As the Crain's Insider is reporting today (subscription), John Liu-one of the city's most intelligent politicians-has quietly been in the forefront of criticizing the MTA's bridge toll: "The disconnect between the agency and elected officials is exemplified by the harsh words of Councilman John Liu, chairman of the council Transportation Committee. Liu is a fan of mass transit and supported congestion pricing. But he has been a relentless critic of bridge tolls proposed to shore up the MTA’s finances. Liu was one of two elected officials outside the state Senate to support that chamber’s alternative to the Ravitch plan (Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz was the other)."
And here's the kicker; Liu's concerns devolve from the questions he has about the use of the tolls for-not keeping the fare down-but for the long term capitol needs of the MTA. Can anyone say congestion tax? But, just as those "clowns" in the state senate, Liu has no idea just what that capitol plan entails: "“A lot of people are playing numbers games,” Liu says. “But [Richard] Ravitch said so himself back in December that revenues from bridge tolls are not needed for the bailout of the MTA, that in fact they would be solely used to fund future improvements in bus service.” And the MTA won’t say what those improvements will be, Liu complains."
The Insider captures this pig-in-the-poke approach: "Agency officials say they don’t want to be accused of developing bus plans without community input. But elected officials want specific improvements to justify new tolls and taxes." How similar is this irresponsible naivete to what's going on down in Washington with AIG?
Michael Goodwin captures what we believes is an eerie similarity: "Much of the government outrage over the bonuses pool of $165 million was phony anyway, canned up for a public now being taught that the private sector is evil and must be punished. The real outrage is that the bonuses represented a fraction of the $180 billion of public money pumped into AIG without any real oversight."
And this is precisely what Malcolm's marauders are trying to avoid; and instead of accolades they are greeted with derision by the practitioners of business as usual; folks who are trying to backdoor the tolls because of the failure of the Bloomberg congestion tax. The sad thing here, is that Shelly should know better. The congestion cockamamie isn't a bad idea simply because Mike Bloomberg proposed it.
The Herculean task of cleaning the MTA's Augean Stables needs to begin posthaste. Everything else is liner for the bird cage.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Useful Idiots
We got this call yesterday, from someone who said that he was from the group Transportation Alternatives. The phone voice was upset with something we had written that characterized the group as bike riding, skateboarding wackos. He complained about the name calling and pleaded for more civility-a discussion of policy, if you will-and less name calling. Feeling kinda of bad for the poor fella, we told him that we would consider following his suggestion. That was until we saw the shenanigans that these rather lame street performers were displaying on their web site.
The site in question was linked by the intrepid Liz, and featured a contest to caption a picture of four state senators-the guys who used to be called the Gang of Four-who had taken on the MTA; and who were vigorously opposing the imposition of bridge tolls. The site, representing the height of sophomoric humor, quickly quelled any rachmones we felt for these useful idiots-tools of business moguls who, ensconced in their private clubs and corporate board rooms, are laughing at their gullible malleability.
So, as we said yesterday, these bike riding naifs are being used to defend-not only the corporate interests of the Manhattan business class, folks who are looking to make the island that much freer from outer borough traffic; but the interests of the most corrupt and inefficient public authority on the planet. They are, in a word, a perfect diversion; performing street theater in a purported defense of straphangers while someone else counts the receipts.
Which brings us back to the MTA itself, and agency that reminds us of the old joke about the farmer who $1 million in the lottery. When asked what he'll do with the money, he replies: "I guess I'll keep farming till it's all gone." So it goes with our transit sinkhole. It's long past the time when this antiquated governing structure was-like an old subway train-dismantled and sold for parts.
But all of this is obscured by the attack on the senate and its most colorful members. But if you examine the high dudgeon coming from the governor and his lackeys the other day, there was nothing about what to do with an agency that manages to lose more and more money each day; as it simultaneously packs its buses and trains with record ridership. And check the speaker's proposal-not a peep about transforming the MTA.
Can anyone say TARP? Are these so-called responsible citizens and elected officials willing-like the tooth fairy believing Washington pols-to simply pour money into the MTA with no strings attached? And these are the folks, cheered on by the street performers, who claim they are defending the transit riders: "While we're at it, we figure if the State Senate is going to treat New York City's transit riders like clowns and turn the MTA funding process into a year-long circus, we're going to need a good graphic to go with the story. So, here's what Livable Streets Initiative graphic design genius Carly Clark came up with. From left-to-right that's Monserrate playing the role of the abusive Moe, Kruger as the developmentally-impaired Curly, Espada as Shemp, and Diaz as the bumbling but lovable Larry. We'll have travel mugs and t-shirts printed up soon so you can ride with the Fare Hike Four on your morning commute."
How sad. It is about time that some electeds said enough is enough-and changed the way the transit system is governed. And did you see that the agency might be bringing back Marc Shaw to head up its affairs? The same guy who spent the agency into hopeless debt. What, Freddy Krueger wasn't available?
So Streetsblog needs to have a thorough overhaul; because it has little abilty to expose the real clowns from under the MTA circus tent. If they are really interested in protecting transit riders they wouldn't be shilling for the dysfunctionals now running the system into the ground. Name calling in this calamitous environment is appropriate; but the objects of obloquy have to be changed.
The site in question was linked by the intrepid Liz, and featured a contest to caption a picture of four state senators-the guys who used to be called the Gang of Four-who had taken on the MTA; and who were vigorously opposing the imposition of bridge tolls. The site, representing the height of sophomoric humor, quickly quelled any rachmones we felt for these useful idiots-tools of business moguls who, ensconced in their private clubs and corporate board rooms, are laughing at their gullible malleability.
So, as we said yesterday, these bike riding naifs are being used to defend-not only the corporate interests of the Manhattan business class, folks who are looking to make the island that much freer from outer borough traffic; but the interests of the most corrupt and inefficient public authority on the planet. They are, in a word, a perfect diversion; performing street theater in a purported defense of straphangers while someone else counts the receipts.
Which brings us back to the MTA itself, and agency that reminds us of the old joke about the farmer who $1 million in the lottery. When asked what he'll do with the money, he replies: "I guess I'll keep farming till it's all gone." So it goes with our transit sinkhole. It's long past the time when this antiquated governing structure was-like an old subway train-dismantled and sold for parts.
But all of this is obscured by the attack on the senate and its most colorful members. But if you examine the high dudgeon coming from the governor and his lackeys the other day, there was nothing about what to do with an agency that manages to lose more and more money each day; as it simultaneously packs its buses and trains with record ridership. And check the speaker's proposal-not a peep about transforming the MTA.
Can anyone say TARP? Are these so-called responsible citizens and elected officials willing-like the tooth fairy believing Washington pols-to simply pour money into the MTA with no strings attached? And these are the folks, cheered on by the street performers, who claim they are defending the transit riders: "While we're at it, we figure if the State Senate is going to treat New York City's transit riders like clowns and turn the MTA funding process into a year-long circus, we're going to need a good graphic to go with the story. So, here's what Livable Streets Initiative graphic design genius Carly Clark came up with. From left-to-right that's Monserrate playing the role of the abusive Moe, Kruger as the developmentally-impaired Curly, Espada as Shemp, and Diaz as the bumbling but lovable Larry. We'll have travel mugs and t-shirts printed up soon so you can ride with the Fare Hike Four on your morning commute."
How sad. It is about time that some electeds said enough is enough-and changed the way the transit system is governed. And did you see that the agency might be bringing back Marc Shaw to head up its affairs? The same guy who spent the agency into hopeless debt. What, Freddy Krueger wasn't available?
So Streetsblog needs to have a thorough overhaul; because it has little abilty to expose the real clowns from under the MTA circus tent. If they are really interested in protecting transit riders they wouldn't be shilling for the dysfunctionals now running the system into the ground. Name calling in this calamitous environment is appropriate; but the objects of obloquy have to be changed.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
MTA=AIG
Remember back last fall, when all of the wise heads said that we absolutely needed to bail out the banks-along with the corrupt enterprise known as AIG? Even the maverick went along with the charade. And where did it get us? Railing away at bonuses with faux outrage.
But now, as we digress into analogy, we find the local wise men and women hectoring us about the essentialness of bailing out the MTA-with nary a word about the authority's history of malfeasance and political corruption. And the chorus is being led by newspapers that are exhibiting their own financial chops while swimming in oceans of red ink. Folks, it's pot and kettle time.
Leading the way, as usual, is Morticia of 33rd Street: "A scribbler on a napkin could have crafted a more coherent plan for preserving mass transportation in New York than the slapdash dodge offered yesterday by state Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith. Challenged to ensure the survival of affordable, reliable transportation for millions of riders, Smith and his Democrats delivered half measures that were, at best, half baked."
This judgment hearkens us back to the old joke about the thermos being the greatest invention the world has ever seen. Why? Because when you put something hot into it, it stays hot; and when the liquid is cold, the thermos stays cold. To which the fool, explaining its greatness proclaims: "How does it know?"
So when the News tells us-"The flaws in Smith's prescription were as fundamental as can be - starting with the fact that his numbers didn't add up. This would be laughable except that, left unchecked, he and his colleagues would subject subway, bus and commuter line passengers to enormous fare hikes and declining service."-our response is the wondrous musing of the fool: "How does it know?"
Well, it knows because that's what all of the best and the brightest are telling everyone is true; and if the senate's numbers don't add up, then who's doing the vetting of the MTA figures? Tim Geithner? But the stopped clock on 33rd Street got one thing right: "Mired in deficits, the MTA will be forced to impose backbreaking fare hikes and service cuts, and to abandon track, station and signal maintenance, unless the Legislature provides funding."
This is the old story of the business that is losing money on every doo dad that it makes. When asked how it will be able to turn a profit on all of its sales, the boss replies: "Volume." So it goes with the MTA. Record ridership concomitant with record deficits. But, heh, why would these folks lie to us about their numbers?
The real scandal here is the willingness of all of these lemmings to go along with pouring money down the MTA sinkhole-while calling those who oppose the Ponzi scheme bad names. The NY Post stands accused: "Still, it's clear that Smith has absolutely no control over his conference.
Yesterday's travesty was engineered by the same loathsome Senate foursome who withheld their support from Smith as majority leader until he bought them off with plum committee chairmanships. That's not leadership. That's a commercial transaction."
Not a peep about how this agency's been ripping off the folks for years. Even Nicole Gelinas, someone who feels that the senate plan doesn't add up, gets the MTA debacle: " It's heartening, then, that Gov. Paterson seemed to want no part of this "compromise" yesterday - and that the MTA bigwigs stood with him. But it's worrisome that Smith may have made the most astute political calculations...But it should be yet another reminder for the MTA that a big reason why Smith et. al. can get away with their games is that the public truly doubts the MTA can be trusted with any new money."
So let's all take a deep breathe; and even we will cease and desist from woofing opprobrium for at least the short term if all other will agree to do the same. We will be waiting, however, to see if the other branches of government will be ready to overhaul the MTA as part of any bailout. That must be the sine quo non of any going forward.
But now, as we digress into analogy, we find the local wise men and women hectoring us about the essentialness of bailing out the MTA-with nary a word about the authority's history of malfeasance and political corruption. And the chorus is being led by newspapers that are exhibiting their own financial chops while swimming in oceans of red ink. Folks, it's pot and kettle time.
Leading the way, as usual, is Morticia of 33rd Street: "A scribbler on a napkin could have crafted a more coherent plan for preserving mass transportation in New York than the slapdash dodge offered yesterday by state Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith. Challenged to ensure the survival of affordable, reliable transportation for millions of riders, Smith and his Democrats delivered half measures that were, at best, half baked."
This judgment hearkens us back to the old joke about the thermos being the greatest invention the world has ever seen. Why? Because when you put something hot into it, it stays hot; and when the liquid is cold, the thermos stays cold. To which the fool, explaining its greatness proclaims: "How does it know?"
So when the News tells us-"The flaws in Smith's prescription were as fundamental as can be - starting with the fact that his numbers didn't add up. This would be laughable except that, left unchecked, he and his colleagues would subject subway, bus and commuter line passengers to enormous fare hikes and declining service."-our response is the wondrous musing of the fool: "How does it know?"
Well, it knows because that's what all of the best and the brightest are telling everyone is true; and if the senate's numbers don't add up, then who's doing the vetting of the MTA figures? Tim Geithner? But the stopped clock on 33rd Street got one thing right: "Mired in deficits, the MTA will be forced to impose backbreaking fare hikes and service cuts, and to abandon track, station and signal maintenance, unless the Legislature provides funding."
This is the old story of the business that is losing money on every doo dad that it makes. When asked how it will be able to turn a profit on all of its sales, the boss replies: "Volume." So it goes with the MTA. Record ridership concomitant with record deficits. But, heh, why would these folks lie to us about their numbers?
The real scandal here is the willingness of all of these lemmings to go along with pouring money down the MTA sinkhole-while calling those who oppose the Ponzi scheme bad names. The NY Post stands accused: "Still, it's clear that Smith has absolutely no control over his conference.
Yesterday's travesty was engineered by the same loathsome Senate foursome who withheld their support from Smith as majority leader until he bought them off with plum committee chairmanships. That's not leadership. That's a commercial transaction."
Not a peep about how this agency's been ripping off the folks for years. Even Nicole Gelinas, someone who feels that the senate plan doesn't add up, gets the MTA debacle: " It's heartening, then, that Gov. Paterson seemed to want no part of this "compromise" yesterday - and that the MTA bigwigs stood with him. But it's worrisome that Smith may have made the most astute political calculations...But it should be yet another reminder for the MTA that a big reason why Smith et. al. can get away with their games is that the public truly doubts the MTA can be trusted with any new money."
So let's all take a deep breathe; and even we will cease and desist from woofing opprobrium for at least the short term if all other will agree to do the same. We will be waiting, however, to see if the other branches of government will be ready to overhaul the MTA as part of any bailout. That must be the sine quo non of any going forward.
Bailout the MTA?
All of a sudden there are pols and their enablers who have been struck with amnesia-so swift are they to tax the folks for an MTA that rivals AIG in a complete lack of accountability or transparency. To listen to the geshrei from the critics of the Senate majority's plan to rescue the MTA from...well, itself, you'd think that they'd just stiffed the Little Sisters of the Poor.And the very first critic out of the box was the little leprechaun Mike Bloomberg.
Now if Mike Bloomberg is taking pot shots at you on a transportation and tolling policy than you must be on the side of the angels. Here's the wisdom of the little engine that could:
"We need a plan that solves the problem, not something that's going to get us to next year," the mayor told reporters, including DN City Hall Bureau Chief Adam Lisberg, who is trailing Bloomberg at the St. Patrick's Day Parade.
"Next year will be even more difficult to get something through the Legislature, because it will be an election year for the state Senate and the state Assembly and for the governor," the mayor continued. "So I think this is the year to solve this problem, and incidentally, we have to solve the capital problem. The capital problem comes first. If you don't solve your capital problem, you don't know how to project what the operating expenses are going to be."
This comes from someone who's very first instinct is to tax the folks and give all the swells that hang out with him a pass-owing to their indispensability. Only Bloomberg would wax nostalgic about his congestion tax: "As he likes to do when the topic of generating revenue for mass transit comes up, Bloomberg reminded everyone that he had his own plan - congestion pricing - that was summarily rejected by Albany...'The city came up with their plan, we sent it up to Albany, they wanted to do something different, and that's fine," Bloomberg said. The MTA is a state agency. We have four votes. But we have to have a system that's reliable. Otherwise, this city will choke."
Right along side of the mayor-bike and skateboards at the ready-was the Transportation Alternative wackos, ready to provide some street cred for the patrician mayor. As the Politicker points out: "Near as I can tell, Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives struck first, via e-mail. "The Senate Democrats' so-called MTA rescue plan is a deferral of responsibility that postpones tough decisions and threatens to make the Authority's financial situation worse," he wrote. "What the City, State and millions of straphangers need are the long-term solutions offered by the Ravitch plan."
Than along comes the permanent government types like Kathy Wylde-ready to provide the amen chorus for anything that hurts the city's outer boroughs and small businesses. And all of the criticism seems to be directed at the fact that the Smith-led plan doesn't address the "long term needs" of the agency. Well, aside from the fact that in the long run we're all dead, where does it say that it's responsible to give the MTA any kind of long term lease on the tax payers' purse strings? As Pedro Espada told the NY Times: "Senator Pedro Espada Jr., a Bronx Democrat who has strongly opposed the Ravitch toll proposal, defended the Democratic conference against its critics. “The arrogance of saying, we told you senators what we need, and you will rubber-stamp it,” he said. “There’s a new day in the Senate. It’s that kind of arrogance that has given us tunnels to nowhere and some of the worst service around.”
The reality is that the deferral of addressing the capital needs of the agency-when that agency is being given carte blanche by some to self medicate-devolves from the fact that there is no long term plan that's been laid out by the MTA scions. By aside from that, why is it responsible to provide for the long term health of such an addicted patient?
Here's Liz's take, something that never made the paper's official government version story in the NY Daily News this morning: "Smith said this plan is sufficient to meet the MTA's short-term problem, which is its operating deficit. In terms of the long-term, capital shortfall, that would be addressed after a forensic audit, with a commitment to upstate and Long Island transportation projects and perhaps through either PIT surcharge in the MTA region and "new ideas from the public and legislators." Let's just take a moment," Smith pleaded. "...At best, we should see what the capital plan looks like, where the money is being spent, how it 's being spent and see what we can do to help...We took care of the operational problem; there will be no service cuts with this...Give us now at least until the end of the session to come up with a capital plan for (the MTA). We'll work with them to do that."
Yet all of the putatively responsible folks who get their Daily News exclusive this morning think that buying a pig in a poke is sound fiscal planning. Maybe they can hire Chris Dodd to do their forensic audit. So the News simply bashes the senate plan in print in the body of the paper-perhaps leaving the editorial writers to do the fact gathering: "Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith's universally panned MTA bailout appears dead on arrival - leaving riders closer to sky-high fare hikes and service cuts. Not only did the Democratic governor and Assembly speaker blast the stop-gap plan Tuesday, but the head of the Senate Finance Committee rejected it, too. "I don't think a piecemeal approach will accomplish the goals," state Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan) told the Daily News."
Oops, sorry, wrong Kruger fellas-but mistaking the second fiddle for the orchestra leader is only one of their many sins. How about writing as if the MTA and its legion of resident chorus of enabling geniuses are imbued with papal infallibility: "Kathryn Wylde, head of the Partnership for New York, an influential business group, panned Smith's idea, saying,"You can drive a truck through the holes in that plan." Gary LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, said ignoring the capital construction plan would mean no work for tens of thousands of construction workers. "The Senate essentially is telling tens of thousands of construction workers, 'Go join the unemployment line.'"
So the battle is on-and kudos for Smith's response to Wylde in the Politicker, as the majority leader refused to genuflect to someone who carries the water of others who simply lack any real concern for straphangers: " I asked Smith about the business community's position on the payroll tax as he unveiled his plan, and he said, "The business community doesn't vote on this plan. We do."
And for all of the umbrage being displayed at the Smith plan-and especially the snarky responses of Marty Golden who should say that the mayor paid his way into the theater before commenting-the rescue plan needs to go through the senate; and there is no support there for the Toll House cookies on display at the governor's office yesterday (unless Golden wants to step up and support tolls and go head to head with Vinnie Gentile in 2010). So let the games begin, and good luck to those who want to make the MTA their poster child for good governance.
Pedro Espada in the Politicker gets the last word: "A few minutes after Paterson's event had ended, Espada called my desk. "I think the advocates, the governor and all the critics. I ask one question: where is the capital plan?" He asked. It has not yet been introduced; normally the M.T.A. submits a wish list every five years (this year it happens in October), which must be approved by a board consisting of Smith, Silver, Paterson and Michael Bloomberg. So it's a moving target. "When we don't think and we write these blank checks, we get service that ranks them just above Mr. Madoff in terms of accountability," he said. "This is a new day, and all kudos to Senator Malcolm Smith. He's taken on the permanent government."
Now if Mike Bloomberg is taking pot shots at you on a transportation and tolling policy than you must be on the side of the angels. Here's the wisdom of the little engine that could:
"We need a plan that solves the problem, not something that's going to get us to next year," the mayor told reporters, including DN City Hall Bureau Chief Adam Lisberg, who is trailing Bloomberg at the St. Patrick's Day Parade.
"Next year will be even more difficult to get something through the Legislature, because it will be an election year for the state Senate and the state Assembly and for the governor," the mayor continued. "So I think this is the year to solve this problem, and incidentally, we have to solve the capital problem. The capital problem comes first. If you don't solve your capital problem, you don't know how to project what the operating expenses are going to be."
This comes from someone who's very first instinct is to tax the folks and give all the swells that hang out with him a pass-owing to their indispensability. Only Bloomberg would wax nostalgic about his congestion tax: "As he likes to do when the topic of generating revenue for mass transit comes up, Bloomberg reminded everyone that he had his own plan - congestion pricing - that was summarily rejected by Albany...'The city came up with their plan, we sent it up to Albany, they wanted to do something different, and that's fine," Bloomberg said. The MTA is a state agency. We have four votes. But we have to have a system that's reliable. Otherwise, this city will choke."
Right along side of the mayor-bike and skateboards at the ready-was the Transportation Alternative wackos, ready to provide some street cred for the patrician mayor. As the Politicker points out: "Near as I can tell, Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives struck first, via e-mail. "The Senate Democrats' so-called MTA rescue plan is a deferral of responsibility that postpones tough decisions and threatens to make the Authority's financial situation worse," he wrote. "What the City, State and millions of straphangers need are the long-term solutions offered by the Ravitch plan."
Than along comes the permanent government types like Kathy Wylde-ready to provide the amen chorus for anything that hurts the city's outer boroughs and small businesses. And all of the criticism seems to be directed at the fact that the Smith-led plan doesn't address the "long term needs" of the agency. Well, aside from the fact that in the long run we're all dead, where does it say that it's responsible to give the MTA any kind of long term lease on the tax payers' purse strings? As Pedro Espada told the NY Times: "Senator Pedro Espada Jr., a Bronx Democrat who has strongly opposed the Ravitch toll proposal, defended the Democratic conference against its critics. “The arrogance of saying, we told you senators what we need, and you will rubber-stamp it,” he said. “There’s a new day in the Senate. It’s that kind of arrogance that has given us tunnels to nowhere and some of the worst service around.”
The reality is that the deferral of addressing the capital needs of the agency-when that agency is being given carte blanche by some to self medicate-devolves from the fact that there is no long term plan that's been laid out by the MTA scions. By aside from that, why is it responsible to provide for the long term health of such an addicted patient?
Here's Liz's take, something that never made the paper's official government version story in the NY Daily News this morning: "Smith said this plan is sufficient to meet the MTA's short-term problem, which is its operating deficit. In terms of the long-term, capital shortfall, that would be addressed after a forensic audit, with a commitment to upstate and Long Island transportation projects and perhaps through either PIT surcharge in the MTA region and "new ideas from the public and legislators." Let's just take a moment," Smith pleaded. "...At best, we should see what the capital plan looks like, where the money is being spent, how it 's being spent and see what we can do to help...We took care of the operational problem; there will be no service cuts with this...Give us now at least until the end of the session to come up with a capital plan for (the MTA). We'll work with them to do that."
Yet all of the putatively responsible folks who get their Daily News exclusive this morning think that buying a pig in a poke is sound fiscal planning. Maybe they can hire Chris Dodd to do their forensic audit. So the News simply bashes the senate plan in print in the body of the paper-perhaps leaving the editorial writers to do the fact gathering: "Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith's universally panned MTA bailout appears dead on arrival - leaving riders closer to sky-high fare hikes and service cuts. Not only did the Democratic governor and Assembly speaker blast the stop-gap plan Tuesday, but the head of the Senate Finance Committee rejected it, too. "I don't think a piecemeal approach will accomplish the goals," state Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan) told the Daily News."
Oops, sorry, wrong Kruger fellas-but mistaking the second fiddle for the orchestra leader is only one of their many sins. How about writing as if the MTA and its legion of resident chorus of enabling geniuses are imbued with papal infallibility: "Kathryn Wylde, head of the Partnership for New York, an influential business group, panned Smith's idea, saying,"You can drive a truck through the holes in that plan." Gary LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, said ignoring the capital construction plan would mean no work for tens of thousands of construction workers. "The Senate essentially is telling tens of thousands of construction workers, 'Go join the unemployment line.'"
So the battle is on-and kudos for Smith's response to Wylde in the Politicker, as the majority leader refused to genuflect to someone who carries the water of others who simply lack any real concern for straphangers: " I asked Smith about the business community's position on the payroll tax as he unveiled his plan, and he said, "The business community doesn't vote on this plan. We do."
And for all of the umbrage being displayed at the Smith plan-and especially the snarky responses of Marty Golden who should say that the mayor paid his way into the theater before commenting-the rescue plan needs to go through the senate; and there is no support there for the Toll House cookies on display at the governor's office yesterday (unless Golden wants to step up and support tolls and go head to head with Vinnie Gentile in 2010). So let the games begin, and good luck to those who want to make the MTA their poster child for good governance.
Pedro Espada in the Politicker gets the last word: "A few minutes after Paterson's event had ended, Espada called my desk. "I think the advocates, the governor and all the critics. I ask one question: where is the capital plan?" He asked. It has not yet been introduced; normally the M.T.A. submits a wish list every five years (this year it happens in October), which must be approved by a board consisting of Smith, Silver, Paterson and Michael Bloomberg. So it's a moving target. "When we don't think and we write these blank checks, we get service that ranks them just above Mr. Madoff in terms of accountability," he said. "This is a new day, and all kudos to Senator Malcolm Smith. He's taken on the permanent government."
DCP Addresses Supermarket Gap
In a post last week that we were derelict in not citing, the Observer's Eliot Brown details the city's draft supermarket stimulus proposal: "Amanda Burden thinks the city needs more C-Towns. Boiled down a bit, that is the essence of a Bloomberg administration initiative in the planning stages for many months now to boost the city’s stock of supermarkets, particularly in poorer neighborhoods. The administration believes as many as three million New Yorkers live in neighborhoods it considers to be underserved by grocery stores, and is developing ways to encourage their production, aiming to boost health and encourage job growth."
This is, of course, an issue that we have been hectoring the city on for the better part of two decades-and have we've said, the city's current draft plan is a welcome first step in devising a sound promotion and preservation strategy. So what does the plan envision?
According to Brown: "Based on recommendations from a study completed last fall and a draft of new policies shared with grocery industry executives, it is clear that the Bloomberg administration intends to loosen zoning rules and offer tax incentives to boost the development of new supermarkets. The draft of policies—which the Planning spokeswoman stressed were not yet complete and are subject to change—proposed both land use incentives and tax incentives for supermarkets in certain neighborhoods."
So who could object? Well, perhaps that habitual naysayer might find the plan wanting: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents grocery store workers, said the draft policies were a “good step,” but do not go far enough to counter the forces that are continually shuttering grocery stores citywide. “The more compelling policy issue is the disappearance of existing stores,” he said. He also urged the city to prioritize grocery store uses when selling off city-owned land, which was one of the Planning Department’s own recommendations last fall."
Which brings us to the question of the Kingsbridge Armory-where the developer Related has been given tax incentives to redevelop the structure with a retail mall; and there's a good chance it will seek to put a food use into the facility. As the NY Daily News reported yesterday: "With the city approving millions in tax breaks for the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment, community groups are now hoping to claim some of that public largess through a community benefits agreement. The city Industrial Development Agency voted Wednesday to give $17 million in tax breaks to the Related Companies to redevelop the armory, over the objections of a local coalition and representatives of City Controller William Thompson and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. Both had sought to delay the agency's decision on tax credits until after Related signed an agreement."
Good for the community coalition; if the developer's gonna get the cash from the tax payers-just like AIG?-it will have to give back to the community. But that's not the only issue here. What the $17 million of tax incentives underscores is that, should a food use be proffered for the site, it would in essence be providing that food use with a subsidy to compete against the local supermarket that has occupied the site across the street for over 50 years!
So the Armory fight highlights the weakness of the DCP draft supermarket stimulus plan; and by ignoring existing markets, the current plan might actually increase the efflux of supermarkets from local neighborhoods. But, as the planning department says, this is still a work in progress: "The Planning Department spokeswoman, Rachaele Raynoff, said the initiative is a work in progress. It’s something where we need to hear from people in different areas what their concerns and objectives are, and incorporate that as we go forward,” she said."
And here from us she will-especially as the Battle of Kingsbridge begins to heat up. After all, a local market that serviced a neighborhood for years, without the benefit of any tax or zoning benefits, doesn't deserve to have its business threatened by a city policy designed to promote supermarkets.
This is, of course, an issue that we have been hectoring the city on for the better part of two decades-and have we've said, the city's current draft plan is a welcome first step in devising a sound promotion and preservation strategy. So what does the plan envision?
According to Brown: "Based on recommendations from a study completed last fall and a draft of new policies shared with grocery industry executives, it is clear that the Bloomberg administration intends to loosen zoning rules and offer tax incentives to boost the development of new supermarkets. The draft of policies—which the Planning spokeswoman stressed were not yet complete and are subject to change—proposed both land use incentives and tax incentives for supermarkets in certain neighborhoods."
So who could object? Well, perhaps that habitual naysayer might find the plan wanting: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents grocery store workers, said the draft policies were a “good step,” but do not go far enough to counter the forces that are continually shuttering grocery stores citywide. “The more compelling policy issue is the disappearance of existing stores,” he said. He also urged the city to prioritize grocery store uses when selling off city-owned land, which was one of the Planning Department’s own recommendations last fall."
Which brings us to the question of the Kingsbridge Armory-where the developer Related has been given tax incentives to redevelop the structure with a retail mall; and there's a good chance it will seek to put a food use into the facility. As the NY Daily News reported yesterday: "With the city approving millions in tax breaks for the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment, community groups are now hoping to claim some of that public largess through a community benefits agreement. The city Industrial Development Agency voted Wednesday to give $17 million in tax breaks to the Related Companies to redevelop the armory, over the objections of a local coalition and representatives of City Controller William Thompson and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. Both had sought to delay the agency's decision on tax credits until after Related signed an agreement."
Good for the community coalition; if the developer's gonna get the cash from the tax payers-just like AIG?-it will have to give back to the community. But that's not the only issue here. What the $17 million of tax incentives underscores is that, should a food use be proffered for the site, it would in essence be providing that food use with a subsidy to compete against the local supermarket that has occupied the site across the street for over 50 years!
So the Armory fight highlights the weakness of the DCP draft supermarket stimulus plan; and by ignoring existing markets, the current plan might actually increase the efflux of supermarkets from local neighborhoods. But, as the planning department says, this is still a work in progress: "The Planning Department spokeswoman, Rachaele Raynoff, said the initiative is a work in progress. It’s something where we need to hear from people in different areas what their concerns and objectives are, and incorporate that as we go forward,” she said."
And here from us she will-especially as the Battle of Kingsbridge begins to heat up. After all, a local market that serviced a neighborhood for years, without the benefit of any tax or zoning benefits, doesn't deserve to have its business threatened by a city policy designed to promote supermarkets.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A Good Idea-By Anyone's Standard
The hits just keep on coming-this time it's the Syracuse Post-Standard weighing in on support for the sale of wine in supermarkets: "So what's the big deal? You're shopping for groceries, planning a nice meal with friends. You want a bottle of wine to go along with it. If the grocery store offered a selection, you could take care of that errand at the same time. Convenient, right? So how come New York state hasn't allowed wine to be sold in grocery stores for decades? Good question. Gov. David Paterson wants to lift the ban. He says it could bring in close to $160 million in license fees from the state's 18,000 grocery outlets over the next two years. He also argues that it would be good for consumers, and good for business -- including the $3.4 billion New York state wine industry."
And the paper vivisects the liquor store fear tactics: "The gist of the liquor industry's complaint is that things are just fine the way they are. The "mom-and-pop" stores provide jobs for thousands of New Yorkers -- as many as 2,000 in Central New York alone. Wine constitutes more than 50 percent of liquor-store sales. Allowing grocery stores to sell it could doom 1,000 stores and 4,000 jobs, according to an industry study. Not to mention spikes in alcoholism, drunk driving and underage sales. But 35 other states allow wine sales in grocery stores -- and liquor stores. While drunk-driving may be more prevalent in states like Florida and California than New York, people also drive a lot more than in places like New York City."
But doesn't the increase in the number of outlets insure a spike in underage sales? Not according to the Post-Standard: "Concern about increased DWIs concedes there might be expanded sales -- which seems to be the case. In Washington state, the year after grocery stores began selling wine, sales increased by more than 50 percent -- while wine sales in liquor stores generally stayed close to pre-expansion levels. Keeping wine out of the hands of juveniles is imperative. But so is keeping them away from the beer that already is being sold in grocery stores."
Which means to us that, if measures can be added that insure better training of store personnel-as well as more vigilant enforcement of law breaking-a compromise can be reached to allay the fears of some that proliferation means greater inebriation; as well as more drinking and driving tragedies. If the opposition isn't being simply disingenuous about its concerns over this issue.
Of course, the liquor stores do need some help to modernize; and the Post-Standard agrees: "The logic of allowing wine sales in grocery stores is compelling. But before moving ahead with this proposal, lawmakers should try and make it fairer for liquor store owners who have invested in their enterprises and played by the rules. One of those rules bars them from selling anything but wine and liquor. Another prevents them from owning more than one store. What about allowing liquor stores to sell mixers, snacks, accessories -- and beer? How about eliminating the one-store-only rule?"
Exactly what Senator Espada has proposed to do; which means that there is a very palatable middle ground that can be reached. And if the liquor store lobby resists? Well, as Rousseau once said, sometimes you have to force people to be free.
And the paper vivisects the liquor store fear tactics: "The gist of the liquor industry's complaint is that things are just fine the way they are. The "mom-and-pop" stores provide jobs for thousands of New Yorkers -- as many as 2,000 in Central New York alone. Wine constitutes more than 50 percent of liquor-store sales. Allowing grocery stores to sell it could doom 1,000 stores and 4,000 jobs, according to an industry study. Not to mention spikes in alcoholism, drunk driving and underage sales. But 35 other states allow wine sales in grocery stores -- and liquor stores. While drunk-driving may be more prevalent in states like Florida and California than New York, people also drive a lot more than in places like New York City."
But doesn't the increase in the number of outlets insure a spike in underage sales? Not according to the Post-Standard: "Concern about increased DWIs concedes there might be expanded sales -- which seems to be the case. In Washington state, the year after grocery stores began selling wine, sales increased by more than 50 percent -- while wine sales in liquor stores generally stayed close to pre-expansion levels. Keeping wine out of the hands of juveniles is imperative. But so is keeping them away from the beer that already is being sold in grocery stores."
Which means to us that, if measures can be added that insure better training of store personnel-as well as more vigilant enforcement of law breaking-a compromise can be reached to allay the fears of some that proliferation means greater inebriation; as well as more drinking and driving tragedies. If the opposition isn't being simply disingenuous about its concerns over this issue.
Of course, the liquor stores do need some help to modernize; and the Post-Standard agrees: "The logic of allowing wine sales in grocery stores is compelling. But before moving ahead with this proposal, lawmakers should try and make it fairer for liquor store owners who have invested in their enterprises and played by the rules. One of those rules bars them from selling anything but wine and liquor. Another prevents them from owning more than one store. What about allowing liquor stores to sell mixers, snacks, accessories -- and beer? How about eliminating the one-store-only rule?"
Exactly what Senator Espada has proposed to do; which means that there is a very palatable middle ground that can be reached. And if the liquor store lobby resists? Well, as Rousseau once said, sometimes you have to force people to be free.
Bell Tolls for Ravitch Plan
According to the NY Times, the state senate has devised a short term plan to provide the MTA with a cash infusion-while at the same time eschewing any of the tolls that the Kruger-led faction believes is an anathema: "A proposal to add tolls to bridges over the East and Harlem Rivers to help finance the beleaguered Metropolitan Transportation Authority appears to be dead in the State Senate, as the Democratic majority is preparing to offer on Tuesday a scaled-back, short-term alternative to bail out the authority, two people briefed on that plan said."
If so, this is a big victory for strapped commuters; and the first step, hopefully, towards the badly needed overhaul of a corrupt and inefficient public authority: "The immediate impact would be, all service cuts are restored, fare increases would be cut in half, and there would be no tolls,” said one of the two people briefed on the plan. Democratic staff members reviewed some of the authority’s finances in recent days and concluded that a scaled-back plan would suffice in the short term. But the Senate proposal would require the transportation authority to submit to a deeper forensic auditing, a step lawmakers from both parties have demanded as a condition of laying out more taxpayer money for the authority, long dogged by waste and corruption."
What should be commenced-and almost immediately after this deal is struck-is a demand for the resignation of all senior staff; and the hiring of a team of bankruptcy attorneys and transit experts to determine how the badly needed restructuring of the authority should be accomplished. While this stop gap will not please the avaricious Ravitch, it will give the legislature the time to devise the agency's revamping.
What seems about to happen, however, is-at least from the governor's perspective-does not look pretty: "Gov. David A. Paterson also did not appear ready to accept the Senate plan. He is scheduled to hold a news conference with transit advocates on Tuesday, when he is expected to call for passage of the full Ravitch plan. The Ravitch plan was designed to spread the fiscal pain by requiring financial contributions from several groups. Businesses would pay a payroll tax. Riders would pay an 8 percent fare increase. And drivers would pay new bridge tolls. The rationale was that all three groups should pay because they all benefited from the transit system, including drivers, who would find roads heavily congested without it. Mr. Ravitch hoped his plan would command wide support and head off critics who might complain that one group or another was being singled out."
Paterson apparently is a glutton for punishment; willing to burden everyone in order to look evenhanded, he risks suffering the kind of slings and arrows that an anemic approval rating can ill-afford to bear. But by devising this alternative plan, the senate shifts the focus away from the governor's political self-flagellating gluttony, and throws the ball right over to the assembly, "where there is also opposition to tolls." (an apparent understatement)
Will the governor take the life raft? Hard to predict. But what we do know for sure, is that the amigos have struck again; and tolls will not be put on the city's free bridges.
If so, this is a big victory for strapped commuters; and the first step, hopefully, towards the badly needed overhaul of a corrupt and inefficient public authority: "The immediate impact would be, all service cuts are restored, fare increases would be cut in half, and there would be no tolls,” said one of the two people briefed on the plan. Democratic staff members reviewed some of the authority’s finances in recent days and concluded that a scaled-back plan would suffice in the short term. But the Senate proposal would require the transportation authority to submit to a deeper forensic auditing, a step lawmakers from both parties have demanded as a condition of laying out more taxpayer money for the authority, long dogged by waste and corruption."
What should be commenced-and almost immediately after this deal is struck-is a demand for the resignation of all senior staff; and the hiring of a team of bankruptcy attorneys and transit experts to determine how the badly needed restructuring of the authority should be accomplished. While this stop gap will not please the avaricious Ravitch, it will give the legislature the time to devise the agency's revamping.
What seems about to happen, however, is-at least from the governor's perspective-does not look pretty: "Gov. David A. Paterson also did not appear ready to accept the Senate plan. He is scheduled to hold a news conference with transit advocates on Tuesday, when he is expected to call for passage of the full Ravitch plan. The Ravitch plan was designed to spread the fiscal pain by requiring financial contributions from several groups. Businesses would pay a payroll tax. Riders would pay an 8 percent fare increase. And drivers would pay new bridge tolls. The rationale was that all three groups should pay because they all benefited from the transit system, including drivers, who would find roads heavily congested without it. Mr. Ravitch hoped his plan would command wide support and head off critics who might complain that one group or another was being singled out."
Paterson apparently is a glutton for punishment; willing to burden everyone in order to look evenhanded, he risks suffering the kind of slings and arrows that an anemic approval rating can ill-afford to bear. But by devising this alternative plan, the senate shifts the focus away from the governor's political self-flagellating gluttony, and throws the ball right over to the assembly, "where there is also opposition to tolls." (an apparent understatement)
Will the governor take the life raft? Hard to predict. But what we do know for sure, is that the amigos have struck again; and tolls will not be put on the city's free bridges.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Can the Bottle Bill
Clearly upset with the possibility of having to handle even more bottles and cans, New York City retailers and the workers they employ, feeling that enough's enough, are going to go over to the governor's office today to present him with a symbolic load of deposit containers to demonstrate that they simply have to more room-or resources-to handle this garbage disposal burden. The group wants the legislature to remove the expanded bottle bill from any budget negotiations at a time when the city is losing grocery stores and supermarkets.
Of course, this doesn't stop the NY Times-with absolutely no sense of irony-or shame-from editorializing once again in favor of the increased burden on local stores; and the just jettisoned job killing fat tax as well: "But it would be a mistake to drop his “fat tax” on soda — liquid candy, as health advocates call it. That alone would cost the state at least $400 million a year. And we can only hope the governor will not back away from some of his other important initiatives, like expanding the bottle redemption system in order to finance the state’s environmental program."
Let us reiterate. The biggest waste removal problem that the city has is newspapers that are discarded instead of being put out at the curb for recycling. Of this we hear nary a peep from the Times-folks who are great at adding costs for others but who are equally adept at eliding their own responsibilities. Which is why we have argued that it is time to tax the newspapers. After all, why should the tax payers pay the freight for the disposal of their waste product.
So, we are headed over to Third Avenue today to underscore the plight of city retailers; and before the Times and others promote bottle bill expansion, they should be sensitive to the disappearance of city food stores-a vital resource for all New Yorkers. This isn't the time to impose expensive burdens on retailers fighting for their business lives.
Of course, this doesn't stop the NY Times-with absolutely no sense of irony-or shame-from editorializing once again in favor of the increased burden on local stores; and the just jettisoned job killing fat tax as well: "But it would be a mistake to drop his “fat tax” on soda — liquid candy, as health advocates call it. That alone would cost the state at least $400 million a year. And we can only hope the governor will not back away from some of his other important initiatives, like expanding the bottle redemption system in order to finance the state’s environmental program."
Let us reiterate. The biggest waste removal problem that the city has is newspapers that are discarded instead of being put out at the curb for recycling. Of this we hear nary a peep from the Times-folks who are great at adding costs for others but who are equally adept at eliding their own responsibilities. Which is why we have argued that it is time to tax the newspapers. After all, why should the tax payers pay the freight for the disposal of their waste product.
So, we are headed over to Third Avenue today to underscore the plight of city retailers; and before the Times and others promote bottle bill expansion, they should be sensitive to the disappearance of city food stores-a vital resource for all New Yorkers. This isn't the time to impose expensive burdens on retailers fighting for their business lives.
Voter Free Choice Act Repealed
Remember when the term unlimited debate was going full throttle, and Mike Bloomberg was making the argument that an overturning of the law would yield a cornucopia of choices for the democratically challenged New York voter? Well a funny thing happened on the way to the feast; more and more it looks as if the great choices prophesied to be available have turned out to be evanescent.
A great deal of this is revealed in Michael Barbaro's political memo in Saturday's NY Times: "It was a central argument by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for re-engineering the city’s term limits law last year: Allowing him to seek re-election would give voters a bigger pool of candidates from which to choose, enhancing democracy, not squashing it, as his opponents contended. “If anything, the public has more choice because there will be more candidates, at least one more in the mayor’s race,” he said the day after the City Council voted to rewrite the rule."
Well it looks as if one more choice was simply one too many; and the idea of greater choice has become risible unless-like Mike Bloomberg-the concept of greater is simply seen as a derivative of the mayor's amor-propre: "Mr. Bloomberg’s popularity, the power of his incumbency and his willingness to spend $80 million of his own fortune to secure re-election have persuaded at least four mayoral hopefuls — two Democrats and two Republicans — to exit the race or sit it out."
Or, as one wag remarked: "We now know what Bloomberg meant when he said ‘choice’ — he meant himself,” said Bruce F. Berg, chairman of the political science department at Fordham University. Rewriting term limits, Mr. Berg said, “has stifled choice. And if Thompson drops out, he may well have eliminated choice.”
All of this, of course does little to diminish the sense of irony exhibited by that yellow dog Democrat Howard Wolfson: "Mr. Bloomberg’s supporters argue that the parties have only themselves to blame for producing lackluster mayoral candidates who badly trail the mayor in the polls. And, they note, anyone is free to challenge him. “At the end of the day the City Council decision allowed any New Yorker who wanted to run the opportunity to run,” said Howard Wolfson, a Bloomberg campaign spokesman."
Free to commit political suicide as Mayor Mike-the city's riches man-spends $100 million to re-introduce himself to a public apparently suffering from political dementia; and if this attrition keeps up we may have the kind of referendum that the North Koreans find so uplifting. The fact of the matter is-and we're watching you Times editorialists-if this guy spends this kind of money to scorched earth a lackluster field of diminished opponents, then he should be ridiculed by every opinion writer in the city. And they should hammer him at least as often as the NY Daily News has done to Senator Kruger because of his principle opposition to tolling the East and Harlem River bridges.
But all of this has not only given us Wolfson the ironist; it has also bequeathed a bit of aggravatingly typical Mike Bloomberg disingenuousness: "Asked this week whether his decision to seek a third term, and to spend heavily to achieve it, had a chilling effect on potential rivals, Mr. Bloomberg said, “There is no evidence to me that there are fewer candidates running.” CSI he's not.
As the campaign manager for one of the potential candidates who's likely to sit this election out tells the Times: "We were definitely gearing up to run — and then term limits happened,” said Rob Ryan, an aide to Mr. Catsimatidis, who is still weighing a run, but only in the unlikely event that Mr. Bloomberg does not win approval to run on the Republican ballot line. Mr. Ryan expressed bewilderment over Mr. Bloomberg’s contention that altering the term limits would create a wider pool of candidates. “Historically, in any race, you will see more candidates when it’s an open seat than when there is an incumbent,” he said."
Will any of this matter to the voters in the fall? Probably not; but strange things have been known to happen when campaigns get started. In our view, if Thompson is the candidate, he needs to after the mayor full bore-bearding the lion, so to speak. The mayor has been able to insulate the general public from the sharper edges of his personality. We'd like to see the real Mike Bloomberg goaded up.
A great deal of this is revealed in Michael Barbaro's political memo in Saturday's NY Times: "It was a central argument by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for re-engineering the city’s term limits law last year: Allowing him to seek re-election would give voters a bigger pool of candidates from which to choose, enhancing democracy, not squashing it, as his opponents contended. “If anything, the public has more choice because there will be more candidates, at least one more in the mayor’s race,” he said the day after the City Council voted to rewrite the rule."
Well it looks as if one more choice was simply one too many; and the idea of greater choice has become risible unless-like Mike Bloomberg-the concept of greater is simply seen as a derivative of the mayor's amor-propre: "Mr. Bloomberg’s popularity, the power of his incumbency and his willingness to spend $80 million of his own fortune to secure re-election have persuaded at least four mayoral hopefuls — two Democrats and two Republicans — to exit the race or sit it out."
Or, as one wag remarked: "We now know what Bloomberg meant when he said ‘choice’ — he meant himself,” said Bruce F. Berg, chairman of the political science department at Fordham University. Rewriting term limits, Mr. Berg said, “has stifled choice. And if Thompson drops out, he may well have eliminated choice.”
All of this, of course does little to diminish the sense of irony exhibited by that yellow dog Democrat Howard Wolfson: "Mr. Bloomberg’s supporters argue that the parties have only themselves to blame for producing lackluster mayoral candidates who badly trail the mayor in the polls. And, they note, anyone is free to challenge him. “At the end of the day the City Council decision allowed any New Yorker who wanted to run the opportunity to run,” said Howard Wolfson, a Bloomberg campaign spokesman."
Free to commit political suicide as Mayor Mike-the city's riches man-spends $100 million to re-introduce himself to a public apparently suffering from political dementia; and if this attrition keeps up we may have the kind of referendum that the North Koreans find so uplifting. The fact of the matter is-and we're watching you Times editorialists-if this guy spends this kind of money to scorched earth a lackluster field of diminished opponents, then he should be ridiculed by every opinion writer in the city. And they should hammer him at least as often as the NY Daily News has done to Senator Kruger because of his principle opposition to tolling the East and Harlem River bridges.
But all of this has not only given us Wolfson the ironist; it has also bequeathed a bit of aggravatingly typical Mike Bloomberg disingenuousness: "Asked this week whether his decision to seek a third term, and to spend heavily to achieve it, had a chilling effect on potential rivals, Mr. Bloomberg said, “There is no evidence to me that there are fewer candidates running.” CSI he's not.
As the campaign manager for one of the potential candidates who's likely to sit this election out tells the Times: "We were definitely gearing up to run — and then term limits happened,” said Rob Ryan, an aide to Mr. Catsimatidis, who is still weighing a run, but only in the unlikely event that Mr. Bloomberg does not win approval to run on the Republican ballot line. Mr. Ryan expressed bewilderment over Mr. Bloomberg’s contention that altering the term limits would create a wider pool of candidates. “Historically, in any race, you will see more candidates when it’s an open seat than when there is an incumbent,” he said."
Will any of this matter to the voters in the fall? Probably not; but strange things have been known to happen when campaigns get started. In our view, if Thompson is the candidate, he needs to after the mayor full bore-bearding the lion, so to speak. The mayor has been able to insulate the general public from the sharper edges of his personality. We'd like to see the real Mike Bloomberg goaded up.
No More Wining Allowed
The more serious-and non indentured-folks take a look at the wine in grocery store issue, the more it becomes apparent that only liquor store partisans see the downside. The latest evaluation comes from yesterday's Newsday strong supportive editorial: "Today, we raise a glass to the free market and endorse a proposal to allow the sale of wine in New York grocery stores. The idea would bring convenience to consumers and ultimately expand the state's winemaking industry."
And while Newsday feels-as we do ourselves-that the modern liquor store must become, well, modern, it doesn't feel that the fear of competition justifies the continuance of a protected monopoly: "But most businesses that are threatened by economic changes don't seek legal immunity from competition. Liquor-store owners want to protect a status quo that no one else enjoys in this increasingly global economy."
The liquor stores are so afraid of the competition that they're resisting the kind of positive change that Newsday believes-and Senator Espada's legislation advances-would be in the industry's best interests: "So, before the state opens the door to grocery stores, it must also modernize its liquor-store statutes. Allow liquor stores to sell beer, mixers, cheese and other complementary products. Let them extend their hours and expand to more than one outlet. Fair is fair...The governor's office invited liquor store owners to add their wish list to the legislation, but so far, they are holding back."
The money's on the table, and all it takes to advance the issue is getting folks on both sides of the question to give a little and craft a compromise that will benefit all of the stakeholders. The days of my way or the highway should be over; and Newsday, which understands this very well, deserves the last word: "Albany lawmakers should grasp this cup to their lips for the benefit of the state's wine industry and consumers - while serving liquor stores generously too."
And while Newsday feels-as we do ourselves-that the modern liquor store must become, well, modern, it doesn't feel that the fear of competition justifies the continuance of a protected monopoly: "But most businesses that are threatened by economic changes don't seek legal immunity from competition. Liquor-store owners want to protect a status quo that no one else enjoys in this increasingly global economy."
The liquor stores are so afraid of the competition that they're resisting the kind of positive change that Newsday believes-and Senator Espada's legislation advances-would be in the industry's best interests: "So, before the state opens the door to grocery stores, it must also modernize its liquor-store statutes. Allow liquor stores to sell beer, mixers, cheese and other complementary products. Let them extend their hours and expand to more than one outlet. Fair is fair...The governor's office invited liquor store owners to add their wish list to the legislation, but so far, they are holding back."
The money's on the table, and all it takes to advance the issue is getting folks on both sides of the question to give a little and craft a compromise that will benefit all of the stakeholders. The days of my way or the highway should be over; and Newsday, which understands this very well, deserves the last word: "Albany lawmakers should grasp this cup to their lips for the benefit of the state's wine industry and consumers - while serving liquor stores generously too."
Posting the Truth on Wine
It's getting to be redundant, but that's what happens when something is so self-evident; as the benefits for allowing the sale of wine in grocery stores surely is. The latest evidence is found in today's editorial in the NY Post: "With potentially more than $100 million in new revenue dangling be fore their eyes, lawmakers in Albany may finally do New Yorkers a favor - and let groceries sell wine. We'll raise a glass to that."
And the Post lashes out at the fact that the archaic state law raises prices to New York's consumers because of the lack of competition: "This bizarre rule dates back to Prohibition. But it's left the state with just 2,700 nonrestaurant retail wine-sale venues - for nearly 20 million residents. The result: New York is one of the least convenient places in America to buy wine. (With just shy of twice New York's population, California boasts 10 times the number of wine-retail outlets.) New Yorkers pay more, too - thanks to the lack of competition. Lifting the outdated ban would boost the number of venues tenfold, proponents predict, saving consumers some $80 million a year."
The paper also appreciates the potential revenue gains for the state: "And by licensing new outlets, the state can quickly produce a cool $100 million in licensing fees, to help plug a $14 billion budget hole. Albany's drunken sailors should love that idea. Of course, most New Yorkers like it, too: Some 68 percent say they want to be able to buy wine in grocery stores."
Which leaves only the monopolists opposed: "Actually, there is a group opposed. Yup, you guessed it: liquor-store owners, who now hold a monopoly on retail sales. To fight the reform, they've invented a few excuses: Underage drinking will soar, they claim - though teens tend to buy beer, not wine, and that's already sold in groceries. Liquor stores, facing new competition, may close, they say - killing jobs. Maybe. But even more new jobs will pop up to help distribute, market, stock and sell the product at the new outlets."
And, of course, a local industry could be bolstered as well: "Indeed, demand for New York-produced wine is likely to grow. Then Empire State vintners would need to up production, creating still more jobs - a nice shot in the arm for a neglected homegrown industry."
So let's get this show on the road-and, as the Post says; "Albany shouldn't keep wine sales, um, bottled up. It's time to let grocers sell wine."
And the Post lashes out at the fact that the archaic state law raises prices to New York's consumers because of the lack of competition: "This bizarre rule dates back to Prohibition. But it's left the state with just 2,700 nonrestaurant retail wine-sale venues - for nearly 20 million residents. The result: New York is one of the least convenient places in America to buy wine. (With just shy of twice New York's population, California boasts 10 times the number of wine-retail outlets.) New Yorkers pay more, too - thanks to the lack of competition. Lifting the outdated ban would boost the number of venues tenfold, proponents predict, saving consumers some $80 million a year."
The paper also appreciates the potential revenue gains for the state: "And by licensing new outlets, the state can quickly produce a cool $100 million in licensing fees, to help plug a $14 billion budget hole. Albany's drunken sailors should love that idea. Of course, most New Yorkers like it, too: Some 68 percent say they want to be able to buy wine in grocery stores."
Which leaves only the monopolists opposed: "Actually, there is a group opposed. Yup, you guessed it: liquor-store owners, who now hold a monopoly on retail sales. To fight the reform, they've invented a few excuses: Underage drinking will soar, they claim - though teens tend to buy beer, not wine, and that's already sold in groceries. Liquor stores, facing new competition, may close, they say - killing jobs. Maybe. But even more new jobs will pop up to help distribute, market, stock and sell the product at the new outlets."
And, of course, a local industry could be bolstered as well: "Indeed, demand for New York-produced wine is likely to grow. Then Empire State vintners would need to up production, creating still more jobs - a nice shot in the arm for a neglected homegrown industry."
So let's get this show on the road-and, as the Post says; "Albany shouldn't keep wine sales, um, bottled up. It's time to let grocers sell wine."
Liquor Battle Rewined
The Politicker has focused on the liquor store-supermarket wars over wine, and outlines some of the objections that are being raised: "Marc Ressler, owner of Midnight Liquors in Tonawanda and vice president of the state Liquor Store Association, said the measure would "steal" the wine business from liquor stores, and said after the licensing fees would provide only a relatively small amount of revenue for the state. "What that one-shot deal is going to cost us is, from our estimates, over 1,000 small businesses," he said."
Which leads us to wonder just how liquor stores in the 35 states that allow the sale of wine in grocery stores have managed to survive-and in many cases even grow their businesses. Go travel through Florida and you'll find supermarkets and liquor stores in the same shopping centers; compatibly thriving even though the wine sales are being shared. Makes you wonder about the reliability of the liquor lobby's alarmist "studies."
But in response to the concerns of these stores Senator Espada has introduced a bill to aid the industry: "Meanwhile, State Senator Pedro Espada Jr. has introduced an olive-branch bill that allows liquor store owners to have more than one location and sell snack foods to, as Espada told me, "even the playing field."
Sounds like the seed of a potential compromise, doesn't it? What remains to be seen, however, is the extent to which the liquor lobby is simply obstinate; unwilling to compromise at all, and perfectly happy for the state to fore go the (conservative) $105 million in licensing fees that it would accrue should the measure be enacted. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail; and a solution can be crafted so that all parties can gain. That would make a lot of sense to us.
Which leads us to wonder just how liquor stores in the 35 states that allow the sale of wine in grocery stores have managed to survive-and in many cases even grow their businesses. Go travel through Florida and you'll find supermarkets and liquor stores in the same shopping centers; compatibly thriving even though the wine sales are being shared. Makes you wonder about the reliability of the liquor lobby's alarmist "studies."
But in response to the concerns of these stores Senator Espada has introduced a bill to aid the industry: "Meanwhile, State Senator Pedro Espada Jr. has introduced an olive-branch bill that allows liquor store owners to have more than one location and sell snack foods to, as Espada told me, "even the playing field."
Sounds like the seed of a potential compromise, doesn't it? What remains to be seen, however, is the extent to which the liquor lobby is simply obstinate; unwilling to compromise at all, and perfectly happy for the state to fore go the (conservative) $105 million in licensing fees that it would accrue should the measure be enacted. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail; and a solution can be crafted so that all parties can gain. That would make a lot of sense to us.
Friday, March 13, 2009
An Un-Timely Opinion
We just knew that they couldn't resist-and the editorialists at the NY Times couldn't; weighing in today in order to give fiscal counsel to those state senators who are resisting tolling the East and Harlem River bridges: "Sometime this month, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is preparing to severely cut service and raise fares by a painful 23 percent. Here’s the reason: A few New York state senators have decided to let commuters suffer, even their own constituents, rather than approve a tax on payrolls and modest new tolls on bridges over the Harlem and East Rivers."
Now, let's put aside for a moment the almost total suspension of disbelief involved in the Times' accepting the MTA's budget numbers and its deadline for the imposition of a fare hike and service cuts. Just how does the paper get off rendering financial evaluations on anything; after all, this is the business that has put its corporate jet up for sale and is borrowing money at the usurious rate of 14%!
Then again, maybe the Times has an intimate knowledge of just what kind of financial hole the MTA has driven itself into. Perhaps, the two entities are sharing bread and water together in the proverbial hole-and commiserating about the predicament they both find themselves in. But the fact that the Times and the MTA are like-minded profligates, doesn't mean that we need to accept what either says as gospel; and for both, it can hardly be said that any of their utterances can be taken to the bank!
Here's how the Times sees the situation: "Even with Albany’s help, the M.T.A. would have to raise fares by 8 percent and cut some services. But without those new taxes and tolls, the M.T.A. can only deal with its $1.2 billion deficit by making it a lot worse for 8.5 million riders a day." How does it know? Why, because the MTA says it's so.
But that's not good enough for some legislative skeptics-and recent convert State Senator Hiram Monseratte has joined the dissenting chorus: "Sen. Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens), one of the first outer-borough lawmakers to back tolls on the now-free East River bridges, announced yesterday he's pulling his support. Monserrate said he wouldn't agree to the measure until other options, such as raising income taxes on the wealthy or selling off excess MTA land, are exhausted."
But the MTA is moving ahead with its doomsday threats, and troubleshooter Richard Ravitch is claiming that temporary measures will just make things worse: "In an interview, he said that if the Legislature ultimately offered the authority a one-time cash infusion, the authority should go ahead with the fare increase and use the state funds to pay for long-term maintenance, or perhaps hold onto it to help close the budget gap next year. The authority’s board will meet on Friday in a special session to review its finances with and without a rescue plan. The board will meet again on March 25 to vote on the size of a fare increase, which would take effect in June. It will also vote then on whether to move ahead with planning for a series of deep service cuts, most of which would take place later this year."
In our view, the governor should make this a make my day moment-and publicly tell the authority to hold off in order to give the state time to fully review the authority's books; and give all of the new board members (yes, throw each and every one under the bus) time to develop a long term restructuring plan. For the Times, however, the agency's crackpot realism is accepted as an article of faith-prompting the paper to end its editorial with this lame observation on the complaints of legislative dissenters: "Their latest complaints are focusing more on the way the M.T.A. operates. Yes, the M.T.A. could always be more efficient, more transparent, but that is no excuse to punish the millions of New Yorkers who rely on public transit."
This tepid acknowledgement of MTA governing practices reminds us of the kind of defense Barney Frank mustered for Freddie Mac last July-yes there are some problems, but nothing to stop us from doing business as usual. So the Times-and the Daily News-should stop excoriating legislative opponents of bridge tolls, and demand that the governor and the state legislature devise a temporary plan to forestall fare increases. After that is done, than the newly restructured MTA-aided by the public accounting from its newly appointed trustees-could begin the hard work of making the authority function with transparent efficiency.
Now, let's put aside for a moment the almost total suspension of disbelief involved in the Times' accepting the MTA's budget numbers and its deadline for the imposition of a fare hike and service cuts. Just how does the paper get off rendering financial evaluations on anything; after all, this is the business that has put its corporate jet up for sale and is borrowing money at the usurious rate of 14%!
Then again, maybe the Times has an intimate knowledge of just what kind of financial hole the MTA has driven itself into. Perhaps, the two entities are sharing bread and water together in the proverbial hole-and commiserating about the predicament they both find themselves in. But the fact that the Times and the MTA are like-minded profligates, doesn't mean that we need to accept what either says as gospel; and for both, it can hardly be said that any of their utterances can be taken to the bank!
Here's how the Times sees the situation: "Even with Albany’s help, the M.T.A. would have to raise fares by 8 percent and cut some services. But without those new taxes and tolls, the M.T.A. can only deal with its $1.2 billion deficit by making it a lot worse for 8.5 million riders a day." How does it know? Why, because the MTA says it's so.
But that's not good enough for some legislative skeptics-and recent convert State Senator Hiram Monseratte has joined the dissenting chorus: "Sen. Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens), one of the first outer-borough lawmakers to back tolls on the now-free East River bridges, announced yesterday he's pulling his support. Monserrate said he wouldn't agree to the measure until other options, such as raising income taxes on the wealthy or selling off excess MTA land, are exhausted."
But the MTA is moving ahead with its doomsday threats, and troubleshooter Richard Ravitch is claiming that temporary measures will just make things worse: "In an interview, he said that if the Legislature ultimately offered the authority a one-time cash infusion, the authority should go ahead with the fare increase and use the state funds to pay for long-term maintenance, or perhaps hold onto it to help close the budget gap next year. The authority’s board will meet on Friday in a special session to review its finances with and without a rescue plan. The board will meet again on March 25 to vote on the size of a fare increase, which would take effect in June. It will also vote then on whether to move ahead with planning for a series of deep service cuts, most of which would take place later this year."
In our view, the governor should make this a make my day moment-and publicly tell the authority to hold off in order to give the state time to fully review the authority's books; and give all of the new board members (yes, throw each and every one under the bus) time to develop a long term restructuring plan. For the Times, however, the agency's crackpot realism is accepted as an article of faith-prompting the paper to end its editorial with this lame observation on the complaints of legislative dissenters: "Their latest complaints are focusing more on the way the M.T.A. operates. Yes, the M.T.A. could always be more efficient, more transparent, but that is no excuse to punish the millions of New Yorkers who rely on public transit."
This tepid acknowledgement of MTA governing practices reminds us of the kind of defense Barney Frank mustered for Freddie Mac last July-yes there are some problems, but nothing to stop us from doing business as usual. So the Times-and the Daily News-should stop excoriating legislative opponents of bridge tolls, and demand that the governor and the state legislature devise a temporary plan to forestall fare increases. After that is done, than the newly restructured MTA-aided by the public accounting from its newly appointed trustees-could begin the hard work of making the authority function with transparent efficiency.
Sick Transit Lacks Glory
With the plutocrats hell bent on tolling the working class, in a brazen shilling for a corrupt public authority, it is refreshing to see the wayward fourth amigo weighing in; and watching the back of his former amigo colleague. That's exactly what Hiram Montserrate did in a big way yesterday: "If ever there was a sign that the toll portion of Richard Ravitch's MTA bailout plan is "dead" for lack of support in the Senate (as Sen. Martin Dilan says), it is the statement Sen. Hiram Montserrate released this morning. The Democratic freshman lawmaker from Queens was the first to endorse the idea of tolling the East and Harlem river bridges, although he later clarified by saying he considered it a "last resort." He's now backing away from the idea altogether and echoing his colleagues' criticisms of the MTA for failing to explain "specifically" how toll revenue would be used to pay for service and capital improvements."
Take that NY Daily News!-the paper that has a virtual love affair with the senescent MTA. And Hiram pulls no punches in going after the nonfeasant authority-reinforcing the fact that the agency is badly in need of a fiscal enema; something that Majority Leader Smith has suggested.
But perhaps the strongest defense of the MTA skeptics, comes from our friend Corey Bearak. Bearak penned the following, in response to one of the Daily News attacks on the senate:
"The Daily News editorial board, not five courageous state senators, “need to see the light.” (Editorial: “We've got their numbers: Five state senators betray a half-million straphangers,” March 11, 2009). The Daily News evidently cares no one iota about the deleterious impact of packing even more riders to the over-capacity subway cars that surely will result if the toll-taxers get their way and impose tolls on the extensions of our city streets known as our free bridges across the East River and Harlem River. Rather than a inefficient, unfair and inequitable tax that will pack in straphangers like Sardines, the Daily News better serves its readers and the public by advocating the sound alternatives advocates by the coalition of civic, business and labor organizations, Keep NYC Free. Please visit www.KeepNYCFree.com to read our proposals and urge our elected officials to embrace these alternatives, which unlike the Ravitch scheme, avoids any reliance on a fare hike. If a few more electeds join Senators Kruger, Diaz, Espada, Parker and Hassell-Thompson, the path to a no-fare-hike, stable revenue for transit plan becomes more likely every day."
And, given the financial dire straights of Mort Zuckerman's News, we don't think that the paper should be fiscally critiquing-and mocking-those lawmakers who proffer alternative, non-toll scenarios. As Real Clear Politics tells us: "The New York Times may be constantly in the news with all its financial woes, but its two tabloid rivals are the ones facing imminent threat of closing down. The more sensational Post probably will survive a bit longer because of Rupert Murdoch's deep pockets, whereas the Daily News may have more trouble riding out the current economic downturn. Its owner Mort Zuckerman just stopped printing his weekly magazine US News & World Report, making it an online-only entity. And with his real estate business taking a beating, Zuckerman may not be able to continue subsidizing the money-losing Daily News."
But perhaps the News, cognizant of the end of the road ahead, feels the need to get all of this vitriol off its chest before night falls on the paper; and the voice of plutocratic reason is silenced forever. We have too many friends who write for the paper to wish its demise, but a change in the company's management wouldn't cause us any real chagrin.
Take that NY Daily News!-the paper that has a virtual love affair with the senescent MTA. And Hiram pulls no punches in going after the nonfeasant authority-reinforcing the fact that the agency is badly in need of a fiscal enema; something that Majority Leader Smith has suggested.
But perhaps the strongest defense of the MTA skeptics, comes from our friend Corey Bearak. Bearak penned the following, in response to one of the Daily News attacks on the senate:
"The Daily News editorial board, not five courageous state senators, “need to see the light.” (Editorial: “We've got their numbers: Five state senators betray a half-million straphangers,” March 11, 2009). The Daily News evidently cares no one iota about the deleterious impact of packing even more riders to the over-capacity subway cars that surely will result if the toll-taxers get their way and impose tolls on the extensions of our city streets known as our free bridges across the East River and Harlem River. Rather than a inefficient, unfair and inequitable tax that will pack in straphangers like Sardines, the Daily News better serves its readers and the public by advocating the sound alternatives advocates by the coalition of civic, business and labor organizations, Keep NYC Free. Please visit www.KeepNYCFree.com to read our proposals and urge our elected officials to embrace these alternatives, which unlike the Ravitch scheme, avoids any reliance on a fare hike. If a few more electeds join Senators Kruger, Diaz, Espada, Parker and Hassell-Thompson, the path to a no-fare-hike, stable revenue for transit plan becomes more likely every day."
And, given the financial dire straights of Mort Zuckerman's News, we don't think that the paper should be fiscally critiquing-and mocking-those lawmakers who proffer alternative, non-toll scenarios. As Real Clear Politics tells us: "The New York Times may be constantly in the news with all its financial woes, but its two tabloid rivals are the ones facing imminent threat of closing down. The more sensational Post probably will survive a bit longer because of Rupert Murdoch's deep pockets, whereas the Daily News may have more trouble riding out the current economic downturn. Its owner Mort Zuckerman just stopped printing his weekly magazine US News & World Report, making it an online-only entity. And with his real estate business taking a beating, Zuckerman may not be able to continue subsidizing the money-losing Daily News."
But perhaps the News, cognizant of the end of the road ahead, feels the need to get all of this vitriol off its chest before night falls on the paper; and the voice of plutocratic reason is silenced forever. We have too many friends who write for the paper to wish its demise, but a change in the company's management wouldn't cause us any real chagrin.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Daily News, Daily Blues
The NY Daily News has had a history of offering just awful advice-so much so that the folk singer Tom Paxton penned the immortal "Daily News, Daily Blues," ditty. Here are the money lyrics-with an adjustment for inflation:
"Daily News, daily blues
Pick up a copy any time you choose
Seven little pennies in the newsboy's hand
And you ride right along to never, never land."
So, it's within this context that we need to take this morning's advice to Malcolm Smith, that the majority leader strip Carl Kruger of his finance chairmanship: "That post demands a modicum of sense and responsibility as to raising and spending taxpayer monies. Brooklyn Democrat Carl Kruger has neither. His plan for bailing out the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is so far off the beam, it's lunacy."
Of course, if your Morticia at the Daily News it's completely rational to rip off motorists in order to pour money down the black hole called the MTA; or, to do a complete 180 on your position on term limits in order to usher in the reign of Mike III. Or, to propose a congestion tax so that Manhattan can be freed up for greater limousine access for your Billionaire Boys Club.
Now Kruger's transit plan may not pass the smell test for the scions at the News, but how would folks with a permanent sinus condition when it comes to sniffing public malfeasance-at least when it comes to their rich real estate buddies-be able to tell? After all, the News lead the cheers for all of the city's eminent domain projects, where local property owners were forced, looking down the barrel of a public gun, to relinquish their land to richer folks.
And, how can we forget that the paper lauded the sweetheart Bronx Terminal Market rip-off, where small minority wholesalers were evicted for the pleasure of the billionaire Steve Ross. Oh, and did the Daily News ever opine about how the Bloombergistas ripped off Bronx parkland in hopeful exchange for a luxury box? No, exhibiting typical noblesse oblige lockjaw, they left that to their intrepid columnist Juan Gonzales to inveigh against.
So now they want Kruger's scalp, and for what? For the temerity of standing up for the outer borough middle class, the same folks who pay 50 cents to allow Morticia to editorialize against their interests. If anyone should leave, it is the paper's publisher; let him follow the profligate and inept Pinch Sulzberger, right out the door. The resulting editorial silence would be a blessing.
"Daily News, daily blues
Pick up a copy any time you choose
Seven little pennies in the newsboy's hand
And you ride right along to never, never land."
So, it's within this context that we need to take this morning's advice to Malcolm Smith, that the majority leader strip Carl Kruger of his finance chairmanship: "That post demands a modicum of sense and responsibility as to raising and spending taxpayer monies. Brooklyn Democrat Carl Kruger has neither. His plan for bailing out the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is so far off the beam, it's lunacy."
Of course, if your Morticia at the Daily News it's completely rational to rip off motorists in order to pour money down the black hole called the MTA; or, to do a complete 180 on your position on term limits in order to usher in the reign of Mike III. Or, to propose a congestion tax so that Manhattan can be freed up for greater limousine access for your Billionaire Boys Club.
Now Kruger's transit plan may not pass the smell test for the scions at the News, but how would folks with a permanent sinus condition when it comes to sniffing public malfeasance-at least when it comes to their rich real estate buddies-be able to tell? After all, the News lead the cheers for all of the city's eminent domain projects, where local property owners were forced, looking down the barrel of a public gun, to relinquish their land to richer folks.
And, how can we forget that the paper lauded the sweetheart Bronx Terminal Market rip-off, where small minority wholesalers were evicted for the pleasure of the billionaire Steve Ross. Oh, and did the Daily News ever opine about how the Bloombergistas ripped off Bronx parkland in hopeful exchange for a luxury box? No, exhibiting typical noblesse oblige lockjaw, they left that to their intrepid columnist Juan Gonzales to inveigh against.
So now they want Kruger's scalp, and for what? For the temerity of standing up for the outer borough middle class, the same folks who pay 50 cents to allow Morticia to editorialize against their interests. If anyone should leave, it is the paper's publisher; let him follow the profligate and inept Pinch Sulzberger, right out the door. The resulting editorial silence would be a blessing.
House of Cards
Adolfo Carrion is now added to the increasingly large list of folks for whom the White House vetting process has proven to be more than somewhat lacking. Not only was Carrion a master of the pay-for-play political shakedown; he was also using his position to get folks to provide free services. As the NY Daily News reported yesterday: "President Obama's new urban czar, Adolfo Carrión, admitted Tuesday he has not paid an architect who designed a renovation of his Bronx home two years ago.That presents conflict-of-interest issues because at the time the architect was a key player in a Bronx development that needed approval from Carrión, then the Bronx borough president."
Well, it's only been two years, so maybe Adolfo had a clause that allowed him to wait-forever?-until he could be sure that the house wouldn't collapse because of architectural errors: "In a statement to the Daily News, Carrión admitted he hadn't paid architect Hugo Subotovsky to design a porch and balcony for his City Island home. The renovation occurred more than two years ago. The last document filed with the city Buildings Department is dated Feb. 2, 2007. The work permit on the job expired that same month."
Unable to ignore this potentially unreported-and illegal-gift, the White House responded to the News' revelations in today's edition: "The White House told urban czar Adolfo Carrión on Wednesday to pay the architect who did work on his Bronx home more than two years ago. The Daily News reported that Carrión, the former Bronx borough president who is now the White House urban policy director, had the architect draw up renovations in early 2007. That work came as Carrión's office was reviewing the architect's plan for a housing project. Carrión still hasn't paid for the work, raising questions about whether it was a freebie done to win approval of the project."
And, on the editorial page, the paper mocks the "urban legend," underscoring what many of us have known about the slippery AC: "Then, one day, the powerful borough president, who goes by the name Adolfo Carrión and who was always asked for valuable permissions, said to the architect: "Please, my supplicant, design a wondrous home for me." And the architect, whose name was Hugo (The Helpful) Subotovsky, said: "Yes, powerful sir." And so Hugo the Helpful drew up magnificent plans in the Victorian style, and he worked and worked on them until, lo, after the passage of almost three years, the powerful borough president had a renovated house that suited his magnificence."
Carrion better pay up fast-after all, he doesn't have any job to go back to now that he has resigned his Bronx post. But with the new administration's desire to bail out all manner of deadbeats with its mortgage bailout proposal, we believe that Adolfo Carrion will fit in well down in DC, along with a number of other ethical challenged folks-reminding us of the words sung by the melodious Mary Wells: "I'm sticking to my guy like a stamp to a letter. Like birds of a feather, we stick together. I'm tellin' you from the start. I can't be torn apart from my guy."
For AC's sake, this better be the last bombshell; or else he will join Tom Daschile and Bill Richardson in the Conflict of Interest Hall of Fame. But, probably not. Even when it comes to taking a hand out, he remains simply minor league.
Well, it's only been two years, so maybe Adolfo had a clause that allowed him to wait-forever?-until he could be sure that the house wouldn't collapse because of architectural errors: "In a statement to the Daily News, Carrión admitted he hadn't paid architect Hugo Subotovsky to design a porch and balcony for his City Island home. The renovation occurred more than two years ago. The last document filed with the city Buildings Department is dated Feb. 2, 2007. The work permit on the job expired that same month."
Unable to ignore this potentially unreported-and illegal-gift, the White House responded to the News' revelations in today's edition: "The White House told urban czar Adolfo Carrión on Wednesday to pay the architect who did work on his Bronx home more than two years ago. The Daily News reported that Carrión, the former Bronx borough president who is now the White House urban policy director, had the architect draw up renovations in early 2007. That work came as Carrión's office was reviewing the architect's plan for a housing project. Carrión still hasn't paid for the work, raising questions about whether it was a freebie done to win approval of the project."
And, on the editorial page, the paper mocks the "urban legend," underscoring what many of us have known about the slippery AC: "Then, one day, the powerful borough president, who goes by the name Adolfo Carrión and who was always asked for valuable permissions, said to the architect: "Please, my supplicant, design a wondrous home for me." And the architect, whose name was Hugo (The Helpful) Subotovsky, said: "Yes, powerful sir." And so Hugo the Helpful drew up magnificent plans in the Victorian style, and he worked and worked on them until, lo, after the passage of almost three years, the powerful borough president had a renovated house that suited his magnificence."
Carrion better pay up fast-after all, he doesn't have any job to go back to now that he has resigned his Bronx post. But with the new administration's desire to bail out all manner of deadbeats with its mortgage bailout proposal, we believe that Adolfo Carrion will fit in well down in DC, along with a number of other ethical challenged folks-reminding us of the words sung by the melodious Mary Wells: "I'm sticking to my guy like a stamp to a letter. Like birds of a feather, we stick together. I'm tellin' you from the start. I can't be torn apart from my guy."
For AC's sake, this better be the last bombshell; or else he will join Tom Daschile and Bill Richardson in the Conflict of Interest Hall of Fame. But, probably not. Even when it comes to taking a hand out, he remains simply minor league.
Soda Tax RIP
In what was almost inevitable since the public outcry-and industry-led lobbying effort-was started over the governor's proposed soda tax, it was announced yesterday that the tax on sugared soft drinks had fizzled: "Gov. David Paterson is poised to announce a three-way agreement between himself and majority legislative leaders to ditch many of the so-called "fun taxes" he proposed as revenue generators in his 2009-2010 budget, lawmakers briefed on the plan confirm. The soda tax (AKA the "fat tax"), which Paterson all-but declared dead not too long ago, despite a valiant YouTube defense mounted by DOH Commissioner Richard Daines, will now be officially confined to the recycling heap, along with the ever-unpopular "iPod" tax that would have applied to all digital downloads (including porn)."
As we had pointed out in our posts, and in a well publicized press conference, the tax hurt poor consumers along with the store owners in low income neighborhoods. As we said at the time, when it looked as if Paterson was about to cry uncle: "Opponents of the soda tax — which Mr. Paterson and his aides preferred to call a tax on obesity, which afflicts a quarter of New Yorkers — said they were glad that Mr. Paterson appeared to be abandoning it. “The governor is responding to the obvious hue and cry, not only from the food and beverage industry people, but from the general public, who have shown in poll after poll that this is not an idea that they feel is worth embracing,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the beverage industry."
Still, can we at least say that this victory is a sweet one? Especially for the small Hispanic bottlers such as Good-O, Inca Kola and Top Pop; folks who would have been hard pressed to absorb the increase during these tough times. As Luis Jardines, owner of Inca, told El Diario-emphasizing the tough economic conditions: "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”.
Clearly, the unpopularity of both the tax-as well as the governor himself-played a role in the jettisoning of the soda levy. The City Room blog captures this: "With budget negotiations proceeding at a crawl and his approval ratings in the gutter, Gov. David A. Paterson announced a deal with the Legislature on Wednesday to use more than a billion dollars in federal stimulus money to eliminate some of the unpopular new taxes and fees he had proposed to help balance next year’s state budget."
Next up, the bottle bill-with support for the measure waning in the state senate; the razor thin Democratic majority makes this a difficult sell. As the NY Times points out this morning: "Everything has broken down,” said one Democratic lobbyist, who insisted on anonymity to protect the interests of his clients. “The reason is that the Senate can’t produce — they can’t generate votes for taxes, for Rockefeller drug law reform, for anything.” At the same time, it is clear that many in the legislature feel that it's not the time to foist regulatory burdens on struggling retailers; and, surprise, we agree.
As we had pointed out in our posts, and in a well publicized press conference, the tax hurt poor consumers along with the store owners in low income neighborhoods. As we said at the time, when it looked as if Paterson was about to cry uncle: "Opponents of the soda tax — which Mr. Paterson and his aides preferred to call a tax on obesity, which afflicts a quarter of New Yorkers — said they were glad that Mr. Paterson appeared to be abandoning it. “The governor is responding to the obvious hue and cry, not only from the food and beverage industry people, but from the general public, who have shown in poll after poll that this is not an idea that they feel is worth embracing,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the beverage industry."
Still, can we at least say that this victory is a sweet one? Especially for the small Hispanic bottlers such as Good-O, Inca Kola and Top Pop; folks who would have been hard pressed to absorb the increase during these tough times. As Luis Jardines, owner of Inca, told El Diario-emphasizing the tough economic conditions: "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”.
Clearly, the unpopularity of both the tax-as well as the governor himself-played a role in the jettisoning of the soda levy. The City Room blog captures this: "With budget negotiations proceeding at a crawl and his approval ratings in the gutter, Gov. David A. Paterson announced a deal with the Legislature on Wednesday to use more than a billion dollars in federal stimulus money to eliminate some of the unpopular new taxes and fees he had proposed to help balance next year’s state budget."
Next up, the bottle bill-with support for the measure waning in the state senate; the razor thin Democratic majority makes this a difficult sell. As the NY Times points out this morning: "Everything has broken down,” said one Democratic lobbyist, who insisted on anonymity to protect the interests of his clients. “The reason is that the Senate can’t produce — they can’t generate votes for taxes, for Rockefeller drug law reform, for anything.” At the same time, it is clear that many in the legislature feel that it's not the time to foist regulatory burdens on struggling retailers; and, surprise, we agree.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
News Extolling Kruger
The NY Daily News, the paper for whom the congestion tax was the highest standard of public policy excellence, is continuing its campaign of trying to, well, throw the three amigos-and two other senators-under the bus for their principled opposition to bridge tolls: "If you're among the 109,000 southern Brooklyn subway riders, be warned: your state senator, Carl Kruger, is engineering drastic fare hikes and service cuts for you. If you're among the 123,000 southern Bronx subway riders, be warned: your senator, Ruben Diaz, is pushing you toward the same awful fate. The same is true if you're among 111,400 subway riders in Sen. Pedro Espada's central Bronx district; 78,000 in Sen. Kevin Parker's central Brooklyn district, and 56,000 in Ruth Hassell-Thompson's northern Bronx district. Kruger, Diaz, Espada, Parker and Hassell-Thompson have emerged as the leading opponents of rescuing the MTA from collapse by imposing a tax on payrolls and tolls on the East River and Harlem River bridges."
This is, count them, the sixth editorial that the paper has run in its attempt to tar baby the opposition-and present the toll hike as the inevitable result of what it presents as a zero-sum game. Absent in any of this advocacy and excoriation is there any recognition that the MTA is a dysfunctional agency whose cries of poverty need to be seen in order to be believed; as with a forensic accounting of its books and practices.
For instance, just how many over there are making better than six figure salaries? How much property could be sold to create a temporary respite while the agency's finances are gone over with a fine tooth comb? None of this is within the tolling purview of the News; a paper that seemingly delights in the anticipation of socking it to city motorists.
Neither does the News explore any alternative funding mechanisms-as Kruger has done. Here's his comments to the Politicker: ""Deadlines are arbitrary dates set by people that have things to hide," State Senator Carl Kruger, who is adamantly opposed to tolls, told me. His idea to generate revenue for the M.T.A.: use bridges over the East and Harlem River as collateral, borrow $4.25 billion against them, give $1 billion to the M.T.A. and invest the remainder in the state's common retirement fund and use the return - it's "conservatively" pegged at 6.5 percent - to pay off the bonds."The most recent proposal about creating a public benefit authority: it's met with stonewall silence," Kruger claimed. "There are other proposals on the table as well and they too have been met with silence. I don't feel, nor will I accept the fact that there's linkage from one piece of this so-called bailout is married to another piece of the bailout."
So instead we get the bogarting bum rush from the taxers-limousine riders from Manhattan who now cry crocodile tears for straphangers-all in order to hide their shameless defense of the malfeasant public authority, It's time that Malcolm Smith called Silver's bluff-and the MTA's anti-motorist and small business plan. There's a better alternative out there than tolling all of the bridges.
This is, count them, the sixth editorial that the paper has run in its attempt to tar baby the opposition-and present the toll hike as the inevitable result of what it presents as a zero-sum game. Absent in any of this advocacy and excoriation is there any recognition that the MTA is a dysfunctional agency whose cries of poverty need to be seen in order to be believed; as with a forensic accounting of its books and practices.
For instance, just how many over there are making better than six figure salaries? How much property could be sold to create a temporary respite while the agency's finances are gone over with a fine tooth comb? None of this is within the tolling purview of the News; a paper that seemingly delights in the anticipation of socking it to city motorists.
Neither does the News explore any alternative funding mechanisms-as Kruger has done. Here's his comments to the Politicker: ""Deadlines are arbitrary dates set by people that have things to hide," State Senator Carl Kruger, who is adamantly opposed to tolls, told me. His idea to generate revenue for the M.T.A.: use bridges over the East and Harlem River as collateral, borrow $4.25 billion against them, give $1 billion to the M.T.A. and invest the remainder in the state's common retirement fund and use the return - it's "conservatively" pegged at 6.5 percent - to pay off the bonds."The most recent proposal about creating a public benefit authority: it's met with stonewall silence," Kruger claimed. "There are other proposals on the table as well and they too have been met with silence. I don't feel, nor will I accept the fact that there's linkage from one piece of this so-called bailout is married to another piece of the bailout."
So instead we get the bogarting bum rush from the taxers-limousine riders from Manhattan who now cry crocodile tears for straphangers-all in order to hide their shameless defense of the malfeasant public authority, It's time that Malcolm Smith called Silver's bluff-and the MTA's anti-motorist and small business plan. There's a better alternative out there than tolling all of the bridges.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Carrion's Home Improvement
Questions are being raised about that kind of help former Bronx BP might have gotten to renovate his City Isl;and house. As the NY Daily News reports: "President Obama's new urban czar renovated his Bronx home with help from the architect on a major development that needed his approval, a Daily News investigation has found."
Carrion, for his part, vigorously defended his tenure: "As the Bronx borough president, I built a reputation for integrity and dedication to my constituents." But, as the News reported last week: "...several developers seeking Carrión's approval for projects across the Bronx raised tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions for him."
Maybe Adolfo left at the opportune moment-but to his defense, his alleged misdeeds pale in comparison to those of the shifty fingered Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut; someone for whom merely getting some architectural help is considered chump change when a sweetheart mortgage is available-from an industry he regulates-to save himself tens of thousands of dollars.
But then AC is going to Washington where, apparently, his Bronx training will stand him in good stead for the rigors of national politics; and the blandishments of the pay-to-play crowd. Not like Mr. Smith, is it?
Carrion, for his part, vigorously defended his tenure: "As the Bronx borough president, I built a reputation for integrity and dedication to my constituents." But, as the News reported last week: "...several developers seeking Carrión's approval for projects across the Bronx raised tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions for him."
Maybe Adolfo left at the opportune moment-but to his defense, his alleged misdeeds pale in comparison to those of the shifty fingered Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut; someone for whom merely getting some architectural help is considered chump change when a sweetheart mortgage is available-from an industry he regulates-to save himself tens of thousands of dollars.
But then AC is going to Washington where, apparently, his Bronx training will stand him in good stead for the rigors of national politics; and the blandishments of the pay-to-play crowd. Not like Mr. Smith, is it?
Poisoned Toll House Cookies
It certainly looks as if it's gonna be a difficult sell for Malcolm Smith to get his conference to accept tolling of the East River and Harlem bridges, even as Anthony Weiner proposes just charging out-of-towners. As the NY Post reports: "Mayoral hopeful Rep. Anthony Weiner wants the MTA's financial crisis to take the biggest toll on out-of-towners. Weiner said cameras could take pictures of license plates crossing the now free East and Harlem river bridges, and bill drivers who aren't registered in the city $4.15 each way. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith tried to rally support for a plan that would bill anyone who crosses the East River bridges $5 or $4.15 for E-ZPass holders. Drivers crossing the Harlem River bridges would be billed $2."
One of the toll's little understood impacts is the hurting it would put on the city's small businesses. Just recently, for instance, Assemblyman Espaillat brought MTA guru Richard Ravitch up to meet with our friend Paul Gagliardi, the owner of Flair Beverage on 207th Street. Espaillat wanted Ravitch to gauge how the toll plan would impact Flair's cash and carry beer business-a business that relies on bodegas coming from the Bronx across 207th Street to shop.
Gagliardi estimated that he could lose up to 35% of his business because the cash-strapped bodegueros make frequent daily trips across the span to replenish their stock of beer and soda; and his neighboring supermarkets could also be impacted, he told Ravitch, because of the additional expense of tolls. What the transit vultures never realize-and we saw the same thing with the mayor's congestion tax-is that the city is one seamless piece; and small business relies on its easy access to Manhattan markets to sustain wholesale and contracting operations housed in the outer boroughs.
So, while five state senators are balking at the toll plan because of its unfair impact on their constituents, there is also the recognition by the three amigos that the toll will hurt the predominately Hispanic and other minority small retail and wholesale businesses for whom the tolls would be another nail in the proverbial recession-built coffin; something that the NY Daily News editorial board loses sight of when it points fingers at the hold outs.
Here's the News at its most strident, and less thoughtful: "Smith, Kruger, Skelos and all the other anti-toll lawmakers will bear responsibility for hammering millions of daily riders because they feared the wrath of a comparative handful of bridge motorists. Among the guilty will also be Sens. Ruben Diaz and Pedro Espada of the Bronx. All have railed against tolls and/or taxes or, like Smith, postured this way or that - without offering any credible alternative. Ideas that have been floated are unworkable or lunacy."
Why the hasty doom and gloom? Well, because of the MTA's self imposed legislative doomsday deadline-one that the News accepts without question. No one-least of all Kruger, Diaz and Espada, thinks that there isn't the need for a plan-and perhaps an overhaul of the agency's governance; but that doesn't mean that tolls are the answer, or that Shelly Silver's about face is the manifestation of policy sagacity.
New Yorkers are hurting, and the legislature needs to find a way to fund a transit system that the previous leadership drove deeply into debt: "The authority's biggest problem is the massive amounts of debt it took on years ago, in the Pataki era. Politicos, including then-Executive Director Marc Shaw, forced that debt to bloat knowing full well that it would blow up after they had left."
So let's come up with the plan that does the least harm-and one that avoids either tolls or huge fare hikes. Mismanagement of transit should not find its remedy in the pockets of cash poor New York residents and small businesses.
One of the toll's little understood impacts is the hurting it would put on the city's small businesses. Just recently, for instance, Assemblyman Espaillat brought MTA guru Richard Ravitch up to meet with our friend Paul Gagliardi, the owner of Flair Beverage on 207th Street. Espaillat wanted Ravitch to gauge how the toll plan would impact Flair's cash and carry beer business-a business that relies on bodegas coming from the Bronx across 207th Street to shop.
Gagliardi estimated that he could lose up to 35% of his business because the cash-strapped bodegueros make frequent daily trips across the span to replenish their stock of beer and soda; and his neighboring supermarkets could also be impacted, he told Ravitch, because of the additional expense of tolls. What the transit vultures never realize-and we saw the same thing with the mayor's congestion tax-is that the city is one seamless piece; and small business relies on its easy access to Manhattan markets to sustain wholesale and contracting operations housed in the outer boroughs.
So, while five state senators are balking at the toll plan because of its unfair impact on their constituents, there is also the recognition by the three amigos that the toll will hurt the predominately Hispanic and other minority small retail and wholesale businesses for whom the tolls would be another nail in the proverbial recession-built coffin; something that the NY Daily News editorial board loses sight of when it points fingers at the hold outs.
Here's the News at its most strident, and less thoughtful: "Smith, Kruger, Skelos and all the other anti-toll lawmakers will bear responsibility for hammering millions of daily riders because they feared the wrath of a comparative handful of bridge motorists. Among the guilty will also be Sens. Ruben Diaz and Pedro Espada of the Bronx. All have railed against tolls and/or taxes or, like Smith, postured this way or that - without offering any credible alternative. Ideas that have been floated are unworkable or lunacy."
Why the hasty doom and gloom? Well, because of the MTA's self imposed legislative doomsday deadline-one that the News accepts without question. No one-least of all Kruger, Diaz and Espada, thinks that there isn't the need for a plan-and perhaps an overhaul of the agency's governance; but that doesn't mean that tolls are the answer, or that Shelly Silver's about face is the manifestation of policy sagacity.
New Yorkers are hurting, and the legislature needs to find a way to fund a transit system that the previous leadership drove deeply into debt: "The authority's biggest problem is the massive amounts of debt it took on years ago, in the Pataki era. Politicos, including then-Executive Director Marc Shaw, forced that debt to bloat knowing full well that it would blow up after they had left."
So let's come up with the plan that does the least harm-and one that avoids either tolls or huge fare hikes. Mismanagement of transit should not find its remedy in the pockets of cash poor New York residents and small businesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)