In this week's Village Voice Tom Robbins' focuses on the "trauma" of TWU Local 100;s president Roger Toussaint. The piece sympathetically analyzes the difficulties of the union's leader by portraying how he was beset on all sides by enemies and had to walk a dangerously thin line in advocating on behalf of his members.
Makes for nice reading and, while we are big fans of Tom Robbins, the piece doesn't do enough justice to the way in which Toussaint creates his own problems with little help from others. John Samuelson is a case in point. When we were working for the Local John was one of the most dedicated and selfless union members we've seen. Yet somehow Toussaint couldn't find a way to utilize Samuelson's skills and he was discharged from the staff.
This is what has happened with too many of the people at the Local. If you show a spark of independence and creativity a clash with Toussaint is inevitable. He is simply one difficult man to work for and engenders absolutely no loyalty with those under him. All of which provides the right context for understanding the mess Roger got himself into during the recent transit strike.
In political science the term "rain or shine attachment" denotes the ability of a leader to create a foundation of attachment that is strong enough to withstand a crisis that challenges the group. Without this foundation of support the onset of crisis will severely undermine the group's leadership. This is precisely what happened to Toussaint during the strike and its aftermath.
Without a base of loyalty leadership becomes extremely vulnerable and in Toussaint's case, this lack is exacerbated by the fact that his leadership style is based on fear and intimidation. Few folks even like Roger, so when he makes mistakes his brittle leadership structure begins to crack. People are genuinely happy that he is falling on his face and wish him the worst.
So, while it is true that Toussaint was in a precarious position given the Local's militancy and the MTA's intransigence, there is no doubt that he had no flexibility because of the environment that he himself created at the union.
As far as the comments on the union dissidents are concerned we think it is a mistake for Robbins to try to diminish their stature by attempting to pigeonhole their political ideologies. That is exactly what Toussaint's line has been.
And guess what? This kind of character assassination simply doesn't work because people like John Mooney and Ainsley Stewart are well-known quantities, folks whose dedication to the union and its members cannot be questioned. Since when does someone's radical politics insure that the person will be a good union leader?
The unanswered question in all this is the following: Was the union in a position to get a better deal at the negotiating table before a strike vote was called? Given the leadership of the Local's lack of openness it is hard to determine. One thing is sure, however, a mess has been made and there is one person who should be held responsible.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Trash Talk Heats Up
A short item in today's NY Post indicates that the fight over the mayor's solid waste management plan may be about to heat up. In the report the administration is urging that the City Council pass the mayor's plan even though there is concern over the two designated Manhattan transfer stations that are being challenged legally.
The NY Sun also has a story that we just noticed that goes into more details concerning the possibility that the Council may "throw out" the mayor's plan. In yesterday's hearing at the Solid Waste Committee members whose districts encompassed the transfer stations argued that "uncertainty" of the legal actions should be enough to send everyone back to the drawing board.
Newly elected Council member Jessica Lappin remarked, "I think this is a make believe plan."
All of which underscores our arguments about waste reduction and the insufficiency of the SWMP in this crucial area. One approach, we have argued, is the use of commercial and residential food waste disposers, a methodology that has demonstrated environmental and economic efficacy in reducing the amount of waste for export.
That is why we will ask the Council to re-introduce our pilot program for disposers at the next Stated Council meeting on the 15th of the month. The initiative had the support of 35 council members last year. As part of our effort we will be bringing in Professors Ham and Diggelman, the two leading experts in the methodology, to brief the council on how disposers can become a vital component of its own SWMP alternative.
The NY Sun also has a story that we just noticed that goes into more details concerning the possibility that the Council may "throw out" the mayor's plan. In yesterday's hearing at the Solid Waste Committee members whose districts encompassed the transfer stations argued that "uncertainty" of the legal actions should be enough to send everyone back to the drawing board.
Newly elected Council member Jessica Lappin remarked, "I think this is a make believe plan."
All of which underscores our arguments about waste reduction and the insufficiency of the SWMP in this crucial area. One approach, we have argued, is the use of commercial and residential food waste disposers, a methodology that has demonstrated environmental and economic efficacy in reducing the amount of waste for export.
That is why we will ask the Council to re-introduce our pilot program for disposers at the next Stated Council meeting on the 15th of the month. The initiative had the support of 35 council members last year. As part of our effort we will be bringing in Professors Ham and Diggelman, the two leading experts in the methodology, to brief the council on how disposers can become a vital component of its own SWMP alternative.
Pataki and Bloomberg: Smokey Collusion
The NY Times is reporting today that the Governor Pataki has agreed to give the mayor the extra 50 cents a pack that he was complaining that the governor's original budget proposal had shortchanged the city out of. Once again the mayor is quoted, using the same incantation that bears no relationship to reality, "There's a clear correlation: you raise your cigarette taxes, fewer children go and smoke."
But, as the Times points out, "One obstacle could be the State Senate..." The Senate's majority leader, Joe Bruno, has explicitly stated that there should be no new taxes in the new state budget. As we have commented before Mayor Bloomberg's veiled challenge to Bruno, he has through aides threatened to challenge Republican incumbent Serph Maltese in the fall, could work in favor of those who are trying to prevent any cigarette tax hike without the state's enforcement of existing law against Indian retailers.
Indications are that Bruno is not taking kindly to being threatened. In reports today he says that, "the mayor should know 'that bullies end up getting bloody noses.'" Bruno, an ex-prize fighter also uses words like "ingrate" to describe those who say that the city is being shortchanged by the State Senate.
But, as the Times points out, "One obstacle could be the State Senate..." The Senate's majority leader, Joe Bruno, has explicitly stated that there should be no new taxes in the new state budget. As we have commented before Mayor Bloomberg's veiled challenge to Bruno, he has through aides threatened to challenge Republican incumbent Serph Maltese in the fall, could work in favor of those who are trying to prevent any cigarette tax hike without the state's enforcement of existing law against Indian retailers.
Indications are that Bruno is not taking kindly to being threatened. In reports today he says that, "the mayor should know 'that bullies end up getting bloody noses.'" Bruno, an ex-prize fighter also uses words like "ingrate" to describe those who say that the city is being shortchanged by the State Senate.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Bronx Sweetheart Deal #2
It seems that certain Bronx and city officials have a major sweet tooth because just after ramming through the Bronx Terminal Market redevelopment they are trying to peddle another sweetheart deal: a new Yankee Stadium. Good Jobs New York (GJNY), a subsidy watchdog group, has just released a report highlighting how the taxpayer is being swindled in order to subsidize the richest team in baseball.
Breaking down the numbers GJNY concludes that direct and indirect subsidies of the project could exceed $480 million, the new stadium’s costs will far outweigh its revenue, and that most of the jobs will be either be temporary/season or low-wage. The good government agency also points out that, like with the BTM, there was outrageously little public input for this project, especially when both city and public officials voted to allow the Yankees to build on two heavily used South Bronx parks.
Good Jobs also mentions that Yankee officials and the Bronx Borough President plan to implement a Community Benefits Agreement for the project, similar to the “groundbreaking” one crafted for Related’s Gateway Mall. As the report underscores, however, that CBA cannot be a model for there are a number of major flaws:
Breaking down the numbers GJNY concludes that direct and indirect subsidies of the project could exceed $480 million, the new stadium’s costs will far outweigh its revenue, and that most of the jobs will be either be temporary/season or low-wage. The good government agency also points out that, like with the BTM, there was outrageously little public input for this project, especially when both city and public officials voted to allow the Yankees to build on two heavily used South Bronx parks.
Good Jobs also mentions that Yankee officials and the Bronx Borough President plan to implement a Community Benefits Agreement for the project, similar to the “groundbreaking” one crafted for Related’s Gateway Mall. As the report underscores, however, that CBA cannot be a model for there are a number of major flaws:
* The commitment to hire Bronx residents is weak. Retail tenants at the Development will have no hiring obligations under the agreement and the developer, who will have few employees to begin with, can hire non-Bronx residents it deems more qualified;Good Jobs will have a press conference announcing the report’s release today at noon at their offices at 11 Park Place, #701 (between Broadway and Church Street) in Lower Manhattan.
* Commercial tenants are also not required to report on their hiring practices under the agreement and thus there will be no way to evaluate whether local residents actually benefit from the bulk of the job growth;
* The developer is not required to consider the wages or benefits paid by prospective tenants when choosing among them, tenants are not required to make efforts to pay Living Wages and Benefits, and tenants are not required to report on the wages or benefits that they pay to their employees;
* Retail space set aside for local businesses under the agreement is to be reserved for nine months prior to the mall opening, at the most, and the developer is free to rent the space at its discretion;
* The agreement expires in less than nine years;
* The agreement bars injunctive relief for violations and it contains a cap for the developer’s monetary liability. Together these provisions enable the Developer to pay off its obligations.
Business Climate
This week's Crain's has an excellent article on "Strong City Economy Fails to Create Jobs." In the piece Elizabeth Mac Bride focuses on the climate for small business in the city and writes, "No one knows which sector of the economy will take off in an expansion, but one certainty is that small businesses will create many of the jobs. Stifling those enterprises, as the Bloomberg administration does, means thwarting growth."
Well said. This is, of course, the point we have been hammering home for the past four years. MacBride's story does a good job at highlighting the cost of regulation. In particular, she points out that, "Between fiscal 2002 and fiscal 2005, the fines collected by the Environmental Control Board-a funnel for many business fines-rose 30%, to about $64 million. Complaints of draconian enforcement are legion."
What's new in the Crain's story is the exposure of the administrative cost of regulation. "A 2003 study by the Independent Budget Office found that with the exception of parking violations, the city spends $2.09 on enforcement for every $1 that it collects."
This is a sobering statistic that doesn't, however, factor in the cost of disillusionment and despair in the small business sector. It is hard to deal with the fact that the local government, instead of being an ally, is an adversary to be feared. It's even harder when the mayor is also a successful businessman with a tin ear for the most vulnerable entrepreneurs.
Well said. This is, of course, the point we have been hammering home for the past four years. MacBride's story does a good job at highlighting the cost of regulation. In particular, she points out that, "Between fiscal 2002 and fiscal 2005, the fines collected by the Environmental Control Board-a funnel for many business fines-rose 30%, to about $64 million. Complaints of draconian enforcement are legion."
What's new in the Crain's story is the exposure of the administrative cost of regulation. "A 2003 study by the Independent Budget Office found that with the exception of parking violations, the city spends $2.09 on enforcement for every $1 that it collects."
This is a sobering statistic that doesn't, however, factor in the cost of disillusionment and despair in the small business sector. It is hard to deal with the fact that the local government, instead of being an ally, is an adversary to be feared. It's even harder when the mayor is also a successful businessman with a tin ear for the most vulnerable entrepreneurs.
Bloomberg vs. Bruno
As most papers have been reporting over the past few days, Mayor Bloomberg has been leaking that he might throw his considerable support behind our good friend Joe Addabbo in his effort to challenge State Senator Serph Maltese. The Daily News' Bill Hammond analyzes this effort in a column today.
All of which makes for interesting speculation. Will the mayor, because of his considerable resources, be able to Bogart the Albany powers in a way that none of his predecessors have ever been able to do? Or will his efforts backfire, with Joe Bruno going out of his way to stick it to the rich meddler?
We can only hope so because if this happens any chance of the mayor's cigarette tax passing may go up in smoke. These things do, however, have a way of working themselves out, which is why we will continue to push our lawmakers on this issue.
All of which makes for interesting speculation. Will the mayor, because of his considerable resources, be able to Bogart the Albany powers in a way that none of his predecessors have ever been able to do? Or will his efforts backfire, with Joe Bruno going out of his way to stick it to the rich meddler?
We can only hope so because if this happens any chance of the mayor's cigarette tax passing may go up in smoke. These things do, however, have a way of working themselves out, which is why we will continue to push our lawmakers on this issue.
Monday, February 06, 2006
CBA: Carrion’s Benefit Agreement
As we’ve been mentioning, certain Bronx officials and editorial boards have not only been celebrating the recent approval of the Related’s Gateway Mall but touting the “community benefits agreement” (CBA) signed between the developer and public officials. El Diario thinks that this pact is praiseworthy, the Daily News concurs and as Councilman Joel Rivera remarks:
Process
The negotiation process for this CBA was incredibly, incredibly flawed:
As one would expect, a highly problematic process resulted in a highly problematic agreement. Here are the major deficiencies:
“We got more concessions than mostly any other CBA in the United States of America. It is never perfect, but it is pretty darn close to it.”Let’s see just how correct Mr. Rivera and his supporters are.
Process
The negotiation process for this CBA was incredibly, incredibly flawed:
• Normally CBAs are negotiated prior to the land use review process so that community coalitions can have leverage over developers. The opposite occurred with the Gateway CBA. Brainstorming for the document only began in November after City Planning Certification, Community Board approval, and the Borough President’s “Yes” vote. The agreement was finalized two days prior to the City Council’s approval.
• There was no independent community coalition. The community-based organizations involved in the initial brainstorming (“the taskforce”) were handpicked by BOEDC and Borough President Carrion. When certain group representatives said or did things that upset the Borough President they were kicked out of the negotiating group.
• None of the taskforce members had CBA negotiating experience
• The taskforce was not given legal representation
• Unknown to the participants, representatives from Related were in the room while the taskforce brainstormed
• The taskforce never negotiated directly with Related. Final negotiations occurred between Bronx elected officials and the developer. For this reason the final CBA is a very watered down version of what the community asked for.
• Most of the City Council never had the chance to read the CBA. The final copy was sent to the Council the morning of the project’s approval.The Document
As one would expect, a highly problematic process resulted in a highly problematic agreement. Here are the major deficiencies:
• According to Related’s Jesse Masyr, the value of the benefits negotiated is a paltry $5 million (Related stands to make $4 billion in profit from this development). The developer was under little pressure to make major concessions and the final CBA demonstrates this clearly.It is important to add that at least seven community groups initially involved in the task force did not up end signing the document due to some or all of the above-mentioned issues. This underscores the broader point that this agreement had little real community input and has very little community benefit. Instead the pact is a weak and outrageous attempt by certain Bronx politicians to sugarcoat a sweetheart deal and make themselves look good. Therefore, for anyone to call this CBA “pretty darn close” to perfect is supremely mistaken. For more information about what these documents should look like check out Good Job First’s guide to community benefits agreements.
• $3 million of the money is going to BOEDC, an extension of the city and the Bronx Borough President.
• The CBA bars “injunctive relief” which means that a court cannot force Related to fulfill any part of the agreement. All a court/arbitrator can do is fine Related up to $600,000 in total. Every other CBA in the country has injunctive relief.
• The “community coalition” is in charge of monitoring Related’s compliance with the agreement. However, the BOEDC president is listed as the head of this coalition and again the coalition was picked by BOEDC. Again, BOEDC is also the main recipient of Related's money.
• So far, in addition to politicians, only 4 organizations have signed the CBA. Three of these – BOEDC, HOSTOS College and New Bronx Chamber of Commerce – are extensions of the government.
• The document is silent on the development’s tenants. Unlike other CBAs, it does not give the community leverage in choosing the anchors and does not guarantee that tenants will provide living wages or access to unions. The tenants also do not have to participate in the Bronx/minority hiring agreements Related agreed to for construction.
• According to the CBA, 18,000 sq. ft. is set aside for local small business. According to Related’s ULURP application 78,000 sq. ft. was to be set aside.
• The document does not address the relocation of the Bronx Terminal Market merchants.
Department of Finance is Clueless
In the Daily News today Frank Lombardi reports on last week's Alliance sponsored press conference and one thing really stands out for us. It is the incredible opacity of the NYC Finance Department.
In response to our pointing out that another tax increase on cigarettes will spur further black market activity, DOF's Owen Stone remarks, "Generally speaking, I don't think that people will look for ways to break the law...They will stop smoking or pay the tax." Is he kidding? His own department is charged with tracking this issue and, even allowing for the inflated numbers the city gives us on folks who have quit smoking, DOF must be aware the over 40% of smokers are already buying in non-taxed venues.
It would be nice, however, if Mr. Stone and his colleagues in government would join with us in the simple recognition of what is going on in the streets of this city. After all even though the "Emperor' Clothes" was a fable, its meaning is clear: There's a danger in blinding yourself to what is taking place right before your eyes.
In response to our pointing out that another tax increase on cigarettes will spur further black market activity, DOF's Owen Stone remarks, "Generally speaking, I don't think that people will look for ways to break the law...They will stop smoking or pay the tax." Is he kidding? His own department is charged with tracking this issue and, even allowing for the inflated numbers the city gives us on folks who have quit smoking, DOF must be aware the over 40% of smokers are already buying in non-taxed venues.
It would be nice, however, if Mr. Stone and his colleagues in government would join with us in the simple recognition of what is going on in the streets of this city. After all even though the "Emperor' Clothes" was a fable, its meaning is clear: There's a danger in blinding yourself to what is taking place right before your eyes.
News Flash: Cigarettes are Unpopular
Much has been made about the recent Q-Poll that finds that 71% of New Yorkers back the mayor's proposed 50 cents a pack hike in the city's cigarette tax. What's interesting to us is that 46% of those supporting the increase believe that it will have little effect on the prevalence of underage smoking that is the mayor's expressed target in putting forth this initiative.
All of which underscores the fact that, along with a great deal of ignorance (the tax increase will pump up unregulated street sales were children can easily buy smokes), there is an ideological distaste for cigarettes that has no direct correlation with any public policy measure. This distaste can be roughly translated as follows: "Tax this product because we don't like it."
Our belief is that this is precisely where the mayor is coming from when he proposes to hike the cigarette tax even further than his city record 1800% increase in 2002. Does he care a whit about the black market that he is stoking? Or the bodegas and other small stores that he is crippling?
Apparently not, and he seems impervious to is the evidence of the impact that his increases
have had. Illegal street sales continue to proliferate and, while internet sales have been the target of successful enforcement efforts by AG Eliot Spitzer, mail order evasion is still wildly popular and relatively unabated.
All of which brings us to the outrageous Indian tax avoidance loophole that is the subject of an incisive editorial in Saturday's NY Post by mega-retailer John Catsimatidis. As he points out the city and state is losing over $400 million a year in uncollected taxes. His money quote: "Enough is enough. It is time to show respect for the law and equalize the obligations on all cigarette retailers in New York, both on and off the reservations. Unless that happens, any increase in taxes unfairly will hurt the law-abiding businesses that collect them."
Mayor Bloomberg should withdraw his cigarette tax proposal and join with us in calling for a moratorium on all new levies until his friend Governor Pataki enforces the law equally.
All of which underscores the fact that, along with a great deal of ignorance (the tax increase will pump up unregulated street sales were children can easily buy smokes), there is an ideological distaste for cigarettes that has no direct correlation with any public policy measure. This distaste can be roughly translated as follows: "Tax this product because we don't like it."
Our belief is that this is precisely where the mayor is coming from when he proposes to hike the cigarette tax even further than his city record 1800% increase in 2002. Does he care a whit about the black market that he is stoking? Or the bodegas and other small stores that he is crippling?
Apparently not, and he seems impervious to is the evidence of the impact that his increases
have had. Illegal street sales continue to proliferate and, while internet sales have been the target of successful enforcement efforts by AG Eliot Spitzer, mail order evasion is still wildly popular and relatively unabated.
All of which brings us to the outrageous Indian tax avoidance loophole that is the subject of an incisive editorial in Saturday's NY Post by mega-retailer John Catsimatidis. As he points out the city and state is losing over $400 million a year in uncollected taxes. His money quote: "Enough is enough. It is time to show respect for the law and equalize the obligations on all cigarette retailers in New York, both on and off the reservations. Unless that happens, any increase in taxes unfairly will hurt the law-abiding businesses that collect them."
Mayor Bloomberg should withdraw his cigarette tax proposal and join with us in calling for a moratorium on all new levies until his friend Governor Pataki enforces the law equally.
Smoking More Than Tobacco
Underscoring our point about cigarettes and ideological blinders is the letter in today's Post written by Louise Vetter, CEO of the American Lung Association of New York. Ms. Vetter tells us that "teens are price sensitive and will think twice before buying an expensive pack of smokes."
Of course she's right, which is precisely why they will use their computer skills to buy online, or will simply find a street connection on almost any New York corner. She's also right when she says, "A tax that helps stop kids from smoking and saves taxpayer dollars is a tax that deserves all of our support." When that tax actually is proposed the Alliance will join with the Lung association in supporting it. (Oh, and just what does she mean by a tax "that saves taxpayer dollars"? Hello George Orwell!)
Of course she's right, which is precisely why they will use their computer skills to buy online, or will simply find a street connection on almost any New York corner. She's also right when she says, "A tax that helps stop kids from smoking and saves taxpayer dollars is a tax that deserves all of our support." When that tax actually is proposed the Alliance will join with the Lung association in supporting it. (Oh, and just what does she mean by a tax "that saves taxpayer dollars"? Hello George Orwell!)
Half of New Yorkers don’t Want Wal-Mart
According to the recently released Quinnipiac Poll, 51% of New Yorkers support Wal-Mart opening stores in New York City. Though certain weekend papers spun the poll in Wal-Mart’s favor – the Post’s dishonest headline was: City Voters Have a Heart for Wal-Mart – the reality is quite the opposite.
Before reviewing the actual findings of the survey it is important to point out that New Yorkers would not have given such relatively low ratings to any other big box store. We’re sure that if the same survey asked about Home Depot or Target at least 90% of the respondents would be inclined to give the retailers high ratings. Wal-Mart’s near failure to gain a majority of support, then, is quite astounding in this context (it is also important to point out that the poll’s error was +/- 3% making it possible that a majority do not favor Wal-Mart’s entry into the city).
Other Q-poll results provide further good news for those opposing Wal-Mart’s incursion into the 5 boroughs:
Also, not really analyzed by the poll is the NIMBY factor. As we've learned in Staten Island, general support for a Wal-Mart doesn’t translate into approval for a location within a local neighborhood. The Alliance's Richard Lipsky expands on this point:
Before reviewing the actual findings of the survey it is important to point out that New Yorkers would not have given such relatively low ratings to any other big box store. We’re sure that if the same survey asked about Home Depot or Target at least 90% of the respondents would be inclined to give the retailers high ratings. Wal-Mart’s near failure to gain a majority of support, then, is quite astounding in this context (it is also important to point out that the poll’s error was +/- 3% making it possible that a majority do not favor Wal-Mart’s entry into the city).
Other Q-poll results provide further good news for those opposing Wal-Mart’s incursion into the 5 boroughs:
46 percent say Wal-Mart should be allowed to open stores in the city only if it allows workers to unionize, while 29 percent say open with or without unions and 19 percent say Wal-Mart should not be allowed to open at all.So according to this, 65% of New Yorkers either do not support Wal-Mart’s entry or only are amenable if the store allow a unionized workforce. Considering the store’s unbendable policy vis-à-vis unions this is as good as saying no to Wal-Mart. Some other interesting results include:
Agree 74 - 21 percent that Wal-Mart's lower prices hurt smaller businesses nearby, with union households agreeing 77 - 21 percent;However, despite this negative sentiment:
Agree 57 - 14 percent, with 29 percent undecided, that Wal-Mart doesn't pay workers enough in wages and benefits, with union agreement at 62 - 15 percent;
Voters said 65 - 29 percent, including 63 - 31 percent among voters from union households, that they would shop at Wal-Mart if one opened near them.What this discrepancy points to is the fact that people want bargains even if those bargains have negative repercussions. However, this desire for cheap merchandise should not automatically trump other factors such as a New York City Wal-Mart’s negative affect on neighborhoods, traffic, small business, health care and unions.
Also, not really analyzed by the poll is the NIMBY factor. As we've learned in Staten Island, general support for a Wal-Mart doesn’t translate into approval for a location within a local neighborhood. The Alliance's Richard Lipsky expands on this point:
"If you add the NIMBY factor here, the numbers become combustible," Mr. Lipsky said. "The instinct of most New Yorkers would probably be to support anyone to open a store here. The fact that this store generates as much resentment as it does shows there is a growing sentiment that they are not a good fit."And as we’ve mentioned, the one bright spot with the recently approved Bronx Terminal Market redevelopment was that the developer, the most powerful in the city, understood that a Wal-Mart was simply unacceptable. This realization was enshrined in the project’s community benefits agreement, a very important precedent that will help the city keep out what many New Yorkers realize is a harmful store.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Support for Cigarette Tax Increase?
According to a new Quinnipiac University poll, 71 percent of New Yorkers support the Mayor’s increased cigarette tax, including 36 percent of smokers. Also revealed, at the Post phrases it, is that fewer people are smoking: “Only 17 percent said they had smoked in the past week, compared with 23 percent in April 2001.”
A couple of points must be made. The Alliance’s insistence is not on stopping new tax increases but on enforcing the current cigarette tax laws vis-à-vis Native American retailers before the levy is raised. Though raising the tax may be popular, Bloomberg should not do until these other issues are resolved. For as the mayor likes to point out, he does not enact important public policy issues based on popularity and if this is true he should demand the elimination of the Native American loophole before raising any levies.
The other point concerns the cigarette tax and the number of people smoking. First, the Q-poll’s benchmark for this assessment – the number of people who smoked in the past week in 2006 vs. 2001 – is a bit flimsy. But let’s assume for a moment that what the poll reveals is true, that there are 6% fewer New Yorkers smoking now than before Bloomberg came into office.
Well, despite the mayor’s claims, there is no proof correlating the decrease in smoking to the increased tax. This is highlighted by the fact that since Bloomberg’s tax increase NYC retailers have lost 60% of their tobacco sales while the city and the Q-poll claim there is only a 6% drop in smoking.
What about this remaining 54%? As we’ve pointed out, this large percentage of smokers are simply buying non-taxed cigarettes from Indian reservations or from illegal vendors on the streets of New York. Until the price of cigs becomes relatively consistent across the region, there is absolutely no way to determine if price dissuades people from lighting up. And until this parity is achieved, through the enforcement of existing regulations, legitimate retailers will continue to be unfairly harmed and public health goals of reducing smoking will not be met.
A couple of points must be made. The Alliance’s insistence is not on stopping new tax increases but on enforcing the current cigarette tax laws vis-à-vis Native American retailers before the levy is raised. Though raising the tax may be popular, Bloomberg should not do until these other issues are resolved. For as the mayor likes to point out, he does not enact important public policy issues based on popularity and if this is true he should demand the elimination of the Native American loophole before raising any levies.
The other point concerns the cigarette tax and the number of people smoking. First, the Q-poll’s benchmark for this assessment – the number of people who smoked in the past week in 2006 vs. 2001 – is a bit flimsy. But let’s assume for a moment that what the poll reveals is true, that there are 6% fewer New Yorkers smoking now than before Bloomberg came into office.
Well, despite the mayor’s claims, there is no proof correlating the decrease in smoking to the increased tax. This is highlighted by the fact that since Bloomberg’s tax increase NYC retailers have lost 60% of their tobacco sales while the city and the Q-poll claim there is only a 6% drop in smoking.
What about this remaining 54%? As we’ve pointed out, this large percentage of smokers are simply buying non-taxed cigarettes from Indian reservations or from illegal vendors on the streets of New York. Until the price of cigs becomes relatively consistent across the region, there is absolutely no way to determine if price dissuades people from lighting up. And until this parity is achieved, through the enforcement of existing regulations, legitimate retailers will continue to be unfairly harmed and public health goals of reducing smoking will not be met.
Dishonesty in Government
In today's El Diario the paper editorializes its praise for the community benefits agreement that was negotiated for the Gateway Mall project. Before everyone goes gaga over this CBA shouldn't the document be examined for credibility? After all it wasn't negotiated by anyone from the community so the "C” in CBA should stand for Carrion and not those community groups that he appointed to serve as window dressing for a pact that was really, "of Adolfo, by Adolfo, and for Adolfo."
How much of the money "negotiated" (for want of a more honest term) is going to government institutions that are controlled by the BP? How will the terms of this deal be enforced? If Wal-Mart is enjoined from the mall how is this legally enforced? Who will determine the lucky 2,000 folks who will have their membership fees partially waived? (another benny for the BP?). After talking to some experts in the coming days, we’ll we have a more in-depth deconstruction of this agreement.
It's time for the City Council to craft some standards for the negotiation of CBAs and enshrine these standards in an accountable development policy that creates some equity and transparency. Let's cut through all of the rhetoric and look at this Gateway agreement clearly.
One other thing. In the El Diario editorial the paper comments that the BTM merchants "want to move as a group to a new location" but have been unable to strike a deal with the city. "According to Carrion's office, the matter is still being negotiated." Really? By whom? Another example of the BP’s lack of honesty in this whole affair. If he had given a rat's ass about the merchants they would be preparing for the move to their new location as we speak. Instead it is the BTM merchants who are, because of the BP's indifference, the real carrion.
How much of the money "negotiated" (for want of a more honest term) is going to government institutions that are controlled by the BP? How will the terms of this deal be enforced? If Wal-Mart is enjoined from the mall how is this legally enforced? Who will determine the lucky 2,000 folks who will have their membership fees partially waived? (another benny for the BP?). After talking to some experts in the coming days, we’ll we have a more in-depth deconstruction of this agreement.
It's time for the City Council to craft some standards for the negotiation of CBAs and enshrine these standards in an accountable development policy that creates some equity and transparency. Let's cut through all of the rhetoric and look at this Gateway agreement clearly.
One other thing. In the El Diario editorial the paper comments that the BTM merchants "want to move as a group to a new location" but have been unable to strike a deal with the city. "According to Carrion's office, the matter is still being negotiated." Really? By whom? Another example of the BP’s lack of honesty in this whole affair. If he had given a rat's ass about the merchants they would be preparing for the move to their new location as we speak. Instead it is the BTM merchants who are, because of the BP's indifference, the real carrion.
Smoke and Mirrors
The Alliance has been fighting the black-market creating increases in the cigarette tax for the past five years. We were particularly upset in 2002 when the newly elected mayor, someone who had given no hint of his predilections in this area, increased the levy by a city record 1800%. When we predicted it would lead to rampant smuggling and hardship for the city's 13,000 bodegas, the mayor called our lament, "A minor economic issue."
Well unfortunately we were right. Legitimate outlets in New York City have lost 60% of their cigarette sales while black market activity has proliferated all over our neighborhoods. What exacerbates this situation is the fact that a great deal of the smuggled smokes is obtained from Indian retailers who, because of Governor Pataki's pusillanimity, aren't forced to charge the taxes that the law mandates they levy on non-Indian consumers.
That is why we came to City Hall yesterday, and were joined by the Bodega Association, NYACS, KASBSC and the Newsstand Operators Association, to protest the mayor's call for an additional 50 cents a pack increase in the tax and the governor's call – how do you say chutzpah in Hungarian? – for an additional $1.50 a pack in the state levy (while simultaneously asking to delay the enforcement of the Indian sales for another year).
Headlining the press conference were two lawmakers, Councilman Koppell and State Senator Klein, who have been in the forefront of this effort for tax fairness. As both Koppell and Klein pointed out, it makes no sense to allow a tax loophole to exist if you are truly interested in smoking cessation.
The fact that New Yorkers can get in a car and travel 50 miles East to an Indian retailer in Mastick and buy a carton of smokes for $25 when the same carton goes for $75 in NYC demonstrates the absurdity of claiming that the additional tax will help stop kids from smoking. The price disparity means that the city and state have created a bonanza for buttleggers who load up vans on Long Island and generate millions of dollars in illegal street sales selling discounted packs on every New York street corner. These illegal vendors are a direct threat to the kids the mayor claims he is trying to save (last we looked the street corner sellers weren't scrupulously proofing their customers for age).
All of this is costing the city and state hundreds of millions of dollars. As today's incisive NY Sun editorial points out, "And even while current taxes go uncollected, both the mayor and the governor have proposed their own competing additional tax hikes on the New Yorkers who pay the cigarette taxes." This is not only self-defeating and harmful to the consumer it cripples the city's small businesses that sell cigarettes. As long as it is legal to do so, the government has an obligation to enforce the law and protect legitimate store owners.
Well unfortunately we were right. Legitimate outlets in New York City have lost 60% of their cigarette sales while black market activity has proliferated all over our neighborhoods. What exacerbates this situation is the fact that a great deal of the smuggled smokes is obtained from Indian retailers who, because of Governor Pataki's pusillanimity, aren't forced to charge the taxes that the law mandates they levy on non-Indian consumers.
That is why we came to City Hall yesterday, and were joined by the Bodega Association, NYACS, KASBSC and the Newsstand Operators Association, to protest the mayor's call for an additional 50 cents a pack increase in the tax and the governor's call – how do you say chutzpah in Hungarian? – for an additional $1.50 a pack in the state levy (while simultaneously asking to delay the enforcement of the Indian sales for another year).
Headlining the press conference were two lawmakers, Councilman Koppell and State Senator Klein, who have been in the forefront of this effort for tax fairness. As both Koppell and Klein pointed out, it makes no sense to allow a tax loophole to exist if you are truly interested in smoking cessation.
The fact that New Yorkers can get in a car and travel 50 miles East to an Indian retailer in Mastick and buy a carton of smokes for $25 when the same carton goes for $75 in NYC demonstrates the absurdity of claiming that the additional tax will help stop kids from smoking. The price disparity means that the city and state have created a bonanza for buttleggers who load up vans on Long Island and generate millions of dollars in illegal street sales selling discounted packs on every New York street corner. These illegal vendors are a direct threat to the kids the mayor claims he is trying to save (last we looked the street corner sellers weren't scrupulously proofing their customers for age).
All of this is costing the city and state hundreds of millions of dollars. As today's incisive NY Sun editorial points out, "And even while current taxes go uncollected, both the mayor and the governor have proposed their own competing additional tax hikes on the New Yorkers who pay the cigarette taxes." This is not only self-defeating and harmful to the consumer it cripples the city's small businesses that sell cigarettes. As long as it is legal to do so, the government has an obligation to enforce the law and protect legitimate store owners.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Cigarette Tax Press Conference
TODAY at 11:00 on the steps of City Hall, State Senator Jeff Klein (D-Bronx), City Councilman Oliver Koppell (D- Bronx) and other elected officials will call for the enforcement of cigarette taxes against Native American retailers before any new increases in the levy (as proposed by Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg). Representatives from bodegas, green grocers and convenience stores will join with the elected officials to point out how raising the levy without this enforcement will only transfer business from their legitimate, tax-paying establishments to Indian reservations that are known to supply the black market. A full release can be found here.
Wal-Mart Prevented, Bronx Terminal Market Development Approved
Despite our best efforts, a confluence of factors resulted in the approval of the Gateway Mall yesterday. Unfortunately the biggest victims are the prior merchant tenants who were never seriously offered a relocation package and instead have to take or leave a 10/10/10 deal where they would get $10/sq. ft. from Related, $10 if they stay in the city and an additional $10 if they stay in the empowerment zone. Considering the lack of proper warehouse space especially in the Bronx, it is unclear how many merchants will be able to take advantage of the full $30/ft. What is clear, however, is that city never believed creating a new market was worth its time or energy and because of this malfeasance every BTM business is now in jeopardy of bankruptcy. As the Alliance’s Richard Lipsky stated:
Here is some more coverage of yesterday’s approval:
Daily News
Albor Ruiz Column
New York TimesNew York Sun
New York Post
El Diario
Hoy
Crains
NY1
Bronx 12
"The deal is poor compensation for merchants who have worked in the Bronx for decades," said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the merchants. "They are being summarily evicted with no relocation opportunity for the market to survive intact."The one bright spot from yesterday is the fact that the “community benefits agreement” signed between Related and various elected officials specifically prevented Wal-Mart and its subsidiaries from the mall. Despite the fact that this project – one of the greatest sweetheart deals we’ve ever seen – was supported by the city, the city’s most powerful developer and a whole range of elected officials, we helped to create enough pressure to keep out the world’s most infamous retailer.
Here is some more coverage of yesterday’s approval:
Daily News
Albor Ruiz Column
New York TimesNew York Sun
New York Post
El Diario
Hoy
Crains
NY1
Bronx 12
BTM RIP
All of the euphoria notwithstanding, the approval of the Gateway Mall yesterday cannot hide the fact that the City Council has, by its failure to exercise its oversight role in any meaningful manner, made what amounts to an ironic case for term limits. What term limits have created is a legislative body with members who have both feet half way out the door in preparation for the end of their terms.
This creates the unfortunate situation of an elective body with little concern for the prerogatives of the institution they serve. Under the old council, with members who had served for a good number of years and a speaker(and staff) with institutional authority, there was an effective check on the potential for mayoral overreach.
This was illustrated when Mayor Giuliani tried to change the city's zoning laws, take away council powers in this area, and usher in a proliferation of megastores without community review. The council forcefully stood up for its own powers and, by doing so, for the neighborhoods and small businesses that were threatened by the mayor's scheme.
This new council, unlike its predecessors, is a fleeting thing, a gossamer entity that doesn't have the experience or the intestinal fortitude to take strong stands against mayoral abuse of power. The case of the BTM underscores all of the weaknesses inherent in the current body.
1)The Failure to Examine the Deal- The council allowed the mayor to transfer a lease without any competitive bidding to a good friend of the deputy mayor. The "flease" severely shortchanged the tax payers but no one at the council even bothered to examine it.
2)Land use Nonfeasance- The council, with no one on staff to evaluate the traffic and air quality in the EIS, simply pretended it wasn't there. No one read the 500 pages and no council member expressed any concern for its potential shortcomings. Yet, when we have come before the body on a land use matter all the talk is of the "criteria." It would seem that as long as you provide the council with a big enough EIS it really doesn't matter what it says because nobody cares!
3) Time Frame- It is absolutely ridiculous for a so-called oversight process for a 1,000,000 sq. ft. project to take place in eight days and be the subject of one 2 1/2 hour hearing. The pooper scooper law received more scrutiny even though both matters dealt with the same subject.
4) The Eviction of the BTM Merchants- was never even a subject for this council to consider. When asked to consider it, land use folks dismissively kicked us back to the Bronx council delegation, precisely where our problems emanated from.
5) Failure to Consider its own Charter-Mandated Powers- the council, by ratifying the Gateway application, gave the seal of approval to the mayor's usurpation of its oversight role on the sale or transfer of city leases. As we have pointed out, the council as acquiesced in the mayor's total control of the public wholesale markets.
6)Complete Enthrallment to the City's Real Special Interests- In years to come the entire Gateway process will be a gold mine for political scientists interested in how NYC government and its most powerful private sector interest (real estate in this case) operate in tandem to aggrandize already powerful forces at the expense of a wider public good.
Even labor, as powerful as it is alleged to be in this city, had to step aside as the council co-conspired with Related, Dan Doctoroff and Mayor Bloomberg to evict hard-working businesses and their hundreds of employees from a public wholesale market that was eliminated under the guise of saving it. Today, unless you are Steve Ross and his minions (no doubt laughing at how easy it was to snowball this legislative body), it is not a day to celebrate the workings of city government.
All of which brings us back to the issue of term limits. The only way that the City Council will ever have the potential to act as a proper check on mayoral excess is if its terms are extended. The practice of hiring ephemeral help needs to end and tenured public servants, with something to protect, need to be ushered in to insure that the thieves "don't steal the common from the goose."
This creates the unfortunate situation of an elective body with little concern for the prerogatives of the institution they serve. Under the old council, with members who had served for a good number of years and a speaker(and staff) with institutional authority, there was an effective check on the potential for mayoral overreach.
This was illustrated when Mayor Giuliani tried to change the city's zoning laws, take away council powers in this area, and usher in a proliferation of megastores without community review. The council forcefully stood up for its own powers and, by doing so, for the neighborhoods and small businesses that were threatened by the mayor's scheme.
This new council, unlike its predecessors, is a fleeting thing, a gossamer entity that doesn't have the experience or the intestinal fortitude to take strong stands against mayoral abuse of power. The case of the BTM underscores all of the weaknesses inherent in the current body.
1)The Failure to Examine the Deal- The council allowed the mayor to transfer a lease without any competitive bidding to a good friend of the deputy mayor. The "flease" severely shortchanged the tax payers but no one at the council even bothered to examine it.
2)Land use Nonfeasance- The council, with no one on staff to evaluate the traffic and air quality in the EIS, simply pretended it wasn't there. No one read the 500 pages and no council member expressed any concern for its potential shortcomings. Yet, when we have come before the body on a land use matter all the talk is of the "criteria." It would seem that as long as you provide the council with a big enough EIS it really doesn't matter what it says because nobody cares!
3) Time Frame- It is absolutely ridiculous for a so-called oversight process for a 1,000,000 sq. ft. project to take place in eight days and be the subject of one 2 1/2 hour hearing. The pooper scooper law received more scrutiny even though both matters dealt with the same subject.
4) The Eviction of the BTM Merchants- was never even a subject for this council to consider. When asked to consider it, land use folks dismissively kicked us back to the Bronx council delegation, precisely where our problems emanated from.
5) Failure to Consider its own Charter-Mandated Powers- the council, by ratifying the Gateway application, gave the seal of approval to the mayor's usurpation of its oversight role on the sale or transfer of city leases. As we have pointed out, the council as acquiesced in the mayor's total control of the public wholesale markets.
6)Complete Enthrallment to the City's Real Special Interests- In years to come the entire Gateway process will be a gold mine for political scientists interested in how NYC government and its most powerful private sector interest (real estate in this case) operate in tandem to aggrandize already powerful forces at the expense of a wider public good.
Even labor, as powerful as it is alleged to be in this city, had to step aside as the council co-conspired with Related, Dan Doctoroff and Mayor Bloomberg to evict hard-working businesses and their hundreds of employees from a public wholesale market that was eliminated under the guise of saving it. Today, unless you are Steve Ross and his minions (no doubt laughing at how easy it was to snowball this legislative body), it is not a day to celebrate the workings of city government.
All of which brings us back to the issue of term limits. The only way that the City Council will ever have the potential to act as a proper check on mayoral excess is if its terms are extended. The practice of hiring ephemeral help needs to end and tenured public servants, with something to protect, need to be ushered in to insure that the thieves "don't steal the common from the goose."
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
BJ's Brush-Off
Now that the City Council has blessed the entry of BJ's into the Gateway Mall we can expect that Related will renew its efforts to site the store on Brush Avenue. The fans of the retailer will now argue that since the store has been OKed for the South Bronx there's no reason to oppose it for Soundview/Throggs Neck.
Not so fast. While BJ's was able to sneak in at the 1,000,000 sq. ft mall under the weight of a huge economic boost for the borough (the "rising tide" we talked about), the free standing store on the other site will not be viewed the same way. Much will depend, however, on the steadfastness of the two local council members, Jimmy Vacca and Annabel Palma. It is unlikely that the store will be supported if the two closest council members are opposed.
It will also be intriguing to see what position the speaker takes on this stand-alone store. Quinn relied on UFCW support in her bid to become speaker and, by allowing the BJ's to sneak in at the mall, she severely disappointed her friends. Whither Quinn on Brush?
Not so fast. While BJ's was able to sneak in at the 1,000,000 sq. ft mall under the weight of a huge economic boost for the borough (the "rising tide" we talked about), the free standing store on the other site will not be viewed the same way. Much will depend, however, on the steadfastness of the two local council members, Jimmy Vacca and Annabel Palma. It is unlikely that the store will be supported if the two closest council members are opposed.
It will also be intriguing to see what position the speaker takes on this stand-alone store. Quinn relied on UFCW support in her bid to become speaker and, by allowing the BJ's to sneak in at the mall, she severely disappointed her friends. Whither Quinn on Brush?
Borough President Carrion: A Man of his Word?
At 1:00 p.m. today, we’re told that Borough President Carrion and members of the Bronx Delegation are going to tout the community benefits agreement (CBA) signed with Related for its Gateway Center. We’ve already pointed out some of problems with this CBA, including the fact that the community groups involved were handpicked, there was no counsel present to represent these organizations and that the whole process took place, not prior to ULURP, but in a meager 45 days towards the end.
Another major issue with the CBA is what’s left out. Though we haven’t seen the final draft, we’re pretty sure that the document does not address the Bronx Terminal Market merchant relocation or the union status of BJ’s, the anchor tenant of the development. These omissions are crucial considering past statements by Carrion and his office. Consider what a rep says about the presence of a BJ’s in Gateway (Daily News, December 9th, 2005):
What about the merchant relocation? Here’s Adolfo again (Daily News, November 3rd, 2005):
Another major issue with the CBA is what’s left out. Though we haven’t seen the final draft, we’re pretty sure that the document does not address the Bronx Terminal Market merchant relocation or the union status of BJ’s, the anchor tenant of the development. These omissions are crucial considering past statements by Carrion and his office. Consider what a rep says about the presence of a BJ’s in Gateway (Daily News, December 9th, 2005):
A spokesman for Borough President Adolfo Carrión, who took in $5,000 in campaign contributions from Related, said the borough president "has supported this development from its very inception and he remains a supporter, with the understanding that BJ's [will] hire Bronx workers, [use] Bronx contractors, and that they allow employees access to union enrollment and use environmentally efficient technology and construction materials in building" [emphasis ours].According to the UFCW, which would represents the workers in a BJ’s, the non-union retailer has not signed a neutrality agreement. However, Carrion fully supports the entry of BJ's into Gateway despite this lack of union access.
What about the merchant relocation? Here’s Adolfo again (Daily News, November 3rd, 2005):
But the current market merchants set to be displaced by the project counted as a small victory Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion's demand for a relocation plan for them "retaining the advantages of proximity to each other and to their customers, with an adequate level of financial relocation aid provided [by the City of New York (or its agent) or the developer]" as a condition for his approval.Well considering there is no relocation plan for them will the Borough President withdraw his support? For some reason we don’t think so. And because this lip service never was translated into any actual assistance, the Bronx Terminal Market, and the businesses the comprise it, may very well be destroyed forever.
Goldmine and Shaft
As the Council moves forward today to ratify one of the shabbiest deals in NYC's history, the Related Companies' "theft" of public property, it is important to make a number of key points. Most importantly the City Council failed in its most fundamental oversight task, the needed careful scrutiny of the no-bid contract that Related wangled because of its CEO's relationship with Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff.
The failure to do the proper due diligence results in the council's ratification of a 99 year lease that allows Related to pocket around $40 million a year while city tax payers get a $2 million a year bone thrown their way. It also results in the shameful eviction of 23 BTM merchants and their hundreds of workers with absolutely no provision for their relocation and, hence, their survival.
Not content to aggrandize a real estate company that has assets of over $10 billion the council has also agreed to allow BJ's, a retailer with a shabby labor record, into the new mall as an anchor tenant. In doing so the council would like to portray this midwiffery as a triumph because, in its negotiations with Related, it has gotten the Wal-Mart wannabe to accept food stamps and WIC.
What a travesty! Let's get this logic deconstructed. A non-union employer with a history of disgusting labor practices, one whose standard business model redlines poor people, is allowed to come into the Gateway Mall if--can you believe this?--it agrees to do what every single other supermarket in the trade area does as a matter of course (there are 59 of them).
Some councilmembers want to present this as a negotiating triumph. No mention of the fact that in bringing this oversized non-union retailer into the South Bronx you are putting the livelihoods of 15,000 unionized supermarket workers at risk, as well as the threat it poses to the 59 markets, the majority of whom are Hispanic-owned.
All of which brings us back to the question of special interests. This deal, from start to finish, is a case study of how special interest politics works. A friend of a high-ranking elected official is brought in and the normal open bidding processes of public property transfers are suspended on his behalf. Said friend, the owner of a multi-billion dollar real estate company then proceeds to seed the Bronx with manna from heaven the likes the borough hasn't ever seen before.
Elected officials who once opposed the real estate giant suddenly experience an epiphany, a kind of divine revelation, and become the company's biggest booster. And finally the City Council, charged with oversight and review, manages to quickly approve the deal in a record 8 days while simultaneously ignoring the questions that led one council member to wonder whether Related was, "a fourth branch of government."
After this fiasco we can only wonder how the legislature is going to conduct integrity in government hearings when the mayor sends this initiative across City Hall for debate. We can't wait for all the ironic posturing. It all calls to mind Machiavelli's observation that it is better for The Prince to appear good than to actually be good. We couldn't think of a better lesson in how NYC government actually works.
The failure to do the proper due diligence results in the council's ratification of a 99 year lease that allows Related to pocket around $40 million a year while city tax payers get a $2 million a year bone thrown their way. It also results in the shameful eviction of 23 BTM merchants and their hundreds of workers with absolutely no provision for their relocation and, hence, their survival.
Not content to aggrandize a real estate company that has assets of over $10 billion the council has also agreed to allow BJ's, a retailer with a shabby labor record, into the new mall as an anchor tenant. In doing so the council would like to portray this midwiffery as a triumph because, in its negotiations with Related, it has gotten the Wal-Mart wannabe to accept food stamps and WIC.
What a travesty! Let's get this logic deconstructed. A non-union employer with a history of disgusting labor practices, one whose standard business model redlines poor people, is allowed to come into the Gateway Mall if--can you believe this?--it agrees to do what every single other supermarket in the trade area does as a matter of course (there are 59 of them).
Some councilmembers want to present this as a negotiating triumph. No mention of the fact that in bringing this oversized non-union retailer into the South Bronx you are putting the livelihoods of 15,000 unionized supermarket workers at risk, as well as the threat it poses to the 59 markets, the majority of whom are Hispanic-owned.
All of which brings us back to the question of special interests. This deal, from start to finish, is a case study of how special interest politics works. A friend of a high-ranking elected official is brought in and the normal open bidding processes of public property transfers are suspended on his behalf. Said friend, the owner of a multi-billion dollar real estate company then proceeds to seed the Bronx with manna from heaven the likes the borough hasn't ever seen before.
Elected officials who once opposed the real estate giant suddenly experience an epiphany, a kind of divine revelation, and become the company's biggest booster. And finally the City Council, charged with oversight and review, manages to quickly approve the deal in a record 8 days while simultaneously ignoring the questions that led one council member to wonder whether Related was, "a fourth branch of government."
After this fiasco we can only wonder how the legislature is going to conduct integrity in government hearings when the mayor sends this initiative across City Hall for debate. We can't wait for all the ironic posturing. It all calls to mind Machiavelli's observation that it is better for The Prince to appear good than to actually be good. We couldn't think of a better lesson in how NYC government actually works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
