimulus package is money for education and health care, et al; but very little that will cut tax rates and stimulate business growth-particularly in New York. And certainly there's nada for the struggling small businesses that are being forced out in droves from the city's shopping strips.
Instead we get ad hominen attacks on the governor for not embracing the personal income tax hike: "Little more than a month into his first legislative session, Gov. Paterson has come under a ferocious attack from organized labor - earlier, bigger and more personal than those that buckled his predecessors. Enraged at Paterson's refusal to discuss an income-tax hike as an alternative to $9.5 billion in budget cuts, unions have opened both barrels on their longtime ally."
Paterson for his part appears shell shocked-with his office in disarray, and seemingly both unwilling and unable to counterattack: "The Paterson administration is slipping ever deeper into petty internal politics, Capitol insiders say, pushing the governor's worried fellow Democratic elected officials into self-preservation mode. Instead of undertaking what observers believe is a much-needed overhaul of his executive staff, Gov. Paterson is standing by as the infighting builds."
But let's be clear here; the so-called millionaire's tax is just a start-because even if it passes, the tax will fall far short of generating the needed cash to close a $13 billion budget gap. The NY Post's editorial captures this slippery slope: "The numbers don't lie: State budgeteers say that the number of millionaires statewide has dropped 18 percent since 2007, while their combined gross income has fallen by some $60 billion. Thus, while the millionaire's tax Silver pushed through the Assembly last year might have been expected to raise $2.6 billion a year, he's now speaking of revenues that may not hit $1.5 billion. That's still almost $12 billion short."
So, we can expect the threshold to move downward: "So: How deeply would an income tax need to reach to get the job done? Well, a temporary income-tax boost back in 2003 (when the state's finances were far less dire) hit New Yorkers making as little as $100,000 a year. And Silver's union friends are already hard at work dragging the tax debate in precisely that direction."
What a mess! State government is bloated and it needs to be seriously trimmed; instead we get the public employees spending millions to protect their turf at tax payer expense without any countervailing response from the state's chief executive, It's not good enough to talk semi-tough, but then allow yourself to get slapped around by what really is your overpaid staff. This seems like the worst of both world's; and a recipe for disaster-both for Paterson as well as the state's beleaguered businesses.
Right now all we can see in the federal pork-a-thon stimulus package is money for education and health care, et al; but very little that will cut tax rates and stimulate business growth-particularly in New York. And certainly there's nada for the struggling small businesses that are being forced out in droves from the city's shopping strips.
Instead we get ad hominen attacks on the governor for not embracing the personal income tax hike: "Little more than a month into his first legislative session, Gov. Paterson has come under a ferocious attack from organized labor - earlier, bigger and more personal than those that buckled his predecessors. Enraged at Paterson's refusal to discuss an income-tax hike as an alternative to $9.5 billion in budget cuts, unions have opened both barrels on their longtime ally."
Paterson for his part appears shell shocked-with his office in disarray, and seemingly both unwilling and unable to counterattack: "The Paterson administration is slipping ever deeper into petty internal politics, Capitol insiders say, pushing the governor's worried fellow Democratic elected officials into self-preservation mode. Instead of undertaking what observers believe is a much-needed overhaul of his executive staff, Gov. Paterson is standing by as the infighting builds."
But let's be clear here; the so-called millionaire's tax is just a start-because even if it passes, the tax will fall far short of generating the needed cash to close a $13 billion budget gap. The NY Post's editorial captures this slippery slope: "The numbers don't lie: State budgeteers say that the number of millionaires statewide has dropped 18 percent since 2007, while their combined gross income has fallen by some $60 billion. Thus, while the millionaire's tax Silver pushed through the Assembly last year might have been expected to raise $2.6 billion a year, he's now speaking of revenues that may not hit $1.5 billion. That's still almost $12 billion short."
So, we can expect the threshold to move downward: "So: How deeply would an income tax need to reach to get the job done? Well, a temporary income-tax boost back in 2003 (when the state's finances were far less dire) hit New Yorkers making as little as $100,000 a year. And Silver's union friends are already hard at work dragging the tax debate in precisely that direction."
What a mess! State government is bloated and it needs to be seriously trimmed; instead we get the public employees spending millions to protect their turf at tax payer expense without any countervailing response from the state's chief executive, It's not good enough to talk semi-tough, but then allow yourself to get slapped around by what really is your overpaid staff. This seems like the worst of both world's; and a recipe for disaster-both for Paterson as well as the state's beleaguered businesses.
Dancing in the Streets
Mike Bloomberg has never been known for being funny-at least not intentionally so. His Friday statements on mayoral control of the schools, however, put him in with some of the best stand up comedians of our time. As Daily Politics reported: "As the Assembly Democrats prepare to grill Schools Chancellor Joel Klein this morning on reauthorization of mayoral control of the city education system, Mayor Bloomberg is warning of dire consequences if that power is not returned to him...'My assumption is there will be a bill called mayoral control passed by the Legislature," the mayor continued. "I think that the, if they didn't do that, I think that there'd be riots in the streets, given what's the improvement. I mean, parents have choices. For the first time we're funding all the schools equally.'"
Laugh out loud! This guy's so narcissistic that he has really started to believe his own BS-and since his DOE is basically engaged in self reporting (akin to a take home test that you mark yourself), we are given the mayor's own version of mirror, mirror, on the wall. The response of one commenter to the post really underscores the fatuousness of the mayor's remarks:
"Bloomberg cannot substantiate his statements with honestly reported data.The only independent check on student achievement in New York City shows a completely different picture. The results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress administered by the US Department of Education, considered the gold standard in testing, show that student achievement in New York City has stagnated since 2003 with virtually no improvements for Black, Hispanic and low income students."
This is along the lines of what Andy Wolf has reported:
"Wolf, writing in the Public Advocate Corner opines: "By the statistics, mayoral control has failed, as Diane Ravitch has previously pointed out in this space. Test results on the most reliable measures are flat, despite an unprecedented influx of funds – a 79% increase in the education budget in just six years." But this failure extends beyond the numbers themselves.As Wolf demonstrates: "But mayoral control has failed in a more profound way. Desperate to show “progress,” a laundry list of structural reforms has been implemented by the gang at the Tweed Courthouse. Most of these have to do with providing incentives to principals, teachers and students. If you want to believe that teachers will only do a good job if we give them the chance to earn an extra $3,000 bonus for higher test scores, than I have a bridge to sell you."
But count on the disinformation being a central feature of the Bloomberg air war come November. Unfortunately for him, however, the renewal of control is up to the state legislature-and there are many problems there. As City Room reported:
"On his radio program on Friday morning, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg suggested that if the State Legislature does not renew the 2002 law that gave him control over New York City schools there would be “riots in the street.” But hours later, as the Assembly Education Committee opened its second public hearing over the law’s renewal, most of the angry shouting was aimed at Mr. Bloomberg’s schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein. The eight Assembly members gathered in a crowded hearing room across from City Hall could hardly contain their frustration over Mr. Bloomberg’s seven-year reign over the schools as Mr. Klein testified for more than two hours."
This is what we meant by the Chico Marx nature of the mayor's defense-the obviating of fact-based analysis for multi-million dollar spinning by the Bloomberg machine. State assembly members, however, are a bit closer to the reality of the schools: "They remarked dozens of times that they felt as if parents did not have enough input, and said that even elected officials like themselves often found it impossible to get answers to basic questions about the school system." Not when the information flow is tightly controlled; and doctored before released.
And leave it to Assemblyman O'Donnel to capture the essence of the Bloomberg chicanery. Here's his response to Chancellor Klein's observation that accountability comes from voting the mayor in-or out: "Mr. O’Donnell, clearly unsatisfied with the answer, responded: “It seems that the only way is to replace the person that you report to,” referring to Mayor Bloomberg, who has promised to spend millions of his own money to win a third term. “That seems to be the only way that there is a way for parents to actually hold you accountable.” Then, Mr. O’Donnell, who could be described as a portly fellow, said: “That may or may not happen. With $100 million I could probably convince the city that I was thin.”
The NY Post also captures some of this inanity-particularly his bizarre claims about public disorder: "Bloomberg's bizarre comment only serves to underscore how completely out of touch he is with what public-school parents face every day," said Patrick Sullivan, one of 13 school policy board members whose appointments are at the heart of the mayoral-control debate."
In a media driven world, where one guy can spend tens of millions of dollars more than all of his opponents combined-even when adding all three elections together-than the notion of accountability has been rendered meaningless. The only thing that the legislature needs to do here, is to make sure that mayoral control is given the kind of hair shirt that will drive Bloomberg bonkers should he buy himself a third term. If, somehow, that fails to materialize, we'll be dancing in the streets.
Laugh out loud! This guy's so narcissistic that he has really started to believe his own BS-and since his DOE is basically engaged in self reporting (akin to a take home test that you mark yourself), we are given the mayor's own version of mirror, mirror, on the wall. The response of one commenter to the post really underscores the fatuousness of the mayor's remarks:
"Bloomberg cannot substantiate his statements with honestly reported data.The only independent check on student achievement in New York City shows a completely different picture. The results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress administered by the US Department of Education, considered the gold standard in testing, show that student achievement in New York City has stagnated since 2003 with virtually no improvements for Black, Hispanic and low income students."
This is along the lines of what Andy Wolf has reported:
"Wolf, writing in the Public Advocate Corner opines: "By the statistics, mayoral control has failed, as Diane Ravitch has previously pointed out in this space. Test results on the most reliable measures are flat, despite an unprecedented influx of funds – a 79% increase in the education budget in just six years." But this failure extends beyond the numbers themselves.As Wolf demonstrates: "But mayoral control has failed in a more profound way. Desperate to show “progress,” a laundry list of structural reforms has been implemented by the gang at the Tweed Courthouse. Most of these have to do with providing incentives to principals, teachers and students. If you want to believe that teachers will only do a good job if we give them the chance to earn an extra $3,000 bonus for higher test scores, than I have a bridge to sell you."
But count on the disinformation being a central feature of the Bloomberg air war come November. Unfortunately for him, however, the renewal of control is up to the state legislature-and there are many problems there. As City Room reported:
"On his radio program on Friday morning, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg suggested that if the State Legislature does not renew the 2002 law that gave him control over New York City schools there would be “riots in the street.” But hours later, as the Assembly Education Committee opened its second public hearing over the law’s renewal, most of the angry shouting was aimed at Mr. Bloomberg’s schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein. The eight Assembly members gathered in a crowded hearing room across from City Hall could hardly contain their frustration over Mr. Bloomberg’s seven-year reign over the schools as Mr. Klein testified for more than two hours."
This is what we meant by the Chico Marx nature of the mayor's defense-the obviating of fact-based analysis for multi-million dollar spinning by the Bloomberg machine. State assembly members, however, are a bit closer to the reality of the schools: "They remarked dozens of times that they felt as if parents did not have enough input, and said that even elected officials like themselves often found it impossible to get answers to basic questions about the school system." Not when the information flow is tightly controlled; and doctored before released.
And leave it to Assemblyman O'Donnel to capture the essence of the Bloomberg chicanery. Here's his response to Chancellor Klein's observation that accountability comes from voting the mayor in-or out: "Mr. O’Donnell, clearly unsatisfied with the answer, responded: “It seems that the only way is to replace the person that you report to,” referring to Mayor Bloomberg, who has promised to spend millions of his own money to win a third term. “That seems to be the only way that there is a way for parents to actually hold you accountable.” Then, Mr. O’Donnell, who could be described as a portly fellow, said: “That may or may not happen. With $100 million I could probably convince the city that I was thin.”
The NY Post also captures some of this inanity-particularly his bizarre claims about public disorder: "Bloomberg's bizarre comment only serves to underscore how completely out of touch he is with what public-school parents face every day," said Patrick Sullivan, one of 13 school policy board members whose appointments are at the heart of the mayoral-control debate."
In a media driven world, where one guy can spend tens of millions of dollars more than all of his opponents combined-even when adding all three elections together-than the notion of accountability has been rendered meaningless. The only thing that the legislature needs to do here, is to make sure that mayoral control is given the kind of hair shirt that will drive Bloomberg bonkers should he buy himself a third term. If, somehow, that fails to materialize, we'll be dancing in the streets.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Bodegas to Extinction?
El Diario has a front page story-and a companion column by Gerson Borrero-on the plight and threatened extinction of the city's 16,00 bodegas. 61% of these small stores, according to a study done by the US Latin Chamber of Commerce, are threatened with closure during the current recession: "Dueños de pequeños negocios luchan para sobrevivir en tiempo de crisis." (bodegueros struggling to stay open),
And, as Borrero points out, while all of the big firms are being bailed out: "Ni un centavo para ellos." (Not a penny for them) What we need from Albany, City Hall and Washington, is a bailout plan for the city's small retailers-rocked by high costs and decreasing customer incomes. Instead we get a mayor with caviar nights and champagne dreams; and an Albany government looking to raise taxes and costly regulations (expanding the bottle bill).
And, as Borrero points out, while all of the big firms are being bailed out: "Ni un centavo para ellos." (Not a penny for them) What we need from Albany, City Hall and Washington, is a bailout plan for the city's small retailers-rocked by high costs and decreasing customer incomes. Instead we get a mayor with caviar nights and champagne dreams; and an Albany government looking to raise taxes and costly regulations (expanding the bottle bill).
Asleep at the Switch
As if we needed to be told-the NY Daily News unveils the fact that the cost of living in NYC is very high; who would have thought? As the News tells us: "More than $2,000 a month for day care. Some of the highest phone bills in the country. Jam-packed, 50-plus-minute commutes to work. You knew it was tough to live in New York City — but this tough?"
And on top of this, we find that joblessness is about to set a record: "New York City's economic decline is likely in its early stages - and the unemployment rate may reach 10.5 percent, a level not seen since the mid-1970s administration of Mayor Abraham Beame, a new report says."
What needs to be understood here, is that, while some of these costs are tangential to government and its structure, others are directly related-since mayor after mayor has added to the public tax roles and raised taxes with little thought to their impact on the lives of average New Yorkers and the city's small retailers; none more so than Mike Bloomberg.
Bloomberg squandered the boom time cash influx by failing to rein in government spending; and even now, he's more concerned about keeping the public payroll at its current high levels than in reducing costs for New Yorkers. As the NY Post opines: "Indeed, another report - released this week by the Center for an Urban Future - cites an accelerating exodus of middle-class New Yorkers. Notably, it points to a lack of well-paying jobs and high local taxes, among other things, as driving forces."
So where was Mike Bloomberg when the exodus began-shortly after he raised the real estate tax by 20% in 2002? Perhaps he was in his Bermuda residence, or jet setting to some exotic destination in his private jet. Doesn't really matter; to us, he was simply asleep at the switch.
And on top of this, we find that joblessness is about to set a record: "New York City's economic decline is likely in its early stages - and the unemployment rate may reach 10.5 percent, a level not seen since the mid-1970s administration of Mayor Abraham Beame, a new report says."
What needs to be understood here, is that, while some of these costs are tangential to government and its structure, others are directly related-since mayor after mayor has added to the public tax roles and raised taxes with little thought to their impact on the lives of average New Yorkers and the city's small retailers; none more so than Mike Bloomberg.
Bloomberg squandered the boom time cash influx by failing to rein in government spending; and even now, he's more concerned about keeping the public payroll at its current high levels than in reducing costs for New Yorkers. As the NY Post opines: "Indeed, another report - released this week by the Center for an Urban Future - cites an accelerating exodus of middle-class New Yorkers. Notably, it points to a lack of well-paying jobs and high local taxes, among other things, as driving forces."
So where was Mike Bloomberg when the exodus began-shortly after he raised the real estate tax by 20% in 2002? Perhaps he was in his Bermuda residence, or jet setting to some exotic destination in his private jet. Doesn't really matter; to us, he was simply asleep at the switch.
Flying First Crass
So now, thanks to the NY Times, we find out just what it means to travel on the Bloomberg express-far from the lowly sights and sounds of recession struggling New Yorkers. Working for the Bloomberg campaign is a first class upgrade: "Aides to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg hopscotch around the world on two Falcon 900 private jets, where wine and sushi are served. They stay at the Four Seasons in London (about $400 a night), the Intercontinental in Paris ($320) and the King David in Jerusalem ($345). Room service? The mayor pays for it all. Even the laundry."
All of this is integral to the buying of New York-a phenomenon that encompasses spending tens of millions of dollars to-in Chico Marx fashion-convince the voters that the past seven years was nothing like their lying eyes might have thought they had seen; or what misleading reporters might have erroneously told them.
It also includes the co-optation of think tanks, environmental groups and the editorial boards of the daily papers; so much so, that any real countervailing system of checks on mayoral behavior is effectively denuded of real impact. The end result is the creation of an echo chamber that has the power to filter out discordant noise that might question the putative achievement of the royal liege.
This is all then gilded by the campaign-an exercise in excess at all levels: "The billionaire mayor is turning heads these days with the hiring of high-profile operatives for his re-election campaign, including several who had previously worked for his rivals in the race. And as he seeks to entice talent to come aboard the campaign, and possibly to a third term in City Hall, Mr. Bloomberg wields a powerful tool: the perks of inhabiting his world."
And what a world it is. Bloomberg's former campaign manager, Bill Cunningham, had his children's college education covered by the bonuses that Mogul Mike shelled out after two lavishly successful campaign: "The expansive spending infuses the campaign — the mayor plans to spend $80 million on his re-election this year — but also shapes the lives of aides who follow Mr. Bloomberg to City Hall. In interviews, more than a dozen current or former aides and advisers to the mayor described their work for him as a transformative experience that catapulted them into new social and economic spheres, in some cases permanently."
What all of this means is that the Bloomberg fortune is, as far as campaign finance laws and conflict of interest statutes are concerned, so unique to normal politics that there aren't any laws that could possibly address just how untoward-and tawdry-this entire phenomenon is. After all, is it really card cheating to buy the casino?
The open question is; in the midst of a recession, when average New Yorkers are losing their jobs and unemployment is likely to rise above 10% in the city, will this jet-setting lavishness be jarring enough to prompt a majority voters to simply say, enough? And, of course, the corollary question; will the opposition even have enough scratch to point all of this out?
In 1968, Joe McGinnes wrote a seminal book on the selling of the president-how the Nixon campaign used the techniques of Madison Avenue to convince Americans to make Tricky Dick our president. In the context of the Bloomberg excess-in both governing as well as in campaigning-the McGinness book is a quaint tale indeed. In the process, however, our city's democracy has been auctioned to the highest bidder ever seen.
All of this is integral to the buying of New York-a phenomenon that encompasses spending tens of millions of dollars to-in Chico Marx fashion-convince the voters that the past seven years was nothing like their lying eyes might have thought they had seen; or what misleading reporters might have erroneously told them.
It also includes the co-optation of think tanks, environmental groups and the editorial boards of the daily papers; so much so, that any real countervailing system of checks on mayoral behavior is effectively denuded of real impact. The end result is the creation of an echo chamber that has the power to filter out discordant noise that might question the putative achievement of the royal liege.
This is all then gilded by the campaign-an exercise in excess at all levels: "The billionaire mayor is turning heads these days with the hiring of high-profile operatives for his re-election campaign, including several who had previously worked for his rivals in the race. And as he seeks to entice talent to come aboard the campaign, and possibly to a third term in City Hall, Mr. Bloomberg wields a powerful tool: the perks of inhabiting his world."
And what a world it is. Bloomberg's former campaign manager, Bill Cunningham, had his children's college education covered by the bonuses that Mogul Mike shelled out after two lavishly successful campaign: "The expansive spending infuses the campaign — the mayor plans to spend $80 million on his re-election this year — but also shapes the lives of aides who follow Mr. Bloomberg to City Hall. In interviews, more than a dozen current or former aides and advisers to the mayor described their work for him as a transformative experience that catapulted them into new social and economic spheres, in some cases permanently."
What all of this means is that the Bloomberg fortune is, as far as campaign finance laws and conflict of interest statutes are concerned, so unique to normal politics that there aren't any laws that could possibly address just how untoward-and tawdry-this entire phenomenon is. After all, is it really card cheating to buy the casino?
The open question is; in the midst of a recession, when average New Yorkers are losing their jobs and unemployment is likely to rise above 10% in the city, will this jet-setting lavishness be jarring enough to prompt a majority voters to simply say, enough? And, of course, the corollary question; will the opposition even have enough scratch to point all of this out?
In 1968, Joe McGinnes wrote a seminal book on the selling of the president-how the Nixon campaign used the techniques of Madison Avenue to convince Americans to make Tricky Dick our president. In the context of the Bloomberg excess-in both governing as well as in campaigning-the McGinness book is a quaint tale indeed. In the process, however, our city's democracy has been auctioned to the highest bidder ever seen.
Divine Right
The more Mike Bloomberg is challenged, the more obvious his regal arrogance becomes-as Daily Politics and City Room both underscore. The testiness devolves from the temerity of anyone-even reporters who are assigned to cover the mayor-to challenge his royal prerogatives.
As Liz reports, Bloomberg defended his right to, basically unlimited spending, with the following revealing comments: "Asked this morning why he won't agree to a self-imposed spending cap for his bid for a third term, given that his Democratic opponents will be forced by the public financing program to limit their expenditures, Mayor Bloomberg replied:
"I have no idea what they're doing. They have to decide what they're going to do and I'll decide what I'm going to do. I might also point out it is very difficult to get a message out to the public about what we have done and what we believe."
"Sometimes, there's going to be shock at this, but sometimes some reporters don't accurately describe what we have done, are doing or will do, and so we have to find another venue."
Oh, so now we have a seven year incumbent mayor, someone who told New Yorkers that he wouldn't spend in 2005 what he spent to "introduce himself" in 2005 (circ. $80 million), saying that he needs to spend comparable obscene amounts of money a third time. Why? Because of a negligent and nefarious press corps. This would be laugh out loud funny, if it wasn't so outrageous.
Given this level of guile, we now believe that Mike Bloomberg is the one who can navigate the city through this dire fiscal crisis; and can do so, simply by selling the Brooklyn Bridge to gullible buyers-over, and over again. This is clearly someone who believes that every one is, not only for sale, but also fully malleable if enough "education money" is allocated for their edification.
Bloomberg even has the unmitigated gall to posture that this is only virtue in action; falsely arguing that his self financing is simply a righteous refusal to take public dollars. As City Room outlines: "A few minutes later, another reporter, from NY1 News, asked essentially the same question, reworded slightly" To which the mayor replied: "And I will self-finance. There is no reason for me to take public money. I don’t need the public money, and I think it would be an outrage if I took it. Period. End of story."
What classic misdirection; as if spending over $160 million on three elections-two where Bloomberg's the incumbent-wasn't an even greater "outrage." The arrogance is breathtaking, and we're hoping that the press starts to really go after all of the pretense and hypocrisy of this monarchical pretender.
As Liz reports, Bloomberg defended his right to, basically unlimited spending, with the following revealing comments: "Asked this morning why he won't agree to a self-imposed spending cap for his bid for a third term, given that his Democratic opponents will be forced by the public financing program to limit their expenditures, Mayor Bloomberg replied:
"I have no idea what they're doing. They have to decide what they're going to do and I'll decide what I'm going to do. I might also point out it is very difficult to get a message out to the public about what we have done and what we believe."
"Sometimes, there's going to be shock at this, but sometimes some reporters don't accurately describe what we have done, are doing or will do, and so we have to find another venue."
Oh, so now we have a seven year incumbent mayor, someone who told New Yorkers that he wouldn't spend in 2005 what he spent to "introduce himself" in 2005 (circ. $80 million), saying that he needs to spend comparable obscene amounts of money a third time. Why? Because of a negligent and nefarious press corps. This would be laugh out loud funny, if it wasn't so outrageous.
Given this level of guile, we now believe that Mike Bloomberg is the one who can navigate the city through this dire fiscal crisis; and can do so, simply by selling the Brooklyn Bridge to gullible buyers-over, and over again. This is clearly someone who believes that every one is, not only for sale, but also fully malleable if enough "education money" is allocated for their edification.
Bloomberg even has the unmitigated gall to posture that this is only virtue in action; falsely arguing that his self financing is simply a righteous refusal to take public dollars. As City Room outlines: "A few minutes later, another reporter, from NY1 News, asked essentially the same question, reworded slightly" To which the mayor replied: "And I will self-finance. There is no reason for me to take public money. I don’t need the public money, and I think it would be an outrage if I took it. Period. End of story."
What classic misdirection; as if spending over $160 million on three elections-two where Bloomberg's the incumbent-wasn't an even greater "outrage." The arrogance is breathtaking, and we're hoping that the press starts to really go after all of the pretense and hypocrisy of this monarchical pretender.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
City for Sale
City for Sale, the original expose done by Jack Newfield and Wayne Barret, was a tale of municipal corruption during the Koch years-with vivid descriptions of how the public interest was subverted by self serving needs and individual greed. The tome-a call for good government-is now being re-written by Mike Bloomberg, who is using his great fortune to transform good government groups into his own cats paw. In the process, the whole concept of good government is threatened with a loss of meaning.
Some of this we laid out yesterday in our critique of the virtual subornation of the Drum Major Institute and its outspoken leader, Andrea Batista Schlesinger. The DMI describes itself as a think tank that champions what it sees as middle class needs; something that, arguably, the current plutocrat in chief has ignored. The hiring of Schlesinger is a bit too much for NY Daily News columnist Errol Louis.
In his column this morning, Louis lays out his case: "Checks and balances, the pride and genius of American political culture, are out of whack in New York these days. Our system assumes City Hall will be analyzed, challenged and checked by robust political competition, fearlessly independent civic advocacy groups and a free press." All of the usual checks, however, are gone-replaced by those issued by Mike Bloomberg.
As Louis points out: "But Bloomberg's brand of checkbook politics is rewriting the rules...What bothers me is that leaders of supposedly independent, community-oriented organizations are running for the Bloomberg gravy train.The latest case in point, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, was executive director of the Drum Major Institute, a nonprofit policy and advocacy group formerly run by Fernando Ferrer, Bloomberg's Democratic rival in 2005. Four years ago, DMI supplied the data, analysis and intellectual basis for Ferrer's campaign, which challenged Bloomberg's attention to middle-class neighborhoods and concerns. Don't expect that to happen this year."
Louis goes on to observe how certain non profits received phone calls from the mayor. What happens here, is that even when some of these groups don't show up, they have been bought out of the political process-their voices silenced by cash donations. In the most egregious cases, groups appeared to testify-reading from the mayor's script.
At a time when charitable donations are disappearing in the aftermath of fiscal meltdown, one person remains standing-or giving in this case. As has been reported, Bloomberg gave out around $235 million last year. A Bloomberg donation, or simply the hope of one, is a powerful potential subornation of many so-called-but cash strapped-good government groups.
And we saw this dynamic in action during the congestion tax controversy; where previously tapped our enviros where suddenly launching ad campaigns costing high six figures. In fact, the pro-tax forces out spent the opposition on the order of 20-1! Newfield and Barrett's Meade Esposito citation is applicable here: "Today's reformer is tomorrow's hack."
But instead of bribery from well healed private sector interests to the so-called public servants, we have a unique reversal; with good government groups shedding any pretense of independence and becoming lap dogs for the interest of of one rich man-someone who believes that his own aggrandizement serves every one else's needs as well, thank you very much! So untoward is this process, that the entire concept of campaign finance has been transvaluated-rendering its original formulation obsolete and meaningless.
Will any of this matters? Will the NY Times, that champion of campaign reform, weigh in? Hardly likely, when the paper itself is drowning in red ink and taking loans from what seems like Mexico's version of Tony Soprano.
So, as Louis writes, it takes groups like Furee to remind us what independence looks like-and the only hope for democracy in this town is that others will see likewise: "The splendid, disorderly demonstration by 100 protesters who interrupted a recent speech by Mayor Bloomberg to an upscale crowd was a welcome sign that our town remains a home for free minds and independent voices. "This is what democracy looks like!" chanted members of Families United for Racial and Economic Equality, or FUREE, a grass-roots advocacy organization. Eight ended up behind bars. It was a timely reminder to Bloomberg that a significant number of people feel shut out of public decision-making in this election year. They not only want to discuss the city's substantive problems, they recognize that the normal channels for public debate have been silenced, compromised or bought off."
This is what the upcoming election cycle is all about. With Bloomberg LLP laying off 100 workers-and Bloomberg for mayor hiring a similar cohort of sycophants and retainers-we are entering an era that is the harbinger of the death of democracy; a death lead by the Kevorkian of mayors-someone who feels that the city is for sale, and that he's buying.
Some of this we laid out yesterday in our critique of the virtual subornation of the Drum Major Institute and its outspoken leader, Andrea Batista Schlesinger. The DMI describes itself as a think tank that champions what it sees as middle class needs; something that, arguably, the current plutocrat in chief has ignored. The hiring of Schlesinger is a bit too much for NY Daily News columnist Errol Louis.
In his column this morning, Louis lays out his case: "Checks and balances, the pride and genius of American political culture, are out of whack in New York these days. Our system assumes City Hall will be analyzed, challenged and checked by robust political competition, fearlessly independent civic advocacy groups and a free press." All of the usual checks, however, are gone-replaced by those issued by Mike Bloomberg.
As Louis points out: "But Bloomberg's brand of checkbook politics is rewriting the rules...What bothers me is that leaders of supposedly independent, community-oriented organizations are running for the Bloomberg gravy train.The latest case in point, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, was executive director of the Drum Major Institute, a nonprofit policy and advocacy group formerly run by Fernando Ferrer, Bloomberg's Democratic rival in 2005. Four years ago, DMI supplied the data, analysis and intellectual basis for Ferrer's campaign, which challenged Bloomberg's attention to middle-class neighborhoods and concerns. Don't expect that to happen this year."
Louis goes on to observe how certain non profits received phone calls from the mayor. What happens here, is that even when some of these groups don't show up, they have been bought out of the political process-their voices silenced by cash donations. In the most egregious cases, groups appeared to testify-reading from the mayor's script.
At a time when charitable donations are disappearing in the aftermath of fiscal meltdown, one person remains standing-or giving in this case. As has been reported, Bloomberg gave out around $235 million last year. A Bloomberg donation, or simply the hope of one, is a powerful potential subornation of many so-called-but cash strapped-good government groups.
And we saw this dynamic in action during the congestion tax controversy; where previously tapped our enviros where suddenly launching ad campaigns costing high six figures. In fact, the pro-tax forces out spent the opposition on the order of 20-1! Newfield and Barrett's Meade Esposito citation is applicable here: "Today's reformer is tomorrow's hack."
But instead of bribery from well healed private sector interests to the so-called public servants, we have a unique reversal; with good government groups shedding any pretense of independence and becoming lap dogs for the interest of of one rich man-someone who believes that his own aggrandizement serves every one else's needs as well, thank you very much! So untoward is this process, that the entire concept of campaign finance has been transvaluated-rendering its original formulation obsolete and meaningless.
Will any of this matters? Will the NY Times, that champion of campaign reform, weigh in? Hardly likely, when the paper itself is drowning in red ink and taking loans from what seems like Mexico's version of Tony Soprano.
So, as Louis writes, it takes groups like Furee to remind us what independence looks like-and the only hope for democracy in this town is that others will see likewise: "The splendid, disorderly demonstration by 100 protesters who interrupted a recent speech by Mayor Bloomberg to an upscale crowd was a welcome sign that our town remains a home for free minds and independent voices. "This is what democracy looks like!" chanted members of Families United for Racial and Economic Equality, or FUREE, a grass-roots advocacy organization. Eight ended up behind bars. It was a timely reminder to Bloomberg that a significant number of people feel shut out of public decision-making in this election year. They not only want to discuss the city's substantive problems, they recognize that the normal channels for public debate have been silenced, compromised or bought off."
This is what the upcoming election cycle is all about. With Bloomberg LLP laying off 100 workers-and Bloomberg for mayor hiring a similar cohort of sycophants and retainers-we are entering an era that is the harbinger of the death of democracy; a death lead by the Kevorkian of mayors-someone who feels that the city is for sale, and that he's buying.
No Deposits, No Return
The Politicker has weighed in on the removal of the bottle bill from the deficit reduction package: "Conspicuously absent from the deficit reduction package done yesterday: a proposed expansion of the bottle deposits. What once seemed like a done deal, a popular fix to a revenue problem, is headed for a dog fight in the State Senate. Majority Leader Malcolm Smith said he remains "uncommitted" on the bill, let) alone making it a legislative priority."
And the web site also gives us credit in this outcome: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who opposes the bottle bill, claimed the omission from the deficit reduction plan as a victory. Lipsky is close to State Senator Carl Kruger, who now chairs the finance committee, and walked away from me saying he had nothing to do with the bill when I asked him about it the other day."
It is becoming apparent that ethnic considerations may also play a role in the ultimate disposition of the deposit issue: "Opposition to the bill is now being couched along ethnic lines, and it is expected that several Hispanic lawmakers - two of whom, State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. and State Senator Pedro Espada Jr., stood with Kruger in the struggle over senate leadership -- will come out against it."
Whatever the outcome, however, the "done deal" aspect of all this has certainly come apart at the seems-and the dog fight in the senate is almost inevitable since the Majority Leader has remained lukewarm to the measure. The opponents are definitely engaged on this, and we plan to make this a senator by senator battle on the bill's danger to neighborhood business.
And the web site also gives us credit in this outcome: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who opposes the bottle bill, claimed the omission from the deficit reduction plan as a victory. Lipsky is close to State Senator Carl Kruger, who now chairs the finance committee, and walked away from me saying he had nothing to do with the bill when I asked him about it the other day."
It is becoming apparent that ethnic considerations may also play a role in the ultimate disposition of the deposit issue: "Opposition to the bill is now being couched along ethnic lines, and it is expected that several Hispanic lawmakers - two of whom, State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. and State Senator Pedro Espada Jr., stood with Kruger in the struggle over senate leadership -- will come out against it."
Whatever the outcome, however, the "done deal" aspect of all this has certainly come apart at the seems-and the dog fight in the senate is almost inevitable since the Majority Leader has remained lukewarm to the measure. The opponents are definitely engaged on this, and we plan to make this a senator by senator battle on the bill's danger to neighborhood business.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Bottle Bill Bottled Up
As the Crain's Insider is reporting this morning, the efforts of the Paterson administration to include the "Bigger, Better, Bottle Bill" in its budget reduction package is kaput-thanks to the efforts of the industry/labor coalition:
"The bottle bill was pulled from the deficit reduction package agreed to yesterday by Gov. Paterson and Assembly and Senate leaders, in part because the bill would not have produced any revenue for this fiscal year. The bottle bill, which would expand nickel deposits to noncarbonated-beverage bottles and promote recycling, will be part of the governor’s proposal to close fiscal 2010’s deficit of $13 billion. Even worse for environmentalists, $175 million will be taken from the state’s Environmental Protection Fund to close the gap. The governor wanted to take only $50 million."
This does not mean, however, that the measure is dead for the year; since it will likely re-emerge in the ongoing budget discussions that will begin to surface as we approach the April 1st deadline. Still, the maneuver by Judy Enck in the governor's office to slip this through, was countered by the opposition-and the opponents of the expansion, particularly independent supermarkets, bodegas and green grocers that the Alliance advocates for, will continue to raise their objections.
Next week, the opposition will gather at city hall to express its concerns that the expansion of the container redemption measure will add to the burdens of local stores-at a time when these stores are struggling to survive. As Ramon Murphy, head of the Bodega Association, said in El Diario yesterday: "In addition, there should be a freeze on any new regulations that inhibit the ability of smaller retailers to make a profit. Chief among these is the proposal to expand the state’s bottle law to include water and juice containers. The compliance with the current bottle law’s mandates is too costly as it is; but adding more containers in the current economic climate is just wrong."
"The bottle bill was pulled from the deficit reduction package agreed to yesterday by Gov. Paterson and Assembly and Senate leaders, in part because the bill would not have produced any revenue for this fiscal year. The bottle bill, which would expand nickel deposits to noncarbonated-beverage bottles and promote recycling, will be part of the governor’s proposal to close fiscal 2010’s deficit of $13 billion. Even worse for environmentalists, $175 million will be taken from the state’s Environmental Protection Fund to close the gap. The governor wanted to take only $50 million."
This does not mean, however, that the measure is dead for the year; since it will likely re-emerge in the ongoing budget discussions that will begin to surface as we approach the April 1st deadline. Still, the maneuver by Judy Enck in the governor's office to slip this through, was countered by the opposition-and the opponents of the expansion, particularly independent supermarkets, bodegas and green grocers that the Alliance advocates for, will continue to raise their objections.
Next week, the opposition will gather at city hall to express its concerns that the expansion of the container redemption measure will add to the burdens of local stores-at a time when these stores are struggling to survive. As Ramon Murphy, head of the Bodega Association, said in El Diario yesterday: "In addition, there should be a freeze on any new regulations that inhibit the ability of smaller retailers to make a profit. Chief among these is the proposal to expand the state’s bottle law to include water and juice containers. The compliance with the current bottle law’s mandates is too costly as it is; but adding more containers in the current economic climate is just wrong."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)