Food Vending on the Street

An increasingly alarming problem for NYC's bodegas, green grocers, fruit stores and supermarkets is the proliferation of fruit and vegetable stands that set up directly in front of their tax-paying counterparts. These large stands, under the control of one or two wholesalers, undercut legitimate store owners and do so while violating city law. Here is an excerpt from our recent memo on the subject:

A full investigation that addresses the size and scope of food vending needs to be conducted. While most of the public attention is focused on the colorful food carts catering to New York’s lunch crowd the real threat to tax-paying bodegas, delis, green grocers and supermarkets comes from the ever expanding legion of fruit and vegetable emporiums that masquerade as food carts.

The legal definition of food vending hadn’t anticipated the proliferation of street stalls that, while they don’t pay nearly the same taxes and fees as food retailers, directly compete with over-burdened neighborhood stores. The City Council should launch an immediate investigation of the current regulations, the manner of inspection and enforcement, and the myriad codes falling under the jurisdiction of separate agencies.

Read the whole thing.

Waste Not, Want Not

It now appears likely that the City Council will not be taking up the city's SWMP until next year. It is, however, not too late for the legislature to begin thinking about how to address the issue of waste reduction. Reduction is the key variable that impacts all of the knotty questions concerning waste disposal.

The problem that the Council faced this year was that it waited too long before attempting to devise a credible response to the mayor's plan. Making matters worse, was the complication posed by the 91st Street Transfer Station, smack in the heart of Speaker Miller's district. Gifford couldn't afford to alienate his core constituents so he was forced, to essentially defend a siting model that unfairly burdened low-income communities of color with too many noxious garbage facilities.

The mayor's siting plan, as we have already pointed out, spreads out of the pain but fails to address methods for reducing the pain for all communities. This can only be accomplished by lessening the amount of garbage collected and subsequently exported.

In addition, the actual cost of the mayor's export-landfill based plan is yet to be fully analyzed. The bill for constructing the marine transfer stations will escalate as the delays continue. The Council should be evaluating not only the legalization of commercial food waste disposers (there is no discussion of commercial garbage in the mayor's plan) but also the mandating of the use of residential units as well.

There is also the contentious proposal to open up a transfer station at 59th Street in Manhattan. In the mayor's plan this transfer point would be used to handle all of the boroughs commercial waste, something that will be actively resisted by the private sector as well as by the surrounding neighborhoods.

So here is an opportunity for the new Council. The legacy of failing to adequately respond to the mayor's SWMP should be fresh in everyone's mind. This is one area where the people surrounding the mayor have had an egregious failure of imagination. Maybe the Council will force the mayor to come up with a better plan.

Related Got the Goldmine and the BTM merchants got the Shaft

After more than a year of construction delays and legal wrangling, the historic Fulton Fish Market has moved to its new home in the Bronx. The new $85 million facility was built by the city so that the 36 fish wholesalers could have a sanitary, climate controlled locale to conduct their business. The location also is more accessible to trucks and is proximate to the Hunts Point produce and meat markets.

Despite some missteps, the city admirably handled the relocation of these merchants, realizing how important they were historically and economically. However, for some unknown reason, the New York Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and the Bloomberg Administration have treated the wholesalers at the Bronx Terminal Market in a totally opposite manner, dealing with them as if they were little more than nuisances. This treatment comes despite the fact that the BTM is over 80 years old, provides hundreds of jobs and grosses over $400 million dollars a year.

Analyzing the specifics of the Fulton Fish market and Bronx Terminal Market relocation deals further underscores the city’s lack of consistency and fairness. The 36 fish wholesalers are moving into an $85 million dollar facility, at a cost of $2.36 million per business. The original 23 BTM merchants were offered $7 million which works out to approximately $300,000 in assistance per wholesaler. But the discrepancy is made worse when once considers that the Fulton Fish deal a) included a single location where the merchants could continue functioning as a viable market and b) probably provides additional moving expenses on top of the 85 million (we are going to check on this).

But, as EDC council Terri Sassanow said in her infamous letter, the city, unlike at the Fulton Fish Market, is not the BTM’s landlord and therefore has no obligation to construct a new market or offer any relocation assistance. This is a curious supposition considering that the city is claiming that the NYC charter enables them, as landlords, to terminate the leases of their merchant tenants. And if both the Fulton and Bronx Terminal Markets are on city land why does the former receive plentiful assistance and the latter short shrift? Does the presence of a sub-landlord at the BTM (the Related Companies) somehow absolve the city of its responsibilities?

The actual stinginess of this “generous relocation package,” as flak Frank Marino describes it, is put into even sharper relief when compared with what the city has offered Related. There is no reason to again go into the details of the Doctoroff-Ross sweetheart deal but suffice it to say that the BTM merchants are being treated poorly relative to both the Fulton Fish Market wholesalers and the politically-conntected developer. In other words, to paraphrase Johnny Paycheck: “Related got the goldmine and the BTM merchants got the shaft.”

The Exclusive Partnership

It has just come to our attention that the recently concluded Congressional vote on eminent domain legislation has gotten the good folks at the NYC Partnership upset. As it definitely should given the Partnership is made up of all the real estate machers who stand ready to pursue the public interest if only they're lucky to get the call.

Of course the Partnership does not represent the less exalted in the NYC business world, the very firms whose existence is often steamrolled when the permanent government promulgates one of those "well developed plans" that the NY Times sees as the justification for property transfer. What they would like everyone to believe is that their own particular interests are synonymous with the public good.

All of which brings to mind the term "mobilization of bias," coined by sociologists to describe how an ideology linked to a particular power structure comes to define reality for the citizens of an area precisely because it is seen as the essence of "responsible" government.

Such was the underpinning for all of the urban renewalists, from Robert Moses in NYC (and his acolytes Mike Bloomberg and Dan Doctoroff) to ED Logue and Mayor Lee in New Haven. It's truly fascinating that Kathy Wylde ("We are alarmed.."), in criticizing the eminent domain vote for the Partnership, cites the creation of Lincoln Center as her rationale.

We should all go back and reread the Power Broker on this ED endorsement. The ethnic cleansing of the Puerto Rican community is, we guess, a legitimate justification for all the swells who see Lincoln Center as their cultural home. Which is precisely the point. Even where the ultimate goal is meritorious the eminent domain-urban renewal process too often callously disregards communities and small businesses that are swept aside in its wake.

All of which makes the case, not for the status quo, but for reform. The Mayor Mike/NYC Partnership/NY Times axis of renewal does not necessarily represent the popular will or even good policy. It is exactly why we have questioned the "above politics and special interests" mantra coming from the Bloomberg idolaters. All of those who praise the mayor for not being "beholden" are sure of the fact that Mike sees the world through the same class-biased lens that they do.

City Council Agenda

In order to really transform itself into a first rate legislative body, the City Council needs to develop a comprehensive policy agenda for New York City, one that, while setting a contrast to the mayor’s priorities, lays out a new vision for New Yorkers. In doing so, the primarily Democratic Council can begin to help develop a new and fresh policy perspective for a part that is perceived to be running on nostalgic fumes lately.

We agree with Anthony Weiner when he says that ideas count. If so, key councilmembers need to urge that the new speaker look for ways to tap into the rich academic, think tank and foundation resources extant in this city. Just as there are probably no strictly Democratic or Republican ways to pick up garbage, it is equally true that good municipal policy is not within the purview of one particular ideology.

The new speaker should set up a series of colloquia on a wide range of policy issues. From this in-depth examination of the issues, a number of policy initiatives should be promulgated. What follows are some suggestions:

1) Regulatory Reform – The Environmental Control Board is probably the largest court in the country but what passes for due process would shock even the most conservative observer. The entire adjudicatory process should be overhauled in the city.

2) Land Use Review – The current system, at least from the standpoint of real land use review, is a charade. A new process should be proposed, one that incorporates some of the precepts of accountable development. In addition, the consultants that conduct the review need to be independently contracted, not hired by the developer as is the current practice.

3) Firehouse Siting and Fire Safety – The Council should pass legislation mandating a new siting study for firehouses. The last study, done in 1975 by the Rand Corporation, is way outdated and the FDNY is currently using a Ouija board when it decides which firehouses to close.

4) Privatization – Can certain services be done cheaper if outsourced to the private sector? Will the Council be willing to ever consider this if labor opposition is generated? There may be certain areas, like waste removal, where the private sector can complete the job in a more cost efficient manner. If the budget shortfall does exceed $4 billion, the Council may be more amenable to something like this rather than being forced to accede to social service cuts.

As Jonathan Bowles suggests, it might be useful to also streamline the public hospital infrastructure, “Billions can be saved by closing underused city hospitals.” Can we do this without jeopardizing health care for the poor? Should the subject be taboo?

These are just some thoughts. Others, such as vouchers for education, might also be explored on a pilot program basis. In addition, the whole eminent domain question should be thoroughly evaluated and legislation proposed to alter some of the harsher features of the current law.

Three Jeers for Wal-Mart

The Sun, as part of its continuing campaign to promote Wal-Mart, publishes an op-ed by Richard Vedder and Bryan O’Keefe of the American Enterprise Institute today giving “three cheers” to Wal-Mart. According to their research of 25 towns with supercenters, the retailer benefits consumers and does not negatively effect employment levels or wages. Based on their conclusion and those of other unnamed academics, the authors say that the only people really against Wal-Mart are the unions that stand to lose membership.

We have responded to many of these arguments before but there are a few things that need to be made clear. First, despite the authors’ claims, a number of economic reports also conclude the opposite in terms of employment and wages, not to mention Wal-Mart’s burden on tax-payer funded programs. Second, the supposition that Wal-Mart workers simply do not want unions and are perfectly happy with their wages, benefits and treatment is outrageously inaccurate. As the overtime lawsuits, discrimination suits, union-busting charges, and Robert Greenwald’s documentary show, not only are there many disgruntled associates but when they do try to form a union to remedy their situation it is aggressively attacked with propaganda, and both implied and explicit threats. Thirdly, though Vedder and O’Keefe list a bunch of reasons for opposing Wal-Mart in the beginning of the article they choose to only focus on labor. They never mention those who oppose Wal-Mart due to its impact on traffic, crime and quality of life. They never address the environmental concerns or the issue of China.

We suggest that the think tank researchers visit Tottenville in Staten Island before publishing their next piece. Perhaps after talking with civic leaders, environmental experts, parents, and small business owners they will learn that perhaps what’s good for Wal-Mart isn’t good for our communities.

NYC Schools Failing in Science

According to the Times, Julia Rankin, the official in charge of NYC’s science education, has given the city’s schools a failing grade for its teaching of this subject:

Dr. Rankin said she would give the science education program a grade of 55 after she was asked by a city council member, Robert Jackson of Manhattan, to rate performance on a 100-point scale.

The abhorrent state of the city’s science curriculum, including a lack of knowledge about what individual schools are teaching, is also emphasized further along in the article:

Council members said that the school system suffered from a lack of qualified science teachers, laboratory space and classroom time to spend on science, and that the results were lackluster test scores in the low grades and high failure rates for high school students on the science Regents exams.

In addition, they said, the science curriculum is uneven and the department has very little knowledge of what actually happens in individual schools regarding science, a claim that education officials at the hearing did not dispute.

This post-election revelation shows that the flaw in the heavily funded Bloomberg narrative that the city’s schools are improving. Without anyone challenging his claims, the mayor was able to drum into people’s heads that his 1st term lead to an unquestioned betterment of our education system. Because Bloomberg could effectively shut out competing messages, Ferrer never had a chance to seriously raise questions about whether the Administration was improperly focusing solely on teaching to the tests and doing so only in the subjects of math and reading (there is also the question of whether increased scores are due to easier tests).

Greg Sargent’s analysis rings especially true here: the mayor’s advertising monopoly effectively destroyed the chance for a vigorous campaign where Bloomberg’s record and the city’s future were debated. Instead voters, and even pundits, hearing only one message, began to believe it. Unfortunately, it is only now that we will start seeing that the mayor is guilty of false advertising and how dangerous this is for both our democratic process and the well-being of our city. Again, now that the media barrage is over and more stories like this come out, people will start doubting the Times's charaterization of Mike Bloomberg as potentially one of the greatest mayors in NYC history.

New York Suburb Worried About Super Wal-Mart

A Wal-Mart Supercenter planned for Monsey in Rockland County (a place we know very well) is generating controversy especially because of its potential traffic impact. Residents and officials worry that the main access point, Route 59, is virtually impassable during peak times and that adding a 215,000 sq. ft. store will only make things worse:

It's already impossible to go down Route 59 there," [Spring Valley Mayor George] Darden said yesterday. "I think it's the wrong place and the wrong time. It's not a good idea.

Let’s just say that we have been stuck on that section of Route 59 enough times to know how valid that fear is. Even a more supportive Sruly Goldstein, a candy and gift shop owner, thinks that the traffic issue is key:

It's going to create a lot of traffic," he said. "They have to do something about it. On Friday afternoons, you can't even go past one block.

The problem is that there isn’t much Wal-Mart can do to fix this problem, despite claims to the contrary. As we’ve pointed out, the company will say they can assuage congestion through the addition of turn lanes and better timed traffic signals but the fact remains that adding thousands of cars an hour to an already clogged road exacerbates the situation.

That part of Rockland is also home to a number of small businesses and it will be interesting to see if, unlike Mr. Goldstein, they react negatively to the store. In that tightly knit Jewish community, people will definitely not tolerate Wal-Mart if they feel like it will lead to the closing of their neighborhood stores.

Sargent "Salutes" Bloomberg's Spending

In an American Prospect piece that is well worth reading, Greg Sargent takes a look at the Bloomberg landslide and is, well, rather underwhelmed. This sentiment is directed not at the mayor, who he feels deserves praise for being the un-Giuliani, but rather at the NY Times and the civic elites who went into the tank in the face of the Bloomberg-purchased victory.

Greg's analysis of the impact of the $75+ million in spending is particularly trenchant because of the way he underscores how the sheer volume of advertising not only "made a mockery of the electoral process" by denying the challenger a fair hearing, but also made it much less likely that New Yorkers would fairly judge Bloomberg's failings--which frees him to duplicate them next term.

In his most persuasive argument, Sargent alleges that the Bloomberg bucks makes it

hard to call what happened yesterday a real election, at least in the sense that real elections are supposed to involve vigorous debates about the city's future...

This is precisely the point that we have been making in terms of the malarkey about the mayor being above the special interests.

Through the ability to purchase and thereby dictate the election narrative, the incumbent was able to shut out alternative messages and, as Sergeant says, prevent not only the honest evaluation of the his term but also any give-and-take over the city's direction.

And Greg is right about the Times. The paper should have insisted that a voluntary spending cap be a quid quo for its endorsement. Not only that: the Times should have thrown an even more serious gauntlet down and warned Bloomberg that his refusal to cap spending would precipitate a level of scrutiny that the mayor would not be happy with (For instance, as the old pro Marty Steadman told us, the fine exposé on the Bronx Terminal Market and the Doctoroff/Steve Ross relationship should have been the kind of series that the Herald Tribune used to run. With each installment, Marty says, more people would be calling up with even worse dirt about the scandal being exposed).

Where we disagree with Sergeant is on his un-Guiliani portrayal of the mayor. Bloomberg's achievements on crime and education are a legacy of Rudy's irascibility. Mike Bloomberg simply wouldn't have known where to begin in breaking down the barriers and besides doesn't have the personality or the inclination to take on these kinds of battles.

And Greg don't get us started on those tax hikes. We refer everyone back to Wednesday's Patrick Healy story in the Times that, in real sotto voce, talked about how the Bush tax cuts generated the monetary windfall that fueled both the city's real estate boom and the rising stock market that did so much to bolster the local economy and elevate it from the 9/11 dumpster.

What is indisputable, however, is that the mayor has bought a quasi-mandate and we all are going to have to hold our breathe because the "big idea" challenged mayor could, believing the prattling about his "greatness," be ready to attempt stuff that he is simply not equipped to do. If he does, we can all recall the wonderful line of the great coach Lou Carnesecca who, while counseling his team not to get too high in victory, reminded them: "Peacock today, feather duster tomorrow."

$ Not For Nothing

In today's NY Times Joyce Purnick clearly lays out($) the case that unlimited private spending is as great a threat to a democratic decision making process as the influence of special interest funding. She goes on to stress that the Supreme Court’s equation of campaign spending with free speech is the biggest barrier to reforming the system so that candidates like a Mike Bloomberg don' have a completely unfair advantage.

Obviously we agree with her and it is a point that we ourselves have emphasized. When one party is able to set the terms of the debate and drown out alternative views, it taints the electoral process and prevents the kind of democratic discussion that a democracy needs. In addition, when one candidate can overwhelm the other it becomes quite like a poker game where one guy is light in the wallet and the other has unlimited wealth. In this case, as in its electoral analogy, it's fairly simple to intimidate the opposition or just buy the pot.

This brings us to the special interest debate and the prospects for the next four years. In yesterday's Times Jim Rutenberg discusses the mayor's maneuverability given the fact that he is not beholden to the "Special Interest Savings and Loan." As we have stressed all along, special interests are not a monolith. When we met with the Manhattan Institute folks, their special interests were the labor unions. If we chatted with the editorial board of the Times these interests would be business groups and rich people looking to lower taxes (along with Christian fundamentalists).

It seems to us that the real challenge is to find the ways to insure that a plurality of interests are represented in the policy making process, something that an ultra-rich candidate will make more difficult in a number of ways. The smaller competitors and the disenfranchised will, at least in the case of a Mike Bloomberg-style elected official, have to depend on noblesse oblige.

Once again it is important to stress that freedom from interests does not in any way automatically translate into good government or enlightened policy. In some ways the presence of someone with great wealth, who is perceived as not beholden to those interest bogeymen, can lull the public and the media to sleep by reducing worry and proper vigilance.

Wal-Mart's Economic Impact

In an editorial today, the NY Sun highlights this paper presented at the recent Wal-Mart-themed economic conference that points out the how the retailer has benefited the economy by creating jobs and lowering prices. The Sun beams:

The year-long study concluded that "A full accounting of Wal-Mart's impact using Global Insight's modeling framework finds that Wal-Mart has generated a positive net economic impact on the U.S. economy."

What the Sun fails to mention is that this study, commissioned by Wal-Mart and conducted by the firm running the conference, was juxtaposed with a number of other independent reports that demonstrated the retailer’s negative economic effects. We have already mentioned Dr. Neumark's analysis which concludes that when Wal-Mart situates in an area it lowers wages and employment. Another economist determined that Wal-Mart’s entry results in an increased use of state-subsidized programs to the tune of $898 per person. Still another questioned the Global Insight paper’s methodology.

The Sun needs to be careful before picking and choosing which evidence it wants to present. Though the conference did highlight certain benefits of Wal-Mart, it also brought up a number of questions about whether the company is as economically beneficial as some claim, a fact very relevant to the retailer's desired entry into New York.

Whither the City Council?

With all of the speculation now about who the next Council Speaker will be, it might be useful to think about what the new council and its leadership can do to come up with a thoughtful legislative agenda that is proactive as well as provocative. Since, in our view, the mayor is vision-challenged this exercise will be especially productive for a legislature dealing with a mayoral landside purchased by a billionaire.

We'll have more on this a little later but it is something that everyone should be thinking about especially since all of the pundits are talking about the need for Democrats to reinvent their approach to both politics and policy. It will also be interesting, as Jill Gardiner writes in today's Sun, how the newest councilmembers will fit in with their more established colleagues.

(For more on who will lead the next Council, check out this blog, dedicated solely to the Speaker race).

Wayne's World: Barrett's Right on Target

In talking to Wayne Barrett we're always taught something new. His take on the election is a case in point. A couple of day's ago we indicated that if Freddy had $70 million in March to go after the mayor the results would have certainly been different. Wayne in response pointed out that Freddy wouldn't have needed that much money if both candidates had agreed to comply with the campaign finance system.

He' so right and as he further points out if Bloomberg had done so he would have most certainly had a Republican primary and would have been forced to protect his right flank, with certain consequences for the general election. In addition, Bloomberg also proved that if your ads were varied and clever you could carpet bomb the ethnic communities to great effect. As Barrett says, anyone who tuned in to Black radio would have seen the total inundation, a barrage that got the mayor an impressive 47-51 split.

One last thing on the Barrett front. Wayne says that the mayor got word from Mr. Sulzberger at the Times that, at least for this election, the CFB would not serve as a litmus test for the Grey Lady, something that it has done for all previous elections since the law, passed at the Times behest, went into effect.

All of which makes yesterday's Times editorial somewhat perverse. That the paper would go after the mayor on campaign finance on the morning of his landside (literally after the fact) raises questions about how seriously the rest of us should take the paper when they pontificate on this issue.

Ragged Coattails

Lost in the mayor’s lopsided victory, is the fact that a number of City Council seats were decided yesterday as well. In particular, we were extremely glad to see Jimmy Vacca win up in the Bronx as he will play an important role in the whole BJ’s issue on Brush Avenue and at the Terminal Market.

The broader lesson learned from the Democratic sweep of contested Council seats was that the Mayor’s coattails didn’t mean all that much. Though Republican candidates like Patrick Murphy prominently featured the mayor’s endorsement in literature and while stumping, it seems that Bloomberg’s support amounted to very little.

The reason for this is that New York is still an overwhelmingly Democratic city and that people voted for Bloomberg not because of but despite his Republican label. Therefore, the electorate’s approbation of the billionaire mayor was not, as some hoped, a sign that the Republican Party is on the rise. Though it’s true that Democrats have been out of the mayoralty for 16 years – and the party definitely has work to do in terms of shoring up support for 2009 – locally this town is still dominated by one party.

The interesting questions is whether Bloomberg’s inability to propel his favored candidates into office is the first sign that he will have some major problems in his second term. Obviously, the mayor’s support – unlike Giuliani’s – does not derive from a base that passionate identifies with his ideological and political philosophies. Otherwise, wouldn’t the mayor have been able to rally support for the Republicans he endorsed?

It seems more likely that people view Bloomberg as managerially competent and while this is a plus it can just as quickly become a negative when the competence is tested by a crisis. For while a base sticks with you through thick and thin, lukewarmly committed supporters will turn on you without a second thought and people will feel like returning the expensive mayor that they were sold.

The Terminal Market, Wal-Mart and Richard Lipsky

In today's Observer, Matthew Schuerman does an excellent job profiling Neighborhood Retail Alliance director Richard Lipsky, focusing in on our recent Bronx Terminal Market and big box campaigns:

The moose that Mr. Lipsky is currently hunting is a million-square-foot shopping mall in the South Bronx that will occupy a rump cut of land along the Harlem River where the Bronx Terminal Market now stands. Instead of the stalls that once sold goat meat, African produce and Hispanic dry goods, there will soon rise a Circuit City. Or a Bed Bath & Beyond. Or a Target.

Or a Wal-Mart.

In addition to describing Mr. Lipsky’s background, past battles and penchant for framing issues to the press, Schuerman explores how this BTM issue is both one of protecting small businesses and defeating non-union, predatory Wal-Marts and BJ’s. Specifically, the author mentions a survey commissioned by Related’s (and Wal-Mart’s) PR flaks, the Marino Organization:

To Related and its public-relations team at the Marino Organization, talking about name brands is off-message. Its representatives say that big-box stores A, B and C are exactly what consumers want, and they are currently taking their money outside the borough in order to shop there. The Observer was given a telephone survey of 400 Bronx voters that Related commissioned showing that 61 percent support the shopping mall. But the poll also undermines Related’s case: Only 7 percent said they leave the Bronx to do shopping at “discount/warehouse” stores. A total of 51 percent go to “discount department stores,” although it was unclear whether the respondents meant Filene’s Basement or Wal-Mart. Anyway, Wal-Mart is supposed to be out of the picture, right?

(We hope to get a copy of this survey and once we do we’ll post it).

As the article points out the whole Terminal Market/Wal-Mart fracas will continue to heat up, especially in light of the upcoming Speaker’s race. Definitely stay tuned and definitely read the entire piece.

Campaign Finance Redux

The Times' editorial post-mortem on the election was curiously subdued. In fact, rather than focusing on the paper's belief that Bloomberg could become a great mayor the Times returns to its campaign finance theme, stating clearly that the mayor's potential greatness, get this!, will depend on his ability to reform the campaign system.

The Times has to be kidding. After doing all it could to pave the way for the mayor's overwhelming victory it now wants Bloomberg to be a campaign finance reformer. Talk about chutzpah! When Sam Jones, the great backcourt shooter, played for the Celtics in the 60's the team's announcer Johnny Most had a patented expression every time the ball left the hand of the deadeye Celtic shooter--"Too late!"

One would think that after the mayor had made a complete mockery of the system, and after the Times had ignored what was going on enough to lay the mantle of potential greatness on Bloomberg, it would have the decency to keep quiet on this issue in the aftermath of the utter evisceration of campaign reform by the free-spending billionaire.

The Times simply doesn't see that it is not only the "special interests" that pose a threat to democracy, but it is equally threatened by an individual who is able to, through the employment of unlimited wealth, shut out dissonant voices and define the terms of the campaign reality. Watch how the Times treats the mayor from now on. It promises to be a very interesting manifestation of buyer's remorse.

Hail Caeser!

As expected Mayor Mike coasted to an easy victory yesterday by beating up on a hapless Freddy Ferrer. The post-mortems are coming fast and furious and some are downright funny. Taking the prize for fulsomeness and unwitting high comedy is Michael Goodwin's panegyric on the mayor in today's News.

Goodwin, echoing the Times editorial canonization of Bloomberg, sees potential greatness ahead and urges the mayor to go for it. What this greatness consists of, however, is never fully spelled out and Goodwin lapses into a vague kind of prose about reaching out to all the city's neighborhoods and ethnic groups as if that constitutes some kind of compelling vision. Does he really want our CEO mayor to resurrect the "gorgeous mosaic" rhetoric of David Dinkins?

What's missing in the Goodwin "analysis" is any larger concepts about governance that might prove useful in an attempt by the mayor to actually achieve greatness. Even on education, where the mayor gets uniformly high marks on what we believe are rather meager preliminary results, its hard to see how the managerially competent mayor is going to transcend the intractable problems that the system has inherited (we'd love to see what Andrew Wolfe has to say on this because he has been the most trenchant and persuasive critics we have in this area).

In the end Goodwin talks about the subways and security as the mayor's potential path to greatness. We can't really comment on this because much of what he says on the subject simply makes little sense. Now maybe if he actually builds a couple of new subway lines...

Former Wal-Mart VP pleads guilty to enabling fraud

In the wake of Wal-Mart’s firing of Tom Coughlin, comes this story:

Former Wal-Mart Stores Inc. vice president pleaded guilty to fraudulently preparing false invoices allowing another company executive to spend $18,105 in company money on himself.

Robert Hey Jr., 42, entered the plea yesterday in federal court in Fort Smith, Ark., to three counts of wire fraud. He admitted preparing phony invoices that allowed a Wal-Mart ''senior executive," referred to in court papers as John Doe, to use company money to pay for hunting trips and truck repairs.

The payments arranged by Hey included an $8,640 hunting trip for ''John Doe" and seven friends, $2,965 for repairs to Doe's 1999 Ford truck, and $6,500 for his personal South Texas hunting lease, according to the plea agreement.

Good to see those profits being used wisely.

The Sun Sets on the Next Four Years

In yesterday's NY Sun, the paper has an interesting editorial musing on the mayor's second term (assuming he doesn't make a move for the statehouse). The editorial urges the mayor to build on his mandate and pursue a number of "big ideas."

In particular, the more conservative Sun pushes Mayor Mike to tackle the "uncontrollables," those fiscal big ticket items such as pension reform that mayors in the past have described as out of their control because they are controlled by the state legislature. But why can't they be taken on, asks the Sun? Wasn't crime once seen as an untouchable until Rudy went to war on the issue?

At this point, however, the paper falters by saying, "The mayor has taken on Albany before--and won." In referring to the mayoral takeover of the old Board of Ed the Sun totally goes overboard in seeing this policy sea change as largely Mayor Bloomberg's doing. It was Rudy who broke down this particular door and absent his vituperative battles with the educational bureaucracy Mayor Mike wouldn't have gotten to first base on this issue in Albany. The open question is whether he can do this on any issue.

The Sun is right in pointing out that, aside from changing the charter school limits, there is nothing to suggest that Bloomberg will rise to the paper's "big ideas" challenge. Mike doesn't break down doors he walks smoothly through them once others have fought passionately to change public perceptions.

Bloomberg's "Flawless" Campaign

A further thought on Michael Goodwin's assertion that the mayor ran a flawless campaign. In challenging an incumbent you must go on the offensive to demonstrate that change is necessary. Often this will take the form of some down and dirty personal attack that, if it is to be effective, should be linked to one policy or another.

In yesterday's Times, Patrick Healy reported on the decision of the Ferrer campaign not to go negative. This decision had absolutely nothing to do with the statesmanlike demeanor of the candidate (or his less than scrupulous consigliere Roberto Ramirez). The decision instead was based on the assumption that if the Ferrer camp went negative it would unleash a barrage of counterattack ads that would bury the challenger.

Cleary if the mayor is going to spend close to $100 million on seashells and balloons ads he could have just as easily spent $125 million by adding a negative onslaught of his own. This is what used to be known as nuclear deterrence; where your response arsenal is so powerful that your enemy simply doesn't dare attack you.

Every analysis of the mayor's flawlessness must come back to the money. This does not mean that Freddy Ferrer was a good candidate. He lacked the personality and perspective needed to make the case. Let's not forget, however, that it was the extremely unlikable James Dolan who successfully pushed up the mayor's negatives and drove down his approval ratings with his devastatingly effective ads on the stadium.

That issue should have been the starting point of an attack on the mayor's sanctimonious claim that his wealth put him out of the reach of the special interests. From there the focus should have shifted to the cronyism at the BTM and the mayor's support of eminent domain, policies that could easily lead to gentrification that would exacerbate the crisis of affordability that Ferrer talked about but was unable to find any traction for (precisely because he either didn't know how to link it or, as was the case of the BTM, he refused to offend the same special interests that promoted the sweetheart deal).