In today's new electronic edition of Crain's Insider the newsletter reports on the Alliance's dissatisfaction with the speculation that Jonathan Mintz will replace the departed Gretchen Dykstra as commissioner of DCA. We have felt all along that the agency needs to be less confrontational when it comes to regulating the small business community and there is a good indication that Mintz, instead of pursuing a more collaborative relationship, would continue on Dykstra's unfortunate path.
The speculation that Simcha Felder would perhaps be considered for the post was good news to our ears since the council member has been sensitive to the needs of neighborhood retailers. The mayor needs to begin to develop a more small business friendly agenda and appointing Mr. Mintz is not the way to do it.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
The Quintessential Speaker
In a editorial in Sunday's NY Times the paper encourages the Speaker Quinn to "steer the council to more openness and democratic ideals and against special interests." One aspect of this suggested course is for the speaker to "establish priorities independent of the county bosses..."
All of which sound melodious but demands a good deal of explication, especially when it comes to the term "special interests." Increasingly the term is in danger of becoming reified, a concept used in political incantation but devoid of any real substance. It is important to put the whole idea of special interests in a New York City context.
When people focus on special interests they are generally employing the language of C Wright Mills, who pioneered the investigation of how democratic political structures became increasingly under the sway of powerful elites (thus diminishing democratic responsiveness). In NYC, as many have pointed out, the dominant industry, and therefore the concomitant power structure, is real estate.
The focus on the party bosses, while offering up some colorful examples of petty and not so petty corruption, misses the way in which these political leaders are responsive to the real estate folks whose visions need to be translated into political reality. So when the Times focuses on these county party bosses it needs to clarify the symbiosis and interplay between politics and real estate development, otherwise the term "special interests" is denuded of its true meaning.
Which brings us to the first real test facing Speaker Quinn and the City Council this year: the BTM fiasco. As we have outlined in depth throughout the past nine months, this project reeks of special interest pleading. On top of this, however, is the fact that the entire deal rests on a patently absurd interpretation of the City Charter that strips the Council of some important powers that are delegated to the legislature in that document.
The Times is right but just needs to be more specific. In the case of the BTM there are numerous examples of how the special interest symbiosis operates. The deal is an affront to any good government sensibility and because of the way it was crafted is a direct challenge to the council.
We agree with the Times that "New Yorkers have reason to have high hopes for Ms. Quinn." She is someone who has a "strong activist spirit" and has always shown an ability to be responsive to "communities at the grass roots level." Her challenge is to find a way to exercise power in her new position while incorporating her historical concern for fairness, small businesses and local neighborhoods.
All of which sound melodious but demands a good deal of explication, especially when it comes to the term "special interests." Increasingly the term is in danger of becoming reified, a concept used in political incantation but devoid of any real substance. It is important to put the whole idea of special interests in a New York City context.
When people focus on special interests they are generally employing the language of C Wright Mills, who pioneered the investigation of how democratic political structures became increasingly under the sway of powerful elites (thus diminishing democratic responsiveness). In NYC, as many have pointed out, the dominant industry, and therefore the concomitant power structure, is real estate.
The focus on the party bosses, while offering up some colorful examples of petty and not so petty corruption, misses the way in which these political leaders are responsive to the real estate folks whose visions need to be translated into political reality. So when the Times focuses on these county party bosses it needs to clarify the symbiosis and interplay between politics and real estate development, otherwise the term "special interests" is denuded of its true meaning.
Which brings us to the first real test facing Speaker Quinn and the City Council this year: the BTM fiasco. As we have outlined in depth throughout the past nine months, this project reeks of special interest pleading. On top of this, however, is the fact that the entire deal rests on a patently absurd interpretation of the City Charter that strips the Council of some important powers that are delegated to the legislature in that document.
The Times is right but just needs to be more specific. In the case of the BTM there are numerous examples of how the special interest symbiosis operates. The deal is an affront to any good government sensibility and because of the way it was crafted is a direct challenge to the council.
We agree with the Times that "New Yorkers have reason to have high hopes for Ms. Quinn." She is someone who has a "strong activist spirit" and has always shown an ability to be responsive to "communities at the grass roots level." Her challenge is to find a way to exercise power in her new position while incorporating her historical concern for fairness, small businesses and local neighborhoods.
In-Domainable
In yesterday's NY Sun Dave Lombino did an enlightening piece on some of the problems that are created when an eminent domain process is initiated. These problems transcend the relative merits of the use of this tactic, inhering more to the fairness of its implementation. In the case reviewed by Lombino, the construction of the new NY Times headquarters, the major issues involve the equity of the compensation to the displaced businesses and the timeliness of the compensation process.
The article serves as a warning to legislators who are concerned about the use of ED as a redevelopment tool. As we have been commenting there is a need to craft new legislative parameters, ones that give the displaced homeowners or businesses a better shot at being fairly compensated for their losses (and ones that recognize the extremity of this approach to development).
The article serves as a warning to legislators who are concerned about the use of ED as a redevelopment tool. As we have been commenting there is a need to craft new legislative parameters, ones that give the displaced homeowners or businesses a better shot at being fairly compensated for their losses (and ones that recognize the extremity of this approach to development).
Monday, January 09, 2006
The "Fleasing" of the City Council
As we have been outlining here, the decision by Judge Cahn (hopefully to be appealed) that the Commissioner of Small Business Services has more power than even the mayor when it comes to the transfer of city-held leases is a direct threat not only to the Charter mandated powers granted to the City Council but to the mayor's fiduciary authority to protect the tax payers. In effect, according to Cahn, the so-called public market exception gives this commissioner unbridled power to terminate and transfer existing leases without any of the required competitive bidding that is laid out clearly in Chapter 15, Section 384 of the City Charter.
In this section the mayor's responsibility is to authorize the leasing of city property "only for the highest marketable price or rental, at public auction or by sealed bids and after advertising for at least thirty days in the City Record..." In addition, this process cannot be authorized "until a public hearing can be held with respect to such sale or lease..."
As we have already pointed out with respect to the BTM none of these requirements, including the mandated appraisals of the value of the leased properties, was ever carried out. What happened clearly was that all of the Charter-mandated safeguards were ignored and the BTM lease was simply handed over to the Related Company for a fraction of what the property would have gone for in a competitively bid process.
On top of this Section 384 also clearly states that the transfer of a lease must be subject to a land use review process and, therefore, a final disposition from the City Council (City Planning Chapter, Section 197-c). This also was avoided because the mayor (and Related) argued that Section 1301 superseded Section 384's mandated processes.
So in essence the entire BTM deal can be seen in legal terms as the proverbial fruit of the poisoned tree. There needed to be an open bid process, an appraisal of the involved property and, finally, a full Council review of the transfer of the BTM lease (all done before any Gateway Mall land-use application could be entertained by the Council).
None of which was ever done. This is the challenge before the Council. If it accepts the Gateway application for disposition than it is, by remaining silent on the underlying legality of the lease transfer, accepting the mayor's "market exception" premise (and by extension the diminution of City Council authority). The Alliance believes that this is an unsupportable precedent that the legislative body cannot allow to come into being without a challenge.
In this section the mayor's responsibility is to authorize the leasing of city property "only for the highest marketable price or rental, at public auction or by sealed bids and after advertising for at least thirty days in the City Record..." In addition, this process cannot be authorized "until a public hearing can be held with respect to such sale or lease..."
As we have already pointed out with respect to the BTM none of these requirements, including the mandated appraisals of the value of the leased properties, was ever carried out. What happened clearly was that all of the Charter-mandated safeguards were ignored and the BTM lease was simply handed over to the Related Company for a fraction of what the property would have gone for in a competitively bid process.
On top of this Section 384 also clearly states that the transfer of a lease must be subject to a land use review process and, therefore, a final disposition from the City Council (City Planning Chapter, Section 197-c). This also was avoided because the mayor (and Related) argued that Section 1301 superseded Section 384's mandated processes.
So in essence the entire BTM deal can be seen in legal terms as the proverbial fruit of the poisoned tree. There needed to be an open bid process, an appraisal of the involved property and, finally, a full Council review of the transfer of the BTM lease (all done before any Gateway Mall land-use application could be entertained by the Council).
None of which was ever done. This is the challenge before the Council. If it accepts the Gateway application for disposition than it is, by remaining silent on the underlying legality of the lease transfer, accepting the mayor's "market exception" premise (and by extension the diminution of City Council authority). The Alliance believes that this is an unsupportable precedent that the legislative body cannot allow to come into being without a challenge.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Further Observations on the BTM EIS
Our comments on the AKRF argument that a BJ's would not impact on the 59 independent supermarkets have focused on the issues of club membership fees, food stamps eligibility and car ownership. Now let's look at another of the consultant's faulty observations: the nature of local supermarkets as "convenience" stores.
On p.3-80 of the EIS it is asserted that these local markets, because of their convenience and accessibility, will not be impacted by the opening of a club store, even if such a store will generate over $60 million a year in food business.
AKRF then combines this observation with their other points on membership, etc. What is missing from this self-serving analysis is the phenomenon of "creaming." The reality is that, while redlining large numbers of local residents, BJ's will at the same time attract those neighborhood folks with access to a car and with the ability to afford the entry fee, thus depriving the local markets of all of their best customers.
In other parts of the EIS the consultants subtly reinforce this point when they acknowledge that the mall may inhibit the growth potential of the local stores. So it seems that what is being perpetrated here is an attempt to cap the ability to expand for those stores that took all the risks and brought these neighborhoods back. They will lose their best customers and be left with the poorest residents who aren't able to take advantage of the benefits of BJ's.
On p.3-80 of the EIS it is asserted that these local markets, because of their convenience and accessibility, will not be impacted by the opening of a club store, even if such a store will generate over $60 million a year in food business.
AKRF then combines this observation with their other points on membership, etc. What is missing from this self-serving analysis is the phenomenon of "creaming." The reality is that, while redlining large numbers of local residents, BJ's will at the same time attract those neighborhood folks with access to a car and with the ability to afford the entry fee, thus depriving the local markets of all of their best customers.
In other parts of the EIS the consultants subtly reinforce this point when they acknowledge that the mall may inhibit the growth potential of the local stores. So it seems that what is being perpetrated here is an attempt to cap the ability to expand for those stores that took all the risks and brought these neighborhoods back. They will lose their best customers and be left with the poorest residents who aren't able to take advantage of the benefits of BJ's.
Quinn and Box Stores
In a corollary to our comments on BJ's and food stamps it is useful to point out that Speaker Quinn, in her opposition to the three Costco's on the West Side, made the membership fees and food stamp access a central feature of her opposition to those projects. The Alliance believes strongly that Quinn's principled position on the West Side will also be applied to the Gateway project.
What will, however, be challenging is the method that the Council will need to find to excise a Wal-Mart or a BJ's from Gateway without jeopardizing the entire project. Under current zoning rules once the BTM is re-zoned there is no longer any legal impediment to the entry of any retailer.
What will, however, be challenging is the method that the Council will need to find to excise a Wal-Mart or a BJ's from Gateway without jeopardizing the entire project. Under current zoning rules once the BTM is re-zoned there is no longer any legal impediment to the entry of any retailer.
BJ's Redlines the South Bronx
It's no wonder that the folks at Related, along with their paid acolytes, want to keep the fact that the developer has a signed lease for the BTM development with the BJ's Wholesale Club. Anyone would given the business model that the club store implements. You see, when the dust settles, if BJ's is allowed to tenant the new Gateway Mall a large proportion (probably over 50%) of the neighborhood residents in the area surrounding the BTM will be effectively redlined from using the store.
Why is this? Well the store has a number of business practices that, because of the income levels of the neighborhood, would make BJ's inaccessible to the local residents.The first is the required $40 membership fee. This is, after all, a community that is at least 25% below the city wide income medium with income levels hovering at around $26,000 a year. A great many residents are on public assistance and also receive food stamps, putting the $40 entry fee out of reach.
But please don't take our word for it. Just take a cyber-ride over to the EIS done for Related as part of the current ULURP application. In the section on the socio-economic impact of the Gateway project our friends over at AKRF dot the "I's" and cross the "T's" of our point.
On page 3-82, in a discussion of what the impact of a $60 million dollar a year food business would have on local supermarkets, and of course attempting to minimize this impact, AKRF makes the following argument under the heading-"Cost of Membership Will Discourage Some From Shopping at a Wholesale Club"
Households are required to purchase a wholesale club membership club card in order to
in order to shop at the store. The cost of a membership card at a wholesale club is typically $40 per household. This may serve as a barrier...
The consultants, however, don't stop there. They also point out that the local neighborhood has probably the lowest car ownership in the city and the lack of a car will make it less likely that the neighborhood stores would lose their business to the BJ's and other stores in the mall. Putting aside for the moment our disagreement with another major premise of this argument, it remains quite clear that a membership fee and lack of vehicle access will mean that, for large numbers of local residents BJ's will be out of reach.
The redlining, though, doesn't stop here. What the consultants don't mention is the fact that BJ's doesn't accept food stamps and WIC, so that even if they could find some way to cobble together the $40 membership fee and hitch a ride over to the mall they would still find themselves shut out of the store.
What the residents would have access to, however, is the tens of thousands of additional car and truck trips that the mall would generate. So here in "asthma alley" local folks are being offered a store that they will not be welcome in while being asked to accept the negative environmental impacts that these surrounding neighborhoods cannot afford. Does this sound fair?
Why is this? Well the store has a number of business practices that, because of the income levels of the neighborhood, would make BJ's inaccessible to the local residents.The first is the required $40 membership fee. This is, after all, a community that is at least 25% below the city wide income medium with income levels hovering at around $26,000 a year. A great many residents are on public assistance and also receive food stamps, putting the $40 entry fee out of reach.
But please don't take our word for it. Just take a cyber-ride over to the EIS done for Related as part of the current ULURP application. In the section on the socio-economic impact of the Gateway project our friends over at AKRF dot the "I's" and cross the "T's" of our point.
On page 3-82, in a discussion of what the impact of a $60 million dollar a year food business would have on local supermarkets, and of course attempting to minimize this impact, AKRF makes the following argument under the heading-"Cost of Membership Will Discourage Some From Shopping at a Wholesale Club"
Households are required to purchase a wholesale club membership club card in order to
in order to shop at the store. The cost of a membership card at a wholesale club is typically $40 per household. This may serve as a barrier...
The consultants, however, don't stop there. They also point out that the local neighborhood has probably the lowest car ownership in the city and the lack of a car will make it less likely that the neighborhood stores would lose their business to the BJ's and other stores in the mall. Putting aside for the moment our disagreement with another major premise of this argument, it remains quite clear that a membership fee and lack of vehicle access will mean that, for large numbers of local residents BJ's will be out of reach.
The redlining, though, doesn't stop here. What the consultants don't mention is the fact that BJ's doesn't accept food stamps and WIC, so that even if they could find some way to cobble together the $40 membership fee and hitch a ride over to the mall they would still find themselves shut out of the store.
What the residents would have access to, however, is the tens of thousands of additional car and truck trips that the mall would generate. So here in "asthma alley" local folks are being offered a store that they will not be welcome in while being asked to accept the negative environmental impacts that these surrounding neighborhoods cannot afford. Does this sound fair?
Stadium Park and Deride
On Saturday Charles Bagli did an excellent examination of the rising neighborhood discontent over the ballyhooed Yankee Stadium redevelopment plan. As Ernesto Maldonado, one local disgruntled Yankee fan remarked, "'I'm totally opposed to this...We've never benefited from the stadium, and we don't believe we'll ever benefit from it.'"
As we have been commenting all along, mirroring our friends over at the Save Our Parks website, this plan that alienates vital parkland and disrupts local business was never properly evaluated. In addition, there has never been any effort on the part of city "planners" to attempt to gauge what the cumulative impacts of the stadium project and the contiguous BTM development. This is in keeping with the planning tendency all over the city to look at all large projects discretely, as if each existed in a development vacuum.
There is now a genuine need for all of the sell-described "friends" of all of the various parks around the city to come to the defense of Macombs Dam and Mullaly Parks. We know what the hue and cry would be if someone suggested alienating 19 acres of parkland in another community. Just look at the Jets proposal to use Flushing Meadow. This Highbridge neighborhood deserves the same spirited defense.
What's refreshing about the Bagli piece is that for the first time there is a focus on and concern for Bronx neighborhoods. What is now needed is an in-depth look at how the "special interests" are operating in the borough to the detriment of its residents. Between the Yankee's Randy Levine and Related's Steve Ross is policy formulation being done in the public interest?
As we have been commenting all along, mirroring our friends over at the Save Our Parks website, this plan that alienates vital parkland and disrupts local business was never properly evaluated. In addition, there has never been any effort on the part of city "planners" to attempt to gauge what the cumulative impacts of the stadium project and the contiguous BTM development. This is in keeping with the planning tendency all over the city to look at all large projects discretely, as if each existed in a development vacuum.
There is now a genuine need for all of the sell-described "friends" of all of the various parks around the city to come to the defense of Macombs Dam and Mullaly Parks. We know what the hue and cry would be if someone suggested alienating 19 acres of parkland in another community. Just look at the Jets proposal to use Flushing Meadow. This Highbridge neighborhood deserves the same spirited defense.
What's refreshing about the Bagli piece is that for the first time there is a focus on and concern for Bronx neighborhoods. What is now needed is an in-depth look at how the "special interests" are operating in the borough to the detriment of its residents. Between the Yankee's Randy Levine and Related's Steve Ross is policy formulation being done in the public interest?
Friday, January 06, 2006
Further Advice to Speaker Quinn
Since everyone is weighing in on just what kind of an agenda Chris Quinn should be pursuing in her next four years as Speaker John Avlon felt that he should as well. His analysis, however, falls into the same line of thinking that we have already taken issue with. Put simply, Avlon sees all reform from the "take the politics out of politics" vantage point.
Which is precisely why he places so much hope on the mayor's reform impulses. He sees the mayor's money as the necessary insulation from the dreaded special interest taint. Now we'd be foolhardy if we didn't acknowledge the fact that special interest corruption can undermine democratic politics. The burgeoning scandal surrounding the lobbyist Jack Abramoff is a reminder of the need to always be vigilant.
This perspective, however, misses some important key points. The reform impulse also needs vision and talent. As far as the mayor is concerned the jury is still out. His background, temperament and lack of either policy vision or passion makes him unlikely to be the kind of leader to tackle some of the issues that Avlon feels he should.
In addition, when it comes to NYC the "permanent government" that Avlon refers is not only comprised of the "unelected" party bosses. As Jack Newfield highlighted this power elite in New York rests on a distinctly real estate foundation. Yet when it comes to this special interest it appears that Mike Bloomberg, because of his outlook, is in perfect sync.
Mayor Mike's big development perspective serves the interests of the Related's and the Vronodos very well indeed. What remains to be determined is how well Speaker Quinn will do in providing the kind of institutional checks that will put a brake on the kind of development that is epitomized by the sweetheart deal at the BTM. Reform of the land use process and the crafting of an accountable development policy is just the kind of "local political reform" that is greatly needed but passes under Avlon's particular political radar.
Which is precisely why he places so much hope on the mayor's reform impulses. He sees the mayor's money as the necessary insulation from the dreaded special interest taint. Now we'd be foolhardy if we didn't acknowledge the fact that special interest corruption can undermine democratic politics. The burgeoning scandal surrounding the lobbyist Jack Abramoff is a reminder of the need to always be vigilant.
This perspective, however, misses some important key points. The reform impulse also needs vision and talent. As far as the mayor is concerned the jury is still out. His background, temperament and lack of either policy vision or passion makes him unlikely to be the kind of leader to tackle some of the issues that Avlon feels he should.
In addition, when it comes to NYC the "permanent government" that Avlon refers is not only comprised of the "unelected" party bosses. As Jack Newfield highlighted this power elite in New York rests on a distinctly real estate foundation. Yet when it comes to this special interest it appears that Mike Bloomberg, because of his outlook, is in perfect sync.
Mayor Mike's big development perspective serves the interests of the Related's and the Vronodos very well indeed. What remains to be determined is how well Speaker Quinn will do in providing the kind of institutional checks that will put a brake on the kind of development that is epitomized by the sweetheart deal at the BTM. Reform of the land use process and the crafting of an accountable development policy is just the kind of "local political reform" that is greatly needed but passes under Avlon's particular political radar.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Further Observations On BJ's and the BTM
One of the things we hadn't commented on in today's NY Sun article was the comments of Related's Glenn Goldstein on the decision by Judge Cahn supporting the eviction of the market merchants; "It means that with the approval of the City Council, the blighted, dilapidated and unproductive facility will be transformed into the Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market-a job generating, community-serving retail center."
There are number of things in that statement that cry out for deconstruction. The first that comes to mind is Uptown Glenn's description of the current market as "unproductive." According to whom? Is this the same market where 23 food wholesalers were doing $500 million a year in business and employing over 600 workers?
As far as blighted and dilapidated are concerned we'll give him that, but at the same time isn't that condition the fault of Related's new partner, the slumlord named Buntzman? In fact nowhere but in the world of Steve Ross and Deputy Dan could an acknowledged slumlord (at least according to the city's own court papers) be rewarded for his negligence while his victims are severly punished.
Then we come to the catchy "community-serving retail center" phrase. The big unanswered question here is: Whose community? We do know, for instance, that the BTM merchants were actually serving the surrounding neighborhoods and employing folks who lived in these communities. Will Gateway do the same? In this regard we need to take Glenn's and Adolfo Carrion's word since no accountable deverlopment analysis has ever been done on the project.
Some wildly unsupported job claims have been put forth but given the inadequacy of the socio-economic impact analysis done for the project we don't really have a good handle, not only on how many jobs will be gained, but how many will be lost as a result of the influx of five box stores. In addition, there is also the question of the quality of the jobs gained versus those that are lost. This gets into the whole union issue dealing with health and pension benefits.
Which brings us to the BJ's issue and how it relates to "community-centered retail development." The harsh truth is that BJ's, since it doesn't accept food stamps or WIC and it charges customers a $40 yearly membership fee, is basically off-limits to a great majority of those low-income residents living in and around the BTM site.
In essence, The Gateway Mall will be bringing a great deal of unwelcome environmental and economic impacts to the community and these need to be weighed agains all of the purported benefites. This is precisely the kind of analysis that has not been done for this development and underscores the compelling neeed for overhualing the ULURP process.
So when Council member Arroyo told the Daily News that she would tentatively support a BJ's discount store because her concern was for "the mother looking to feed her three children," she probably didn't realize the mother she was so worried about was never going to be a BJ's shopper.
There are number of things in that statement that cry out for deconstruction. The first that comes to mind is Uptown Glenn's description of the current market as "unproductive." According to whom? Is this the same market where 23 food wholesalers were doing $500 million a year in business and employing over 600 workers?
As far as blighted and dilapidated are concerned we'll give him that, but at the same time isn't that condition the fault of Related's new partner, the slumlord named Buntzman? In fact nowhere but in the world of Steve Ross and Deputy Dan could an acknowledged slumlord (at least according to the city's own court papers) be rewarded for his negligence while his victims are severly punished.
Then we come to the catchy "community-serving retail center" phrase. The big unanswered question here is: Whose community? We do know, for instance, that the BTM merchants were actually serving the surrounding neighborhoods and employing folks who lived in these communities. Will Gateway do the same? In this regard we need to take Glenn's and Adolfo Carrion's word since no accountable deverlopment analysis has ever been done on the project.
Some wildly unsupported job claims have been put forth but given the inadequacy of the socio-economic impact analysis done for the project we don't really have a good handle, not only on how many jobs will be gained, but how many will be lost as a result of the influx of five box stores. In addition, there is also the question of the quality of the jobs gained versus those that are lost. This gets into the whole union issue dealing with health and pension benefits.
Which brings us to the BJ's issue and how it relates to "community-centered retail development." The harsh truth is that BJ's, since it doesn't accept food stamps or WIC and it charges customers a $40 yearly membership fee, is basically off-limits to a great majority of those low-income residents living in and around the BTM site.
In essence, The Gateway Mall will be bringing a great deal of unwelcome environmental and economic impacts to the community and these need to be weighed agains all of the purported benefites. This is precisely the kind of analysis that has not been done for this development and underscores the compelling neeed for overhualing the ULURP process.
So when Council member Arroyo told the Daily News that she would tentatively support a BJ's discount store because her concern was for "the mother looking to feed her three children," she probably didn't realize the mother she was so worried about was never going to be a BJ's shopper.
Fostering Hope
If Bronx council member Helen Foster has her way the entire Gateway project will not have smooth sailing in its last stage of ULURP review. As Dave Lombino reports in the Sun today Foster called Judge Cahn's decision "unfortunate." She also predicted that the development would face "scrutiny" from the Bronx council delegation.
In doing so Foster continues in her courageous championing of the rights of the BTM merchants; "'Until there is some effort to place the merchants all together that is feasible and makes this a win-win situation for the merchants, the community and the owners, I don't see it going through land use without some bumps and bruises.'"
Foster is also representing the interests of her community and the evidence that is piling up that there is widespread disaffection among a wide array of influential neighborhood groups. As we shall soon see, the CBA Task Force that was set up by the Bronx BP is about to implode, and with it any semblance that this Gateway project has any real community support.
In doing so Foster continues in her courageous championing of the rights of the BTM merchants; "'Until there is some effort to place the merchants all together that is feasible and makes this a win-win situation for the merchants, the community and the owners, I don't see it going through land use without some bumps and bruises.'"
Foster is also representing the interests of her community and the evidence that is piling up that there is widespread disaffection among a wide array of influential neighborhood groups. As we shall soon see, the CBA Task Force that was set up by the Bronx BP is about to implode, and with it any semblance that this Gateway project has any real community support.
The BTM Challenge
The legal highjacking of the BTM merchants is reported on in today's Daily News and NY Sun. In the News story Bill Egbert explains how "Judge" Cahn took Section 1301 of the City Charter and transformed it into a document that anoints the Commissioner of Small Business Services with czar-like powers over any and all activities in the city's public markets.
As we have explained already this interpretation of the Charter gives the Commissioner (but really Dan Doctoroff in this case) the power to terminate the lease of any of the hundreds of market wholesalers currently operating at the Hunts Point, Gansevoort and Brooklyn terminal Markets. And, according to the less than estimable Cahn, the city can do this without having to subject the decisions to the City Council for review, as it is expressly laid out in Section 384 of the Charter.
What this means is that it is now up to the City Council to prevent this legal lynching of the 23 mostly minority food wholesalers whose businesses supply a large proportion of the city's new immigrant food stores and restaurants ("The gavel has come down on the guava," according to Egbert). It should do so for a number of compelling reasons:
1) The actions of Deputy Mayor Doctoroff and EDC in constructing a sole-sourced deal for a company whose CEO (Steve Ross) is a good friend of Dollar-a-year Dan is as civic leader Henry Stern has written, not in the best interests of city taxpayers;
2) The BTM merchants are an important business resource for immigrant stores and restaurants and, in crafting this sweetheart deal, EDC callously disregarded their plight and failed to offer the wholesales a relocation plan;
3) The claim that the city has the power to override Charter provisions dealing with the sale or transfer of city-owned leases is a blatant usurpation of the City Council's perogatives under Section 384. The evictions, along with the entire ULURP application should thus be terminated; and
4) The Gateway ULURP process, beginning with the summer certification of the application, has been flawed. The nature and manner of these flaws needs to be thoroughly scrutinized, something that simply can't be done under the truncated time-frame that we have discussed aleady.
Which brings us back to the new Speaker. In a moving column in today'$ NY Times (subscription needed) Joyce Purnick highlights Quinn's emotional panegyric to diversity. The point that she made was that it was wonderful to be in a city where diversity was seen as an asset and not an impediment.
This is precisely the point we're making about the BTM and its wholesalers, immigrant firms selling a uniquely diverse mix of ethnic foods. There displacement in favor of a white bread suburban shopping mall, with no provisions made for their ultimate survival, is not representative of the new New York that Chris Quinn rightly celebrates. It is another compelling reason for this whole plan to be sent back to the drawing board.
As we have explained already this interpretation of the Charter gives the Commissioner (but really Dan Doctoroff in this case) the power to terminate the lease of any of the hundreds of market wholesalers currently operating at the Hunts Point, Gansevoort and Brooklyn terminal Markets. And, according to the less than estimable Cahn, the city can do this without having to subject the decisions to the City Council for review, as it is expressly laid out in Section 384 of the Charter.
What this means is that it is now up to the City Council to prevent this legal lynching of the 23 mostly minority food wholesalers whose businesses supply a large proportion of the city's new immigrant food stores and restaurants ("The gavel has come down on the guava," according to Egbert). It should do so for a number of compelling reasons:
1) The actions of Deputy Mayor Doctoroff and EDC in constructing a sole-sourced deal for a company whose CEO (Steve Ross) is a good friend of Dollar-a-year Dan is as civic leader Henry Stern has written, not in the best interests of city taxpayers;
2) The BTM merchants are an important business resource for immigrant stores and restaurants and, in crafting this sweetheart deal, EDC callously disregarded their plight and failed to offer the wholesales a relocation plan;
3) The claim that the city has the power to override Charter provisions dealing with the sale or transfer of city-owned leases is a blatant usurpation of the City Council's perogatives under Section 384. The evictions, along with the entire ULURP application should thus be terminated; and
4) The Gateway ULURP process, beginning with the summer certification of the application, has been flawed. The nature and manner of these flaws needs to be thoroughly scrutinized, something that simply can't be done under the truncated time-frame that we have discussed aleady.
Which brings us back to the new Speaker. In a moving column in today'$ NY Times (subscription needed) Joyce Purnick highlights Quinn's emotional panegyric to diversity. The point that she made was that it was wonderful to be in a city where diversity was seen as an asset and not an impediment.
This is precisely the point we're making about the BTM and its wholesalers, immigrant firms selling a uniquely diverse mix of ethnic foods. There displacement in favor of a white bread suburban shopping mall, with no provisions made for their ultimate survival, is not representative of the new New York that Chris Quinn rightly celebrates. It is another compelling reason for this whole plan to be sent back to the drawing board.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Quinn and the BTM: Whither Her Community Legacy?
Chris Quinn is defined by her roots in the neighborhoods of Chelsea and Clinton. In the year 2000, when a proposal was floated to build three 150,000 sq. ft. Costcos (one on 23rd Street, one on 14th, and the other on 55th and 10th Avenue), Quinn jumped right into the middle of the fight.
At the time the Alliance had helped to cobble together a diverse community/business/labor coalition against the two stores, both of which were to be built without any parking facilities. Chris not only led all of the press conferences but, in addition, mobilized more community groups to join in our efforts. She also deputized her district leader, lawyer Arthur Schwartz, whose legal expertise was instrumental in eventually getting the developer (our friends at Related) to back down.
Make no mistake about it, this was no minor skirmish. In fact Costco had been working on a new urban concept called "Costco Fresh" and the NYC locations were to be the pioneers of this scaled-down city store idea. It was not to be and Christine Quinn was definitely a major factor.
What impressed us most at the time was how embedded Quinn was with the various community groups and how her opposition wasn't built simply on a knee-jerk NIMBY attitude. This was highlighted by her principled negative reaction to Costco's membership fee and refusal of the store to accept food stamps, effectively disenfranchising all of Quinn's poor constituents. To the councilmember this was simply unacceptable.
What remains to be determined, however, is the extent to which this ingrained feistiness and community-centeredness remains part of the new Speaker's repetoire. Her first big test will be the Gateway Mall and all of its well-documented problems. Chris Quinn will have the golden opportunity to send a clear message to the mayor that development must be accountable development and that the Council will be setting the parameters to define just what this concept means.
In addition, given yesterday's judicial highjacking of the City Council's statutory authority, Quinn needs to immediately make a statement that EDC's clever end-run of the Council's Charter mandates in the area of the leasing of city property aren't going to be accepted. The Council needs to void the eviction of the BTM merchants and should do so be sending the Gateway application down to defeat.
At the time the Alliance had helped to cobble together a diverse community/business/labor coalition against the two stores, both of which were to be built without any parking facilities. Chris not only led all of the press conferences but, in addition, mobilized more community groups to join in our efforts. She also deputized her district leader, lawyer Arthur Schwartz, whose legal expertise was instrumental in eventually getting the developer (our friends at Related) to back down.
Make no mistake about it, this was no minor skirmish. In fact Costco had been working on a new urban concept called "Costco Fresh" and the NYC locations were to be the pioneers of this scaled-down city store idea. It was not to be and Christine Quinn was definitely a major factor.
What impressed us most at the time was how embedded Quinn was with the various community groups and how her opposition wasn't built simply on a knee-jerk NIMBY attitude. This was highlighted by her principled negative reaction to Costco's membership fee and refusal of the store to accept food stamps, effectively disenfranchising all of Quinn's poor constituents. To the councilmember this was simply unacceptable.
What remains to be determined, however, is the extent to which this ingrained feistiness and community-centeredness remains part of the new Speaker's repetoire. Her first big test will be the Gateway Mall and all of its well-documented problems. Chris Quinn will have the golden opportunity to send a clear message to the mayor that development must be accountable development and that the Council will be setting the parameters to define just what this concept means.
In addition, given yesterday's judicial highjacking of the City Council's statutory authority, Quinn needs to immediately make a statement that EDC's clever end-run of the Council's Charter mandates in the area of the leasing of city property aren't going to be accepted. The Council needs to void the eviction of the BTM merchants and should do so be sending the Gateway application down to defeat.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Cahn Job!
In a decision that is as legally wrongheaded (and dangerously far-reaching) as this city has ever seen Supreme Court Justice Cahn has ruled that the Bronx Terminal Market merchants can be evicted from space that many of them have occupied for decades. What makes the decision dangerous is that, aside from the lack of any prevailing legal precedent (let's make up the law as we go along), it gives the mayor the power to supersede the Charter and, in the process, takes away from the City Council its vested authority in this area under Section 384 (b) (1).
In a nutshell Judge Cahn-job is saying that under City Charter Section 1301 (pp.17-18 of the decision) the Commissioner of Business Services has a unilateral right to do anything he wants in regard to not only the city's "Public Markets" but to "wharf property" as well. We have already commented on this ludicrous application of what Related has called the "market exception," and its implications are far-reaching indeed.
What Judge Cahn is saying is that Commissioner Walsh, in his authority to lease and redevelop the public markets, can enter into agreements to essentially eliminate the markets under his administrative control. This is asinine and would mean that he could decide to turn the Hunts Point and Gansevoort Meat Markets into condominiums without having to subject the decision to any Council review.
In Vietnam-era terms, Walsh can destroy the BTM in order to save it. What's next? Will the Parks Commissioner be given the authority under this silly "exception" to convert a greenspace into a shopping mall? The argument here is that Walsh has the authority to redevelop the market only if he continues its current function as a public market.
A suburban mall is not anything close to a public market and this decision needs to be overturned, either legally or politically. If the City Council doesn't address this usurpation of power than it will be inviting further mayoral aggrandizement and the concomitant diminution of its legislative purview.
Any council member who represents a public market or a waterfront wharf area needs to take careful note of this illegal land grab. The first thing that came to our mind was the Gansevoort Market smack in the new Speaker's district. If the Council is to reassert its legitimate perogatives it needs to throw this Gateway Mall application back in the city's (and Cahn-job's) face.
After it does this the Council should immediately commence to write legislation that closes this ridiculous but dangerous market loophole. Than, as we said yesterday a fair and open process, one that includes competitive bidding, can be substituted for the dishonest taint surrounding the entire BTM fiasco. The Cahn decision only adds to the compelling rationale that the Gateway Mall needs to be turned down flat.
In a nutshell Judge Cahn-job is saying that under City Charter Section 1301 (pp.17-18 of the decision) the Commissioner of Business Services has a unilateral right to do anything he wants in regard to not only the city's "Public Markets" but to "wharf property" as well. We have already commented on this ludicrous application of what Related has called the "market exception," and its implications are far-reaching indeed.
What Judge Cahn is saying is that Commissioner Walsh, in his authority to lease and redevelop the public markets, can enter into agreements to essentially eliminate the markets under his administrative control. This is asinine and would mean that he could decide to turn the Hunts Point and Gansevoort Meat Markets into condominiums without having to subject the decision to any Council review.
In Vietnam-era terms, Walsh can destroy the BTM in order to save it. What's next? Will the Parks Commissioner be given the authority under this silly "exception" to convert a greenspace into a shopping mall? The argument here is that Walsh has the authority to redevelop the market only if he continues its current function as a public market.
A suburban mall is not anything close to a public market and this decision needs to be overturned, either legally or politically. If the City Council doesn't address this usurpation of power than it will be inviting further mayoral aggrandizement and the concomitant diminution of its legislative purview.
Any council member who represents a public market or a waterfront wharf area needs to take careful note of this illegal land grab. The first thing that came to our mind was the Gansevoort Market smack in the new Speaker's district. If the Council is to reassert its legitimate perogatives it needs to throw this Gateway Mall application back in the city's (and Cahn-job's) face.
After it does this the Council should immediately commence to write legislation that closes this ridiculous but dangerous market loophole. Than, as we said yesterday a fair and open process, one that includes competitive bidding, can be substituted for the dishonest taint surrounding the entire BTM fiasco. The Cahn decision only adds to the compelling rationale that the Gateway Mall needs to be turned down flat.
Alas Avlon
John Avlon over at the NY Sun is at it again, trying to argue that Mayor Mike Bloomberg's wealth puts him in a unique position; "he is free to do what he thinks is right." This "above politics" perch gives the mayor a great opportunity according to Avlon. "In short, he is free to do what he thinks is right. More importantly, he is free to make the politically tough decisions that New York needs to meet the future as a sustainable city."
But, as we have argued elsewhere, being free from the dreaded special interest doesn't guarantee that the luckily unencumbered official has the proper understanding that would enable him to know just what the "right" tough decision would be . The background and ideological perspective of the decisionmaker may constrain her in ways that prevent what some folks might feel was the proper course of action in a given situation.
Mike Bloomberg is a good case in point. Avlon, building on the ideological worldview of Fred Siegal, says that Mayor Mike needs to control the cost of municipal labor ("crippling long-term labor costs"). This is, however, a conservative small government argument that Mike Bloomberg, as a big government liberal, has shown a great deal of disdain for.
What in his first four years gives any indication that Bloomberg sees the size of city government as a problem in need of remedy? In fact, in the mayor's inaugural address all we really hear about is how the mayor is planning to spend more of the taxpayer's money (viz., a multi-billion dollar new housing initiative).
Aside from ideology, though, another factor that Avlon fails to consider is temperment. The kind of municipal labor battle that Avlon and Siegal envision needs a hearty champion willing to take on the considerable political clout of the city's unions. The story in today's Daily News on the mayor's response to the transit settlement underscores this point; "Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday he would tell his four appointees on the MTA board to approve the tentative contract...'It was done over the bargaining table...And it's the best deal both sides could get.'"
So nothing that we've seen suggests that Mike Bloomberg is capable of effectively waging this kind of battle or that he has the necessary public persona skills to carry out what would undoubtably be a full-scale war? We certainly don't think so and we don't believe that Siegal thinks he has this ability either.
But, as we have argued elsewhere, being free from the dreaded special interest doesn't guarantee that the luckily unencumbered official has the proper understanding that would enable him to know just what the "right" tough decision would be . The background and ideological perspective of the decisionmaker may constrain her in ways that prevent what some folks might feel was the proper course of action in a given situation.
Mike Bloomberg is a good case in point. Avlon, building on the ideological worldview of Fred Siegal, says that Mayor Mike needs to control the cost of municipal labor ("crippling long-term labor costs"). This is, however, a conservative small government argument that Mike Bloomberg, as a big government liberal, has shown a great deal of disdain for.
What in his first four years gives any indication that Bloomberg sees the size of city government as a problem in need of remedy? In fact, in the mayor's inaugural address all we really hear about is how the mayor is planning to spend more of the taxpayer's money (viz., a multi-billion dollar new housing initiative).
Aside from ideology, though, another factor that Avlon fails to consider is temperment. The kind of municipal labor battle that Avlon and Siegal envision needs a hearty champion willing to take on the considerable political clout of the city's unions. The story in today's Daily News on the mayor's response to the transit settlement underscores this point; "Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday he would tell his four appointees on the MTA board to approve the tentative contract...'It was done over the bargaining table...And it's the best deal both sides could get.'"
So nothing that we've seen suggests that Mike Bloomberg is capable of effectively waging this kind of battle or that he has the necessary public persona skills to carry out what would undoubtably be a full-scale war? We certainly don't think so and we don't believe that Siegal thinks he has this ability either.
Quinn Rises, Sun Sets
In an editorial in today's NY Sun the paper suggests that the accession of Chris Quinn to the position of speaker is a hopeful sign that, unlike her predecessor, there will be a more cooperative relationship between the mayor and the Council. But, as we have been saying, it isn't so much about cooperation as it is about the creation of a really effective legislature.
Despite what the city's editorial pages would like us all to believe, Mike Bloomberg (while certainly a quick study) is definitely no creative policy maven. The challenges that the city faces demand some creative new approaches and we believe that this is precisely the kind of opportunity that Quinn and the Council will respond to.
In addition, the mayor's main failing is his lack of concern, or any attachment for that matter, for the city's neighborhoods and the small businesses that undergird their vitality. This is something that we know Speaker Quinn has, and we're optimistic that it will stimulate a good deal of creative tension that is politically healthy.
Despite what the city's editorial pages would like us all to believe, Mike Bloomberg (while certainly a quick study) is definitely no creative policy maven. The challenges that the city faces demand some creative new approaches and we believe that this is precisely the kind of opportunity that Quinn and the Council will respond to.
In addition, the mayor's main failing is his lack of concern, or any attachment for that matter, for the city's neighborhoods and the small businesses that undergird their vitality. This is something that we know Speaker Quinn has, and we're optimistic that it will stimulate a good deal of creative tension that is politically healthy.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Getting Out of the Gateway
It is now literally post time for the Related Company's controversial Gateway Mall project on the site of the current Bronx Terminal Market. As a result of the conscious timing of Related's attorney, Jesse James Masyr, this project was certified in July enabling it to avoid any real discussion or scrutiny by Community Board #4. In addition, the timing of the certification insured that the development would be sent to the City Council late in December (the 22nd to be exact).
What this all means is that the normal 50 day City Council review period has been severely truncated. Two weeks have already been lost and another week will go by before Council reorganization will permit hearings on the complex development to go forward. As a result, the largest project in Bronx history, one that has drawn the critical attention of the NY Times, the Daily News, El diary and Newsday, will undergo only three weeks of Council review.
This is utterly unacceptable. The project needs to be examined carefully from a number of critical perspectives. In the first place, the Council needs to evaluate the nature of the deal itself. The full dimensions of this project transcend the narrow parameters of ULURP. The Council needs to review the financial transaction that led to the transfer of the market lease to the Related Company to determine whether it is in the city's interest to proceed with the development, or whether it makes more sense to turn down the deal (pay Related its sweetheart $40 million bounty) and demand that the property be put out to bid.
In the second place, the question of the propriety of the eviction of the merchants needs to be examined. What we have here is the callous disregard by EDC of the interests of minority food wholesalers who, at the time of the city's ill considered action, were employing 500 workers and doing $500 million a year in business. In addition, the current ULURP plan has made no provisions for the relocation of these wholesale businesses, something that the Council needs to address.
Than there is the ever present Wal-Mart factor. Related has purposefully hidden who will tenant the Gateway Mall. There are five anonymous box stores slated for the site but if the land is re-zoned there will be no way for anyone to restrict a Wal-Mart or a BJ's from the development. The Council, if it is concerned about responsible employers, needs to send a strong message that this kind of stealth zoning won't be acceptable. Related's disingenuousness must be ended.
Finally, we come to the nature and quality of the ULURP process for this questionable development. As we have pointed out, the consultants on this project have eggregiously underestimated the traffic and economic impacts of the mall. There is simply no way for the Council to accept a traffic analysis that Brian Ketcham has called the worst he has seen in thirty years.
And what is the Council to make of an economic impact study that determines that the largest food store to ever be built in the Bronx (three times larger than Pathmark) will not effect the retail business of any supermarket in the Bronx or Upper Manhattan? All of this self-serving clap-trap deserves to be unceremoniously sent back as grossly deficient if the Council is to fairly fulfill its oversight role.
The City Council and the new Speaker has an opportunity to establish, right off the bat, that it will not only be taking its oversight role seriously but that it will also be looking to redefine what is now an outdated and inadequate land use review. Gateway offers just the right kind of challenge for this task.
What this all means is that the normal 50 day City Council review period has been severely truncated. Two weeks have already been lost and another week will go by before Council reorganization will permit hearings on the complex development to go forward. As a result, the largest project in Bronx history, one that has drawn the critical attention of the NY Times, the Daily News, El diary and Newsday, will undergo only three weeks of Council review.
This is utterly unacceptable. The project needs to be examined carefully from a number of critical perspectives. In the first place, the Council needs to evaluate the nature of the deal itself. The full dimensions of this project transcend the narrow parameters of ULURP. The Council needs to review the financial transaction that led to the transfer of the market lease to the Related Company to determine whether it is in the city's interest to proceed with the development, or whether it makes more sense to turn down the deal (pay Related its sweetheart $40 million bounty) and demand that the property be put out to bid.
In the second place, the question of the propriety of the eviction of the merchants needs to be examined. What we have here is the callous disregard by EDC of the interests of minority food wholesalers who, at the time of the city's ill considered action, were employing 500 workers and doing $500 million a year in business. In addition, the current ULURP plan has made no provisions for the relocation of these wholesale businesses, something that the Council needs to address.
Than there is the ever present Wal-Mart factor. Related has purposefully hidden who will tenant the Gateway Mall. There are five anonymous box stores slated for the site but if the land is re-zoned there will be no way for anyone to restrict a Wal-Mart or a BJ's from the development. The Council, if it is concerned about responsible employers, needs to send a strong message that this kind of stealth zoning won't be acceptable. Related's disingenuousness must be ended.
Finally, we come to the nature and quality of the ULURP process for this questionable development. As we have pointed out, the consultants on this project have eggregiously underestimated the traffic and economic impacts of the mall. There is simply no way for the Council to accept a traffic analysis that Brian Ketcham has called the worst he has seen in thirty years.
And what is the Council to make of an economic impact study that determines that the largest food store to ever be built in the Bronx (three times larger than Pathmark) will not effect the retail business of any supermarket in the Bronx or Upper Manhattan? All of this self-serving clap-trap deserves to be unceremoniously sent back as grossly deficient if the Council is to fairly fulfill its oversight role.
The City Council and the new Speaker has an opportunity to establish, right off the bat, that it will not only be taking its oversight role seriously but that it will also be looking to redefine what is now an outdated and inadequate land use review. Gateway offers just the right kind of challenge for this task.
Daily News on Taxes and the Mayor
In yesterday's Daily News editorial on the mayor's second term we were slightly bemused to read, as part of a "Go Mayor!" exhortation, that the mayor should continue to deliver "sound fiscal management that doesn't break the back of taxpayers." Are these folks for real?
This is a mayor who socked it to every single neighborhood business with his commercial real estate tax increase in 2002 (in a city that has already been designated one of the highest taxed and least business-friendly in the country). What's ludicrous in this shameless toadying is the fact that there is no suggestion by the News that the mayor should begin to attempt to make NYC a better place to do business.
This is, after all, the same Daily News that railed against the mayor's first term "ticket blitz." Now, however, the paper's euphoria seems to have generated an amnesia that ill suits the prospects for the News to provide the kind of checks on mayoral excess that rightly belongs to the Fourth Estate.
Of course our disappointment is more appropriately reserved for Mike Bloomberg who, in 19 soporific minutes, had absolutely nothing to say about making the city a more business-friendly environment. Of course, he was equally as mute about any plans to help small businesses but, given his track record, maybe "benign neglect" is the best we can hope for.
Make no mistake about it, the next four years are going to be a major challenge for the entrepreneurs who are struggling in the city's diverse neighborhoods. The mayor, in spite of his own meteoric rags to riches rise, simply has no genuine concern for the little guy. This is exacerbated by the man in charge of the city's economic development policy, Deputy Dan.
What the Alliance hopes is that there are enough council members who understand that the city's economic strength lies with its immigrant entrepreneurs and the continued vibrancy of neighborhood business. It certainly is not going to come from DD and the "Let's Make a Deal" folks over at EDC.
This is a mayor who socked it to every single neighborhood business with his commercial real estate tax increase in 2002 (in a city that has already been designated one of the highest taxed and least business-friendly in the country). What's ludicrous in this shameless toadying is the fact that there is no suggestion by the News that the mayor should begin to attempt to make NYC a better place to do business.
This is, after all, the same Daily News that railed against the mayor's first term "ticket blitz." Now, however, the paper's euphoria seems to have generated an amnesia that ill suits the prospects for the News to provide the kind of checks on mayoral excess that rightly belongs to the Fourth Estate.
Of course our disappointment is more appropriately reserved for Mike Bloomberg who, in 19 soporific minutes, had absolutely nothing to say about making the city a more business-friendly environment. Of course, he was equally as mute about any plans to help small businesses but, given his track record, maybe "benign neglect" is the best we can hope for.
Make no mistake about it, the next four years are going to be a major challenge for the entrepreneurs who are struggling in the city's diverse neighborhoods. The mayor, in spite of his own meteoric rags to riches rise, simply has no genuine concern for the little guy. This is exacerbated by the man in charge of the city's economic development policy, Deputy Dan.
What the Alliance hopes is that there are enough council members who understand that the city's economic strength lies with its immigrant entrepreneurs and the continued vibrancy of neighborhood business. It certainly is not going to come from DD and the "Let's Make a Deal" folks over at EDC.
Kudos for Quinn
The Alliance congratulates Chris Quinn, the Council's new speaker and someone who has strong roots in community activism. We had the pleasure of working with both Quinn and her mentor, State senator Tom Duane, in the fight we waged with the UFCW and local neighborhood groups against Related's attempt to build two Costcos on the West Side. We are hopeful that Madame Speaker, now that has a nice ring to it, will continue to be as combative in her new role. As we pointed out yesterday there is much that the council can do to establish its position as a formidable legislature.
If Chris is looking to establish a legacy than she could start with the whole issue of accountable development. She of all people is aware of the way in which development often proceeds in this town against the interests of local neighborhoods, and how the overly optimistic predictions of economic valhalla usually come up way short. New standards and new procedures are long overdue.
If Chris is looking to establish a legacy than she could start with the whole issue of accountable development. She of all people is aware of the way in which development often proceeds in this town against the interests of local neighborhoods, and how the overly optimistic predictions of economic valhalla usually come up way short. New standards and new procedures are long overdue.
HAPPY NEW YEAR! Let's Get Ready to Rumble
The Alliance wants to wish everyone a great new year; although we wouldn't want to be hypocritical and say that we'd like to see everyone enjoy a non-contentious twelve months. After all, isn't that what politics is all about?
What we'd like to see of course are more politicians unafraid to take controversial stands in support of the less powerful. We certainly have enough toadies in our midst. We'd also love to see our City Council friends really go after the mayor on a wide range of issues. The new speaker has a golden operatively to do this since the mayor, while workmanlike in his approach to city government, definitely lacks a great deal of creativity and flair when it comes to public policy.
This is particularly true when it comes to solid waste, which is why we got such a big chuckle out of yesterday's NY Times editorial that praised the mayor in this area. What actually did the Times mean when it said that the mayor's garbage plan "was a good one" but it will be "pointless" unless he actually implements it before he leaves office?
Who writes this stuff? Does anyone over on 43rd Street understand that the mayor's proposed SWMP, the one that envisions 7 or 8 multi-million dollar marine transfer stations, has not one idea for waste reduction? Do the minions at the Grey Lady understand that the cost of construction for those stations will exceed $1 billion? Who exactly are the policy wonks there who can't even comprehend that the mayor's garbage proposal will hold NYC hostage to what we have labeled a "pump and dump" landfill based methodology?
All of this leaves a wide open path for the City Council to take on the road to a more sensible, entrepreneurial approach to waste disposal. As everyone is aware who reads this blog this path (one that is progressively being taken all over the world) is one that will eventually legalize as well as mandate the use of food waste disposer.
Economic development is another policy area that the Council can find a great deal of room to legitimately question the mayor on. Mike Bloomberg is the quintessential urban renewal liberal. As such he has a tin ear for the concerns of local communities or small businesses. With people like this it is always about the "greater good," a concept that cloaks the way in which such a "good" so often aggrandize the fortunate few.
In response to this philosophy the Council needs to clearly outline an accountable development strategy that transcends the real estate reactive approach that has always characterized what passes for economic development in NYC. While it is at it, the Council should couple this with a thorough evaluation of the entire ULURP process, because the one currently in place is a total sham.
If the Council sets out to do all this, and adds the policy staff needed, then it will establish itself as a legitimate legislative body. The Alliance will definitely be pushing in this direction and we will be looking for business, labor and community allies for the fight.
What we'd like to see of course are more politicians unafraid to take controversial stands in support of the less powerful. We certainly have enough toadies in our midst. We'd also love to see our City Council friends really go after the mayor on a wide range of issues. The new speaker has a golden operatively to do this since the mayor, while workmanlike in his approach to city government, definitely lacks a great deal of creativity and flair when it comes to public policy.
This is particularly true when it comes to solid waste, which is why we got such a big chuckle out of yesterday's NY Times editorial that praised the mayor in this area. What actually did the Times mean when it said that the mayor's garbage plan "was a good one" but it will be "pointless" unless he actually implements it before he leaves office?
Who writes this stuff? Does anyone over on 43rd Street understand that the mayor's proposed SWMP, the one that envisions 7 or 8 multi-million dollar marine transfer stations, has not one idea for waste reduction? Do the minions at the Grey Lady understand that the cost of construction for those stations will exceed $1 billion? Who exactly are the policy wonks there who can't even comprehend that the mayor's garbage proposal will hold NYC hostage to what we have labeled a "pump and dump" landfill based methodology?
All of this leaves a wide open path for the City Council to take on the road to a more sensible, entrepreneurial approach to waste disposal. As everyone is aware who reads this blog this path (one that is progressively being taken all over the world) is one that will eventually legalize as well as mandate the use of food waste disposer.
Economic development is another policy area that the Council can find a great deal of room to legitimately question the mayor on. Mike Bloomberg is the quintessential urban renewal liberal. As such he has a tin ear for the concerns of local communities or small businesses. With people like this it is always about the "greater good," a concept that cloaks the way in which such a "good" so often aggrandize the fortunate few.
In response to this philosophy the Council needs to clearly outline an accountable development strategy that transcends the real estate reactive approach that has always characterized what passes for economic development in NYC. While it is at it, the Council should couple this with a thorough evaluation of the entire ULURP process, because the one currently in place is a total sham.
If the Council sets out to do all this, and adds the policy staff needed, then it will establish itself as a legitimate legislative body. The Alliance will definitely be pushing in this direction and we will be looking for business, labor and community allies for the fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
