The first public hearing on Flushing Commons will be held tonight by CB #7, and it promises to be a raucous affair since the community is in a state of high dudgeon over the high handed-and secretive-tactics of EDC.
As we commented last week-citing a NY Daily News story on the project: "Apparently EDC did all of this in secret-and waited for the keen eyed John Liu, a project critic, to leave his council office before certifying the project for ULURP: "There's a lot of really bad feeling because this entire project was done in secret and it was held off until John Liu left office," said Paul Graziano, an urban planning consultant and president of the Historic Districts Council. In 2007, Liu, the local councilman at the time, was a vocal opponent when developers replaced the original plan, which included 2,000 parking spaces, with a 1,600-spot garage. He also helped secure a parking rate cap that could only be changed with city approval and input from the BID. In the plan unveiled in January, parking rates are limited for five years only and the parking space count remains 1,600."
But the project is going to pose a nightmare traffic problem for the already car inundated Flushing-something that the developer's EIS only barely acknowledges, even while it projects gridlock conditions! And the nightmarish conditions will be exacerbated-aided and abetted is a better term-by the Willets Point development that will be Flushing's intrusive neighbor.
WPU's Brian Ketcham provides this futuristic glimpse in his testimony for tonight-and underscores by doing so how these developments are promoted without really acknowledging all of the companion development that is occurring in the surrounding neighborhoods: "You have already approved the Willets Point project, 9 million square feet of residential and commercial development that will produce 80,000 car and truck trips daily, 365 days a year. The Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) reports that Willets Point traffic will gridlock your community morning, noon and night. And that is without accounting for projects like the nearby Sky View Parc nearing completion, a project that will add a thousand more trips in the PM peak hour, or what happens during Mets games and/or tennis matches."
It isn't, however, just one or two projects causing the problems here: "What I have found in my review for Willets Point United is that the FGEIS for Willets Point failed to fully account for Sky View Parc and ignored the effects of Flushing Commons. In fact, there is little evidence that the FGEIS accounted for many of the 90 new developments surrounding the Willets Point Iron Triangle. You folks approved a project--Willets Point--that vastly understated its traffic impacts and still reported gridlocked traffic conditions. Clearly, adding another 800 to 1,000 car and truck trips from Flushing Commons in the PM peak hour to an already gridlocked Main Street will simply make life for you folks that much worse."
So, it appears to us that the greening of NYC that is hyped to a fare thee well by PlanNYC 2030 is simply a self promoting scam of the mayor's-echoing Machiavelli's maxim that it is better to appear good than to be good. Memo to Bloomberg (and to his useful environmental idiots): You can't talk about sustainability and the lowering of carbon emissions while promoting scores of hugely auto-dependent projects all over the city.
The mayor's eight year record on development has been distinctly anti-neighborhood, and anti-small business; an impact that has done little to provide real collateral economic benefits to the city as a whole while, at the same time, seriously eroding the quality of local neighborhood life. Willets Point, and now Flushing Commons, are representative of this community killing development mindset and deserve a common fate-demise.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Buying Support
The NY Post-and why not Morticia?-has finally realized that Mike Bloomberg has been buying political support with hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money: "Mayor Mike may have just opened himself up to a world of hurt. The New York Times reports that Hizzoner is putting on ice a program through which he's "anonymously" channeled money for hundreds of city not-for-profit do-good groups. So what's the problem? Let's just say that the cash -- nearly $200 million in total -- has bought Mike a whole lot of political peace and quiet over the past eight years. Sure, the funds, dispensed through the Carnegie Corporation of New York, officially came from an unnamed donor. But everyone and his mother knows whose money it is."
And money for nothing it's not: "And it doesn't take a genius to understand what a big fat check every year from the mayor might do to a group's tactical calculations. The not-for-profit crowd, after all, is usually expert at staging those big productions on City Hall steps accusing the city -- and its big-meanie mayor -- of starving this worthy cause or that of needed funds."
But, of course, it's not only complicit silence that Bloomberg has bought-and the Post shouldn't have stopped at this point. Because when congestion taxing was being discussed, Bloomberg's paid minions were out in force with green tee shirts signifying there purchased status. And let's not forget the phony Learn New York group-funded by Mike's pals Bill Gates and Eli Brand in a patrician quid pro quo-that lobbied successfully for mayoral control, and is now being disbanded because NY has been well schooled by its effort.
So Mike's millions have been hard at work for the past eight years-on behalf of the only special interest that counts for the solipsistic Bloomberg-himself. And if anyone deserves the Daily News' knucklehead Award-aside from the paper's supine publisher himself-it is the people of New York who have meekly ceded their sovereignty to the little man with his own personal political ATM machine.
And money for nothing it's not: "And it doesn't take a genius to understand what a big fat check every year from the mayor might do to a group's tactical calculations. The not-for-profit crowd, after all, is usually expert at staging those big productions on City Hall steps accusing the city -- and its big-meanie mayor -- of starving this worthy cause or that of needed funds."
But, of course, it's not only complicit silence that Bloomberg has bought-and the Post shouldn't have stopped at this point. Because when congestion taxing was being discussed, Bloomberg's paid minions were out in force with green tee shirts signifying there purchased status. And let's not forget the phony Learn New York group-funded by Mike's pals Bill Gates and Eli Brand in a patrician quid pro quo-that lobbied successfully for mayoral control, and is now being disbanded because NY has been well schooled by its effort.
So Mike's millions have been hard at work for the past eight years-on behalf of the only special interest that counts for the solipsistic Bloomberg-himself. And if anyone deserves the Daily News' knucklehead Award-aside from the paper's supine publisher himself-it is the people of New York who have meekly ceded their sovereignty to the little man with his own personal political ATM machine.
Portholes
Since we're on the subject of the Air Train, it is nice to know that some of what we suspected was true over a decade ago-that the selling of the Air Train was a corrupt act if we've ever saw one-is about to get some light shone on it. As the NY Post reports: "The Port Authority will turn off the spigot and stop sending money to a Queens charity. The agency's action comes a week after The Post revealed that the Rockaway Boulevard Local Development Corp. has received $2.5 million from the PA since 2003, and then spent much of it to buy a vacant lot and for street sweeping. "This matter has been turned over to the Port Authority inspector general and payments will cease during the course of their investigation," an agency statement said. The PA was to give Queens groups $13 million for community improvements as part of the development of the AirTrain rail system."
Boy, was it any wonder that in spite of the fact that we had organized over 500 mostly African American homeowners, not a single local elected official came out to support the community? Equally unsurprising was the fact that Greg Meeks and then council member Archie Spigner led the charge for the Port Authority. Archie should have been given an endowed chair in aeronautics over at York College for his yeoman-like efforts.
But someone needs to investigate just where all of the money went-$13 million is not chump change after all. And, as we have seen with the Katrina rip-off, the ability of these pols to glom on to public monies is without any ethical restraint. So, if there are investigations into AEG and the New Direction Local Development Corp-along with one into Meeks himself-it should take a magical mystery tour into the past sticky finger decade as well. One thing's for certain, Meeks will always be center stage-and his mentor Flake will always be a presence pulling the strings behind the curtain.
It should be recalled that one Ed Reed, who has been given some recent AEG notoriety, was Flake's man who was hired by the Port Authority on the AirTrain deal-so there is a constant corrupt thread running through this community and throughout the past decade and a half. Turning over the Southeast Queens rock will yield a lot of creepy crawly things we're sure. As the Post has reported: One of the strongest links between New Direction and Flake, the politically powerful minister from southeast Queens who has an 0.6 percent stake in AEG, is Edwin Reed, Flake’s former congressional chief of staff and chief executive officer of Flake’s development firm, the Greater Allen AME Community Development Corp. Reed served at one point as New Direction’s treasurer and told the Post he could not recall what happened to the missing funds."
All of which makes the jihad against Hiram Monseratte by the Queens Dems an example of high satire-where selective outrage misdirects attention away from the tawdry actions of those who hold-and want to maintain hold-over the reins of power (and the $pigot that the power controls). Hiram made himself into a classic scapegoat-but at the same time, and while the pyre was burning beneath the sacrificial lamb, the self seeking cabal was busy adding up the day's-and years'-cumulative receipts.
Boy, was it any wonder that in spite of the fact that we had organized over 500 mostly African American homeowners, not a single local elected official came out to support the community? Equally unsurprising was the fact that Greg Meeks and then council member Archie Spigner led the charge for the Port Authority. Archie should have been given an endowed chair in aeronautics over at York College for his yeoman-like efforts.
But someone needs to investigate just where all of the money went-$13 million is not chump change after all. And, as we have seen with the Katrina rip-off, the ability of these pols to glom on to public monies is without any ethical restraint. So, if there are investigations into AEG and the New Direction Local Development Corp-along with one into Meeks himself-it should take a magical mystery tour into the past sticky finger decade as well. One thing's for certain, Meeks will always be center stage-and his mentor Flake will always be a presence pulling the strings behind the curtain.
It should be recalled that one Ed Reed, who has been given some recent AEG notoriety, was Flake's man who was hired by the Port Authority on the AirTrain deal-so there is a constant corrupt thread running through this community and throughout the past decade and a half. Turning over the Southeast Queens rock will yield a lot of creepy crawly things we're sure. As the Post has reported: One of the strongest links between New Direction and Flake, the politically powerful minister from southeast Queens who has an 0.6 percent stake in AEG, is Edwin Reed, Flake’s former congressional chief of staff and chief executive officer of Flake’s development firm, the Greater Allen AME Community Development Corp. Reed served at one point as New Direction’s treasurer and told the Post he could not recall what happened to the missing funds."
All of which makes the jihad against Hiram Monseratte by the Queens Dems an example of high satire-where selective outrage misdirects attention away from the tawdry actions of those who hold-and want to maintain hold-over the reins of power (and the $pigot that the power controls). Hiram made himself into a classic scapegoat-but at the same time, and while the pyre was burning beneath the sacrificial lamb, the self seeking cabal was busy adding up the day's-and years'-cumulative receipts.
Gregorian Chant
The NY Post continues its public service announcements concerning the malfesant actions of one Greg Meeks-and the chanting by the paper is so discordant to the congressman that he, heaven forfend, has refused to speak with its reporters. Inquiring minds do want to know, however, how the frugal lawmaker has been able to afford his luxurious 6,000+ square foot home.
As the Post reports: "Meeks is ranked among the poorest members of Congress, yet he lives in a Queens mansion, associates with billionaires, travels the world and has four cars. Throughout his political career, Meeks has benefited from a series of high-level friendships and political connections that have drawn scrutiny."
It seems that Meeks has embraced a fraternal order of dictators-apparently because of the commonality of interest he shares with some of the world's most notorious-and brutal-kleptocrats:
"In 2006, Meeks visited Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez during a taxpayer-funded trip portrayed as a mission to thank him for providing cheaper home heating oil to Americans. But a month earlier, Meeks was allegedly asked to use his influence with the dictator on behalf of Allen Stanford, a banker later charged in a massive Ponzi scheme. More recently he praised homicidal dictator Robert Mugabe, when he met the Zimbabwean strongman last month as part of a Congressional delegation sent to check out humanitarian projects and the country’s government. “As you know, he is a great man and we look forward to continue working with him until we have a relationship that all of us want to have,” Meeks told the local press after the 90-minute meeting. He met with Fidel Castro during a 1999 visit to Cuba, and upon his return urged the US Government to partially lift the blockade against the communist island."
But one thing that you should know about the congressman is that when it comes to taking handouts he is, well, certainly not meek-and he's living large apparently as a result of the good old political version of the five fingered discount: "Last week, a political watchdog group lodged a complaint with the House Ethics Committee about Meeks’ shady financial dealings. Among the issues raised in the complaint is Meeks’ 6,047-squarefoot mansion in Queens, which the lawmaker — who claims to not even have a bank account with more than $5,000 — bought for $830,000 in 2006. The city valued the property at $1.2 million. An analysis by the National Legal and Policy Center found that Meeks paid less than half the cost per square foot compared to homes sold in Queens in 2006."
We certainly aren't shocked, because when we represented the homeowners of Southeast Queens against the building of the Air Train a decade ago, there was Meeks representing the interests of myriad contractors and the Port Authority, famously telling his constituents that, "You know, I can't get elected only from the contributions from my local community."
So Greg is in the grand tradition of Plunkitt of Tammany Hall who described his opportunism in a way that Meeks has grasped intuitively-since the congressman is not much of a scholar: "EVERYBODY is talkin’ these days about Tammany men growin’ rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin’ the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. There’s all the difference in the world between the two. Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics. I have myself. I’ve made a big fortune out of the game, and I’m gettin’ richer every day, but I’ve not gone in for dishonest graft – blackmailin’ gamblers, saloonkeepers, disorderly people, etc. – and neither has any of the men who have made big fortunes in politics. There’s an honest graft, and I’m an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin’: “I seen my opportunities and I took ‘em.”
Well, it may well turn out that current ethical-not to say legal-standards might disagree with Plunkit's questionable distinctions. And the congressmen may well join with Charlie Rangel as a poster child of reform that turned into disform as the next election cycle approaches. What we do know, however, is that the folks of Southeast Queens-people like Ruth Duberry and Ruth Bryan-deserve better. And the sooner they're rid of the disreputable Meeks the cleaner the air will be in those neglected communities.
As the Post reports: "Meeks is ranked among the poorest members of Congress, yet he lives in a Queens mansion, associates with billionaires, travels the world and has four cars. Throughout his political career, Meeks has benefited from a series of high-level friendships and political connections that have drawn scrutiny."
It seems that Meeks has embraced a fraternal order of dictators-apparently because of the commonality of interest he shares with some of the world's most notorious-and brutal-kleptocrats:
"In 2006, Meeks visited Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez during a taxpayer-funded trip portrayed as a mission to thank him for providing cheaper home heating oil to Americans. But a month earlier, Meeks was allegedly asked to use his influence with the dictator on behalf of Allen Stanford, a banker later charged in a massive Ponzi scheme. More recently he praised homicidal dictator Robert Mugabe, when he met the Zimbabwean strongman last month as part of a Congressional delegation sent to check out humanitarian projects and the country’s government. “As you know, he is a great man and we look forward to continue working with him until we have a relationship that all of us want to have,” Meeks told the local press after the 90-minute meeting. He met with Fidel Castro during a 1999 visit to Cuba, and upon his return urged the US Government to partially lift the blockade against the communist island."
But one thing that you should know about the congressman is that when it comes to taking handouts he is, well, certainly not meek-and he's living large apparently as a result of the good old political version of the five fingered discount: "Last week, a political watchdog group lodged a complaint with the House Ethics Committee about Meeks’ shady financial dealings. Among the issues raised in the complaint is Meeks’ 6,047-squarefoot mansion in Queens, which the lawmaker — who claims to not even have a bank account with more than $5,000 — bought for $830,000 in 2006. The city valued the property at $1.2 million. An analysis by the National Legal and Policy Center found that Meeks paid less than half the cost per square foot compared to homes sold in Queens in 2006."
We certainly aren't shocked, because when we represented the homeowners of Southeast Queens against the building of the Air Train a decade ago, there was Meeks representing the interests of myriad contractors and the Port Authority, famously telling his constituents that, "You know, I can't get elected only from the contributions from my local community."
So Greg is in the grand tradition of Plunkitt of Tammany Hall who described his opportunism in a way that Meeks has grasped intuitively-since the congressman is not much of a scholar: "EVERYBODY is talkin’ these days about Tammany men growin’ rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin’ the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. There’s all the difference in the world between the two. Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics. I have myself. I’ve made a big fortune out of the game, and I’m gettin’ richer every day, but I’ve not gone in for dishonest graft – blackmailin’ gamblers, saloonkeepers, disorderly people, etc. – and neither has any of the men who have made big fortunes in politics. There’s an honest graft, and I’m an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin’: “I seen my opportunities and I took ‘em.”
Well, it may well turn out that current ethical-not to say legal-standards might disagree with Plunkit's questionable distinctions. And the congressmen may well join with Charlie Rangel as a poster child of reform that turned into disform as the next election cycle approaches. What we do know, however, is that the folks of Southeast Queens-people like Ruth Duberry and Ruth Bryan-deserve better. And the sooner they're rid of the disreputable Meeks the cleaner the air will be in those neglected communities.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Something in Commons
There's a battle brewing right on periphery of the Willets Point development-and the fight over Flushing Commons will shed even more light on the perfidy of the city's Economic Development Corporation. As the NY Daily News reports: "As the community's chance to chime in on plans for a sprawling Flushing development comes to a close, locals remain miffed about the project's sudden resurrection and the lack of input they had in its planning. Flushing Commons - a complex of condos and stores set to be built atop the Union St. municipal parking lot - was certified by the city on Jan. 25 after being delayed for almost three years."
Apparently EDC did all of this in secret-and waited for the keen eyed John Liu, a project critic, to leave his council office before certifying the project for ULURP: "There's a lot of really bad feeling because this entire project was done in secret and it was held off until John Liu left office," said Paul Graziano, an urban planning consultant and president of the Historic Districts Council. In 2007, Liu, the local councilman at the time, was a vocal opponent when developers replaced the original plan, which included 2,000 parking spaces, with a 1,600-spot garage. He also helped secure a parking rate cap that could only be changed with city approval and input from the BID. In the plan unveiled in January, parking rates are limited for five years only and the parking space count remains 1,600."
The sheer massiveness of the project, however, is going to compound the traffic mess that will spill over from the proposed Willets Point development-and WPU traffic consultant Ketcham estimates that Flushing Commons will add around 2,000 more vehicle trips in the critical PM peak hours. The FC EIS has yet to find any real ways to mitigate its own generated traffic; and in combination with WP and the 50 or so additional developments planned in and around Flushing we will have reached the point where the green goals of PlaNYC 20130 can be seen only as satire.
This last point about the Flushing development is one that is made strongly by the folks at Streets Blog-who should be joining with WPU as well, since the traffic issues are similar: "What's particularly striking about EDC's math is that it's completely isolated from all other considerations. The strain on Flushing's streets, which are already clogged with congestion, wasn't a factor. The PlaNYC goal of reducing transportation emissions by 44 percent by 2030 wasn't a factor. Officials apparently never stopped to think about the potential housing, retail or community uses that could have been built instead of some of the 500,000 square feet given to vehicle storage."
And the blog goes on to point out that EDC is operating at cross purposes with the mayor's sustainability goals (taking the document a lot more seriously than either we or the mayor does): " In his 2007 speech announcing PlaNYC, Mayor Bloomberg said that his staff "realized that you can’t formulate a land use plan without thinking about transportation." All the relevant agencies were expected to collaborate with the shared goal of building a sustainable city. That includes EDC, which the original PlaNYC report gave direct authority over a dozen initiatives, from expanding ferry service to improving the electric grid. Unfortunately, at Flushing Commons, like so many other EDC projects, PlaNYC goals don't seem to have even entered the equation."
So EDC plows forward-operating in secrecy and telling tale tales when it's convenient to do so. It is time to rein in the cowboys over on William Street; and, at the same time, hold Mike Bloomberg (and his lackeys over at the Environmental Defense Fund and the League of Conservation Voters) to his sustainability goals. We'll give Queens Crap the last word: "Final conclusion? You guessed it right: a traffic nightmare in 3 years. Hey, but look on the bright side: TDC/Rock is installing bike racks! Thank you again, Mayor Bloomberg and your EDC, for selling off a public facility to further enrich a wealthy group of private developers at our expense."
Apparently EDC did all of this in secret-and waited for the keen eyed John Liu, a project critic, to leave his council office before certifying the project for ULURP: "There's a lot of really bad feeling because this entire project was done in secret and it was held off until John Liu left office," said Paul Graziano, an urban planning consultant and president of the Historic Districts Council. In 2007, Liu, the local councilman at the time, was a vocal opponent when developers replaced the original plan, which included 2,000 parking spaces, with a 1,600-spot garage. He also helped secure a parking rate cap that could only be changed with city approval and input from the BID. In the plan unveiled in January, parking rates are limited for five years only and the parking space count remains 1,600."
The sheer massiveness of the project, however, is going to compound the traffic mess that will spill over from the proposed Willets Point development-and WPU traffic consultant Ketcham estimates that Flushing Commons will add around 2,000 more vehicle trips in the critical PM peak hours. The FC EIS has yet to find any real ways to mitigate its own generated traffic; and in combination with WP and the 50 or so additional developments planned in and around Flushing we will have reached the point where the green goals of PlaNYC 20130 can be seen only as satire.
This last point about the Flushing development is one that is made strongly by the folks at Streets Blog-who should be joining with WPU as well, since the traffic issues are similar: "What's particularly striking about EDC's math is that it's completely isolated from all other considerations. The strain on Flushing's streets, which are already clogged with congestion, wasn't a factor. The PlaNYC goal of reducing transportation emissions by 44 percent by 2030 wasn't a factor. Officials apparently never stopped to think about the potential housing, retail or community uses that could have been built instead of some of the 500,000 square feet given to vehicle storage."
And the blog goes on to point out that EDC is operating at cross purposes with the mayor's sustainability goals (taking the document a lot more seriously than either we or the mayor does): " In his 2007 speech announcing PlaNYC, Mayor Bloomberg said that his staff "realized that you can’t formulate a land use plan without thinking about transportation." All the relevant agencies were expected to collaborate with the shared goal of building a sustainable city. That includes EDC, which the original PlaNYC report gave direct authority over a dozen initiatives, from expanding ferry service to improving the electric grid. Unfortunately, at Flushing Commons, like so many other EDC projects, PlaNYC goals don't seem to have even entered the equation."
So EDC plows forward-operating in secrecy and telling tale tales when it's convenient to do so. It is time to rein in the cowboys over on William Street; and, at the same time, hold Mike Bloomberg (and his lackeys over at the Environmental Defense Fund and the League of Conservation Voters) to his sustainability goals. We'll give Queens Crap the last word: "Final conclusion? You guessed it right: a traffic nightmare in 3 years. Hey, but look on the bright side: TDC/Rock is installing bike racks! Thank you again, Mayor Bloomberg and your EDC, for selling off a public facility to further enrich a wealthy group of private developers at our expense."
Bad to Tabone: Ramping Up the Opposition
When we were growing up on the streets of New York, the highest accolade was, "Man, he's bad!" So, here's a hat's off to our good buddy Vinnie Tabone who's running for the state assembly and calling out for an independent review of the Willets Point ramps. As his letter in the Flushing Times states: "On behalf of the Northeast Queens Community Action Network, I am writing to join with the National Resource Defense Council as well as other concerned citizens and groups in expressing concern over discrepancies in study results that could mean greater effects on traffic mobility, noise and air pollution and congestion than anticipated.Our understanding is that the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by New York City pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act projected significant traffic effects while the draft Access Modification Report showed minor effects. This divergence in results gives one pause as to the reliability of the underlying study methodology as well as the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures."
And in this same vein, Willets Point United went to the John Bowne Civic Association last night in its ongoing effort to enlist the public in uncovering the EDC coverup-one that will cost the citizens of Queens big time in delayed travel and greater social costs. As Tabone says: "Notwithstanding the same, there is a significant and inexplicable divergence in results and given the potential effects and amount of public investment contemplated, it stands to reason further study is called for to ensure mitigation measures, design, etc., are optimized.To this end, the NEQCAN joins with the NRDC in calling for full independent environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Review Act of the proposed access ramps and their effects on the Van Wyck Expressway."
Next week it's Bay Terrace, and the other Queens groups are being lined up-but we're still waiting for the East Elmhurst Corona folks to weigh in. They are acutely aware of the extent to which their neighborhoods could well become the welcome mat to an overdeveloped Willets Point-with everyone wiping their feet on their community roads in accessing the new Queens jewel. Or, in the words of the old Jerry Reed song, Willets Point will get the gold mine, while East Elmhurst Corona (along with the Willets Point businesses) will get the shaft.
And in this same vein, Willets Point United went to the John Bowne Civic Association last night in its ongoing effort to enlist the public in uncovering the EDC coverup-one that will cost the citizens of Queens big time in delayed travel and greater social costs. As Tabone says: "Notwithstanding the same, there is a significant and inexplicable divergence in results and given the potential effects and amount of public investment contemplated, it stands to reason further study is called for to ensure mitigation measures, design, etc., are optimized.To this end, the NEQCAN joins with the NRDC in calling for full independent environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Review Act of the proposed access ramps and their effects on the Van Wyck Expressway."
Next week it's Bay Terrace, and the other Queens groups are being lined up-but we're still waiting for the East Elmhurst Corona folks to weigh in. They are acutely aware of the extent to which their neighborhoods could well become the welcome mat to an overdeveloped Willets Point-with everyone wiping their feet on their community roads in accessing the new Queens jewel. Or, in the words of the old Jerry Reed song, Willets Point will get the gold mine, while East Elmhurst Corona (along with the Willets Point businesses) will get the shaft.
Bloomberg's Enlightened Self-Interest
The NY Times focuses on the generosity of Mike Bloomberg today-and the fear of scores of groups that his gifts won't keep on giving: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, New York City’s richest man and biggest philanthropist, is quietly pulling the plug on an unusual program that has poured nearly $200 million of his fortune into nonprofit groups across the five boroughs, in a sign of major change under way in his charitable giving plans. His decision, which is not yet public, has set off alarm in the city’s arts and social services worlds, which depend heavily on his largesse and are grappling with deep budget cuts and a brutal fund-raising climate."
But, until now, very little light has been shed on a gift giving program that cannot be seen-given the mayor's public role-as anything but an aggrandizement of his political power: "Since he was first elected mayor in 2001, Mr. Bloomberg has provided money to hundreds of mostly small neighborhood, arts and cultural groups through the Carnegie Corporation of New York, a philanthropic trust, in a process that was remarkably informal and closely coordinated with City Hall. The gifts reflect the often blurred roles Mr. Bloomberg plays in the city as mayor, tycoon and philanthropist. And while the donations earned him praise from grateful recipients, who regarded him as an enlightened billionaire, they also drew rebukes from elected leaders who argued that he bought political acquiescence with his checkbook."
Now we have argued for quite some time that the obscene electoral spending by Bloomberg is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the uses-and abuses-of the Bloomberg fortune is concerned; and there has been much too little scrutiny of a pattern of influence peddling that knows no parallel in the history of NYC politics. A small glimpse of this was observed as the mayor bought his third term: "That tension was heightened during the mayor’s 2008 push to rewrite the city’s term limits law. His aides asked several groups that had received Carnegie grants to lobby for the change publicly, which allowed him to remain in office for four more years."
So when are we going to get a full and open public accounting of this unique kind of influence peddling? Isn't it in the public interest to have full disclosure so we can at least know which groups are wholly owned subsidiaries of the mayor? This is all really remarkable-and there are simply no precedents-or checks on-this kind of a process in our putatively democratic system. Left unchecked, however, the power of Bloomberg's wealth is nothing but a corrupt force and we need to devise a method-at least going forward-to prevent people of vast wealth from undermining the city's democratic procedures.
And, as far as the present is concerned, we need for all of our so-called watch dogs to demand that the mayor-and the Carnegie folks-come clean with a full list of beneficiaries since the giving process was so enticing: "The program was unusual in many ways: Mr. Bloomberg technically gave the money as an anonymous donor, but it was an open secret that it came from him; each year the Carnegie Corporation published a list of the donations and recipients, and the mayor’s press office alerted reporters to its release. The money was given to the groups in unrestricted gifts that had surprisingly few reporting or accounting requirements. Mr. Bloomberg never demanded that Carnegie provide him with a detailed report on how the money was spent. He would simply send a single check for tens of millions of dollars every December."
Now if Larry Seabrook misdirected over a million dollars to his own family through member items, he should rightly be punished-but the Bloomberg Method is, although not illegal, infinitely more dangerous to our system of open government. It's existence totally undermines any possibility of checking mayoral power under a system of government that affords the city's chief executive far too much power already.
The timing of the program's demise is also striking: "There have been hints over the past two years that the program may be drawing to a close. In summer 2008, Carnegie notified recipients that further donations were “under review by the donor” and could undergo significant changes. At the same time, Carnegie encouraged the groups to participate in a training program, financed by Mr. Bloomberg, to help strengthen their management and fund-raising skills."
Just in time for Bloomberg to say, "Hello, I must be going." Now we have no doubt that the mayor will continue to give away gazillions; but we wonder whether the same pattern of NYC giving-one that has greatly enhanced his personal political power-will be continued now that Bloomberg doesn't need to curry favor for any local political advantage. Frankly, we tend to doubt that this process of subornation will survive the end of the Bloomberg Era.
But, until now, very little light has been shed on a gift giving program that cannot be seen-given the mayor's public role-as anything but an aggrandizement of his political power: "Since he was first elected mayor in 2001, Mr. Bloomberg has provided money to hundreds of mostly small neighborhood, arts and cultural groups through the Carnegie Corporation of New York, a philanthropic trust, in a process that was remarkably informal and closely coordinated with City Hall. The gifts reflect the often blurred roles Mr. Bloomberg plays in the city as mayor, tycoon and philanthropist. And while the donations earned him praise from grateful recipients, who regarded him as an enlightened billionaire, they also drew rebukes from elected leaders who argued that he bought political acquiescence with his checkbook."
Now we have argued for quite some time that the obscene electoral spending by Bloomberg is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the uses-and abuses-of the Bloomberg fortune is concerned; and there has been much too little scrutiny of a pattern of influence peddling that knows no parallel in the history of NYC politics. A small glimpse of this was observed as the mayor bought his third term: "That tension was heightened during the mayor’s 2008 push to rewrite the city’s term limits law. His aides asked several groups that had received Carnegie grants to lobby for the change publicly, which allowed him to remain in office for four more years."
So when are we going to get a full and open public accounting of this unique kind of influence peddling? Isn't it in the public interest to have full disclosure so we can at least know which groups are wholly owned subsidiaries of the mayor? This is all really remarkable-and there are simply no precedents-or checks on-this kind of a process in our putatively democratic system. Left unchecked, however, the power of Bloomberg's wealth is nothing but a corrupt force and we need to devise a method-at least going forward-to prevent people of vast wealth from undermining the city's democratic procedures.
And, as far as the present is concerned, we need for all of our so-called watch dogs to demand that the mayor-and the Carnegie folks-come clean with a full list of beneficiaries since the giving process was so enticing: "The program was unusual in many ways: Mr. Bloomberg technically gave the money as an anonymous donor, but it was an open secret that it came from him; each year the Carnegie Corporation published a list of the donations and recipients, and the mayor’s press office alerted reporters to its release. The money was given to the groups in unrestricted gifts that had surprisingly few reporting or accounting requirements. Mr. Bloomberg never demanded that Carnegie provide him with a detailed report on how the money was spent. He would simply send a single check for tens of millions of dollars every December."
Now if Larry Seabrook misdirected over a million dollars to his own family through member items, he should rightly be punished-but the Bloomberg Method is, although not illegal, infinitely more dangerous to our system of open government. It's existence totally undermines any possibility of checking mayoral power under a system of government that affords the city's chief executive far too much power already.
The timing of the program's demise is also striking: "There have been hints over the past two years that the program may be drawing to a close. In summer 2008, Carnegie notified recipients that further donations were “under review by the donor” and could undergo significant changes. At the same time, Carnegie encouraged the groups to participate in a training program, financed by Mr. Bloomberg, to help strengthen their management and fund-raising skills."
Just in time for Bloomberg to say, "Hello, I must be going." Now we have no doubt that the mayor will continue to give away gazillions; but we wonder whether the same pattern of NYC giving-one that has greatly enhanced his personal political power-will be continued now that Bloomberg doesn't need to curry favor for any local political advantage. Frankly, we tend to doubt that this process of subornation will survive the end of the Bloomberg Era.
The Jobs Mantra Down by the Levy
Errol Louis has an instructive column in yesterday's NY Daily News about how the Democrats in NY State need to focus on...jobs, jobs, and jobs: "The election and hasty swearing-in of Jose Peralta as a new state senator - the crucial 32nd vote needed by Democrats to pass any legislation - gives the majority only a few scant months to govern before Election Day. It's an opportunity the Dems will blow unless they stick to the No. 1 issue: jobs. Nothing else comes close in importance to voters this year."
And Louis paints an appropriately grim picture of the state's economic outlook: "The soaring unemployment rate translates into an incredible 852,000 New Yorkers who are jobless statewide, 413,000 of them in the five boroughs. As of mid-January, 30,000 new jobless claims were being filed every week, 11,000 of them in New York City. The grim figures look even worse when you lump in the people so discouraged that they've stopped seeking work. That sends the true jobless rate to nearly 15%..."
We are also in agreement that the legislature needs to avoid divisive and besides the point social issues in order to fully concentrate on this core problem of work-but how we do that is where we part company with Errol:
"In a state where party labels still mean something, the Democratic brand - the party of Al Smith, FDR and Robert Kennedy - means nothing if not a commitment to putting people to work. The state Senate should debate and advance longstanding proposals to impose a dedicated tax - preferably, a gasoline tax or downstate income tax - to pay for repairs and improvements to our crumbling transportation network, especially mass transit. To help small businesses get back on their feet, the Senate should champion a state companion program to the federal Community Development Capital Initiative recently announced by President Obama. The White House plan helps small, neighborhood-based lenders like credit unions, specialized loan funds and community banks make loans available to households and small businesses that need capital to expand. A small investment of state funds would allow these lenders to toss an economic lifeline to the small firms that hire most people."
This is absolutely the wrong way to go-and anything that the president is doing on helping small business is at best a non sequitor; and at worst is like tossing an anvil to a drowning man. If we are not going to reduce the tax and regulatory burdens on small firms in order to reduce the cost of doing business in NY, than all else is simply posturing; and talking about any new tax means that you've become part of the problem and not the solution.
Some of this is underscored in an introductory editorial by the putative, and newly minted, Republican candidate for governor. As Steve Levy points out in the Daily News: "Albany legislators and governors have increased spending by an astonishing 70% over the last decade. Nothing less than extraordinary measures are needed to fix the mess. Candidates who run on nebulous platforms because they are afraid of ticking off special interests - and who won't even weigh in on Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch's controversial but comprehensive budget plan - just won't do in this time of crisis."
So what does Levy suggest? "Cap local and state spending. In Suffolk, we put in place a spending cap that did not lead to Draconian cuts, but did force needed prioritization. This year, we froze taxes, despite having lost $100 million in sales tax revenue. A hard cap on state spending should be implemented this year. Such a cap would also give the state the moral high ground from which to pass a tax cap on our local school districts."
And Levy goes on to suggest that we need to rein in the cost of public employee salaries and benefits-and begin the process of reducing the size and scope of state government-something that Governor Christie has started to do over in New Jersey. It's about time that New York learns to do more with less-and stops the process of exporting jobs and wealth to friendlier business climes.
So, we agree with Errol Louis about what the senate Dems should be focusing on-but 14 or so of this cohort has already staked out the "no cuts to education" territory-and if we begin to protect everyone's sacred cow we end up with the Leviathan that we simply can't afford. Someone needs to speak for the small businesses and the tax payers of this state-and job growth doesn't devolve from government doing more but doing less; and getting out of the way of entrepreneurial energy.
And Louis paints an appropriately grim picture of the state's economic outlook: "The soaring unemployment rate translates into an incredible 852,000 New Yorkers who are jobless statewide, 413,000 of them in the five boroughs. As of mid-January, 30,000 new jobless claims were being filed every week, 11,000 of them in New York City. The grim figures look even worse when you lump in the people so discouraged that they've stopped seeking work. That sends the true jobless rate to nearly 15%..."
We are also in agreement that the legislature needs to avoid divisive and besides the point social issues in order to fully concentrate on this core problem of work-but how we do that is where we part company with Errol:
"In a state where party labels still mean something, the Democratic brand - the party of Al Smith, FDR and Robert Kennedy - means nothing if not a commitment to putting people to work. The state Senate should debate and advance longstanding proposals to impose a dedicated tax - preferably, a gasoline tax or downstate income tax - to pay for repairs and improvements to our crumbling transportation network, especially mass transit. To help small businesses get back on their feet, the Senate should champion a state companion program to the federal Community Development Capital Initiative recently announced by President Obama. The White House plan helps small, neighborhood-based lenders like credit unions, specialized loan funds and community banks make loans available to households and small businesses that need capital to expand. A small investment of state funds would allow these lenders to toss an economic lifeline to the small firms that hire most people."
This is absolutely the wrong way to go-and anything that the president is doing on helping small business is at best a non sequitor; and at worst is like tossing an anvil to a drowning man. If we are not going to reduce the tax and regulatory burdens on small firms in order to reduce the cost of doing business in NY, than all else is simply posturing; and talking about any new tax means that you've become part of the problem and not the solution.
Some of this is underscored in an introductory editorial by the putative, and newly minted, Republican candidate for governor. As Steve Levy points out in the Daily News: "Albany legislators and governors have increased spending by an astonishing 70% over the last decade. Nothing less than extraordinary measures are needed to fix the mess. Candidates who run on nebulous platforms because they are afraid of ticking off special interests - and who won't even weigh in on Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch's controversial but comprehensive budget plan - just won't do in this time of crisis."
So what does Levy suggest? "Cap local and state spending. In Suffolk, we put in place a spending cap that did not lead to Draconian cuts, but did force needed prioritization. This year, we froze taxes, despite having lost $100 million in sales tax revenue. A hard cap on state spending should be implemented this year. Such a cap would also give the state the moral high ground from which to pass a tax cap on our local school districts."
And Levy goes on to suggest that we need to rein in the cost of public employee salaries and benefits-and begin the process of reducing the size and scope of state government-something that Governor Christie has started to do over in New Jersey. It's about time that New York learns to do more with less-and stops the process of exporting jobs and wealth to friendlier business climes.
So, we agree with Errol Louis about what the senate Dems should be focusing on-but 14 or so of this cohort has already staked out the "no cuts to education" territory-and if we begin to protect everyone's sacred cow we end up with the Leviathan that we simply can't afford. Someone needs to speak for the small businesses and the tax payers of this state-and job growth doesn't devolve from government doing more but doing less; and getting out of the way of entrepreneurial energy.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Cigarette Scam Takes a Hit
It just goes to show you what a little perseverance can do-along with an intestinal fortitude that three New York governors have certainly lacked. The feds have finally-thanks to Congressman Anthony Weiner-closed the loophole that allows Indians to send cigarettes, untaxed, through the US Postal Service.
As the NY Daily News opines: "The Indian tribes that have been peddling cigarettes in one of the greatest tax ripoffs ever are about to see their millions of dollars in illicit revenues go up in smoke. Good for New York. The House of Representatives yesterday joined the Senate in passing a bill to ban sales of cigarettes through the mail - the primary vehicle by which the tribes have flooded the market with untaxed butts. President Obama is expected to sign the legislation - and he must."
And Weiner really deserves this end zone dance-as his press release says: "The House today passed legislation that will give states and localities a major boost in cigarette tax revenue by giving law enforcement new tools to crack down on smugglers of tobacco and curb illicit tobacco sales over the Internet. The State of New York could see a windfall of $500 million and New York City could collect $150 million more from cigarettes."
And the federal law also allows for a law enforcement crackdown on the smuggling being done right off of the reservation. According to the News: "The bill would also target loading up a van with butts at, say, the Shinnecock Indians' store on Long Island and hauling them back to the city for resale. That kind of smuggling would be a federal felony."
It's time for Governor Paterson to call out the state troopers and cordon off the buttleggers-and expedite the Kruger-led effort to insure that all cigarettes sold in the state are embossed with a tax stamp: "Weiner said, “This new law will give states and localities a major revenue boost by cracking down on the illegal sale of tobacco and close a major source of finances for international terrorists and criminals. Every day we delay is another day that New York loses significant amounts of tax revenue and kids have easy access to tobacco products sold over the internet.”
And, as Weiner points out, the internet sales alone are costing NY's tax payers big time: "Estimates based on reporting from the New York State Department of Tax and Finance found that New York State loses up to $500 million from untaxed Internet tobacco sales and that New York City may lose as much as $150 million. According to a recent Government Office of Accountability (GAO) report, Hezbollah profited $1.5 million from the sale of illegal tobacco from 1996-2000."
Gee, what about the governor's low ball $200 million number? We've heard about creative accounting, but low balling potential tax revenue is not the usual example of how government gets creative-and the $500 million that Weiner mentions doesn't include the elaborate smuggling operations truckin' off the reservations.
Now it's up to the president to sign the bill-we'll give the News the last word: "By a vote of 387 to 25, the House yesterday moved the bill toward the President, who confesses to occasionally inhaling. He's surely taxed in full, as all should be."
Weiner Press Release Summarizes Legislative Provisions
1.The PACT Act Cracks Down on Illegal Tobacco Sales in the Following Ways:Ends Internet Sales of Tobacco by Banning Mailing of Cigarettes: Makes cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products non-mailable matter through USPS, except in limited cases. While FedEx, UPS and DHL have agreed not to ship tobacco products, USPS has continued to deliver tobacco products bought over the Internet.
2. Strengthens the Jenkins Act: Increases existing penalties from a misdemeanor to a felony, making it a federal offense for any seller making a sale via telephone, the mail, or the internet to fail to comply with all state tax laws. The legislation also empowers each state to enforce the federal law against out-of-state sellers sending delivery sales into its state by giving state Attorneys General the authority to seek injunctive relief and civil penalties against violators.
3. Empowers Law Enforcement: Allows the Attorney General to compile a list of delivery sellers who fail to comply with the PACT Act or states' tax laws.
4. Mandates Age Verification: Internet and other remote sellers will be required to verify the purchaser's age and identity through easily accessible databases. It also requires the person accepting delivery to verify their age.
5. Grants ATF Inspection Authority: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives inspection authority, including on reservations, for distributors of cigarettes and creates a penalty for those who refuse inspection.
Matthew L. Myers, President of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said, “We applaud Representative Weiner for working tirelessly to pass the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act. When law, the PACT Act will help prevent and reduce smoking and other tobacco use by preventing the illegal sale of tax-evading, low-priced cigarettes and smokeless tobacco over the Internet and making sure that Internet and other mail-order sellers do not sell to minors. Indeed, the PACT Act offers Congress a unique opportunity to fight crime, protect federal and state tax revenues, and promote public health, all at the same time.”
As the NY Daily News opines: "The Indian tribes that have been peddling cigarettes in one of the greatest tax ripoffs ever are about to see their millions of dollars in illicit revenues go up in smoke. Good for New York. The House of Representatives yesterday joined the Senate in passing a bill to ban sales of cigarettes through the mail - the primary vehicle by which the tribes have flooded the market with untaxed butts. President Obama is expected to sign the legislation - and he must."
And Weiner really deserves this end zone dance-as his press release says: "The House today passed legislation that will give states and localities a major boost in cigarette tax revenue by giving law enforcement new tools to crack down on smugglers of tobacco and curb illicit tobacco sales over the Internet. The State of New York could see a windfall of $500 million and New York City could collect $150 million more from cigarettes."
And the federal law also allows for a law enforcement crackdown on the smuggling being done right off of the reservation. According to the News: "The bill would also target loading up a van with butts at, say, the Shinnecock Indians' store on Long Island and hauling them back to the city for resale. That kind of smuggling would be a federal felony."
It's time for Governor Paterson to call out the state troopers and cordon off the buttleggers-and expedite the Kruger-led effort to insure that all cigarettes sold in the state are embossed with a tax stamp: "Weiner said, “This new law will give states and localities a major revenue boost by cracking down on the illegal sale of tobacco and close a major source of finances for international terrorists and criminals. Every day we delay is another day that New York loses significant amounts of tax revenue and kids have easy access to tobacco products sold over the internet.”
And, as Weiner points out, the internet sales alone are costing NY's tax payers big time: "Estimates based on reporting from the New York State Department of Tax and Finance found that New York State loses up to $500 million from untaxed Internet tobacco sales and that New York City may lose as much as $150 million. According to a recent Government Office of Accountability (GAO) report, Hezbollah profited $1.5 million from the sale of illegal tobacco from 1996-2000."
Gee, what about the governor's low ball $200 million number? We've heard about creative accounting, but low balling potential tax revenue is not the usual example of how government gets creative-and the $500 million that Weiner mentions doesn't include the elaborate smuggling operations truckin' off the reservations.
Now it's up to the president to sign the bill-we'll give the News the last word: "By a vote of 387 to 25, the House yesterday moved the bill toward the President, who confesses to occasionally inhaling. He's surely taxed in full, as all should be."
Weiner Press Release Summarizes Legislative Provisions
1.The PACT Act Cracks Down on Illegal Tobacco Sales in the Following Ways:Ends Internet Sales of Tobacco by Banning Mailing of Cigarettes: Makes cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products non-mailable matter through USPS, except in limited cases. While FedEx, UPS and DHL have agreed not to ship tobacco products, USPS has continued to deliver tobacco products bought over the Internet.
2. Strengthens the Jenkins Act: Increases existing penalties from a misdemeanor to a felony, making it a federal offense for any seller making a sale via telephone, the mail, or the internet to fail to comply with all state tax laws. The legislation also empowers each state to enforce the federal law against out-of-state sellers sending delivery sales into its state by giving state Attorneys General the authority to seek injunctive relief and civil penalties against violators.
3. Empowers Law Enforcement: Allows the Attorney General to compile a list of delivery sellers who fail to comply with the PACT Act or states' tax laws.
4. Mandates Age Verification: Internet and other remote sellers will be required to verify the purchaser's age and identity through easily accessible databases. It also requires the person accepting delivery to verify their age.
5. Grants ATF Inspection Authority: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives inspection authority, including on reservations, for distributors of cigarettes and creates a penalty for those who refuse inspection.
Matthew L. Myers, President of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said, “We applaud Representative Weiner for working tirelessly to pass the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act. When law, the PACT Act will help prevent and reduce smoking and other tobacco use by preventing the illegal sale of tax-evading, low-priced cigarettes and smokeless tobacco over the Internet and making sure that Internet and other mail-order sellers do not sell to minors. Indeed, the PACT Act offers Congress a unique opportunity to fight crime, protect federal and state tax revenues, and promote public health, all at the same time.”
Raising the Bar on CBAs
The Observer posts on the excellent Bar Association report on community benefits agreements-and the report raises some of the issues that the Alliance has been pointing out for some time (along with others that we haven't addressed): "The Association of the Bar of New York City doesn't seem to think all that highly of the process of landlords cutting formal, non-standardized deals with community groups—known as Community Benefits Agreements—to win approvals for planned developments."
But we think that to say that the Bar disapproves of CBAs is a bit of a stretch-better to say that they find the concept and the process used to implement these agreements to be problematic: "The use of CBAs has been criticized, in part because of the somewhat arbitrary manner in which they are formed (there is no standard for which groups end up being signatories in a CBA or participate in the negotiations with a developer, for instance), and the offerings from developers may not necessarily benefit the larger public interest, but rather just assuage a certain small constituency that happens to be negotiating the CBA."
At the same time, the Bar recognizes that this vehicle for getting communities to be more involved in the land use process is probably here to stay-and that therefore the process needs to have certain ground rules so as to avoid any number of pitfalls (we haven't read the entire report thoroughly, and will comment further when we do).
The Bar does, however, warn of the danger that CBAs will be used illegally in a quid pro quo manner-and therefore argues for standardization: "The well-researched Bar Association's report piles on more criticism and suggests that the tit-for-tat linking of a council land-use approval with a CBA is improper, if not illegal, given that developers are effectively buying zoning changes by paying certain community groups. It recommends that the city lead a discussion on how to adjust or standardize CBAs, and to formally separate them from the land-use approval process."
Which gets to one of our main points-how CBAs and the economic impacts of developments need to be separated from the ULURP that is supposed to focus exclusively-but never does-on environmental concerns. What comes out from the report-something that the Bar's land use chair Ken Fisher points out-is that ULURP is not the greatest vehicle for resolving these land use issues.
As the former council member tells the Observer: "Community involvement is a good thing," said Ken Fisher, an attorney at Cozen O'Connor and a former councilman who chairs the Bar Association's land-use committee, "but the vehicle that's written into the land-use process—namely the community boards— doesn't necessarily meet all of the needs, and that's why these ad-hoc agreements have sprung up."
Which is why Comptroller John Liu's proposed task force on CBAs is a welcome first step: "The report, which comes as City Comptroller John Liu is organizing a committee to propose changes to the CBA process, also suggests reconsidering the manner in which communities are involved in land-use approvals, as the boom in CBAs could be attributed to a lack of voice that many community groups feel they have throughout the process."
But the report goes further and suggests that the mayor and his economic and planning folks get into the middle of all of this reform-and perhaps the charter commission could play a role here as well. What emerges for us, is that ULURP is somewhat anachronistic, and a standardization of the CBA process-along with their official acceptance-needs to be done in conjunction with the ULURP reform that we have championed for the better part of three decades.
But we think that to say that the Bar disapproves of CBAs is a bit of a stretch-better to say that they find the concept and the process used to implement these agreements to be problematic: "The use of CBAs has been criticized, in part because of the somewhat arbitrary manner in which they are formed (there is no standard for which groups end up being signatories in a CBA or participate in the negotiations with a developer, for instance), and the offerings from developers may not necessarily benefit the larger public interest, but rather just assuage a certain small constituency that happens to be negotiating the CBA."
At the same time, the Bar recognizes that this vehicle for getting communities to be more involved in the land use process is probably here to stay-and that therefore the process needs to have certain ground rules so as to avoid any number of pitfalls (we haven't read the entire report thoroughly, and will comment further when we do).
The Bar does, however, warn of the danger that CBAs will be used illegally in a quid pro quo manner-and therefore argues for standardization: "The well-researched Bar Association's report piles on more criticism and suggests that the tit-for-tat linking of a council land-use approval with a CBA is improper, if not illegal, given that developers are effectively buying zoning changes by paying certain community groups. It recommends that the city lead a discussion on how to adjust or standardize CBAs, and to formally separate them from the land-use approval process."
Which gets to one of our main points-how CBAs and the economic impacts of developments need to be separated from the ULURP that is supposed to focus exclusively-but never does-on environmental concerns. What comes out from the report-something that the Bar's land use chair Ken Fisher points out-is that ULURP is not the greatest vehicle for resolving these land use issues.
As the former council member tells the Observer: "Community involvement is a good thing," said Ken Fisher, an attorney at Cozen O'Connor and a former councilman who chairs the Bar Association's land-use committee, "but the vehicle that's written into the land-use process—namely the community boards— doesn't necessarily meet all of the needs, and that's why these ad-hoc agreements have sprung up."
Which is why Comptroller John Liu's proposed task force on CBAs is a welcome first step: "The report, which comes as City Comptroller John Liu is organizing a committee to propose changes to the CBA process, also suggests reconsidering the manner in which communities are involved in land-use approvals, as the boom in CBAs could be attributed to a lack of voice that many community groups feel they have throughout the process."
But the report goes further and suggests that the mayor and his economic and planning folks get into the middle of all of this reform-and perhaps the charter commission could play a role here as well. What emerges for us, is that ULURP is somewhat anachronistic, and a standardization of the CBA process-along with their official acceptance-needs to be done in conjunction with the ULURP reform that we have championed for the better part of three decades.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Unlettered Bureaucrats
So the NYC DOH is going ahead with yet another anti small business regulation-this time its a scarlet letter grade on city eateries' health inspection report. As the NY Times reports: "The New York City Board of Health voted Tuesday to rate cleanliness in the city’s more than 24,000 restaurants with publicly posted letter grades, adopting a controversial plan proposed 14 months ago by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene."
This is a continuation of a bad Bloomberg habit of bypassing the legislative process-one that was utilized to bad effect for the city's calorie posting regulation that has fallen flat upon review. But the DOH soldiers on, oblivious to what kind of negative impact their regulations might have on the city's struggling restaurants: "Many restaurateurs expressed their opposition to the plan at a public hearing last month, and the Staten Island Chamber of Commerce went so far as to call the grades “a scarlet letter that will keep people from eating out,” in the words of a spokesman, Geoff Kravitz. He claimed restaurants posting anything less than an A would be treated by the public like Hester Prynne at a public shaming."
As our good buddy Rob Bookman dramatizes: "After the vote, Robert Bookman, legislative counsel for the New York City chapters of the New York State Restaurant Association — the operators’ trade group — charged that “letter grading will be more misleading than helpful,” adding that “it will be unfair and a black eye to this industry in the restaurant capital of the word.”
And a legal challenge may be in the offing: "He said that a legal challenge to the board’s vote “is an option,” noting that the mandated posting against the wishes of a restaurant owner raised free-speech issues. Another challenge could be mounted, he said, on the question of whether such a regulation should be considered by the City Council rather than the Board of Health."
These kinds of regulations are designed to enhance the power and bureaucratic reach of the health agency-and will under gird a robust fine and violation system that will likely flourish even more now that there is this posting mechanism to further intimidate operators. And what the public misses in all of this mishogos is how arbitrary and punitive the entire regulatory structure really is.
One restaurateur makes this point: "After the board vote, Marc Murphy, chef and owner of Landmarc Restaurant in TriBeCa, said that “showing customers this arbitrary inspection grade doesn’t tell the public anything, because it is a snapshot in time.”
So what we have is what we have always had in the Bloomberg error-massive and intrusive over regulation compounded by a punitive taxation structure. And we have to wonder why unemployment in this city is at record high levels? The Bloombergistas, with no real sensitivity to what grows an economy, add to their own ignorance and incompetence by grafting on a meddlesome nanny philosophy that compounds their inabilities and exacerbates the troubles for all NYC businesses large and small.
What we really are in need of is some kind of similar grading system for our elected officials and their unappointed lackeys in the bureaucratic labyrinth. Imagine your health commissioner with a Scarlet F on his suit jacket-now that's a grading system we could approve of!
This is a continuation of a bad Bloomberg habit of bypassing the legislative process-one that was utilized to bad effect for the city's calorie posting regulation that has fallen flat upon review. But the DOH soldiers on, oblivious to what kind of negative impact their regulations might have on the city's struggling restaurants: "Many restaurateurs expressed their opposition to the plan at a public hearing last month, and the Staten Island Chamber of Commerce went so far as to call the grades “a scarlet letter that will keep people from eating out,” in the words of a spokesman, Geoff Kravitz. He claimed restaurants posting anything less than an A would be treated by the public like Hester Prynne at a public shaming."
As our good buddy Rob Bookman dramatizes: "After the vote, Robert Bookman, legislative counsel for the New York City chapters of the New York State Restaurant Association — the operators’ trade group — charged that “letter grading will be more misleading than helpful,” adding that “it will be unfair and a black eye to this industry in the restaurant capital of the word.”
And a legal challenge may be in the offing: "He said that a legal challenge to the board’s vote “is an option,” noting that the mandated posting against the wishes of a restaurant owner raised free-speech issues. Another challenge could be mounted, he said, on the question of whether such a regulation should be considered by the City Council rather than the Board of Health."
These kinds of regulations are designed to enhance the power and bureaucratic reach of the health agency-and will under gird a robust fine and violation system that will likely flourish even more now that there is this posting mechanism to further intimidate operators. And what the public misses in all of this mishogos is how arbitrary and punitive the entire regulatory structure really is.
One restaurateur makes this point: "After the board vote, Marc Murphy, chef and owner of Landmarc Restaurant in TriBeCa, said that “showing customers this arbitrary inspection grade doesn’t tell the public anything, because it is a snapshot in time.”
So what we have is what we have always had in the Bloomberg error-massive and intrusive over regulation compounded by a punitive taxation structure. And we have to wonder why unemployment in this city is at record high levels? The Bloombergistas, with no real sensitivity to what grows an economy, add to their own ignorance and incompetence by grafting on a meddlesome nanny philosophy that compounds their inabilities and exacerbates the troubles for all NYC businesses large and small.
What we really are in need of is some kind of similar grading system for our elected officials and their unappointed lackeys in the bureaucratic labyrinth. Imagine your health commissioner with a Scarlet F on his suit jacket-now that's a grading system we could approve of!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
AssHolistic Wellness Program
The NYC DOE is venturing far afield from its core educational mission-focusing now on restricting bake sales in what its director of food services calls a, "holistic wellness" approach to feeding our 1.1 million school children. Please, give us a break. As the NY Times reports: "The rule, which school officials say is aimed at tackling obesity, allows PTAs to hold bake sales once a month or weekdays after 6 p.m. Otherwise only fresh fruits and vegetables and any of 27 packaged items that meet city Health Department guidelines on calories, fat and sodium can be sold at schools."
So, lets get this straight. A time honored way for schools to raise a little extra money-and get parents more involved with their kids education-is being scrapped because of an effort to slim down the students: "The battle over bake sales, a tenacious civic tradition, has struck a deep chord with home cooks and food historians. Whether in the chaos of New York City or in the quiet of a rural village, bake sales evoke a sense of comfort and trust through the intimacy of cooking, in slices of layer cake, lemon bars, tollhouse cookies, hermits, muffins, pies. (Or, in the case of some of the more ambitious New York City parent-cooks protesting this week, the empanadas, mini-spanakopitas, vegetable calzones and vegan chocolate cake.)"
This is, as the NY Post rightly points out, one of the DOE's "distractions," taking attention away from the still work in progress aspect of raising the educational level in NYC schools: "Last fall, DOE -- ostensibly worried that kids would buy too many sweets -- banned bake sales as fund-raisers for student groups. Officials later enacted a dizzyingly complex set of criteria that allowed the sale of Doritos and Pop-Tarts -- but not home-baked goods."
And the idea that packaged Doritos is an acceptable replacement for homemade anything is, well, whack-as the Times points out quite well: "But Laura Shapiro, a food historian and author, said the city’s argument was “exactly the kind of thinking that sent us down the road of packaged, industrial junk food in the first place.”
In our view, this is exactly the kind of nanny meddling that Mike Bloomberg is famous for-and it does distract from the main thrust of what the city's educational bureaucracy should be doing. Its implementation underscores just why bureaucracies of all kinds are deleterious to our overall health-too large, too expensive, and too plain stupid to be of much use.
And now DOE's "innovators," are experimenting with eliminating Styrofoam trays. As the Post opines: "Does Gotham's new-and-improved 59 percent high-school graduation rate -- announced last week to substantial self-applause -- get the job done? City educrats certainly seem to think so.How else to explain their sudden pivot from combating illiteracy to . . . Styrofoam trays? The Department of Education yesterday announced that, for one day every week, the classic lunch-holders citywide will be replaced by ultra-green, polymer-coated paper "boats," so as to cut down on non-biodegradable waste. DOE insists that "Trayless Tuesdays" will be cost-neutral -- thank goodness for small favors in these cash-strapped times -- but it nonetheless represents a sizeable expenditure of thought and effort for a bureaucracy that still needs to focus on the basics."
We can't wait to see what the Harvard prof says about the inflated city test results, evidence in our view that the Bloomberg miracle is just one more overhyped fraud. And if what we know to be true proves to be just that, than the graduation rates become another casualty of the truth-an example of how the mayor and his lackey Klein have used smoke and mirrors-plus billions of more dollars-to try to make us believe that this naked educational emperor is actually fully clothed.
So, lets get this straight. A time honored way for schools to raise a little extra money-and get parents more involved with their kids education-is being scrapped because of an effort to slim down the students: "The battle over bake sales, a tenacious civic tradition, has struck a deep chord with home cooks and food historians. Whether in the chaos of New York City or in the quiet of a rural village, bake sales evoke a sense of comfort and trust through the intimacy of cooking, in slices of layer cake, lemon bars, tollhouse cookies, hermits, muffins, pies. (Or, in the case of some of the more ambitious New York City parent-cooks protesting this week, the empanadas, mini-spanakopitas, vegetable calzones and vegan chocolate cake.)"
This is, as the NY Post rightly points out, one of the DOE's "distractions," taking attention away from the still work in progress aspect of raising the educational level in NYC schools: "Last fall, DOE -- ostensibly worried that kids would buy too many sweets -- banned bake sales as fund-raisers for student groups. Officials later enacted a dizzyingly complex set of criteria that allowed the sale of Doritos and Pop-Tarts -- but not home-baked goods."
And the idea that packaged Doritos is an acceptable replacement for homemade anything is, well, whack-as the Times points out quite well: "But Laura Shapiro, a food historian and author, said the city’s argument was “exactly the kind of thinking that sent us down the road of packaged, industrial junk food in the first place.”
In our view, this is exactly the kind of nanny meddling that Mike Bloomberg is famous for-and it does distract from the main thrust of what the city's educational bureaucracy should be doing. Its implementation underscores just why bureaucracies of all kinds are deleterious to our overall health-too large, too expensive, and too plain stupid to be of much use.
And now DOE's "innovators," are experimenting with eliminating Styrofoam trays. As the Post opines: "Does Gotham's new-and-improved 59 percent high-school graduation rate -- announced last week to substantial self-applause -- get the job done? City educrats certainly seem to think so.How else to explain their sudden pivot from combating illiteracy to . . . Styrofoam trays? The Department of Education yesterday announced that, for one day every week, the classic lunch-holders citywide will be replaced by ultra-green, polymer-coated paper "boats," so as to cut down on non-biodegradable waste. DOE insists that "Trayless Tuesdays" will be cost-neutral -- thank goodness for small favors in these cash-strapped times -- but it nonetheless represents a sizeable expenditure of thought and effort for a bureaucracy that still needs to focus on the basics."
We can't wait to see what the Harvard prof says about the inflated city test results, evidence in our view that the Bloomberg miracle is just one more overhyped fraud. And if what we know to be true proves to be just that, than the graduation rates become another casualty of the truth-an example of how the mayor and his lackey Klein have used smoke and mirrors-plus billions of more dollars-to try to make us believe that this naked educational emperor is actually fully clothed.
What Economic Development Plan?
We have been arguing ad nauseum that Mike Bloomberg has been an unmitigated disaster when it comes to promoting real economic development in NYC. In particular, he and his commissioners have been a regulatory scourge on neighborhood small businesses-raising taxes and piling on more and more regulations.
So it comes with no surprise that the mayor's management report would reveal the following-courtesy of the Gotham Gazette: "The preliminary management report gives even shorter shrift to economic development, a key policy area. In its two pages the report on the city's Economic Development Corp. has only one reference to job loss in the city. It appears as the last of six "Preliminary Performance Highlights": The unemployment rate in the first four months of this fiscal year was 10.1 percent, up from 5.9 percent during the same period a year ago. The one-sentence response to this disturbing statistic: "The increase is principally the result of the large job losses associated with the recession that began in August 2008."
So, let's get this straight. Unemployment almost doubles and the mayor takes no responsibility for the jump. Well folks, it's time to bell the cat. The fact that this city is a hellish place to do business is not something that began with Mike Bloomberg-but it sure was exacerbated by him, a fact that's made even worse by the mayor's business background.
You'd expect that, given this background, Bloomberg would have a bit more understanding and sympathy for businesses and what they need to grow and prosper. You'd think, but you would be wrong-a sad situation that is further worsened by his health mania; imposing calorie counting, cigarette taxes, trans fat bans, soda tax proposals and gruesome tobacco signage, without regard to how theses initiatives might make the business climate even worse.
So, as the smoke and mirror campaign dissipates-along with the sheer fraudulence of the Bloomberg,"five borough economic development plan," what you are left with is, well, not much tangible gain-and a skyrocketing unemployment rate that mocks the $100 million Bloomberg campaign infomercials that reveal, at the same time, a little tax man behind the curtain.
It is a sad fact that the only tax that has gotten the mayor's dander up are the proposals to hit Wall Street transactions or executive pay. So the bleak economic picture in NYC cannot be laid on the recession alone-and it has been par for the course for the mayor to be able to avoid any blame precisely because the local media hasn't held him to any standards whatsoever.
What we are left with is a mayor whose only economic vision devolves from an unfortunate edifice complex-a problematic perspective that does little to provide real job growth (and often has the opposite effect, as we have shown). When the dust settles on this mayoralty-and the historical perspective is available-we believe that the Bloomberg era will be understood as perhaps the most over hyped, and under performing, epoch in NYC's history; and those sycophants in the press will be seen as the enablers for this epic of false expectations and bogus reputation.
So it comes with no surprise that the mayor's management report would reveal the following-courtesy of the Gotham Gazette: "The preliminary management report gives even shorter shrift to economic development, a key policy area. In its two pages the report on the city's Economic Development Corp. has only one reference to job loss in the city. It appears as the last of six "Preliminary Performance Highlights": The unemployment rate in the first four months of this fiscal year was 10.1 percent, up from 5.9 percent during the same period a year ago. The one-sentence response to this disturbing statistic: "The increase is principally the result of the large job losses associated with the recession that began in August 2008."
So, let's get this straight. Unemployment almost doubles and the mayor takes no responsibility for the jump. Well folks, it's time to bell the cat. The fact that this city is a hellish place to do business is not something that began with Mike Bloomberg-but it sure was exacerbated by him, a fact that's made even worse by the mayor's business background.
You'd expect that, given this background, Bloomberg would have a bit more understanding and sympathy for businesses and what they need to grow and prosper. You'd think, but you would be wrong-a sad situation that is further worsened by his health mania; imposing calorie counting, cigarette taxes, trans fat bans, soda tax proposals and gruesome tobacco signage, without regard to how theses initiatives might make the business climate even worse.
So, as the smoke and mirror campaign dissipates-along with the sheer fraudulence of the Bloomberg,"five borough economic development plan," what you are left with is, well, not much tangible gain-and a skyrocketing unemployment rate that mocks the $100 million Bloomberg campaign infomercials that reveal, at the same time, a little tax man behind the curtain.
It is a sad fact that the only tax that has gotten the mayor's dander up are the proposals to hit Wall Street transactions or executive pay. So the bleak economic picture in NYC cannot be laid on the recession alone-and it has been par for the course for the mayor to be able to avoid any blame precisely because the local media hasn't held him to any standards whatsoever.
What we are left with is a mayor whose only economic vision devolves from an unfortunate edifice complex-a problematic perspective that does little to provide real job growth (and often has the opposite effect, as we have shown). When the dust settles on this mayoralty-and the historical perspective is available-we believe that the Bloomberg era will be understood as perhaps the most over hyped, and under performing, epoch in NYC's history; and those sycophants in the press will be seen as the enablers for this epic of false expectations and bogus reputation.
TRampled! A Tale of Two Ramps
Well, one thing is really good to know. When state DOT finds that ramps are not in the community's interest they get busy to jettison them-even when the ramps in question are their own idea. That's exactly what happened with ramps that the agency planned to build off of the Deegan, and the Mott Haven Herald has the story: "Pummeled by public outcry against a plan to extend the off-ramps on the Major Deegan Expressway, the State Department of Transportation has abandoned the project. Much-needed repairs will be made to the aging roadway over Mott Haven, but the plan to extend the highway’s exit ramps in order to calm the traffic that backs up as cars merge onto Exterior Street is on hold indefinitely, said DOT spokesman Adam Levine."
So this post now becomes a tale of two ramp projects-and the Mott Haven victory demonstrates that state DOT does listen to the voice of the community; and needs to do just that when it considers whether or not to build ramps off the Van Wyck in order to facilitate the Willets Point development. In fact, the Van Wyck ramps need to undergo the same vigorous community review that the ones in the Bronx went through.
As the MH Herald tells us: "Every speaker at a public hearing at Hostos Community College on Nov. 9 denounced the state proposal. Some speakers also expressed concern that efforts to ease congestion would simply attract more cars, and more pollution. Others criticized plans to use eminent domain to seize existing businesses in order to make room for the new ramps. “We need more jobs, more affordable housing, more clean air, not more highway,” said Mychal Johnson, a member of Community Board 1 who initiated a petition campaign against the state plan. “The Deegan should be repaired, but not expanded,” he said in an interview."
So, as WPU continues to present its critique of the city-sponsored Van Wyck ramps to impacted community groups, it is incumbent upon NYSDOT to initiate its own community review process-Flushing, Corona, College Point and all of the surrounding Queens nabes deserve no less.. And the more facts we find out about these ramps-and the faulty report submitted by DOT-the worse they look. Put simply, they are exacerbators not mitigators.
This stark reality is underscored by the impact that the new Flushing Commons development will have on the entire area surrounding the city's proposed Willet Point project. Some of this was brought home in a recent hearing at CB #7. As Queens Crap reports: "The third of CB7’s committee meetings on TDC/Rockefeller Group’s Flushing Commons/Municipal Lot 1 project was held on Thursday, March 11th. The main subject was traffic impact, with parking being the continuing sidebar. DOT and TDC presented a VERY long evening of technobabble, which boiled down to this: there WILL be much more traffic congestion and increased parking problems during construction... and afterwards, forever."
But the issue is even worse because Flushing Commons, being built by TDC, another supporter of the Willets Point boondoggle, is just one of many projects planned for the area: "Now look at the pretty colored bar graph. Forget about details for now. Yellow is the existing high level of traffic. On top of that is red, representing the increased percentage of traffic woes from the fifty -- that's right, fifty -- projects, planned or under construction, that will exist by 2013. Then on top of that is green, showing the additional impact of just Flushing Commons -- up to 25% more, by itself. TDC s techie admitted they couldn’t find much possibility for mitigation."
The significance here-aside from the obvious fact that the community is being literally flushed down the drain by traffic being brought to them by Kermit the Mayor-is that none of this traffic is even factored in by the folks that EDC hired to write its fraudulent ramp report.
As WPU's expert Brian Ketcham tells us: "The Flushing Commons EIS estimates project impacts at 30 intersections in and around Downtown Flushing. It assumes two-thirds of the Willets Point traffic impacts for No Build conditions by simply proportioning the trip assignments from the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS). However, because the FGEIS assumes approximately half the Willets Point traffic would use the Van Wyck ramps, no correction is made for the change reported in the AMR, that just 16% of Willets Point traffic would use the ramps, leaving the rest, about 2,000 car and truck trips in the weekday PM peak hour, to find other routes to gain access to or egress from the Willets Point site. This is a 50% increase in local and nearby expressway traffic that was not accounted for in the AMR or in the EIS for Flushing Commons. Flushing Commons therefore only accounted for approximately a third of Willets Point traffic ultimately assigned to Downtown Flushing."
But Ketcham doesn't stop there-and his critique should wake up all of the gullible electeds that-lemming like-went over the cliff for Willets Point two years ago: "Even with this under counting, the Flushing Commons traffic will gridlock Downtown Flushing. I have attached Figure 20-2 from the Downtown Flushing EIS that shows the huge number of intersections that cannot be mitigated, many of which will suffer breakdown conditions, many severe with average vehicle delay exceeding 200 seconds. Clearly the Willets Point FGEIS is not alone in reporting gridlock conditions in the future with Willets Point ramps in place."
Brian Ketcham has already demonstrated that the ramps are ineffective in improving travel conditions along the Van Wyck Expressway. The AMR reports improved conditions but does not examine, as required by FHWA criteria, conditions on roads providing access to the Willets Point site from surrounding areas especially correcting for the reduction in the number trips expected to be handled by the ramps. Now we have a second report that verifies that conditions in the future will be gridlocked with all the planned development in north-central Queens prepared by the way by the same consulting firm, AKRF that prepared the AMR and the FGEIS.
So where are our friends from Tri-State Transportation Campaign on the Willets Point ramps? Streetsblog was all over the Mott Haven situation. But this group's not alone. Back in 2008, the Environmental Defense Fund and the League of Conservation Voters-at the behest of Claire Shulman's illegal lobbying operation-signed off on a letter of support for Willets Point development saying, "The city's proposal for Willets Point is our best chance to transform a degraded section of New York into an engine of environmentally sensible growth and community development."
Can we ask these environmentalists to retract their support now that we know, and they should know, about the traffic nightmare that this-and other surrounding developments-will create? The new traffic information threatens to expose both EDF and LCV as simply useful idiots of a flim flamming mayoral administration that talks green but then goes about emitting more exhaust fumes than any three Robert Moseses put together.
We'll have more on this fraud later-and on the continued illegal activities of one Claire Shulman. But what is continuing to emerge from all of this is that EDC needs to be stopped in its tracks. It's plans for Willets Point-and the other communities of Queens-is an environmental nightmare in the making; and all of the "sustainable development" fools who bought into this better get buyer's remorse pretty soon; before their environmental pedigree gets forcibly expunged forever.
So this post now becomes a tale of two ramp projects-and the Mott Haven victory demonstrates that state DOT does listen to the voice of the community; and needs to do just that when it considers whether or not to build ramps off the Van Wyck in order to facilitate the Willets Point development. In fact, the Van Wyck ramps need to undergo the same vigorous community review that the ones in the Bronx went through.
As the MH Herald tells us: "Every speaker at a public hearing at Hostos Community College on Nov. 9 denounced the state proposal. Some speakers also expressed concern that efforts to ease congestion would simply attract more cars, and more pollution. Others criticized plans to use eminent domain to seize existing businesses in order to make room for the new ramps. “We need more jobs, more affordable housing, more clean air, not more highway,” said Mychal Johnson, a member of Community Board 1 who initiated a petition campaign against the state plan. “The Deegan should be repaired, but not expanded,” he said in an interview."
So, as WPU continues to present its critique of the city-sponsored Van Wyck ramps to impacted community groups, it is incumbent upon NYSDOT to initiate its own community review process-Flushing, Corona, College Point and all of the surrounding Queens nabes deserve no less.. And the more facts we find out about these ramps-and the faulty report submitted by DOT-the worse they look. Put simply, they are exacerbators not mitigators.
This stark reality is underscored by the impact that the new Flushing Commons development will have on the entire area surrounding the city's proposed Willet Point project. Some of this was brought home in a recent hearing at CB #7. As Queens Crap reports: "The third of CB7’s committee meetings on TDC/Rockefeller Group’s Flushing Commons/Municipal Lot 1 project was held on Thursday, March 11th. The main subject was traffic impact, with parking being the continuing sidebar. DOT and TDC presented a VERY long evening of technobabble, which boiled down to this: there WILL be much more traffic congestion and increased parking problems during construction... and afterwards, forever."
But the issue is even worse because Flushing Commons, being built by TDC, another supporter of the Willets Point boondoggle, is just one of many projects planned for the area: "Now look at the pretty colored bar graph. Forget about details for now. Yellow is the existing high level of traffic. On top of that is red, representing the increased percentage of traffic woes from the fifty -- that's right, fifty -- projects, planned or under construction, that will exist by 2013. Then on top of that is green, showing the additional impact of just Flushing Commons -- up to 25% more, by itself. TDC s techie admitted they couldn’t find much possibility for mitigation."
The significance here-aside from the obvious fact that the community is being literally flushed down the drain by traffic being brought to them by Kermit the Mayor-is that none of this traffic is even factored in by the folks that EDC hired to write its fraudulent ramp report.
As WPU's expert Brian Ketcham tells us: "The Flushing Commons EIS estimates project impacts at 30 intersections in and around Downtown Flushing. It assumes two-thirds of the Willets Point traffic impacts for No Build conditions by simply proportioning the trip assignments from the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS). However, because the FGEIS assumes approximately half the Willets Point traffic would use the Van Wyck ramps, no correction is made for the change reported in the AMR, that just 16% of Willets Point traffic would use the ramps, leaving the rest, about 2,000 car and truck trips in the weekday PM peak hour, to find other routes to gain access to or egress from the Willets Point site. This is a 50% increase in local and nearby expressway traffic that was not accounted for in the AMR or in the EIS for Flushing Commons. Flushing Commons therefore only accounted for approximately a third of Willets Point traffic ultimately assigned to Downtown Flushing."
But Ketcham doesn't stop there-and his critique should wake up all of the gullible electeds that-lemming like-went over the cliff for Willets Point two years ago: "Even with this under counting, the Flushing Commons traffic will gridlock Downtown Flushing. I have attached Figure 20-2 from the Downtown Flushing EIS that shows the huge number of intersections that cannot be mitigated, many of which will suffer breakdown conditions, many severe with average vehicle delay exceeding 200 seconds. Clearly the Willets Point FGEIS is not alone in reporting gridlock conditions in the future with Willets Point ramps in place."
Brian Ketcham has already demonstrated that the ramps are ineffective in improving travel conditions along the Van Wyck Expressway. The AMR reports improved conditions but does not examine, as required by FHWA criteria, conditions on roads providing access to the Willets Point site from surrounding areas especially correcting for the reduction in the number trips expected to be handled by the ramps. Now we have a second report that verifies that conditions in the future will be gridlocked with all the planned development in north-central Queens prepared by the way by the same consulting firm, AKRF that prepared the AMR and the FGEIS.
So where are our friends from Tri-State Transportation Campaign on the Willets Point ramps? Streetsblog was all over the Mott Haven situation. But this group's not alone. Back in 2008, the Environmental Defense Fund and the League of Conservation Voters-at the behest of Claire Shulman's illegal lobbying operation-signed off on a letter of support for Willets Point development saying, "The city's proposal for Willets Point is our best chance to transform a degraded section of New York into an engine of environmentally sensible growth and community development."
Can we ask these environmentalists to retract their support now that we know, and they should know, about the traffic nightmare that this-and other surrounding developments-will create? The new traffic information threatens to expose both EDF and LCV as simply useful idiots of a flim flamming mayoral administration that talks green but then goes about emitting more exhaust fumes than any three Robert Moseses put together.
We'll have more on this fraud later-and on the continued illegal activities of one Claire Shulman. But what is continuing to emerge from all of this is that EDC needs to be stopped in its tracks. It's plans for Willets Point-and the other communities of Queens-is an environmental nightmare in the making; and all of the "sustainable development" fools who bought into this better get buyer's remorse pretty soon; before their environmental pedigree gets forcibly expunged forever.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
FHWA, Going Our Way?
The team from Willets Point United met with the Federal Highway Administration in order to brief the agency about the complexity of the traffic impacts generated by the development at the site of the Iron Triangle-and the ramps that are supposed to mitigate said traffic. The FHWA, along with NYSDOT, need to approve these ramps if the the Willets Point project is to be able to go forward.
Now it is our contention that the entire review process should be subject to an independent evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Our rationale derives from the faulty and self serving traffic data submissions from the Economic Development Corporation and its hired guns from URS-something that we have already pointed out here, and here. EDC and its minions have proven to be-either through mendacity or inadequacy-simply not up to the task of providing quality data.
Now the glaring nature of this insufficiency is underscored by the discrepancies between the original EIS done for the ULURP application; and the subsequent report done exclusively for the ramp approval process (called an AMR report). Here's how consultant Brian Ketcham summarizes these inadequacies:
"1.Too many discrepancies between AMR and FGEIS for the AMR to be reliable assessment of ramps.
2. FGEIS reports severe traffic impacts even w/ramps; the AMR reports no problems.
3.Field observation confirms the FGEIS.
4. AMR greatly misrepresents future traffic growth.
5. AMR does not account for all Willets Point trips.
6.AMR shows that ramps make no difference.
7.Modeling shows the ramps are counter-productive for highway system, violating FHWA key criteria.
In the face of all of this, what choice is there? NYSDOT must disapprove the AMR."
These problems are also fatal when you examine what the federal highway guidelines are for the approval of ramps-as item 7 above highlights. Ketcham's work for WPU-and remember that Brian, as well as WPU attorney Mike Gerrard, were the young turks who brought down Westway-was damning enough to prompt the NYSDOT to spit back the first AMR to EDC for serious revision.
In fact, the glaring, and problematic nature of the city's work product, has prompted the following from the National Resources Defense Council-in a letter to NYSDOT and the FHWA: "NRDC is not taking a position on advancing the Willets Point project or on constructing the ramps. But based on our preliminary review, we are concerned over the discrepancies in the study results, and also by the prospect that a project could impair regional mobility by disrupting a key highway like the Van Wyck."
And NRDC goes on to say that because of these discrepancies, "...we believe that the best course of action is for the FHWA and NYS DOT to undertake a full NEPA review of the access ramps and their impacts on traffic-including the Van Wyck-without undue reliance on the analysis performed by the City, the project's proponents."
Nothing less should be required here, because as we have seen with Columbia, there is alot of incestuous activity going on between the City and its hired guns-and the first victim in all of this is the truth. But the good news emanating from today's meeting is that the folks at FHWA believe that our (really Brian's) critique has serious merit-and it will be undertaking a comprehensive environmental assessment to determine what the appropriate course of action should be in the case of these ramps-taking the process out of the hands of biased, parochial interests.
The next step for WPU is to bring the message to the Queens civic groups so that they can see for themselves the traffic nightmare in their future if this Willets Point project is allowed to go forward. In the process, the self serving dealings of the city's lead economic development agency will be thoroughly hung out to dry for everyone to plainly see-from illegal lobbying and false city council testimony, to cooked traffic books; sunlight will be the best disinfectant.
Now it is our contention that the entire review process should be subject to an independent evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Our rationale derives from the faulty and self serving traffic data submissions from the Economic Development Corporation and its hired guns from URS-something that we have already pointed out here, and here. EDC and its minions have proven to be-either through mendacity or inadequacy-simply not up to the task of providing quality data.
Now the glaring nature of this insufficiency is underscored by the discrepancies between the original EIS done for the ULURP application; and the subsequent report done exclusively for the ramp approval process (called an AMR report). Here's how consultant Brian Ketcham summarizes these inadequacies:
"1.Too many discrepancies between AMR and FGEIS for the AMR to be reliable assessment of ramps.
2. FGEIS reports severe traffic impacts even w/ramps; the AMR reports no problems.
3.Field observation confirms the FGEIS.
4. AMR greatly misrepresents future traffic growth.
5. AMR does not account for all Willets Point trips.
6.AMR shows that ramps make no difference.
7.Modeling shows the ramps are counter-productive for highway system, violating FHWA key criteria.
In the face of all of this, what choice is there? NYSDOT must disapprove the AMR."
These problems are also fatal when you examine what the federal highway guidelines are for the approval of ramps-as item 7 above highlights. Ketcham's work for WPU-and remember that Brian, as well as WPU attorney Mike Gerrard, were the young turks who brought down Westway-was damning enough to prompt the NYSDOT to spit back the first AMR to EDC for serious revision.
In fact, the glaring, and problematic nature of the city's work product, has prompted the following from the National Resources Defense Council-in a letter to NYSDOT and the FHWA: "NRDC is not taking a position on advancing the Willets Point project or on constructing the ramps. But based on our preliminary review, we are concerned over the discrepancies in the study results, and also by the prospect that a project could impair regional mobility by disrupting a key highway like the Van Wyck."
And NRDC goes on to say that because of these discrepancies, "...we believe that the best course of action is for the FHWA and NYS DOT to undertake a full NEPA review of the access ramps and their impacts on traffic-including the Van Wyck-without undue reliance on the analysis performed by the City, the project's proponents."
Nothing less should be required here, because as we have seen with Columbia, there is alot of incestuous activity going on between the City and its hired guns-and the first victim in all of this is the truth. But the good news emanating from today's meeting is that the folks at FHWA believe that our (really Brian's) critique has serious merit-and it will be undertaking a comprehensive environmental assessment to determine what the appropriate course of action should be in the case of these ramps-taking the process out of the hands of biased, parochial interests.
The next step for WPU is to bring the message to the Queens civic groups so that they can see for themselves the traffic nightmare in their future if this Willets Point project is allowed to go forward. In the process, the self serving dealings of the city's lead economic development agency will be thoroughly hung out to dry for everyone to plainly see-from illegal lobbying and false city council testimony, to cooked traffic books; sunlight will be the best disinfectant.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Clearing the Air and Muddying the Economic Water
Crain's Insider is reporting (subs.) that the sulfer reduction bill-a pet initiative of Mayor Mike-is being held up, possibly for good, in the state senate: "A bill to prohibit the sale of high-sulfur home heating oil is “on the doorstep of passage” in the state Senate, according to Environmental Advocates of New York. But the bill, sponsored by Sen. Bill Perkins, D-Manhattan, has fallen short several years in a row, and environmental groups fear Senate Republicans will vote against it as a bloc."
Ah, if that was the bill's only impediment. Our sources tell us that a number of skeptical Dems-particularly from upstate-have also begun to join the opposition; and opponents are looking to delay implementation in order to give refineries a better chance to retrofit their facilities: "Opponents want the effective date pushed back several years; the bill would take effect in one year. But many oil heat industry leaders pledged in September to switch to ultra low-sulfur diesel by July 2011. In exchange, they asked clean-air advocates to stop promoting conversions to natural gas or woody biomass heat."
The problem with the bill-S1145 in the senate-is that it doesn't consider the economic impacts-and the need for time to adjust-or, as one refiner told us: "to give refiners an opportunity to absorb the current EPA requirements concerning blending renewable fuels and reducing benzene content of gasoline, both of which will begin in 2011, and have time after that to plan, obtain necessary permits and build the required facilities to produce the low sulfur home heating oil at the 500 parts per million level."
Without the needed time, there will be dislocation and job loss because of a withdrawal by a number of producers from the NY market-not to mention a spike in home heating oil prices, something you don't want to see in a recession. As our refiner told us: "That will likely have profound impact on the price of heating oil (and diesel fuel) in our region and cause substantial additional increase in price over and above the 5.6 cents per gallon price differential that already exists."
So, the senate is right to go a bit more slowly-listen to to producers and gauge the economic impacts. It does little good to try to clean up the air if it leads to unwanted economic hardships that can be avoided by a more judicious approach.
Ah, if that was the bill's only impediment. Our sources tell us that a number of skeptical Dems-particularly from upstate-have also begun to join the opposition; and opponents are looking to delay implementation in order to give refineries a better chance to retrofit their facilities: "Opponents want the effective date pushed back several years; the bill would take effect in one year. But many oil heat industry leaders pledged in September to switch to ultra low-sulfur diesel by July 2011. In exchange, they asked clean-air advocates to stop promoting conversions to natural gas or woody biomass heat."
The problem with the bill-S1145 in the senate-is that it doesn't consider the economic impacts-and the need for time to adjust-or, as one refiner told us: "to give refiners an opportunity to absorb the current EPA requirements concerning blending renewable fuels and reducing benzene content of gasoline, both of which will begin in 2011, and have time after that to plan, obtain necessary permits and build the required facilities to produce the low sulfur home heating oil at the 500 parts per million level."
Without the needed time, there will be dislocation and job loss because of a withdrawal by a number of producers from the NY market-not to mention a spike in home heating oil prices, something you don't want to see in a recession. As our refiner told us: "That will likely have profound impact on the price of heating oil (and diesel fuel) in our region and cause substantial additional increase in price over and above the 5.6 cents per gallon price differential that already exists."
So, the senate is right to go a bit more slowly-listen to to producers and gauge the economic impacts. It does little good to try to clean up the air if it leads to unwanted economic hardships that can be avoided by a more judicious approach.
Flaking Out
The great Aqueduct unraveling continues-with even the governor trying to distance himself from the mess he created. As the NY Daily News reports: "The group chosen to run the Aqueduct racino failed to clear all the state's hurdles and could be bounced as soon as Wednesday, the Daily News has learned. The news comes a day after high-profile investors Jay-Z and Queens Rev. Floyd Flake ran away from the project. The Lottery Division last night forwarded a memo to Gov. Paterson's chief of staff, Larry Schwartz, and chief counsel, Peter Kiernan, stating that Aqueduct Entertainment Group is "unlicensable" for numerous reasons, a source told The News."
What a shock! Symptomatic, though, of the larger dysfunctional sea in which this kind of policy making swims in: "A second source said Schwartz and Kiernan - who have final say for the administration after Paterson revealed yesterday he recused himself from any involvement in the project - had not made a final decision as of Tuesday night, but that "a decision could be made as early as [today] as to what the fate of AEG will be."
Paterson recuses himself? Well, recuse me! We frankly have never seen a decision maker recuse himself from making a decision that, well, he's already apparently made already. And what's the cause of the recusal? Is the AG looking into this mess as well-or the feds?
Here's the NY Times' take: "Answering reporters’ questions in Albany on Tuesday, Mr. Paterson said he had recused himself from the Aqueduct negotiations, following the advice of his lawyers. Asked whether he still thought Aqueduct Entertainment was the right choice, Mr. Paterson said he “certainly thought it was right at the time.” “Whether or not they are able to comply with the protocols is the same problem that one of the other companies was unable to do last year, and so we’ll just wait and see whether that application is valid,” the governor added."
Oy vey! This is enough to make anyone's head hurt-and Floyd Flake must have some migraine if he's walking away from a potential high six figure pay day: "In a prepared statement, Mr. Flake said he withdrew because the bid had become a distraction from his oversight of the church’s many operations, including a school, housing for the elderly and retail facilities."
All of which makes it pretty clear that any chance that AEG will somehow get to do a blippin' thing at the aging race track is the ultimate long shot-and you know what kind of sucker's bets those turn out to be.
What a shock! Symptomatic, though, of the larger dysfunctional sea in which this kind of policy making swims in: "A second source said Schwartz and Kiernan - who have final say for the administration after Paterson revealed yesterday he recused himself from any involvement in the project - had not made a final decision as of Tuesday night, but that "a decision could be made as early as [today] as to what the fate of AEG will be."
Paterson recuses himself? Well, recuse me! We frankly have never seen a decision maker recuse himself from making a decision that, well, he's already apparently made already. And what's the cause of the recusal? Is the AG looking into this mess as well-or the feds?
Here's the NY Times' take: "Answering reporters’ questions in Albany on Tuesday, Mr. Paterson said he had recused himself from the Aqueduct negotiations, following the advice of his lawyers. Asked whether he still thought Aqueduct Entertainment was the right choice, Mr. Paterson said he “certainly thought it was right at the time.” “Whether or not they are able to comply with the protocols is the same problem that one of the other companies was unable to do last year, and so we’ll just wait and see whether that application is valid,” the governor added."
Oy vey! This is enough to make anyone's head hurt-and Floyd Flake must have some migraine if he's walking away from a potential high six figure pay day: "In a prepared statement, Mr. Flake said he withdrew because the bid had become a distraction from his oversight of the church’s many operations, including a school, housing for the elderly and retail facilities."
All of which makes it pretty clear that any chance that AEG will somehow get to do a blippin' thing at the aging race track is the ultimate long shot-and you know what kind of sucker's bets those turn out to be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)