In today's NY Times economist and columnist Paul Krugman examines the job growth claims by Wal-Mart and finds them to be specious ($). As he points out, "It's true, of course, that the company is getting bigger each year. But adding 100,000 people to Wal-Mart's work force doesn't mean adding 100,000 jobs to the economy."
What Krugaman is saying is something we have been pointing out for some time about big-box development in general and Wal-Mart in particular: "On the contrary there's every reason to believe that as Wal-Mart expands, it destroys at least as many jobs as it creates, and drives down worker's wages in the process." In making this case he is relying on the seminal work of University of California economist David Neumark ("The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets").
Which bring us once again to the accountable development discussion. In NYC it is indefensible to conduct "land use" reviews of major economic development projects without any concomitant review of the economic impacts. This does not mean, as we have seen in the Bronx Terminal Market ULURP, the kind of spurious analysis that sees a $60 million a year food store as having no impact on any supermarket in a five mile trade radius.
It means the kind of independent review that looks closely not only at the so-called collateral damages issue but also at the level of public subsidies being offered. The nature of the deal is as important as the various environmental criteria that are often used disingenuously as a surrogate for questions about the deal and the particular retailers in it.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Barrett Toasts the Times: Well Done
In last week's Village Voice Wayne Barrett goes into chapter and verse as to why he feels that the NY Times's coverage of the mayoral campaign was both inadequate and biased. The one thing that really caught our eye was the following question: "How many Times investigative pieces appeared on Ferrer? 4 (5,207 words). How many on Bloomberg? 1 (562 words).
The reason this got our attention was the fact that the one Times piece on Bloomberg was done by Charles Bagli on the sweetheart deal at the BTM. What is important to point out here, underscoring the credibility of Barrett's piece, is that even here the Times actually began its look at the Terminal Market deal weeks before with a critical questioning of why Freddy Ferrer wouldn't attend a merchant press conference attacking the deal.
So in the one major Times expose Freddy still came in for criticism even though, as we pointed out, he had nothing to do with the crafting of the curious arrangement. His only sin was one of omission and yet the paper actually first mentions the whole scheme in a piece on the mayor's challenger and not on the culprits themselves.
The reason this got our attention was the fact that the one Times piece on Bloomberg was done by Charles Bagli on the sweetheart deal at the BTM. What is important to point out here, underscoring the credibility of Barrett's piece, is that even here the Times actually began its look at the Terminal Market deal weeks before with a critical questioning of why Freddy Ferrer wouldn't attend a merchant press conference attacking the deal.
So in the one major Times expose Freddy still came in for criticism even though, as we pointed out, he had nothing to do with the crafting of the curious arrangement. His only sin was one of omission and yet the paper actually first mentions the whole scheme in a piece on the mayor's challenger and not on the culprits themselves.
Bodega Health Plan
In yesterday’s NY Post there is a letter from Candace Young, a nutrition director at the NYC Department of Health. Ms. Young, in defending the Health Department's plan to utilize bodegas in an effort to bring healthier foods to low-income neighborhoods, claims that bodegas, "are a primary source of food for people in those neighborhoods." She goes on to say that the targeted neighborhoods have the city's highest rates of obesity and diabetes.
We have commented on this elsewhere but it's worth repeating that small store owners are not the best soldiers in the war against bad eating habits. Frequently it is these same store owners who become the scapegoat for the eating patterns of their customers, habits that they have absolutely no influence over.
We've also pointed out that the space-constrained, low profit margin bodega is not the Department's best target. If stores are going to be enlisted at all it should be the local independent supermarket. Apparently, however, the city's policy makers continue to believe the canard that there aren't enough of these food outlets in low-income neighborhoods.
That being said, if the city wants to enlist neighborhood stores in its war on obesity it should as an appropriate incentive, be looking to relieve the onerous regulatory burden it places on these immigrant entrepreneurs. Lowering the cost of doing business, something the city should be doing anyway, might make the bodeguero a willing conscript. At all times, however, no one should forget that life-style decisions are best made by the individuals whose lives are affected by the choices being made.
We have commented on this elsewhere but it's worth repeating that small store owners are not the best soldiers in the war against bad eating habits. Frequently it is these same store owners who become the scapegoat for the eating patterns of their customers, habits that they have absolutely no influence over.
We've also pointed out that the space-constrained, low profit margin bodega is not the Department's best target. If stores are going to be enlisted at all it should be the local independent supermarket. Apparently, however, the city's policy makers continue to believe the canard that there aren't enough of these food outlets in low-income neighborhoods.
That being said, if the city wants to enlist neighborhood stores in its war on obesity it should as an appropriate incentive, be looking to relieve the onerous regulatory burden it places on these immigrant entrepreneurs. Lowering the cost of doing business, something the city should be doing anyway, might make the bodeguero a willing conscript. At all times, however, no one should forget that life-style decisions are best made by the individuals whose lives are affected by the choices being made.
Overdevelopment, Wal-Mart and Public Safety
When the Alliance held its community forum with Staten Island civic groups in November, the most compelling speaker was Dave Rosenzweig, who is the president of the Fire Dispatch Officers Benevolent Association. Dave had the audience spellbound in describing how a one minute delay in getting fire suppression equipment to a blaze would allow the fire to double in intensity. He went on to talk about the existing difficulties on the Island that result from an antiquated and inadequate road infrastructure.
This poor road access for Staten Islanders is being exacerbated by a lack of planning and the resultant overdevelopment, particularly on the South Shore. There are currently at least 15 retail projects on the drawing board for the area and each one of these developments is being looked at in isolation from the others. What Rosenzweig told the assembled groups was that a mega-project like Wal-Mart would further impede emergency vehicle access and put the area's public safety at risk.
The recent calls for a transportation "Marshall Plan" for Staten Island are all well and good but without a concomitant global examination of the various developments being considered this transportation policy will not adequately address the core issue that involves how development is done, not only on Staten Island but all over the city. To allow a Wal-Mart to go forward on the South Shore at this time is playing with the lives of everyone in the community.
Nothing illustrates this as well as the report in today's Daily News on the S.I. fire that killed two children. The paper reports that it took firefighters 8 and 1/2 minutes to get to the blaze, a full 3 minutes above the published average response time for the Island. Uncontrolled development then, is the number one public safety issue for Staten Island and the building of a Wal-Mart, with its hundreds of thousands of additional weekly car trips, cannot be seen apart from this issue.
This poor road access for Staten Islanders is being exacerbated by a lack of planning and the resultant overdevelopment, particularly on the South Shore. There are currently at least 15 retail projects on the drawing board for the area and each one of these developments is being looked at in isolation from the others. What Rosenzweig told the assembled groups was that a mega-project like Wal-Mart would further impede emergency vehicle access and put the area's public safety at risk.
The recent calls for a transportation "Marshall Plan" for Staten Island are all well and good but without a concomitant global examination of the various developments being considered this transportation policy will not adequately address the core issue that involves how development is done, not only on Staten Island but all over the city. To allow a Wal-Mart to go forward on the South Shore at this time is playing with the lives of everyone in the community.
Nothing illustrates this as well as the report in today's Daily News on the S.I. fire that killed two children. The paper reports that it took firefighters 8 and 1/2 minutes to get to the blaze, a full 3 minutes above the published average response time for the Island. Uncontrolled development then, is the number one public safety issue for Staten Island and the building of a Wal-Mart, with its hundreds of thousands of additional weekly car trips, cannot be seen apart from this issue.
TIF, Accountable Development and ULURP
In the latest issue of the libertarian journal Reason, the magazine takes a critical look at the government incentive for attracting development to a locality called Tax Increment Financing. Basically it is a technique that allows a developer to avoid paying future property taxes on the enhanced value of the land after it is developed (sometimes for 30 years). The extra taxes are used to pay off bonds that enabled the development to be built in the first place.
What makes TIF so attractive is the impression that a municipality is getting something for nothing, since the extra taxes involved wouldn't have been there absent the new development. However, according to the article:
Making matters worse is that these burdened taxpayers may actually be:
This is precisely what happened in the East Harlem Pathmark deal that we have already commented on. The building of a Pathmark store in and of itself was never the issue. In that particular controversy what did concern project opponents was the fact that the developer, Abyssinian Development Corporation, was glomming millions of dollars of public and private subsidies to enable the retailer to pay a rent it deemed affordable. As a result, independent supermarkets were placed at a competitive disadvantage and a store was built at an exhorbitant cost.
All of which brings us to our continuing concern for the inadequacy of the city's land use review procedures. ULURP is inadequate precisely because it doesn't require the necessary cost-benefit analysis that is needed for elected officials to judge the merits (and often grandiose claims from developers) of a project. We continue to hear the refrain: "That has nothing to do with ULURP," when we bring up these accountable development issues. And they're right, which of course is the point of this entire discussion.
What makes TIF so attractive is the impression that a municipality is getting something for nothing, since the extra taxes involved wouldn't have been there absent the new development. However, according to the article:
"Originally used to help revive blighted or depressed areas, TIFs now appear in affluent neighborhoods subsidizing high-end housing developments, big-box retailers, and shopping malls."Hence, this is development that is likely to have occurred anyway and, if it did, the enhanced land values would have been taxed. These revenues are effectively lost and the extra services required by the new development – sewers, road infrastructure, and schools – are paid for by other taxpayers.
Making matters worse is that these burdened taxpayers may actually be:
"small businesses facing competition from well-connected chains that enjoy TIF-related tax breaks. In effect, a TIF subsidizes big businesses at the expense of less politically influential competitors..." [Emphasis added].In the case study looked at in Reason, the beneficiary is a store called Cabela's, a hunting and fishing mega-store to be built in an affluent area of Fort Worth, Texas. There are already quite a few small outdoors specialty stores in Fort Worth and their predicament is well-summarized:
“If you own a mom-and-pop store that sells fishing rods and hunting gear in Fort Worth, you're still paying all your taxes, and the city is giving tax breaks to Cabela's that could put you out of business."This is of course, exactly the kind of situation we have been talking about in our discussion of accountable development. It really doesn't matter if the tax breaks come in the form of TIFs or abatements or a sweetheart deal on the purchase of public property. We are in essence (when it comes to commercial development) subsidizing the well-connected and their multi-billion dollar tenants at the expense of existing retailers (who are then asked to pay the taxes for their competitors who undoubtedly have deeper pockets then they do).
This is precisely what happened in the East Harlem Pathmark deal that we have already commented on. The building of a Pathmark store in and of itself was never the issue. In that particular controversy what did concern project opponents was the fact that the developer, Abyssinian Development Corporation, was glomming millions of dollars of public and private subsidies to enable the retailer to pay a rent it deemed affordable. As a result, independent supermarkets were placed at a competitive disadvantage and a store was built at an exhorbitant cost.
All of which brings us to our continuing concern for the inadequacy of the city's land use review procedures. ULURP is inadequate precisely because it doesn't require the necessary cost-benefit analysis that is needed for elected officials to judge the merits (and often grandiose claims from developers) of a project. We continue to hear the refrain: "That has nothing to do with ULURP," when we bring up these accountable development issues. And they're right, which of course is the point of this entire discussion.
Friday, December 09, 2005
The Thoughts of a Food Waste Disposer Expert
We just got off the phone with Professor Robert Ham, the co-author of the previously mentioned report on food waste disposers (FWDs). Ham, along with his one-time graduate student Professor Carol Diggelman, is the country’s leading expert on FWDs and their impacts on sewer infrastructure, the environment and a city’s economic costs. He was been involved in this type of research for over 40 years.
We’ve already talked about some of the professor’s conclusions vis-à-vis disposer use but, to reiterate, he believes the FWDs are very beneficial for a city as a part of an overall solid waste removal strategy. Ham mentioned to us that the waste water treatment process is biological which means that the waste is processed by digestive organisms and then turned into the sludge (biosolid) end-product. Corroborating the views of Philadelphia’s Water Department officials, the professor remarked that this process is made much more efficient when extra organic material is deposited through a disposer. Because those digestive organisms love the highly degradable food waste (as opposed, for example, to inorganic chemicals) the resultant biosolid is of a much better quality. Ham added that in a combined system like New York’s the added food waste is even more beneficial because all the rainwater captured in our system dilutes the waste stream, making it very inefficient due to the lack of organic matter.
The Wisconsin University professor also outlined other disposer benefits as compared to other waste removal processes such as landfills and composting. The FWD/Waste Water Treatment plant process is the best for trapping carbon dioxide and methane, not only preventing these gasses from harming our environment but utilizing them as recycled energy. Ham also mentioned that the disposer system, by removing rotting, organic waste from stores and homes, helps reduce the number of rats and other disease-carrying vectors such as mosquitoes. He said, contrary to the DEP’s claims, that the rat population will not be diverted underground because trying to burrow into a vat filled with liquid food waste is not a very attractive option for a rodent.
During our conversation, we learned that Ham’s disposer study is the seminal work in the field and has never been disputed. In fact, it has been used to convince municipalities as well as countries all around the world to reverse bans on food waste disposers. He said that many of these bans are based on misconceptions, and that places like Japan, Korea, Austria and the whole of Scandinavia now allow FWDs, in part, due to his work. Also interesting was that Ms. Diggelman, the professor’s graduate assistant, was chosen because she was adamantly opposed to disposer use. Halfway through their intensive study, Diggelman approached Ham saying that she had been quite wrong about FWDs and, due to their exhaustive evidence, now sees their benefit.
Again we see the vacuity of the DEP’s claims about grinders. The leading expert in the field believes in their various benefits but the agency charged with running NYC’s waste water treatment infrastructure dismisses these claims based solely on its own questionable data and assumptions. In 1995, Dr. Ham testified in front of the City Council and convinced the body that residential grinders merited a pilot program and eventual legalization. We believe that the same will happen with commercial disposers when we hopefully have our hearings later this month.
We’ve already talked about some of the professor’s conclusions vis-à-vis disposer use but, to reiterate, he believes the FWDs are very beneficial for a city as a part of an overall solid waste removal strategy. Ham mentioned to us that the waste water treatment process is biological which means that the waste is processed by digestive organisms and then turned into the sludge (biosolid) end-product. Corroborating the views of Philadelphia’s Water Department officials, the professor remarked that this process is made much more efficient when extra organic material is deposited through a disposer. Because those digestive organisms love the highly degradable food waste (as opposed, for example, to inorganic chemicals) the resultant biosolid is of a much better quality. Ham added that in a combined system like New York’s the added food waste is even more beneficial because all the rainwater captured in our system dilutes the waste stream, making it very inefficient due to the lack of organic matter.
The Wisconsin University professor also outlined other disposer benefits as compared to other waste removal processes such as landfills and composting. The FWD/Waste Water Treatment plant process is the best for trapping carbon dioxide and methane, not only preventing these gasses from harming our environment but utilizing them as recycled energy. Ham also mentioned that the disposer system, by removing rotting, organic waste from stores and homes, helps reduce the number of rats and other disease-carrying vectors such as mosquitoes. He said, contrary to the DEP’s claims, that the rat population will not be diverted underground because trying to burrow into a vat filled with liquid food waste is not a very attractive option for a rodent.
During our conversation, we learned that Ham’s disposer study is the seminal work in the field and has never been disputed. In fact, it has been used to convince municipalities as well as countries all around the world to reverse bans on food waste disposers. He said that many of these bans are based on misconceptions, and that places like Japan, Korea, Austria and the whole of Scandinavia now allow FWDs, in part, due to his work. Also interesting was that Ms. Diggelman, the professor’s graduate assistant, was chosen because she was adamantly opposed to disposer use. Halfway through their intensive study, Diggelman approached Ham saying that she had been quite wrong about FWDs and, due to their exhaustive evidence, now sees their benefit.
Again we see the vacuity of the DEP’s claims about grinders. The leading expert in the field believes in their various benefits but the agency charged with running NYC’s waste water treatment infrastructure dismisses these claims based solely on its own questionable data and assumptions. In 1995, Dr. Ham testified in front of the City Council and convinced the body that residential grinders merited a pilot program and eventual legalization. We believe that the same will happen with commercial disposers when we hopefully have our hearings later this month.
Phone-y Cards: "No Mas"
The NY Post is reporting today that the phone card company responsible for distributing the "Grandes Ligas" prepaid phone card, is removing the card from circulation. "Thousands of cards will be removed from hundreds of bodegas and other stores, said Wolrldwide Telecom lawyer Evan Weiderkehr."
This is exactly what the lawyers call a "constructive admission." It likely means that the depth of the deception, first raised by the Bodega Association, goes deep indeed and the removal of the card isn't likely to mollify those who feel aggrieved. It also raises questions about the initial statements in defense of the cards by the main distributor of the card, one Mr. Dean Cary of Compass Global: "These cards are the best cards for calls made to the Dominican Republic."
Which, if true, is a frightening thought. It would then mean that there are a slew of corporate predators taking advantage of the immigrant Dominican community. It is hard to believe that there won't be a number of government investigations of this mess to go along with the one promised by Major League Baseball.
This is exactly what the lawyers call a "constructive admission." It likely means that the depth of the deception, first raised by the Bodega Association, goes deep indeed and the removal of the card isn't likely to mollify those who feel aggrieved. It also raises questions about the initial statements in defense of the cards by the main distributor of the card, one Mr. Dean Cary of Compass Global: "These cards are the best cards for calls made to the Dominican Republic."
Which, if true, is a frightening thought. It would then mean that there are a slew of corporate predators taking advantage of the immigrant Dominican community. It is hard to believe that there won't be a number of government investigations of this mess to go along with the one promised by Major League Baseball.
Bronx Gravy Train Continued
In a follow up to thisstory Bill Egbert is reporting in today's Daily News that other Bronx pols have been recipients of Related's cash bonanza. As the UFCW's Regional Director Richard Whalen comments, "Money can't buy you love, but in the Bronx, it appears that it can buy influence."
All of which raises renewed questions about the entire Gateway/BTM development. Certainly the Daily News' exposes are not the kind of transparency that we have been talking about for the past few months. It will be interesting to see the kind of impact all of this will have when the project comes to the City Council. As a NYPIRG spokesman told the News,
All of which raises renewed questions about the entire Gateway/BTM development. Certainly the Daily News' exposes are not the kind of transparency that we have been talking about for the past few months. It will be interesting to see the kind of impact all of this will have when the project comes to the City Council. As a NYPIRG spokesman told the News,
"It certainly raises serious questions," said Neal Rosenstein, government reform coordinator of the New York Public Interest Research Group. Why would they donate to a candidate that ostensibly had a position opposed to their own?" he said. "It's a disturbing pattern, and it invites additional scrutiny."One thing that we do want to clarify, however, is the role of Councilmember Joel Rivera. Joel has been in the forefront of working on behalf of neighborhood stores. So much so that the National Supermarket Association gave him a "Man-of-The-Year” award and, in addition, the councilmember is the prime sponsor of the food waste disposer bill that will save stores millions of dollars a year in disposal costs.
Disgrace at the DEP
There are two expressions that we are extremely fond of, and they both are applicable to the minions toiling so hard over at the city's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The first, coined by the sociologist Thorsten Veblen, is "trained incapacity." The phrase refers to the kind of learning that, owing to its narrow focus, makes it difficult for the student to understand anything outsider of the constrained scope of his training. The second, given to us by social philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre is the notion that "bureaucratic expertise is one of the great moral fictions of our time."
In regards to the DEP both outlooks shed light on the agency's obstructionist attitude toward the use of food waste disposers. The trained incapacity prevents mangers from seeing anything outside of their own agency training. Any new and potentially contradictory knowledge ("cognitive dissonance") is resisted mightily. The fact that, for instance, the city of Philadelphia has successfully implemented the use of commercial food waste disposers is studiously ignored, to the extent that no one from the DEP has even bothered to contact the managers in Philly. In addition, the agency's opposition to a pilot highlights how much new ideas and point-of-views aren't even entertained.
The moral fiction of DEP's bureaucratic expertise is underscored by the fact that the two leading researchers on disposers, Dr. Carol Diggelman and Dr. Robert Ham, have studied the impact issues of FWDs and concluded, "Sending food waste through FWDs is an effective way to manage food waste.” This conclusion was reached after an exhaustive comparative study of all of the different methods for disposing of food waste, including composting. After reading the researcher's study it is hard to see why DEP would resist even a pilot program.
The professor's work does tackle one issue that has been the drumbeat focus of DEP's (and some enviros) opposition to FWDs: the impact of nitrogen on the waste water. Talk about fiction! Here's the money quote,
In regards to the DEP both outlooks shed light on the agency's obstructionist attitude toward the use of food waste disposers. The trained incapacity prevents mangers from seeing anything outside of their own agency training. Any new and potentially contradictory knowledge ("cognitive dissonance") is resisted mightily. The fact that, for instance, the city of Philadelphia has successfully implemented the use of commercial food waste disposers is studiously ignored, to the extent that no one from the DEP has even bothered to contact the managers in Philly. In addition, the agency's opposition to a pilot highlights how much new ideas and point-of-views aren't even entertained.
The moral fiction of DEP's bureaucratic expertise is underscored by the fact that the two leading researchers on disposers, Dr. Carol Diggelman and Dr. Robert Ham, have studied the impact issues of FWDs and concluded, "Sending food waste through FWDs is an effective way to manage food waste.” This conclusion was reached after an exhaustive comparative study of all of the different methods for disposing of food waste, including composting. After reading the researcher's study it is hard to see why DEP would resist even a pilot program.
The professor's work does tackle one issue that has been the drumbeat focus of DEP's (and some enviros) opposition to FWDs: the impact of nitrogen on the waste water. Talk about fiction! Here's the money quote,
"Adding food waste carbon to a carbon limited waste water system contributes to a net removal of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) from effluent, if nutrients are assimilated into a biomass and removed from the system as sludge."Which is exactly what the NYC system does. The end result is that,
"It [the use of FWDs with a water treatment plant infrastructure] produces the most food waste byproduct in the form of sludge. Food waste going to waste water systems captures residual value in food waste as it produces sludge during treatment, assimilating nitrogen and phosphorus, and it is used as a soil amendment."This sludge, sold in Wisconsin for around $15 a ton, is in great demand for farmers and the supply isn't nearly enough to keep pace with the demand. In other words, compost is created, the waste is recycled and in the process truck traffic, emissions and rotting food waste is removed from being a hazard to the public health. Bureaucratic expertise indeed!
Greg David on Eminent Domain
In this week's Crain's editor Greg David weighs in on the side of opponents of ED. His main objection, one that is most compelling, is the way in which the taking of property usually involves developers with singular political clout who are pitted against those without much influence.
He also objects to the fact that the Brooklyn plan does not need the approval of a single legislative body which, although true, is one of the first times Greg has shown the slightest degree of respect for any of our esteemed elected officials.
The reality in Brooklyn is that the AY project has a great deal of political support and the developer has met with a wide range of local groups. A full land use review would not necessarily yield a different result. And this assumption overvalues the importance and efficacy of ULURP. It would undoubtedly, however, be a fascinating media circus. In the end the level of scrutiny, as well as the result, would probably be the same.
He also objects to the fact that the Brooklyn plan does not need the approval of a single legislative body which, although true, is one of the first times Greg has shown the slightest degree of respect for any of our esteemed elected officials.
The reality in Brooklyn is that the AY project has a great deal of political support and the developer has met with a wide range of local groups. A full land use review would not necessarily yield a different result. And this assumption overvalues the importance and efficacy of ULURP. It would undoubtedly, however, be a fascinating media circus. In the end the level of scrutiny, as well as the result, would probably be the same.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Pathmark and Eminent Domain
Yesterday we commented on the USA Today story about the abuse of eminent domain in the case of the proposed taking of 6,000 homes in order to redevelop the waterfront in Riviera Beach, Florida. In that story, Orlando Artze from the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) mentions that Pathmark in East Harlem as a positive result of eminent domain and believes, "Without eminent domain, that supermarket never would have happened." He then adds: “Harlem's Pathmark store has brought the neighborhood 100 jobs, lower food prices and the convenience of not having to travel 40 blocks to shop.”
This is a pure crock! First of all ED had absolutely nothing to do with the Pathmark project. We should know since we were right in the middle of that battle. The parcel in question on 125th Street had been vacant for about 30 years! It had originally been one of many pieces of land in Harlem that had been cleared for urban renewal. These properties, along with countless others that were privately owned, lay fallow while Harlem spiraled downhill into economic despair.
Into the breach came countless independent supermarket owners who took over the abandoned A&P's and Waldbaums. They refurbished these units and helped to begin the economic renaissance that began to lure the chains back.
To say that any of this had anything to do with ED is nonsensical. What is also nonsense is the LISC claim that people had to go 40 blocks to find a supermarket. There were exactly 15 independents that, according to NYC's own data, were providing East Harlem’s residents with food that matched or undersold the prices in the chain stores.
In fact just to show LISC's ignorance – something that it appears continues to this day –we met with Paul Grogan who, at the time was director of the group's Retial Initiative. When we pointed out that there were all of these supermarkets in the trade area Grogan responded, "We didn't know they were there."
So please don't use this government-subsidized Pathmark store as an example of the benefits of ED. The store’s construction had nothing directly to do with land confiscation and certainly did not fill any East Harlem food shopping void.
This is a pure crock! First of all ED had absolutely nothing to do with the Pathmark project. We should know since we were right in the middle of that battle. The parcel in question on 125th Street had been vacant for about 30 years! It had originally been one of many pieces of land in Harlem that had been cleared for urban renewal. These properties, along with countless others that were privately owned, lay fallow while Harlem spiraled downhill into economic despair.
Into the breach came countless independent supermarket owners who took over the abandoned A&P's and Waldbaums. They refurbished these units and helped to begin the economic renaissance that began to lure the chains back.
To say that any of this had anything to do with ED is nonsensical. What is also nonsense is the LISC claim that people had to go 40 blocks to find a supermarket. There were exactly 15 independents that, according to NYC's own data, were providing East Harlem’s residents with food that matched or undersold the prices in the chain stores.
In fact just to show LISC's ignorance – something that it appears continues to this day –we met with Paul Grogan who, at the time was director of the group's Retial Initiative. When we pointed out that there were all of these supermarkets in the trade area Grogan responded, "We didn't know they were there."
So please don't use this government-subsidized Pathmark store as an example of the benefits of ED. The store’s construction had nothing directly to do with land confiscation and certainly did not fill any East Harlem food shopping void.
Baez Beware
In an exclusive story in today's Daily News, the paper is reporting on the initially baffling about face done by Bronx Councilmember Maria Baez. Last February Baez had voted with the unanimous land use subcommittee in its 13-0 rejection of a BJ's Warehouse Club for Brush Avenue in the Soundview section of the Bronx.
We had previously commented on this curious shift and pointed out that the rationale for the store's rejection, its labor policies, traffic impacts and effect on local minority-owned stores, had not changed in the few short months since the Council's vote. Now it appears that, absent any other compelling explanation, the drive being spearheaded by Baez is fueled by all of the people who stand to personally benefit from the store’s successful navigation of the land use process.
What makes this situation even worse is that the Baez-led effort excluded all of the original opponents of the store. She and some of her colleagues met with the BJ's team on at least four occasions and never reached out to those opposed to the store. In addition, the area in question is now represented by Councilmember-elect James Vacca who campaigned vigorously against the proposed store. His colleague and neighbor, Councilmember Palma, is also opposed which further complicates the situation.
The Alliance, independent supermarkets, and the effected unions of the UFCWand RWDSU will be vigorously mounting an opposition to any BJ's application whether on Brush Avenue or on the BTM site. This is a store that, much like Wal-Mart needs to do an extreme makeover before it should be welcomed into the Bronx.
We had previously commented on this curious shift and pointed out that the rationale for the store's rejection, its labor policies, traffic impacts and effect on local minority-owned stores, had not changed in the few short months since the Council's vote. Now it appears that, absent any other compelling explanation, the drive being spearheaded by Baez is fueled by all of the people who stand to personally benefit from the store’s successful navigation of the land use process.
What makes this situation even worse is that the Baez-led effort excluded all of the original opponents of the store. She and some of her colleagues met with the BJ's team on at least four occasions and never reached out to those opposed to the store. In addition, the area in question is now represented by Councilmember-elect James Vacca who campaigned vigorously against the proposed store. His colleague and neighbor, Councilmember Palma, is also opposed which further complicates the situation.
The Alliance, independent supermarkets, and the effected unions of the UFCWand RWDSU will be vigorously mounting an opposition to any BJ's application whether on Brush Avenue or on the BTM site. This is a store that, much like Wal-Mart needs to do an extreme makeover before it should be welcomed into the Bronx.
Phone Card Scam Recap
Yesterday’s phone card press conference went extremely well. There is interest from the Attorney General’s official in an investigation and we will continue gathering complaints about these fraudulent cards. Here are a summary of the stories that ran on the event.
New York Times
New York Sun
New York Daily News (Albor Ruiz Column)
El Diaro
Hoy
There was also a story in Metro, on ABC 7, and NBC 4 is looking to follow up.
New York Times
New York Sun
New York Daily News (Albor Ruiz Column)
El Diaro
Hoy
There was also a story in Metro, on ABC 7, and NBC 4 is looking to follow up.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
More Their's For the Taking
In today's NY Sun Julia Levy is reporting on a NY court ruling that has given ED opponents hope in the wake of the SC's Kelo decision. The decision involves the town of Port Chester and its urban renewal-style efforts that resulted in the building of a shopping center. The essence of the ruling was that the town had not properly informed one of the local businessmen about his rights to challenge an eminent domain-based redevelopment project.
The ruling, while it doesn't necessarily mean that the local entrepreneur will be awarded damages, does begin to restore some balance to the ED process. As well-known ED opponent (and the lawyer in the Port Chester case) Dana Berliner commented, "Right now, the government holds all the cards, and the private citizens hold none...This is an effort to restore some of the fairness to the process."
Since 1999, New York State law has gotten better in this area with the recently passed law (sponsored by Richard Brodsky) that requires government to inform property owners by mail if their property is at risk of being by eminent domain. The decision this week called the change in state law "a wise policy choice."
In a related item Crain's Insider reported yesterday that Congressman Charlie Rangel was looking to make some changes in the recently passed ED bill when it is sent to the Senate. He feels that the definition of "blight" needs to be sharpened and that he feels that ED is appropriate when it leads to the building of affordable housing.
Well, not necessarily. The congressman should read Nicole Gelinas' piece in the most recent City Journal. Gelinas highlights some of the most egregious examples of the use of ED to wipe out neighborhoods to make way for public housing projects that have been, in NYC, less than beneficial to the poor in particular and to the city as a whole as well.
Clearly, the ED issue is bound to heat up after the new year not only here in NYC (with the GZBA and Willets Point folks) but all around the country. The attention to Riviera Beach in Florida is just one case in point.
In fact, in today's USA Today there is a useful discussion of the mess in Florida What's fascinating here is that the mayor of Riviera Beach, is actually accusing the property owners of being selfish, "The people who live on the water are cheating the poorest members of the community." That's an incredible statement of a redistributionist philosophy that masks the outright thievery of the whole taking mentality.
The ruling, while it doesn't necessarily mean that the local entrepreneur will be awarded damages, does begin to restore some balance to the ED process. As well-known ED opponent (and the lawyer in the Port Chester case) Dana Berliner commented, "Right now, the government holds all the cards, and the private citizens hold none...This is an effort to restore some of the fairness to the process."
Since 1999, New York State law has gotten better in this area with the recently passed law (sponsored by Richard Brodsky) that requires government to inform property owners by mail if their property is at risk of being by eminent domain. The decision this week called the change in state law "a wise policy choice."
In a related item Crain's Insider reported yesterday that Congressman Charlie Rangel was looking to make some changes in the recently passed ED bill when it is sent to the Senate. He feels that the definition of "blight" needs to be sharpened and that he feels that ED is appropriate when it leads to the building of affordable housing.
Well, not necessarily. The congressman should read Nicole Gelinas' piece in the most recent City Journal. Gelinas highlights some of the most egregious examples of the use of ED to wipe out neighborhoods to make way for public housing projects that have been, in NYC, less than beneficial to the poor in particular and to the city as a whole as well.
Clearly, the ED issue is bound to heat up after the new year not only here in NYC (with the GZBA and Willets Point folks) but all around the country. The attention to Riviera Beach in Florida is just one case in point.
In fact, in today's USA Today there is a useful discussion of the mess in Florida What's fascinating here is that the mayor of Riviera Beach, is actually accusing the property owners of being selfish, "The people who live on the water are cheating the poorest members of the community." That's an incredible statement of a redistributionist philosophy that masks the outright thievery of the whole taking mentality.
Home Not a Castle: ED and Ground Zero
In one of life's true ironies the Institute for Justice's organization formed to combat the eminent domain abuse is called the Castle Coalition. Ironic it is because the man leading the fight against the eminent domaining of Ground Zero businesses is statistician Arthur Castle. Castle's Ground Zero Business Association (GZBA) is fighting the eviction of 140 firms (employing 700 workers) located on a site between John and Fulton Streets on Broadway, a stone's throw from the Tower site.
The GZBA's fight is against the MTA's plan to expand the Fulton Street train stop at the expense of the existing property owners and tenants. The further irony is that many of these businesses have actually received some of the money that was designated to retain firms in the Ground Zero area. After having been among the victims of 9/11 these small professional and retail firms are being re-victimized by their own government while their larger well-heeled comrades are allowed to remain and rake in the downtown dough.
All of which points to what is most problematic about eminent domain. As we have said before the use of ED is almost always in the benefit of the well-connected rich and at the expense of the less well-connected. This was the gist of Justice O'Conner's blistering dissent in the Court's Kelo Decision.
The Alliance has offered its help to the folks at the GZBA and we look forward to making the Castle Brigade the poster child for the fight against the use of ED to cripple and maim small business. These firms, just like the BTM merchants and the Willets Pointers, deserve more than a couple of shekels and a one-way ticket out of town.
The GZBA's fight is against the MTA's plan to expand the Fulton Street train stop at the expense of the existing property owners and tenants. The further irony is that many of these businesses have actually received some of the money that was designated to retain firms in the Ground Zero area. After having been among the victims of 9/11 these small professional and retail firms are being re-victimized by their own government while their larger well-heeled comrades are allowed to remain and rake in the downtown dough.
All of which points to what is most problematic about eminent domain. As we have said before the use of ED is almost always in the benefit of the well-connected rich and at the expense of the less well-connected. This was the gist of Justice O'Conner's blistering dissent in the Court's Kelo Decision.
The Alliance has offered its help to the folks at the GZBA and we look forward to making the Castle Brigade the poster child for the fight against the use of ED to cripple and maim small business. These firms, just like the BTM merchants and the Willets Pointers, deserve more than a couple of shekels and a one-way ticket out of town.
Baseball Player Phone Card Scam
Today at 12:00 p.m. in front of the Major League Baseball’s headquarters at 245 Park Avenue, the Neighborhood Retail Alliance will join Councilman Hiram Monseratte, the Bodega Association of the United States, famed civil rights attorney Norman Siegel as well as various community groups and residents to expose a multi-million dollar scam involving fraudulent pre-paid calling cards. These Grandes Ligas cards were endorsed by famous Dominican-born players like Pedro Martinez, David Ortiz, Octavio Dotel, Miguel Tejada, and Vladimir Guerrero (without permission from the MLB) and sold to unsuspecting bodegas and predominately Latino customers who believed that the advertised number of minutes was accurate.
The full release for today’s press conference can be found here.
Since the news about this has leaked out, we’ve received more and more complaints and are realizing that this is quite a large, city-wide problem. If you have had any problems with the cards feel free to contact us info@momandpopnyc.com or call 917-859-3903. For some background stories on the scandal check out these links:
NY Post 1, NY Post 2
NY1
Boston Herald
Boston ABC 5
Dominican Times
The full release for today’s press conference can be found here.
Since the news about this has leaked out, we’ve received more and more complaints and are realizing that this is quite a large, city-wide problem. If you have had any problems with the cards feel free to contact us info@momandpopnyc.com or call 917-859-3903. For some background stories on the scandal check out these links:
NY Post 1, NY Post 2
NY1
Boston Herald
Boston ABC 5
Dominican Times
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
League of their Own
The NY Post, following up on its story yesterday, announces that the MLB is planning to investigate the Grandes Ligas (Big Leagues) phone cards that use the images of various Dominican baseball stars and have been ripping off consumers for years. Major League Baseball is concerned that the cards are infringing on various copyrights and make it look like the product is an officially-endorsed product.
"These products are not licensed by Major League Baseball Properties. We made our legal department aware of it, and we are investigating," said MLB spokesman Carmine Tiso.If copyright infringement is determined, the Post reports, the MLB may sue the card manufacturers. If so, they will be joining a long line of disgruntled parties, namely the Bodega Association and various Dominican stores and organizations that were sold these cards and unsuspectingly passed them off to their predominately Hispanic customers who were consistently then shortchanged.
Ground Up and Left With Zero
The Daily News continues with its breathtaking look at the fiasco at Ground Zero four years later and continues to expose the favoritism and out-right larceny. Ironically, since he was certainly empowered to be involved long before the News wrote this series, the mayor is now joining with Rep. Peter King in calling for a full investigation of any potential wrongdoing (of all those "other guys" no doubt).
Part of any probe, however, should be an examination of the mayor's own nonfeasance. From his unexpected elevation in 2001 he has left this entire area to the governor. And if he wants to claim otherwise then, be our guest, since he would then be enmeshing himself and transforming apparent nonfeasance into malfeasance.
What continues to gall us is the way that the small businesses of the area got shafted and the News continues to find new evidence of this. While the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation was financing festivals and fixing up the streetscapes, local retailers and other small firms were being neglected. And it is no surprise that the firms getting the most money were those least in need.
So please investigate and, while doing so, lets make sure that the businesses that face eviction because of the MTA's plans don't get re-victimized by selfless policy makers.
Part of any probe, however, should be an examination of the mayor's own nonfeasance. From his unexpected elevation in 2001 he has left this entire area to the governor. And if he wants to claim otherwise then, be our guest, since he would then be enmeshing himself and transforming apparent nonfeasance into malfeasance.
What continues to gall us is the way that the small businesses of the area got shafted and the News continues to find new evidence of this. While the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation was financing festivals and fixing up the streetscapes, local retailers and other small firms were being neglected. And it is no surprise that the firms getting the most money were those least in need.
So please investigate and, while doing so, lets make sure that the businesses that face eviction because of the MTA's plans don't get re-victimized by selfless policy makers.
For the Love of Money
In yesterday's Politicker Ben Smith reports that the mayor's latest campaign filing was for over $77 million. It is likely, however, that the final figure will be even higher. What interested us was the various responses to Ben's post.
Quite a few folks seem to feel that the main issue was really Freddy Ferrer and took time to respond only to excoriate Freddy for his failures. This is, of course, besides the point. The real issue is that the mayor's money suffocated the possibility of a genuine campaign debate, something that is not in anyone's interest-certainly not the public's.
This was our point when we commented earlier that the mayor's money was generally a public hazard because, in addition to insulating him from the special interests, it obviated his need to engage in a meaningful public discussion of the issues. In fact, his money squelched the other side's ability to engage in debate almost as much as it insulated Mike Bloomberg from any consequential interaction with the citizenry.
That is why the mayor's own comments on this spending issue are so bizarre. As the Daily News reports today, Bloomberg's take on all the controversy is,
All of which is magnified by the current Daily News investigative report on the scandal at Ground Zero, an event that more than any other played a key role in the accidental ascension of one Mike Bloomberg to the mayoralty in 2001. What the News story underscores is how the mayor's monetary deluge was juxtaposed to the quiescence of the media.
Surely, the material uncovered in the expose was available a few weeks ago when the Daily News was playing its lapdog role in the Bloomberg coronation. Imagine what this explosive material might have done to the electoral dynamics--and to the mayor's narrative of in-charge competence. Is this the same paper that rhapsodized about the competence of the Deputy Mayor, the same dynamic Dan who was responsible for the nonfeasance at ground zero?
Moreover, this is exactly the kind of investigative journalism that should be done during a campaign where one side has such an immense monetary advantage (or any campaign for that matter). It was incumbent on the press to carefully examine the mayor's record and expose the potential gap between his campaign message and the actual reality of events as seen from a non-partisan perspective.
9/11 was the signature event of the past five years and the rebuilding of the site should have been the top priority of the administration that owed its very existence to that cataclysmic event. Instead we were given the Olympics and the West Side Stadium boondoggle! No one in the press went after this in any meaningful way--as part of a deconstruction of a self-serving, the best money can buy, full of beans campaign narrative. And the NY Times (excepting Bagli's Terminal Market work), to its everlasting discredit failed to do the kind of comprehensive analysis of the mayor's performance that was needed by voters as a corrective to the corrosive nature of the mayor's spending. And, after sleepwalking through the campaign they then attempted to canonize this political parvenu.
Quite a few folks seem to feel that the main issue was really Freddy Ferrer and took time to respond only to excoriate Freddy for his failures. This is, of course, besides the point. The real issue is that the mayor's money suffocated the possibility of a genuine campaign debate, something that is not in anyone's interest-certainly not the public's.
This was our point when we commented earlier that the mayor's money was generally a public hazard because, in addition to insulating him from the special interests, it obviated his need to engage in a meaningful public discussion of the issues. In fact, his money squelched the other side's ability to engage in debate almost as much as it insulated Mike Bloomberg from any consequential interaction with the citizenry.
That is why the mayor's own comments on this spending issue are so bizarre. As the Daily News reports today, Bloomberg's take on all the controversy is,
"I had a big message to get out, and we did get the message out. And I think the voters had the opportunity to hear what the issues were."Not exactly. All the voters really got to hear was the Bloomberg saturation ad bombing. There was no countervailing messages and the media failed to enter the breach.
All of which is magnified by the current Daily News investigative report on the scandal at Ground Zero, an event that more than any other played a key role in the accidental ascension of one Mike Bloomberg to the mayoralty in 2001. What the News story underscores is how the mayor's monetary deluge was juxtaposed to the quiescence of the media.
Surely, the material uncovered in the expose was available a few weeks ago when the Daily News was playing its lapdog role in the Bloomberg coronation. Imagine what this explosive material might have done to the electoral dynamics--and to the mayor's narrative of in-charge competence. Is this the same paper that rhapsodized about the competence of the Deputy Mayor, the same dynamic Dan who was responsible for the nonfeasance at ground zero?
Moreover, this is exactly the kind of investigative journalism that should be done during a campaign where one side has such an immense monetary advantage (or any campaign for that matter). It was incumbent on the press to carefully examine the mayor's record and expose the potential gap between his campaign message and the actual reality of events as seen from a non-partisan perspective.
9/11 was the signature event of the past five years and the rebuilding of the site should have been the top priority of the administration that owed its very existence to that cataclysmic event. Instead we were given the Olympics and the West Side Stadium boondoggle! No one in the press went after this in any meaningful way--as part of a deconstruction of a self-serving, the best money can buy, full of beans campaign narrative. And the NY Times (excepting Bagli's Terminal Market work), to its everlasting discredit failed to do the kind of comprehensive analysis of the mayor's performance that was needed by voters as a corrective to the corrosive nature of the mayor's spending. And, after sleepwalking through the campaign they then attempted to canonize this political parvenu.
Fruits and Nuts
We have previously talked about the serious problem posed to food store owners by the proliferation of fruit peddlers. The situation appears to be getting worse as these peddlers are brazenly setting up shop literally right in front of supermarkets and green grocers.
What is really galling for store owners is the fact that these peddlers, having none of a store's significant overhead, are able to siphon business from the markets by underselling the legitimate businesses. We even have anecdotes of store customers coming in to upbraid store managers because of the store's "rip-off" prices.
Supermarkets, particularly in Manhattan, pay exorbitant rents and the concomitant property taxes are astronomical. These are the taxes that the city needs to pay for all of its vital services. It is simply unconscionable for peddlers to be allowed to in essence steal the legitimate business from store owners.
We are asking the administration to vigorously enforce the law and we have petitioned the City Council to examine ways to toughen enforcement. If nothing is done to interrupt this trend pretty soon the street vendors will be replicating a supermarket's entire inventory. If you think that this is far-fetched then go to 86th Street between 1st and 3rd Avenues to see the bazaars already in operation.
And if Councilmember John Liu is really interested in pedestrian safety he should join with us on this issue. We have actually seen carts that are over 15 feet long!
What is really galling for store owners is the fact that these peddlers, having none of a store's significant overhead, are able to siphon business from the markets by underselling the legitimate businesses. We even have anecdotes of store customers coming in to upbraid store managers because of the store's "rip-off" prices.
Supermarkets, particularly in Manhattan, pay exorbitant rents and the concomitant property taxes are astronomical. These are the taxes that the city needs to pay for all of its vital services. It is simply unconscionable for peddlers to be allowed to in essence steal the legitimate business from store owners.
We are asking the administration to vigorously enforce the law and we have petitioned the City Council to examine ways to toughen enforcement. If nothing is done to interrupt this trend pretty soon the street vendors will be replicating a supermarket's entire inventory. If you think that this is far-fetched then go to 86th Street between 1st and 3rd Avenues to see the bazaars already in operation.
And if Councilmember John Liu is really interested in pedestrian safety he should join with us on this issue. We have actually seen carts that are over 15 feet long!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
