Wal-Mart: Start Your Engines?

In what could probably be seen as a precursor to the upcoming Wal-Mart battle on Staten Island a large and boisterous crowd gathered last night at the Petrides Educational Complex to discuss the merits of the proposed NASCAR race track. Along with the race track an additional 620,00 sq. ft. of retail space (to be built by Related) is also planned.

The results were not pretty. As the SI Advance reports the meeting got out of hand as supporters of the project ripped the microphone out of Councilman Andrew Lanza's hand. As Lanza told the NY Post, "This was no democracy tonight...This was a mob." The meeting started at 6:00 PM but was shut down by police at 7:30.

As we have been emphasizing the main issue on the Island, and really the only issue, is the traffic congestion. Lanza, as he has done on the question of Wal-Mart in Tottenville, did not trash the NASCAR facility-calling it "a world class venue"-but rather spoke to the intractable congestion on the Island. For his trouble the Advance reports that one man actually put the Councilman in a "partial headlock" as his microphone was snatched out of his hands.

Most of the ruckus was caused by out-of-the-area construction workers who were advocating the development as a jobs generator. What is clear, however, is that all development on Staten Island will be put on hold until something concrete (and not pie in the sky) is done to relieve the congestion. Oh yes, our contacts on the Island are telling us that the new Bricktown Centre is generating over 9,000 cars a day near the Outerbridge. Wal-Mart on Richmond Valley Road would be beyond a nightmare.

Spinola and CBAs: "No Mas"

In today's Crain's Insider Steve Spinola, the head of the Real Estate Board of New York, comes out strongly opposed to the growing practice of including Community Benefits Agreements as part of large real estate developments. He's calling on the mayor "to limit them" since in his opinion they "usurp the role of environmental impact statements."

Well, perhaps they do but if so than that's probably a good thing since, as we have pointed out, the EIS's and the entire ULURP process leaves a great deal to be desired. In addition, as we have also pointed out, the land use review doesn't really gauge economic impacts and lack accountability in this area.

All too often the community that is hosting the project fails to realize benefits that truly mitigate the costs of being the host of the development. A CBA can do this but this vehicle needs to be further standardized to avoid it becoming a cynical tool of unscrupulous local elected officials.

Jail House Crock

Following up on our earlier post, Frank Lombardi in today’s Daily News reports on the new jail being proposed for the South Bronx:

City officials disclosed yesterday they are negotiating to acquire a vacant industrial site in the South Bronx to build a $375 million detention center.

The proposed location of the new Bronx jail - a former dump in the Oak Point section of heavily industrial Hunts Point - was revealed during a City Council hearing on a plan to upgrade jail facilities at Rikers Island and move thousands of inmates into jails in the Bronx and Brooklyn.

According to Lombardi, Bronx Councilman James Vacca is skeptical of the deal and, as the Times reports, so are a number of community groups in the area:

Elena Conte, a staff member for Sustainable South Bronx, said the community was keenly interested in the development of the site and urged the city to include them in the process. "Deals are being made," she said, "but there's very little transparency and no real opportunity for public participation, and that's a major concern."

Like we mentioned previously, the biggest sticking point for us is that the city swapped the Bronx House of Detention in the Bronx Terminal Market deal – saying there wasn’t a need for more jail space – and now is proposing a new South Bronx jail. As the Alliance’s Richard Lipsky says in the Daily News article:

"They left out at the time they gave away the Bronx House of Detention that they were also planning to build a $370 million prison in the South Bronx," said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who opposed the Related project.

Wal-Mart and Friends

Crain's New York Business never tires in its promotion of Wal-Mart in NYC. In this week's magazine the editors argue, "The simple truth is that New York needs Wal-Mart more than Wal-Mart needs the city."

Crain's goes on to talk about the dreaded problem of leakage. It does so withoout a clear idea how this phenomenon actually operates in and aroun NYC. It also does so without any real analysis of the way in which the store cannibalizes existing retailers. In fact, Crain's once again takes this opportunity to besmirch the city's small retailers saying, "And, by the way, the small shops it supposedly puts out of business rarely offer any benefits, period."

Why does the city's premier business voice feel it necessary to stigmatize small retail entrepreneurs? And, Isn't there a big difference between a small store owner, someone who may also own a home in the city, and the world's largest retailer when it comes to employee
benefits?

Finally, Crain's tells us that no matter how bad Wal-Mart may be, other retailers are worse. This is an argument for holding Kohl's and Targets to a higher standard as well. In any case, the fight over the Walmonster will always be a site fight and we're not certain just where the store will be able to find a hospitable neighborhood.

House of Deceit

When we were in full throttle over the BTM development one of the aspects of the deal that really burned us was the swapping of the House of Detention, a property that was appraised at $41 million, to the Related Company for land valued at a great deal less. As it now turns out, however, this deal is a good deal worse than we first realized.

It is so because we now find out, thanks to testimony from the Department of Corrections yesterday, that the city is going to build a new jail in the Oakpoint section of the Bronx for, hold your hats, $377 million! So a perfectly functional jail is being handed over to a private developer, an entity that was just about given the BTM for a song, and the taxpayers are stuck with a humonguos bill for a new facility.

This is the biggest rape of the taxpayer we've seen in along time and Deputy Dan and Steve Ross should be the first occupants of the new jail. In actuality, the city will probably give Related the contract to build it.

Choking on Hypocrisy

NY 1 is reporting that Assemblyman Peter River has introduced a bill that would address the city's growing asthma problem. The law would "require schools to stop vehicles from idling outside school buildings and would allow more access to asthma medication."

Rivera is a conscientious legislator who has a genuine concern for his borough where asthma is epidemic. At the same time, however, it is important to deal with root causes and not superficial symptoms. The root causes in this case, causes that has led the EPA to call NYC's air "the dirtiest in the country", derive from the sheer volume of vehicular traffic, particularly diesel trucks powering through the Bronx.

This is why the approval of the Yankee Stadium and BTM/Gateway deals is so egregious. If, as the Alliance's consultant has observed, the BTM traffic study is the "worst he's seen in thirty years" than the Deegan corridor will be choking with traffic and so will the local streets as consumers and Yankee fans look for shorcuts to the mall and the stadium.

To cavalierly allow developments to proceed when traffic and air quality concerns are not adequately addressed is to mask the root causes of the boroughs health problems. Any ex post facto "solution" is reduced to hypocritical posturing.

Tous-Saint

It is becoming clearer each day that the MTA and the courts have just about succeeded in making the TWU's Roger Toussaint a hero and a martyr. Yesterday's long march across the Brooklyn Bridge seems to have cemented the iconization of Roger as the symbol of a besieged labor movement. As Barry Feinstein, MTA Board member and former labor leader told the Times, "There is little or no value in locking up a labor leader-it inflames people."

Well, not quite. There certainly is a value to Toussaint because martyrdom serves to deflect attention away from all of his blunders and, in addition, makes him once again the favorite to win re-election. Roger seems to have his heroic role down pat. As he marched off to the Tombs he told reporters, in response to his contempt of court conviction, "The truth of the matter is I have nothing but contempt for a system that gives employers free rein to abuse worker."

One does wonder what would happen if all of the transit workers were let go tomorrow. Our prediction is that tens of thousands of New Yorkers would be getting in line for the chance to get "abused" in an MTA job. The fact remains, however, that Toussaint's union opponents have their work cut out for them.

The reality that will help them lies in the arduous nature of the contract negotiations, a process that will undoubtedly drag on for months. Hopefully, in the months ahead the aura of martyrdom will have faded and Local 100's members will cooly face the mess that Jolly Roger has gotten them into.

Bodegas Got Milk, and its Low-fat

The NY Post is reporting today that the city's DOH initiative on getting low income consumers to try low fat milk is starting to have some success. As the paper says, "Bodega owners say more and more customers are reaching for the low-fat milk, which has fewer calories but the same amount of nutrients as found in whole milk.

In one store the owner reported that almost twenty percent of his customers were reaching for the low-fat whereas before he only sold whole milk. What this suggests is that there is a great deal of room for a public-private partnership on encouraging healthier eating habits.

NYC to Nightlife: "We Don't Like to Boogie"

The NY Times this morning details the reaction of the city's nightlife businesses to what appears to be a crackdown on an industry that generates an annual $9.7 billion for New York and employs over 19,000 people. Last month five clubs were closed and as Rob Bookman, the attorney for the New York Nightlife Association (NYNA) told the paper, "The city doesn't realize it, but they're killing the goose that laid the golden egg."

All of this is being driven it seems by a concerted effort of local residents to rid their neighborhoods of what they feel is a proliferation of bars and clubs. The effort is abetted by the city's 311 system that allows folks to complain incessantly-and anonymously- about noise and rowdiness.

The reaction of the police is instructive. The department's spokesman says, "We expect people to keep illegal activity out of their premises...The police have an obligation to stop it if the club operators will not or cannot." The club owners point out, however, that almost all of the drug activity has been by customers and the transactions have been small.

NYNA's position is that it is impossible to keep clubs with thousands of customers drug-free. Certainly, as one club's lawyer points out, "Should George Steinbrenner be penalized if drugs are found at Yankee Stadium?"

What this all means is that there is the need for some kind of rapprochement between the city, its neighborhoods and the businesses that are vital to the growth of our economy. In meant neighborhoods that are going through gentrification the bars and clubs have been operating for years without the kinds of vigorous complaints we're seeing today. In addition, areas that weren't previously residential are now seeing new housing arise with all of the potential for more business-neighborhood strife.

Exacerbating the situation for the industry is a bill in the Assembly, sponsored by the speaker, that would limit any new liquor license 500 feet or less from an existing establishment. This would mean that no new license could be granted in many areas of Manhattan. Large real estate developments like Atlantic Yards could also be impacted if they had a number of bars, restaurants and/or hotels.

So what we have is a challenge for the city. Some kind of policy is needed that takes into consideration the concerns of neighborhoods but the needs of the nightlife industry as well. Let's see if the city rises to the challenge.

Wal-Mart Poll

Crain's Insider is reporting today on its online poll about how New Yorkers feel about Wal-Mart coming to the city. The Crain's poll found that "Fifty-seven percent of the 1,069 respondents said that the retailer should be permitted to enter, while only 43% said the retailer should be kept out."

An interesting side note is that the poll also found that, "Most of the respondents said that the city should not be deciding which retailers are allowed to operate in New York." All of which underscores the fact that polls are only as good as the questions asked. In 1996, when Mayor Guiliani was trying to eliminate the ULURP process for the siting of megastores the City Council overwhelmingly rejected a plan that would have eliminated any Council oversight. This was strongly supported by New Yorkers all over the city.

Now, if Crain's had asked its respondents whether they would like to have the city's ULURP process overturned so there would be absolutely no community review of box stores and shopping centers we wonder what the results would have shown? This is the essence of this particular public policy debate.

In addition, take notice of the fact that the Crain's poll, unlike the one done by Wal-Mart itself, found that there are millions of New Yorkers (43% of 8 million, do the math) who simply don't want the Walmonster anywhere in the city. Combine these folks with the large percentage of folks who wouldn't want the store anywhere near their neighborhood and you have a potent opposition indeed.

Sweetheart Deal for the Mets

The Independent Budget Office (IBO) just released its analysis of the proposed Shea Stadium deal. The unambiguous conclusion:

The plan for financing a new stadium for the Mets includes direct subsidies and exemptions from state and local taxes as well as access to tax-exempt bonds for building the stadium. Over a 40- year period, these subsidies and exemptions would cost the city $177 million (present value) and the state an additional $89 million. For the Mets, these benefits, including savings that result from the use of tax exempt bond financing, add up to $298 million over 40 years (present value).

Councilman Monserrate, who represents the Shea Stadium neighborhood, responds to the IBO’s findings:

"The IBO report puts it in black and white. The Mets are getting a sweetheart deal from the city to build a new stadium. The residents of New York are footing the bill to the tune of $177 million, while the Mets stand to save almost twice that much. Without a promise to give anything back to the community, it's clear the costs and benefits of this deal do not weigh in the favor of our residents."

This independent cost benefit analysis demonstrates that, in true Bronx Terminal Market form, Dan Doctoroff and company seem unable to resist aggrandizing a private company with public monies. What’s also clearly proven is that economic analyses by unbiased agencies like the IDA cannot be trusted. According to the IBO report:

IDA’s cost/benefit analysis finds a net fiscal benefit for the city of $47.9 million in present value terms. But their calculation ignores several items that IBO would include in such a calculation, most notably the foregone parking revenues, which IBO estimates have a present value of $80 million. Simply including that item in the IDA calculation would switch the fiscal impact from a net positive to a net negative.

Considering the extreme cost to tax payers, and the impact the stadium has on surrounding neighborhoods (Patrick Arden emphasizes this point today’s Metro) we think it quire reasonable for Councilmen like Monserrate to be demanding a community benefit agreement that will make these deal a bit more palatable.

Spitzer: More Smart Growth, less Wal-Mart

The NY Sun’s Jacob Gershman reports on a policy pronouncement by Eliot Spitzer concerning the concept smart growth. The most interesting aspect from our perspective is how Spitzer’s view of development may affect Wal-Mart and similar box stores:

In recent policy speeches, the state attorney general has raised the banner of "smart growth," a development and land use strategy that favors building neighborhoods that are compact and have a main street feel, taking advantage of existing infrastructure, and protecting open spaces and farmland. It opposes suburban and exurban sprawl, driving, and "big-box" stores like Wal-Mart.

Gershman does mention that there is opposition to the smart growth idea but at least from our experience in NY such planning and restrictions, at least in certain instances, make sense. Considering that the proposed Wal-Mart in suburban Monsey will add hundreds of thousands of car trips to an already congested area – a situation also seen in Staten Island – Spitzer’s rethinking of economic development and planning is needed.

Brooklyn Sports Alliance Moves Ahead

The nascent Brooklyn Sports Alliance, busy incorporating as a not-for-profit corporation, will be joining Basketball City and FCRC tomorrow for a basketball clinic at Bishop Ford High School. This clinic will be followed by a series of clinics in diverse neighborhoods all over the borough that ill be collaborative efforts between the Sports Alliance, BC and FCRC.

The BSA has already identified dozens of local groups, amateur teams and youth organizations eager to join with the newly formed coalition. We're talking about groups that have been laboring for years on behalf of the young people of Brooklyn and are excited about the first professional franchise to come to Brooklyn in over fifty years.

We anticipate that the Nets and FCRC will become a major stakeholder in the development of this sports advocacy group but, at the same tome, once others see the depth of the group's support, we think it won't be long before the number of the group's supporters grows considerably.

While skeptics may label this cooptation, the test of the venture will be seen in the extent of the Alliance's support and the way in which it reaches out to help youth sports group all over Brooklyn. Clearly, this is not pure altruism on the part of the incoming team and its ownership, but is there really anything that's truly pure when it comes to philanthropy? There are always less pure motivations involved in corporate giving but that doesn't take away from the good achieved.

What we hope to achieve is a dynamic partnership that benefits both the team and the amateur sports community of Brooklyn. A win-win situation would be for kids to get support and exposure to the larger sports world while the team gets a growing and enthusiastic fan base.

Mets Stadium Muddle

AM Metro reported yesterday that the Queens council delegation may hold up the crucial vote on the financing for the new Mets stadium. As usual, Councilman Monseratte led the charge saying that until some key issues are addressed, "...it would be imprudent to move on this vote..."

The vote is scheduled for next Wednesday and, as Ben Smith told us yesterday ("Not Convinced in Queens"), only Weprin and Vallone are solidly behind the stadium plan. Smith speculates that the Mets might not have hired as well as the Yankees and without the proper lobbying support they got caught unprepared for the mounting opposition.

The Speaker's Office has gotten in the middle and her spokeswoman told AM that, "We still anticipate moving forward with the vote on the 26th as scheduled but we are going to continue to work to ensure that community issues are addressed." All of this comes on the heels of a march that Monseratte led on Shea the other day that drew over 200 little leaguers and residents.

Low Income Communities and Wal-Mart

Over at the DMI blog, Andrianne Shropshire, talks about the recent Wal-Mart funded survey that showed low-income New Yorkers have the most favorable views of the store. While Shopshire is somewhat skeptical of the numbers she does believe that better outreach needs to be done to these communities:

What NYC needs is a good organizing drive. One that focuses on organizing low-income and working-class neighborhoods around a community standards platform. One that brings neighborhood people together to analyze the clear implications of Wal-Marts model. And one that builds a unified front that will not accept poverty jobs in exchange for a smiley face and company cheers. It won't take much to turn those public opinion numbers around, we can't be duped so easily. But we are a bit behind on this and before Wal-Mart spins it into a story about how unions are thwarting the destiny of low-income communities of color, we better get busy.

Quinn: No Wal-Mart in NYC

According to the Daily News, at a Crain’s breakfast yesterday City Council Christine Quinn reemphasized her strong opposition to Wal-Mart entering New York City. One of the Speaker’s major concerns is Wal-Mart’s reliance on public safety net programs:

"It is well documented across the country that Wal-Mart frequently uses the public insurance programs of the cities they are in as their own health insurance programs," Quinn charged. "We can't put that additional strain on our Health and Hospitals Corp., which is working as hard as it can to take care of uninsured New Yorkers."

Wal-Mart is going to have a very tough time building in the city if the speaker maintains her steadfast opposition. However, there is still the possibility that the retailer will find suitable space already properly zoned which is a cause for concern and something that the Alliance will be working on with our allies.

Reiter Downplays Developer Money

As Room Eight reports yesterday former Guliani deputy mayor Fran Reiter testified before the CFB and told the panel that she didn't think that developer money impacted the political process. As she said, "The developer money in the system just says 'Don't hate me as much as you already do.'"

Reiter goes on to say that politicians don't want to be revealed as "on the take against the community." This is one of those great half-truths that are true in some circumstances but often not seen in certain areas where elected officials are less sensitive to the local community. David Weprin, for instance, held firm when Pathmark was trying to site a store in Fresh Meadows last year in the face of community opposition but, on the contrary, the Bronx council delegation rolled over the community opposition this year in the case of the redevelopment of Yankee Stadium.

The same could be said about the BTM fight where minority merchants were given the bum's rush as local legislators found themselves awash in developer dollars. Reiter is right about certain well-organized neighborhoods, and the example of Wal-Mart in Tottenville is a good one, where electeds are wary of going against the local opposition.

This is not always the case, and we still recall Speaker Vallone's steamrolling of Juanita Watkins in Laurelton when he ignored her wishes and those of the community in his support of a shopping center on Merrick Blvd. Developer dollars are still a potent weapon in any local political fight and the CFB should be vigilant of this fact when it looks to make the system more democratic.

Second Time's a Charm for TWU

It appears that the leadership of TWU Local 100 has finally gotten the contract vote that it sought two months ago. According to NY 1 the rank-and-file has overwhelming "ratified" (71% in favor) the contract that was narrowly defeated in January. Toussaint, speaking on the station last evening, said that he believes that the "MTA should honor the earlier offer.

What to make of the turn-around? Toussaint blamed the media and "membership confusion" for the failure to ratify the contract the first time. Maybe so, or perhaps it was the realization that, given the union's missteps, it would be unrealistic for the workers to think that they could get anything better at this time. In any case, as the NY Times reports this morning, this all sets up a showdown next week when the MYA board meets

Whatever happens, however, the entire fiasco and the union's handling of it will be hashed out in an election later this year when Roger will undoubtedly present himself as a martyred warrior for his members. He'd better hope that the membership doesn't become confused a second time.

Philadelphia Fines Business for Not Using Disposer

As we’ve mentioned the City of Philadelphia mandates that commercial establishments dispose of their organic waste via food waste disposers. Contrary to the opinions of certain New York City administrators, officials in Philly’s Water, Health and Streets departments all believe that it is a public health benefit to remove fetid, rat-attracting waste from dumpsters and instead pump it into the sewer system.

In fact, after a recent complaint, the Philadelphia Health Department handed out a citation to a butcher not using a disposer. According to the Philadelphia Weekly:

An enforcement officer cited Chestnut Farms butcher shop for tossing out slabs of meat (the health code requires that food waste be ground up and thrown down a garbage disposal). The butcher shop wasn't fined, but simply told to change its practices. "That's typically how we handle violations," says department spokesperson Jeff Moran.

As Intro 133 continues to garner support we hope that Councilmembers and the DEP take into account Philadelphia’s model.

Wal-Mart Floundering

According to Crain’s ($), Wal-Mart has not only passed on the previously mentioned Caldor site in Queens but has decided not to pursue sites in downtown Brooklyn and Carnarsie. Couple this with what happened in Rego Park and is occurring in Staten Island and it’s safe to say Wal-Mart’s attempt to enter New York City isn't going so well.