Spring Valley Saying No To Wal-Mart

Periodically, we’ve been mentioning Wal-Mart’s desire to build a super center in Monsey, NY, about 45 minutes north of New York City. There is considerable opposition to the store both from local elected officials and the surrounding community. Traffic is a major concern as is environmental impact, the affect on small businesses and the desire to use the site for another purpose.

Yesterday we met with the mayor of the area George Darden as well as his village attorney Bruce Levine. Mayor Darden is a staunch opponent to a super Wal-Mart in the area and he was very receptive to the idea of forming a labor/business/community coalition in opposition to the store. He and Levine mentioned that representatives from nearby senior centers, housing developments and schools as well as Orthodox Jewish leaders expressed considerable concerns about the negative impact a 215,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart would have on their quality of life and local businesses.

We plan to continue working with the mayor and his constituents to grow this coalition and stop Wal-Mart in Monsey. The first step will be at the town’s planning board meeting March 7th at 8:00 p.m. where they will decide whether Wal-Mart needs to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement for the development. If the board votes for this “positive declaration” then we have the first sign that they’re at the very least concerned about what a mammoth big box store would do to the environment an already congested road infrastructure. We will be at this meeting to signal to the planning commissioners that this development needs the closest scrutiny possible.

ED and Willets Point: Weld Sets The Bar

In a speech before the Manhattan Institute that is reported in today's NY Sun William Weld, a Republican candidate for governor, came out forcefully against the use of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development. Criticizing the SC's Kelo decision Weld said that the court, "has put alleged collective needs ahead of individual liberty and property rights."

Weld also likened the use of ED to the actions of Chinese Communists. Clearly, as we have said on numerous previous occasions, this is the kind of issue that can really create a strong coalition across the traditional liberal-conservative divide and Weld is smart to get out in front on it. He is right to challenge Eliot Spitzer on his stance because it is time for a real substantive debate on the use of this development tool.

Which of course brings us directly to the issue of Willets Point. Our sources are telling us that EDC has short-listed 6 developers for the Iron Triangle site. The basic template is for 1,000,000 sq. ft. of retail, a convention center and a hotel, along with a certain amount of residential as well.

The sticking point, however, is the 200 or so businesses and property owners who are currently occupying the site. The mayor has already staked out his pro-eminent domain position and it will be fascinating to see how the Willets Point thing plays out now that Weld, the Republican, is joining forces with Norm Siegal,Tish James and the other left of center folks who have led the anti-ED charge.

Oh yes, it is also important to mention that the Related Company is on the short list. But of course, another example of the meritocracy and the way in which the Bloombergers are above the "special interests." And why not Related? After all it has already exhibited its great sensitivity to local business in the eviction of the BTM merchants.

TWU: Between a Rock and a Hard Place

First reported by the Daily News, certain members of the TWU are pushing the union to revote the contract rejected in January. According to the NY Times, thousands of workers have signed a petition urging Local president Toussaint to call for a new vote before negotiations go to binding arbitration. They understand that no matter how flawed the voted down contract was it will certainly be better than whatever arbitration yields:

MTA board member Barry Feinstein sums up this reality:

"Sure, I think it would be good," Mr. Feinstein said. For union members, "I don't believe it's possible to get a better deal," he said. "It's all down from here."

This unfortunate choice between bad and worse is, in part, a result of Toussaint’s leadership failure. By engaging in a fruitless strike, the TWU Local 100 president put the union into a much weaker position, as is seen by the choice between a substandard contract and arbitration. And, as we have been told, there was a better offer on the table in December just prior to the strike call but Toussaint was more interested in walking out.

As we’ve said in the past, the MTA deserves its fair share of the blame as well. Attorney General Spitzer made this point yesterday, mentioning out how the Authority lacks transparency, keeps two sets of books, and raises fares as it garners a record surplus. We agree with Spitzer that the MTA and these other semi-public organizations need better oversight and that it’s unfair for the union, no matter how leadership-challenged, to bear the brunt of the criticism for the current impasse.

Wal-Mart Cries for Help

Acting as if his company was the struggling corner store, Wal-Mart's CEO Lee Scott told the National Governor' Conference on Sunday that his chain needs help with spiraling health care costs. Yeah, as if he were actually paying health benefits to the majority of his workforce.

If this wasn't so sad it would actually be quite funny since Scott claims that the company's health care costs "have risen 19% in each of the past three years and it's only a matter of time before it, along with other businesses, cannot sustain rising costs." Especially, we should add, those others that are truly covering their workers at the same time they're trying to compete with the Wal-Marts and BJ's of the world.

What is heartening is that it appears as if the campaign against the retail giant's poor record on benefits is beginning to bear fruit. As reported in AMNewYork (courtesy of the Associated Press),

"Under mounting criticism Wal-Mart last fall offered new lower-premium insurance aimed at getting more of its work force on company plans."

There are even new provisions that cover children of part-time workers.

All of which comes at a time when Wal-Mart is still the country's leader in employees on the government dole. Last Friday the Columbus Dispatch informed its readers that the retail giant "had the most workers on government health insurance rolls" in the state of Ohio (ahead of McDonalds).

At the same time that Lee Scott is trying to play catch-up and burnish his company image he couldn't resist taking a shot at health care legislation that is aimed at compelling companies to get their employees off the public rolls. He resents the requirement that companies "spend an arbitrary percentage" of payroll on benefits.

We're all for a nationwide approach to reining in health care costs. Wal-Mart, however, is the most inappropriate spokesman for this effort.

They Paved Staten Island and Made it a Parking Lot

We’ve mentioned in the past that Staten Island traffic congestion is already nightmarish and that the road infrastructure, according to the SI Chamber of Commerce, is at or above capacity. We’ve also mentioned that the borough’s top officials have called for a “Marshall Plan” to fix the myriad traffic issues on the Island.

Despite this, developers are still pushing additional automobile-dependent projects. One such proposal is the NASCAR speedway that has drawn considerable opposition from a wide cross-section of Staten Islanders. Of course, the 80,000 fans coming during a race weekend worries people but there is another aspect of the racetrack plan that isn’t talked about as much but will have a profound impact on the maneuverability.

According to the SI Advance, our friends the Related Companies want to build a 620,000 sq. ft. mall, similar to their Gateway Estates in East New York, as part of the NASCAR project. Councilman McMahon is concerned:

The potential traffic impact of that kind of lineup has City Councilman Michael McMahon calling the retail center a "Trojan horse."

During a peak Saturday shopping hour, the developers expect more than 1,800 cars coming into the center, and another 1,500 leaving.

It's the element that's sort of been presented as a gift, and no one's really looked at it. And it may end up being a thing that has a very serious impact on traffic and quality of life," McMahon (D-North Shore) says.

Of course Related says everything is going to be fine:

But the developers downplay the possible burden, saying much of that traffic would be on the road anyway, heading to New Jersey's big stores.

They also contend the road improvements they'll put in place for raceday events -- including new on- and off-ramps on the Island's two expressways -- will be able to handle retail traffic.

On race weekends, the developers predict in their traffic plan, fewer customers will show up because they'll be deterred by "the unusual race day travel conditions."

This is typical developer pabulum and if Related’s Bronx Terminal Market traffic analysis is any indication, nothing the politically-connected company asserts should be trusted.

Wal-Mart and BJs

The other issue is whether Related is going to tenant this mall with a Wal-Mart or BJs. The latter is the most likely option considering the two companies’ close relationship and Related's push to add the non-union store to its South Bronx Gateway Center:

Based on Related's other retail projects, though, BJ's would be a good bet.

Related has included a BJ's in its in Brooklyn and College Point, Queens, retail centers, and it plans to build another at the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market.

We’ll keep you all updated.

Shaw Departs

All of the local papers are reporting on the departure of Deputy Mayor Marc Shaw who's leaving the Bloombergers to join with the real estate development company Extell. Shaw will become Extell's VP for "strategic planning." We wish Marc well and can't help but use his departure to muse on a constant theme of ours: the interconnection of politics and real estate in this city.

You'll notice that Mr. Shaw didn't open up a neighborhood bodega or go toil with a public spirited not-for-profit. We can't really blame him for this since we know that Marc has children he needs to put through college. That's just the point, however.

Real estate is the premier industry in this city and folks in government are quite aware of this. Doing things for these folks makes sense because their interests seem to naturally be in the public interest, it's part of the "mobilization of bias" we have been talking about.

But of course there's another aspect of this that is less sanguine. The fact that the nexus of money and power resides in this quadrant creates a symbiosis that leads to the kind of revolving door we see with the lucrative departure of Marc Shaw. There is then a built-in self interest involved in the decision making process when it comes to economic development in this town.

Promoting development and the developers behind it has a potential benefit for the government official. This has been especially true of the good folks at EDC where the revolving door is well greased. As a result, policy is crafted with the built-in bias we talked about. Accountable development is sacrificed since the "accountants" are accountable only to their own worldview and personal self-interest.

The Young and the Restless Wal-Mart

You might have wondered what it would take for the NY Sun to find a reason to praise Andrew Young. Wonder no more. You see Jimmy Carter's favorite UN ambassador has come in for high praise because he has enlisted in the fight over Wal-Mart, lending his considerable prestige and support to the retail giant.

The Sun's editorial is entitled, "The Right to Low Prices", and goes on to underscore just how much the Sun feels that the retailer does for poor folks. Quoting economist Jason Furman the editorial opines that the successful effort to stifle Wal-Mart will lead "to higher prices that disproportionately harm lower-income families."

Going on in its praise of Mr. Young the Sun depicts the Wal-Mart fight as a "civil rights" battle where "the poor benefit most." Listen closely, Can't you hear the cadences of "We Shall Overcome" emanating from the lower Manhattan offices of the Sun? This is surely the silliest thing we've read in quite some time.

Let's put aside the fact that the Young-led Working Families for Wal-Mart is one well-funded Trojan Horse that will use poor people to enrich not only Wal-Mart, but of course Young himself. The Sun should know better and should be more aware of the ecology of neighborhoods in this city and the role of immigrant entrepreneurs in their resurgence. These are the issues we raise in our "conservative case" against Wal-Mart and they are especially germane to this city.

Still, the enlisting of Andy young is a harbinger of things to come as Wal-Mart uses its unlimited resources to line up the city's eager "booty capitalists" in its effort to penetrate New York's market. It won't do much good in Staten Island or Monsey, New York, but it will certainly resonate in East New York, the South Bronx and Jamaica. And this is where the real battle for New York will take place.

Toussaint not a saint

The New York Post editorializes today about the relatively high raises TWU Local 100 President Roger Toussaint received as compared with his rank and file. The Local’s rules explicitly forbid its employees from carrying over vacation time but an exception was made for Toussaint so that he could receive the increased salary. The Post reacts:

Now it comes to light that [Toussaint] flaunts the TWU's internal rules, too.

He claims he was just cashing in unused vacation time, not getting a true raise.

But that's a problem: TWU rules also say vacation time can't be carried over.

And this is the man who led Local 100 into battle.

Though we disagree with the Post’s general anti-union sentiment and failure to criticize MTA, they are absolutely correct that not only was the TWU’s President blithely breaking his union’s own rules but that this transgression is part of a larger failure of leadership. We believe that the rank and file realize this and that Toussaint’s days as the head of Local 100 very well may be numbered.

Related’s CBA Is Criticized Again

According to Heather Haddon in the most recent Norwood News, community groups continue to criticize the “community benefits agreement” for the Related Companies’ Gateway Mall, saying that the negotiation process was illegitimate, the concessions were minimal and the document not even endorsed by the taskforce ostensibly set up to draft the agreement:

“It’s a disgrace,” said Pasquale Canale, president of the 161st Street Merchants Association. “We don’t feel that the community got anything.”

Assemblyman and Bronx County chief Jose Rivera said most of the credit for the “benchmark” CBA belongs to his chief of staff Ululy Martinez (since the community wasn’t involved it’s probably appropriate not to mention them). Martinez said he consulted the touted agreements from California and admitted that while the Bronx version wasn’t as good it came close.

We guess that for Martinez a paltry $5 million CBA that was negotiated after the land use process began, did not involve direct talks between the developer and affected communities and does not even apply to the development’s tenants is close to the comprehensive Staples or LAX airport agreements. And when pressed on the fact that the Gateway agreement does not force Related to do anything:

Martinez said Related was reluctant to make the agreement binding, but that officials succeeded in adding “enforcement mechanisms.” He didn’t elaborate on those measures.

When a developer is under no pressure of course it’s not going to sign a binding agreement. And if the document isn’t binding, what good is it?

The article continues to highlight community criticisms of the CBA and points out that a majority of the groups originally involved did not sign. Greg Bell, from Bronx Voices for Equal Inclusion, succinctly explains the lack of enthusiasm for this “historic” deal:

“Our two main focuses are transparency and inclusion,” Bell said. “This had neither.”

Borough President Carrion’s office responded, acknowledging that perhaps this was a tiny bit problematic:

Anne Fenton, a spokesperson for the borough president, admitted that the rushed nature of the endorsement process wasn’t ideal, but she said that the signatories did represent each of the committees. “We chose three people that were heavily involved,” she said.

Wow, three people! And who were these three groups that are supposed to represent the South Bronx community? Two are government controlled entities and the one community-based group is located 3.5 miles from the project site.

As we’ve mentioned before, it is important to criticize this agreement because certain elected officials and developers will attempt to use it as a model for future developments. Pat Canale, of the 161st Street Merchants summarizes this point:

Critics worry that a closed-door process has implications for the neighboring Yankee Stadium development. The new stadium and parking garage, which would put replace two park, is moving forward despite growing community opposition.

Canale feels burned by Bronx officials. “How can you forget the neighborhood that put you up there?” asked Canale, who collected over 250 signatures against the stadium in less than two days. “The Yankees weren’t the people who elected you.”

New York's Business Climate

As the NY Sun reports today the non-partisan Tax Foundation has found that "New York State has the most hostile business climate in the nation, largely due to higher personal income, sales and business taxes." This report, coming as it does on the heels of similar previous appraisals, makes it clear that our Republican elected officials have failed in their efforts to make the state and the city more business friendly.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that this message is getting through, since we don't see any of our city officials proposing tax and regulatory changes that would begin to alleviate this burden. Remember it was Mike Bloomberg who describe NYC as a "luxury item" and characterized the protests of bodegas against the confiscatory cigarette tax as a "minor economic issue."

Bloomberg has yet to demonstrate that he sees economic development as anything but the aggrandizement of large real estate interests. Will the City Council have a different perspective?

In Defense of Lobbyists

In today's NY Post the paper editorializes in support of lobbyists. What's really compelling in the piece is the way the Post goes after the mayor's rich man's noblesse oblige arrogance . To wit: "Bloomberg, as usual, is being hypocritical--this time in a classic 'the rich are really different' sort of way."

What's really interesting here is that it is the Post, and not the "get the money out of politics" NY Times (which broke the original story in this regard), that sheds a harsh light on the mayor's use of his great wealth to promote his own political agenda. "The mayor, the wealthiest man in American politics, has been giving for decades. Lately, though, his generosity has been locally focused...Beyond his longtime generosity to medical centers and cultural institutions, his gift list now includes many more local community and ethnic associations."

As the Times reported last year and the Post re-emphasizes in its editorial, "In 2004 alone...Bloomberg, with an enhanced regional focus gave some $140 million to 'more than 800 institutions and groups'-strategically spread around all five boroughs." And the mayor's future career as a philanthropist gives him even greater leverage, as groups vie for his continued largesse.

All of which makes a joke out of the mayor's interest in restraining the putatively nefarious influence of others. It is exactly as we have been saying, great wealth creates its own conflicts and those who promote lobbying and campaign reform without acknowledging this are not going to craft good public policy.

Lobbying Reform

In yesterday's NY Times the paper editorializes in favor of the recently announced lobbying reforms put forward by the mayor and endorsed by the council speaker. What's amusing in the paper's editorial is the assumption, without any evidence to substantiate the opinion, that there is a "kind of Jack Abramoff-on-the-Hudson scenario" operating on the City Council side of City Hall.

The Times goes on to say that this "coziness has been a huge disservice to New York's voters, whose interests have regularly been trumped by those with the money to hire lobbyists." Once again, it would be nice if the so-called paper of record would offer at least one example of this obviously egregious situation, instead of treating the observation as a revealed truth that is self-evident to all New Yorkers.

The paper also misconstrues how the political process works in this city. Wealthy interests often get their way because, well, they have inherent clout themselves. The Related Company spent tens of thousands of dollars on directly wooing Bronx officials. Its lobbyists were not the evil middlemen in this quest but played a secondary role.

In spite of this (the Times would call it influence peddling), there is nothing in the Bloomberg-Quinn reforms that addresses this potentially untoward situation. What the paper also misses is that there is a Weltanschauung in this city in favor of development. The existence of this worldview leads most of the media to reflexively endorse projects that "create jobs" and promote "development" without examining the relative merits with any real due diligence or, better yet, healthy skepticism.

The shame here, and we come back as always to the Bronx Terminal Market, is that the NY Times acts as a conservative force in NYC politics because its own interests are conjoined with what has been characterized as the city's permanent government. This leaves the paper unable to credibly evaluate the "special interests" that the Times itself is so much an integral part of.

Once again we must say that if lobbying reform is to have any credibility it needs to focus on the city's real estate industry and be linked closely to a concept of accountable development and a reform of ULURP. For a more comprehensive look at this perspective see the recent Gotham Gazette post on "Redefining Economic Development."

Solid Waste Battle

We have been commenting on the "Prague Spring" that has been orchestrated between the mayor and the City Council. Our position has been that the way in which city government is structured, with its strong mayoral form of governance, makes it essential for the City Council to act as an important check on executive excess and even stupidity. This is especially true with a mayor whose great wealth apparently gives him as sense of both noblesse oblige as well as infallibility.

Given these parameters the council needs to evolve into a real legislature, something that is difficult under the restrictions of existing term limits. That is why we took no offense when Speaker Quinn recently axed all those staffers. If Chris Quinn is going to restructure the council and strengthen its capacity to be a real counterweight to the mayor then we're all better off.

It goes without saying that the garbage issue, because of the profound weaknesses in the mayor's SWMP, offers the council the kind of opportunity to step up and truly legislate. The first responsibility of the council is to offer a comprehensive evaluation of the SWMP's flaws. A close look will expose its failure to come up with any significant waste reduction plan and, once this is clearly shown, the profligate nature of the building of so many marine transfer stations will become apparent.

Let's be clear. The use of food waste disposers for the reduction of both residential as well as commercial garbage offers the most realistic as well as economical method to alleviate our city's costly dependency on trucking garbage to out-of-state landfills. That is why the recently introduced measures (Intros 112 and 133) need to be advance quickly, along with a thorough critique of the limitations of the administration's proposed SWMP.

The previous council's failure to do this allowed the mayor to claim the policy high ground in his insistence on "fair share" siting for the city's transfer stations. As we have said all along, siting that allows for fair burden sharing is no substitute for a comprehensive waste reduction strategy that ameliorates everyone's burdens.

Toussaint’s Bind

According to Steve Greenhouse of the NY Times:

The union representing New York City's subway and bus workers filed papers last night opposing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's call for binding arbitration to settle their long-running contract dispute. The union said a new agreement could still be reached through negotiations.

The main problem, however, is that TWU Local 100’s bargaining position has been tremendously eroded due Roger Toussaint’s fruitless strike and a proposed contract already turned down once by the members. The Times reinforces this point:

When the authority formally asked for binding arbitration on Jan. 25, it toughened its proposal, taking the pension reimbursement off the table and asking that new employees pay 6 percent of their wages toward their pensions, up from 2 percent for current workers.

According to the Post, the most likely course of action is that the Toussaint will ask for another vote on a contract similar to the one rejected last month. The major question is whether the “beleaguered” union head still retains enough control to make members accept a deal they feel is substandard, especially in terms of the required health care payments.

In fact, on Tuesday February 28, 2006 from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. members of the TWU will be protesting in front of the NYC Transit Health Benefit Office in Brooklyn demanding, among other things, that the 1.5% “health care tax” must be excised from proposed contract. This certainly isn’t good news for the current TWU leadership and is most likely a sign of things to come when Toussaint is up for reelection later this year.

Wal-Mart Health Care Spending Drops

According to "America Pays, Wal-Mart Saves,” WakeUpWalMart.com’s new study of Wal-Mart’s health care policies, what was thought to be a bad situation is even worse. Here are some key findings:

Wal-Mart health care spending actually dropped in the latest public filing with the Internal Revenue Service (from 2003-2004);

In 2005, nearly 300,000 Wal-Mart workers and their family members depended on taxpayer-funded public health care at a total cost to American taxpayers of $1.37 billion.

In 2005, Wal-Mart failed to provide company health care to 57% of its workforce, leaving over 775,000 Wal-Mart workers and their families without company health care;

The Wal-Mart health care crisis will cost taxpayers an estimated $9.1 billion over the next five years;

As we’ve commented in our Conservative Case Against Wal-Mart, a major concern is that the company is exploiting the American taxpayer by having them subsidize its “everyday low prices”. With 13% of its workforce on public assistance and a 3.5% drop in health care spending (compared to 7.6% jump for the average company during the same time), Wal-Mart is assuming that it will continue to receive corporate welfare handouts. Check out the WakeUpWalMart.com site for all the details.

In response to these revelations as well as the fair share healthcare bills in places like New York City and Maryland, Wal-Mart announced that it plans to improve the health care offered to employees. According to the NY Times:

Wal-Mart said that for the first time it would permit part-time employees to enroll their children in the health insurance plan, and it pledged to reduce significantly the waiting period before a new part-time employee is eligible for benefits, though it declined to specify the reduction.

It’s good to see Wal-Mart responding to valid critiques and attempting to improve its health care plans. However, like Wal-Mart Watch, we are pleased by cautiously so:

“Our curiosity is certainly piqued by his interest in ‘significantly reducing the waiting period for part-time associates.’ After all, that waiting period is a stunning two years. Moreover, Wal-Mart has admitted in internal documents that it is actively pushing full-time workers onto part-time status, reducing both their earning power and benefits.

“And Scott’s other announcements to tinker with their health benefits must be evaluated in the harsh light of the multitude of hidden charges buried in their plans. Wal-Mart’s new so-called ‘Value Plan’ remains a raw deal for its employees who can’t afford the high deductibles and strict eligibility requirements.

“Wal-Mart can and should act as a catalyst for change in the American health care system.”

Spitzer Attacks Governor's Refusal to Enforce the Law

As the NY Post is reporting today the state Department of Taxation and Finance, under the direction of Governor Pataki, "defiantly has said that it will not enforce a new law requiring Indian tribes to pay tax on the sale of cigarettes to non-Indians..." The law is scheduled to take effect on March the 1st next week.

This refusal has elicited a stinging rebuke from Attorney General Eliot Spitzer who said that "the department will be breaking the law and costing taxpayers millions..." All of this is, as we have commented, a remarkable display of arrogance on the part of the executive branch. It now appears that our conservative, law-and-order governor is deciding which laws he feels he should enforce, clearly a recipe for anarchy.

Even more so considering the history of this controversy and the outbreaks of violence in the 1990s when Indians were protesting the state's moves to enforce these tax laws. As State Senator Raymond Meir of Utica, NY, told the AP yesterday, "This is a dangerous precedent...It's an invitation to anarchy."

Tax Commissioner Eristoff continues to waffle here and says "he'll wait and see if the legislature agrees with Gov. Pataki to again delay enforcement by a year-a delay that the Democrat-led Assembly already rejects." Or, as Assemblyman Pete Grannis says, "No one is considering it seriously."

The report goes on to speculate that, "The next tier of action after Wednesday could be lawsuits, by non-Indian retailers against the state or by the state Attorney General's office against wholesalers, but either course would be lengthy." What's left is the possibility of direct legal action against the Indians themselves. These are the folks who are willfully failing to comply with requisite state and federal law and are misleadingly advertising that their cigarettes are "tax free."

All of which makes it even more compelling for the city and state to refrain from imposing any new taxes on cigarettes until this issue is resolved. The greater the disparity between legal outlets and those that are avoiding the tax the larger the black market that is created. The money quote comes from Eliot Spitzer:

Come Wednesday, state government will be breaking the law and begin costing taxpayers millions of dollars by choosing not to enforce legislation that would end the huge sales advantage that Indian tribes have over taxpaying competitors off reservations.

Wal-Mart: Not in My Backward

Via Wakeupwalmart.com, a new real estate survey demonstrates that while Americans consumers may like Wal-Mart they do not want it anywhere near their communities:

The Saint Index(C), a new survey by the Hingham, MA-based Saint Consulting Group, confirms Americans' love-hate relationship with Wal-Mart. Even as the global company revs up a campaign to protect its reputation, and despite Wal-Mart's undeniable popularity among consumers, almost two-thirds of those surveyed (63%) said that they would oppose a Wal-Mart store if one were proposed in their community.
[...]

According to The Saint Index, only landfills, quarries, power plants, and casinos generate more vehement community opposition than large retail stores. However, respondents singled out Wal-Mart as particularly unwelcome.

This NIMBY factor is extremely relevant to the debate over Wal-Mart entering in New York, including places like Staten Island. Because this city is a series of overlapping neighborhoods – many of which already suffer from traffic congestion and other negative affects associated with box stores – Wal-Mart is going to have a very hard time finding suitable space away from residential communities. Combine this dilemma with the overall concern New Yorkers display towards the store and the world’s largest retailer is going to find itself struggling mightily to enter the 5 boroughs.

Will The Council Respond?

We have been commenting on the issue of the lease transfer involving the emergence of the Related Company as the landlord of the BTM property. Our argument has been that the lease needed to be put out for public bidding after a full appraisal of the value of the land was done. Normally the transfer is then made subject to a land use review process.

This contention was the crux of the legal challenge that the BTM merchants unsuccessfully brought against their eviction from the Market. It was unsuccessful because Judge Cahn ruled that, under the City Charter, the mayor had the power in regards to the city's public wholesale markets to override the provisions (Section 384) of the Charter requiring the public bidding.

It is our belief that this is one crackpot ruling but, as it stands now, it is the law and it means that the Council's power of review that inhere in Section 384 have been abrogated. This is a concern, or should be, of all of the businesses and thousands of workers in the wholesale markets. It should also be a concern of the City Council since the ruling exists as a direct challenge to its oversight role.

As it stands now the mayor (or his commissioner in this case) has unbridled power to evict businesses and punish workers. He can even, as the BTM case demonstrates, eliminate the entire wholesale market if a "better" use comes along.

It is time for the Council to address this "market exception" and revise Section 1301 so that it clearly delineates the mayor's powers and subsumes them under Section 384. This is the kind of checks and balances we've been talking about in our concern with the institutional integrity of the City Council.

A Massive Proposal

Under the sub-title “Wal-Mart Supercenter could stress Valley, traffic, stores, people” the Rockland Journal News editorializes against the planned Suburban Supercenter we talked about yesterday.

Due to poor planning and inadequate infrastructure, the road where Wal-Mart wants to build is simply inappropriate for a 215,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart, the paper says. They point to the local mayor’s concerns:

But Mayor George Darden is worried. A Wal-Mart Supercenter is planned at the former Rockland Drive-In Theater in Ramapo's Monsey hamlet, next to Kennedy Drive, and the mayor is concerned about the effect on area businesses and a further worsening of traffic in the busy Route 59 corridor.

"It's already impossible to go down Route 59 there," Darden told reporter Sulaiman Beg. "I think it's the wrong place and the wrong time. It's not a good idea."

Similar to the situation in Staten Island, the elected officials and residents of Rockland County are concerned with their quality of life and are questioning whether adding a store that will generate over 1,000 peak hour cars is appropriate for a crowded area already saturated with strip malls. Also like Staten Island, the community sees better uses for the plot that Wal-Mart wants to build on:

Darden said he would like to see a passive park at the site instead, a good idea considering this section between Route 59 and the Old Nyack Turnpike is largely built up with multi-family housing approved by Spring Valley, as well as numerous shopping strips.

We agree with Mayor Darden and especially considering that the land right next to the proposed Wal-Mart is state owned and has been promised to the community for parkland. While certain officials will disingenuously tout the tax revenue this supercenter will generate (the supercenter would replace a regular Wal-Mart so how much new tax revenue will actually be generated?), there needs to be proper planning and consideration of traffic and quality of life issues.

The editorial ends:

Additional drainage and traffic studies are supposed to be in the works, and the proposal will go before the Planning Board for a general discussion at some pointy.

This proposal needs more than a "general" discussion.

It requires full input from Ramapo, its Comprehensive Plan designers, Spring Valley and urban renewal officials, residents and the New York State Department of Transportation. If the land can be saved for a park, that would be best.

If not, scale this proposal way back, for it would affect too many adversely.

We would say that the project needs to be scaled back entirely for its adverse impacts won’t be mitigated until Wal-Mart is out of the picture.

Checks and Balances?

In today's NY Sun, Jill Gardiner focuses on the rapport between Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Quinn and writes that, "the two have acted like old friends since Christine Quinn was elected to the post seven weeks ago." In particular, Quinn stood with the mayor on his lobbying reform package and seemed to be part of the Bloomberg team in the dog-and-pony that was done on education financing in Albany last week. How are we to react to this lovefest?

Well, given the comments of the mayor's spokesman, Stuart Loeser ("Given the choice between a constructive partner in governing and the alternatives, the mayor certainly prefers a constructive partner"), we're a mite bit uneasy with all of this coziness. And the positive comparison to former speaker Peter Vallone is both inaccurate and unnerving.

Vallone was quite capable of standing up to the mayor, as he did on the Guiliani mega store proposal, but often let the mayor bulldoze him on faux mob-busting initiatives in carting and the public markets like Local Laws 28 and 42. Not to mention the mayor's attack on HANAC where Vallone simply hid under his desk.

All of this "partners in government" rhetoric certainly gives us pause because we're simply not all that enamored with the Bloomberg worldview particularly his tendency to see development from the top down. It is a paternalistic liberalism that lacks creativity and entrepreneurial spirit when it comes to the role of government.

What is particularly queasy in the Sun piece is the comments of mayoral toady Mitch Moss: "It's always better to start out harmoniously. Your alliances will help you get through the rougher times." What a load of self-serving crap! And when Moss and Loeser are whistling blithely you know immediately that the mayor is the senior partner in this arrangement and is getting the bigger cut of the political profits.

With a governmental structure that heavily favors the mayor it is important that the Council begin to sharply carve out its independent role because as Tom Lehrer reminded us about Vice President Hubert Humphrey, "Second fiddle's a hard part you know, when they don't even give you a bow."

Quinn needs to find a number of issues that she can use to properly carve out the Council's independent role. She has already flunked the Gateway issue where she allowed the mayor to roll her on the issue of the lease transfer and the Council's oversight responsibilities. Our hope is that solid waste will provide Quinn with the kind of an issue she can utilize to elevate the council's independence and proper place as an important check on mayoral incompetence.

One thing we know for sure is that the little guys, neighborhood folks and small businesses, have no real place in Bloomberg's world. Quinn's collaboration then, if it means less independence and more reliance on supporting mayoral initiatives, does not bode well for these less powerful constituencies. Just ask the BTM merchants.