We missed the NY Sun editorial this morning on the proposed Trans fat ban. In particular, we appreciated the way in which the paper came to the defense of local ethnic eateries and, "the so-called ethnic foods that make the city the culinary capitol of America." We also would agree with the Sun's description of the "out-of-control" Board of Health.
Kudos to the Sun for actually caring about the preservation of a health business climate and not just an intrusive public health agenda. As the paper strongly points out, "It is foolish to think that by bankrupting small eateries and depriving customers of choice in the name of banning a single substance, the government can improve the American diet. The only result is going to be a dearth of local restaurants..."
And while we're at it will someone tell us by what right some of these advocacy groups get to call themselves "public interest" organizations. This is what the social scientist might call a reified concept: a notion that there is a public interest set apart from the interplay of actual interests-and that there are a few "wise" ones who are better able than us mortals to discern just where this public interest lies.
By the way, in thirty years of observing public interest groups we've yet to see any of them actually support a policy that benefited a business. Which is strange considering the fact that it is precisely the incredible achievements of American business that provides us most of the benefits that we enjoy today. The public interest solons, however, are virulently anti-business and, if left to their own devices, would cripple the private sector with disastrous results.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Fat Fit to be Fried
Yesterday's Department of Health hearing on trans fat generated a swarm of media attention and, in the process, underscored why administrative processes are probably not the best approach to this kind of health initiative. As the NY Daily News editorializes this morning, the Health Board didn't bother to stick around for all of the the testimony and there was the lack of legislative give-and-take that is so useful at arriving at reasonable compromise.
That being said, the Alliance and its ally-Louis Nunez and the Latino Restaurant Association-got there message across loud and clear, whether it was in a long article in the Spanish language daily El Diario and one in Hoy, or in a piece in the mainstream NY Times where Nunez told the paper that, "This big brother policy doesn't work." In fact, as the Times reported, Commissioner Frieden did come out to address the media and said that he "would consider revising the terms of the proposed legislation before a vote in December."
Our main point about the lack of outreach appears to be resonating with the Department. An article in AM-New York quotes Nunez that in his poll of 1,000 Latino-owned restaurants, over 900 had no idea about what trans fat was or what the city was planning. And in Newsday he told the paper that it was important to give his members the time necessary to insure that the new ingredients didn't alter the taste of the ethnic cuisine.
All in all, the Alliance received 332 separate hits yesterday in newspapers around the country, thanks to the effort of the AP's David Caruso's newswire story. We also defended the industry's interests on WCBS Channel 2 and Eyewitness News as well. We're not getting set to meet with the commissioner to hopefully work out a protocol on implementation with the Health Department. We haven't, however, given up on the hope that the City Council will intervene in this issue and make it part of its legislative agenda.
That being said, the Alliance and its ally-Louis Nunez and the Latino Restaurant Association-got there message across loud and clear, whether it was in a long article in the Spanish language daily El Diario and one in Hoy, or in a piece in the mainstream NY Times where Nunez told the paper that, "This big brother policy doesn't work." In fact, as the Times reported, Commissioner Frieden did come out to address the media and said that he "would consider revising the terms of the proposed legislation before a vote in December."
Our main point about the lack of outreach appears to be resonating with the Department. An article in AM-New York quotes Nunez that in his poll of 1,000 Latino-owned restaurants, over 900 had no idea about what trans fat was or what the city was planning. And in Newsday he told the paper that it was important to give his members the time necessary to insure that the new ingredients didn't alter the taste of the ethnic cuisine.
All in all, the Alliance received 332 separate hits yesterday in newspapers around the country, thanks to the effort of the AP's David Caruso's newswire story. We also defended the industry's interests on WCBS Channel 2 and Eyewitness News as well. We're not getting set to meet with the commissioner to hopefully work out a protocol on implementation with the Health Department. We haven't, however, given up on the hope that the City Council will intervene in this issue and make it part of its legislative agenda.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Trans Fat Hearing is Heated
The Trans fat hearing held today at the Department of Health was heated. More on this tomorrow but a belated mention should be given to the Associated Press story in today's NY Sun that mentions the Alliance's complaints about the availability of Trans fat alternatives.
In addition, the NY Times has a front page story in its Metro Section on the other issue before the Health Department-the nutritional information on menu requirement. It appears that the Department doesn't really grasp how the sheer volume of information that it is requiring would make menus so voluminous as to make them impractical to even use.
In addition, the NY Times has a front page story in its Metro Section on the other issue before the Health Department-the nutritional information on menu requirement. It appears that the Department doesn't really grasp how the sheer volume of information that it is requiring would make menus so voluminous as to make them impractical to even use.
Trans Fat Free Fatheads: Hearing Today
As we get set for today's DOH hearing on the proposal to ban Trans fat we are also gearing up for the ideological zealotry of some of the anti-Trans fat fanatacism a group called Trans Fat Free New York (reminds us of the Save the Seals campaign). As AM New York reports this morning, the head of the group is accusing the Alliance of "Swift Boating," which we take to mean some form of exaggeration-although, given John Kerry's infrequent atachment to veracity we may well decide to take the accusation as a compliment.
The point remains that the Alliance is not opposed to the change we are only concerned that if one is to be made that it is done in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of neighborhood eateries. As the NY Post points out this morning, there may not be an adequate supply of Trans fat alternatives to allow a smooth July 1st implementation date.
All we are asking for is a collaborative effort with the Health Department that takes into account that there may be some difficulties in the transition. Having people who have never owned a restaurant making these faux authoritative statements on what can or cannot be done is no substitute for a reasonable approach to this health issue.
The point remains that the Alliance is not opposed to the change we are only concerned that if one is to be made that it is done in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of neighborhood eateries. As the NY Post points out this morning, there may not be an adequate supply of Trans fat alternatives to allow a smooth July 1st implementation date.
All we are asking for is a collaborative effort with the Health Department that takes into account that there may be some difficulties in the transition. Having people who have never owned a restaurant making these faux authoritative statements on what can or cannot be done is no substitute for a reasonable approach to this health issue.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Caveat Vendor
In today's NY Daily News the paper has a point-counterpoint debate over the role of peddlers in New York City. On one side, representing New York retailers, is Gristedes head John Catsimatidis. Promoting the peddler point of view is Sean Basinski, who directs the Urban Justice Center's Street Vendor Project.
The Alliance's position on this issue has been made clear on any number of occasions. Basinski, though, makes a strong case that the peddlers are generally hard working and should be allowed to continue to pursue what he believes is the American dream. He then goes on to say,"The only people complaining about vendors are stores that would rather not have the competition. But competition is the American way."
First of all, as Catsimatidis points out, the stores are not the only ones complaining about peddler proliferation. On the East Side, Community Board #8 has issued a strong condemnation of the apparent metastasizing of vendors in their community. Even more important, however, is the fact that the competition that Basinski believes he is championing is nothing but a sham.
As Catsimatidis highlights the romanticization of peddlers overlooks their almost complete lack of overhead when it comes to rent, taxes and even the regulatory burden that Basinski whines is so crippling for his peddlers ( "...an average of 6.7 tickets every year."). Most city supermarkets would buy into a deal that guaranteed that they would only get 6.7 tickets in a year.
The city's retailers, many of whom are also hard-working immigrants, are the economic backbone of the city. If the city wants to have non-real estate paying peddlers set up right in front of Manhattan food stores it should offer the stores a 50% reduction in the property taxes that they pay. When the issue is put into that kind of perspective, when the city's bills need to get paid, the peddlers don't look quite so romantic after all.
The Alliance's position on this issue has been made clear on any number of occasions. Basinski, though, makes a strong case that the peddlers are generally hard working and should be allowed to continue to pursue what he believes is the American dream. He then goes on to say,"The only people complaining about vendors are stores that would rather not have the competition. But competition is the American way."
First of all, as Catsimatidis points out, the stores are not the only ones complaining about peddler proliferation. On the East Side, Community Board #8 has issued a strong condemnation of the apparent metastasizing of vendors in their community. Even more important, however, is the fact that the competition that Basinski believes he is championing is nothing but a sham.
As Catsimatidis highlights the romanticization of peddlers overlooks their almost complete lack of overhead when it comes to rent, taxes and even the regulatory burden that Basinski whines is so crippling for his peddlers ( "...an average of 6.7 tickets every year."). Most city supermarkets would buy into a deal that guaranteed that they would only get 6.7 tickets in a year.
The city's retailers, many of whom are also hard-working immigrants, are the economic backbone of the city. If the city wants to have non-real estate paying peddlers set up right in front of Manhattan food stores it should offer the stores a 50% reduction in the property taxes that they pay. When the issue is put into that kind of perspective, when the city's bills need to get paid, the peddlers don't look quite so romantic after all.
Trans Fat Hearing Tomorrow
Tomorrow the NYC Department of Health will hold its hearing on a proposal to ban all trans fat from the city's restaurants. In today's NY Daily News the New York State Restaurant vice president, Chuck Hunt, writes about the difficulties that the ban, whose start up date is July, 1, 2007, will cause for the city's eateries. He makes a number of important points that the Department should pay close attention to.
In the first place, as we have been harping on for the past week, the area's small restaurants have gotten no adequate notice of the trans fat issue. The outreach is non-existent and, as Hunt underscores, the question of an adequate supply of alternative ingredients has not been addressed. The reality is that the Health Department has not done the needed due diligence to see what the difficulties are out in the neighborhoods.
As Hunt indicates, "Another problem is that 80% of frying oils now used by restaurants come from soybeans. While special low fat soybean oils are now on the market, the current supply is inadequate." There may be as much as an 18 month delay before the supply lines are sufficient to meet the instant demand caused by the NYC ban.
There is a compelling need for the city to step back, take a deep breathe, and look to put back any implementation date for at least a year and a half from the current July 1st deadline. The DOH needs to then engage the industry, particularly the ethnic trade associations that are capable of reaching out to the thousands of immigrant restaurant owners who are totally in the dark on trans fat, and really conduct a well financed educational program that includes the identification of alternative sources of supply.
As we have said before, outreach does not begin with a $1,000 fine. Let's do the right thing here so that the goal of a healthier New York includes the health of the city's small businesses.
In the first place, as we have been harping on for the past week, the area's small restaurants have gotten no adequate notice of the trans fat issue. The outreach is non-existent and, as Hunt underscores, the question of an adequate supply of alternative ingredients has not been addressed. The reality is that the Health Department has not done the needed due diligence to see what the difficulties are out in the neighborhoods.
As Hunt indicates, "Another problem is that 80% of frying oils now used by restaurants come from soybeans. While special low fat soybean oils are now on the market, the current supply is inadequate." There may be as much as an 18 month delay before the supply lines are sufficient to meet the instant demand caused by the NYC ban.
There is a compelling need for the city to step back, take a deep breathe, and look to put back any implementation date for at least a year and a half from the current July 1st deadline. The DOH needs to then engage the industry, particularly the ethnic trade associations that are capable of reaching out to the thousands of immigrant restaurant owners who are totally in the dark on trans fat, and really conduct a well financed educational program that includes the identification of alternative sources of supply.
As we have said before, outreach does not begin with a $1,000 fine. Let's do the right thing here so that the goal of a healthier New York includes the health of the city's small businesses.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Wal-Mart Town Hall a Rousing Success
Last night in Spring Valley nearly two hundred area residents packed the Town Hall to listen to speakers lay out the dangers that a super Wal-Mart will bring to the Monsey/Spring Valley community. As the Rockland Journal News reports this morning the Alliance's Richard Lipsky told the crowd, It's not a done deal...It's something that you can come and counteract, but you have to make your voice heard."
And if last night's gathering is any indication, there is a growing awareness of the dangers of the proposed development. Brian Ketcham, the traffic engineer hired by the Alliance, laid out in expert fashion the vehicular nightmare that lies ahead for all within this Route 59 corridor. His expertise was bolstered by the anecdotal evidence laid out by speaker after speaker about the inappropriateness of this heavily trafficked site. In addition, the meeting began with a moment of silence for the woman who had been killed last week while trying to cross Route 59.
What was particulary heartening about he meeting was its composition: a diverse group assembled that represented all of the various communities that are impacted by the project. African-American speakers were followed by people from the Orthodox community and they, in turn, were followed by labor spokespeople. As strong environmental statement was given by Legislator Ellen Jaffee, who attacked Wal-Mart's abysmal record in this area. She was seconded in her sentiments by a representative of the Rockland Council on the Environment who talked about the high rates of asthma in the county.
The main point made by speakers from the audience was the need to use this meeting's passion to mobilize the entire community. The Alliance promised that that mobilization will occur and there are plans to rally next month un front of Ramapo Town Hall. All in all, this was a very inspiring and promising meeting that will undoubtedly lay the ground work for the job of defeating the Walmonster.
And if last night's gathering is any indication, there is a growing awareness of the dangers of the proposed development. Brian Ketcham, the traffic engineer hired by the Alliance, laid out in expert fashion the vehicular nightmare that lies ahead for all within this Route 59 corridor. His expertise was bolstered by the anecdotal evidence laid out by speaker after speaker about the inappropriateness of this heavily trafficked site. In addition, the meeting began with a moment of silence for the woman who had been killed last week while trying to cross Route 59.
What was particulary heartening about he meeting was its composition: a diverse group assembled that represented all of the various communities that are impacted by the project. African-American speakers were followed by people from the Orthodox community and they, in turn, were followed by labor spokespeople. As strong environmental statement was given by Legislator Ellen Jaffee, who attacked Wal-Mart's abysmal record in this area. She was seconded in her sentiments by a representative of the Rockland Council on the Environment who talked about the high rates of asthma in the county.
The main point made by speakers from the audience was the need to use this meeting's passion to mobilize the entire community. The Alliance promised that that mobilization will occur and there are plans to rally next month un front of Ramapo Town Hall. All in all, this was a very inspiring and promising meeting that will undoubtedly lay the ground work for the job of defeating the Walmonster.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Wal--Mart Town Hall Tonight in Spring Valley
The Wal-Mart informatiion session will be held tonight at the Spring Vallet Town Hall on Route 45. Speakers will address the traffic, crime and small business impacts of the project and will hear from elected officials who are opposed to the development. The meeting will start at 7:30.
Alliance on the Insider
In today's Crain's In$ider the newsletter refers to the Alliance's support of a city council measure against trans fat, support that comes more from procedural concerns than any substantive differences between the council and the city's Department of Health on the trans fat issue. The worry here is the lack of the proper outreach to local restaurants and the short implementation phase-in with the Department's regulatory move.
As Crain's says, the Alliance's Richard Lipsky has told law makers that the restaurants outside Manhattan are "fuzzy" on Dr. Frieden's plan and; "What we're afraid of is that the educational effort that they'll undertake will be a $1,000 fine." We are hopeful that, with the council's intervention, we'll be able to get some better protections put into place.
Elsewhere, the NY Sun, in reporting on the mayor's gun summit, reiterates the fact that Chicago's Mayor Daley doesn't see eye to eye with Bloomberg on the issue of trans fat. The Alliance will be meeting with the DOH today on some unrelated issues regarding health policy and the supermarkets. We will, however, make overtures to the department in order to establish dialogue on the educational and outreach issues with trans fat and restaurants.
As Crain's says, the Alliance's Richard Lipsky has told law makers that the restaurants outside Manhattan are "fuzzy" on Dr. Frieden's plan and; "What we're afraid of is that the educational effort that they'll undertake will be a $1,000 fine." We are hopeful that, with the council's intervention, we'll be able to get some better protections put into place.
Elsewhere, the NY Sun, in reporting on the mayor's gun summit, reiterates the fact that Chicago's Mayor Daley doesn't see eye to eye with Bloomberg on the issue of trans fat. The Alliance will be meeting with the DOH today on some unrelated issues regarding health policy and the supermarkets. We will, however, make overtures to the department in order to establish dialogue on the educational and outreach issues with trans fat and restaurants.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Counciling the Trans Fat Ban
The NY Daily News is reporting today on the effort by the City Council to chime in (supersede?) on the Department of Health's initiative to ban trans fat. The bill, sponsored by Peter Vallone Jr., was endorsed by Health Committee chair Joel Rivera, who told the paper, "This is a major health crisis and discounting any worthy ideas could potentially add to the issue."
As the News reports restaurant groups would rather see the council weigh-in on this issue because the legislative process offers opponents a better opportunity to help craft a bill that would be more considerate of all of the difficulties that may confront the industry in making the transition to other cooking oils.
As the DOH initiative currently stands there is a great deal of uncertainty about whether the restaurants in the outer boroughs (5,000 Latino owned establishments alone) have been adequately informed about the proposed ban. Without the proper information the proposed 6 month implementation period is simply too short and is just one more way for the DOH to violate the city's small restaurants.
This is not just the usual alarmist chatter. As the figures sent to us by the New York State Restaurant Association's Chuck Hunt indicate, the cash cow references that we have made are not exaggerated. In the first six months of this year the Health Department has collected over $10 million in fines from city restaurants. In May, June and July, the daily average fine collection was $109,460. That's not a cow, it's a whole herd!
And for those of you who think that is is some indication of a vigilant campaign to protect the public health, we suggest that you sit for a couple of hours with Hunt or Sung Soo Kim of the Korean Small Business Service Center-or look up Howard Tisch in retirement in Florida from his decades of defending the supermarket industry against consumer affairs fines-these guys will set you straight on how the mission to protect public health is subverted by the more compelling need to extract hard earned dollars from retailers and restaurant owners. Clearly, trans fat banning will just be another quiver in the DOH collection bow apparatus.
As the News reports restaurant groups would rather see the council weigh-in on this issue because the legislative process offers opponents a better opportunity to help craft a bill that would be more considerate of all of the difficulties that may confront the industry in making the transition to other cooking oils.
As the DOH initiative currently stands there is a great deal of uncertainty about whether the restaurants in the outer boroughs (5,000 Latino owned establishments alone) have been adequately informed about the proposed ban. Without the proper information the proposed 6 month implementation period is simply too short and is just one more way for the DOH to violate the city's small restaurants.
This is not just the usual alarmist chatter. As the figures sent to us by the New York State Restaurant Association's Chuck Hunt indicate, the cash cow references that we have made are not exaggerated. In the first six months of this year the Health Department has collected over $10 million in fines from city restaurants. In May, June and July, the daily average fine collection was $109,460. That's not a cow, it's a whole herd!
And for those of you who think that is is some indication of a vigilant campaign to protect the public health, we suggest that you sit for a couple of hours with Hunt or Sung Soo Kim of the Korean Small Business Service Center-or look up Howard Tisch in retirement in Florida from his decades of defending the supermarket industry against consumer affairs fines-these guys will set you straight on how the mission to protect public health is subverted by the more compelling need to extract hard earned dollars from retailers and restaurant owners. Clearly, trans fat banning will just be another quiver in the DOH collection bow apparatus.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Fat Ban Fried
In today's NY Sun the paper writes about the concern among non-English speaking restaurant owners that the proposed ban on trans fat was poorly advertised in the neighborhood eateries and that the current implementation schedule is too swift. As the head of the Latino Restaurant Association points out, "None of my members received letters...What will happen is a lot of my members will be targeted, will be ticketed as cash cows."
Precisely so, yet, according to the NY Daily News, the Health Department said that "materials about trans fat were widely distributed in several languages." One wonders where this wide circulation occurred, perhaps in the circular file.
As the Alliance's Richard Lipsky told the News, "The small restaurants are going to be hit with an avalanche of fines." There is a need for the city to slow this process up and begin to engage in as dialogue with the industry so that there can be the development of a public private partnership in the promotion of healthier eating. The issuance of edicts with the full force of law is much too premature and is counterproductive; as well as it is injurious to the small business community.
When DOH wanted to promote low fat milk in low income areas it began an outreach program with the city's bodegas that should be seen as a model of the kind of partnership we're referring to. Take our word for it, Dr. Frieden, the outreach effort was not sufficient and this current implementation process needs to be re-thought.
Precisely so, yet, according to the NY Daily News, the Health Department said that "materials about trans fat were widely distributed in several languages." One wonders where this wide circulation occurred, perhaps in the circular file.
As the Alliance's Richard Lipsky told the News, "The small restaurants are going to be hit with an avalanche of fines." There is a need for the city to slow this process up and begin to engage in as dialogue with the industry so that there can be the development of a public private partnership in the promotion of healthier eating. The issuance of edicts with the full force of law is much too premature and is counterproductive; as well as it is injurious to the small business community.
When DOH wanted to promote low fat milk in low income areas it began an outreach program with the city's bodegas that should be seen as a model of the kind of partnership we're referring to. Take our word for it, Dr. Frieden, the outreach effort was not sufficient and this current implementation process needs to be re-thought.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Lipsky's "Moxie" on Wal-Mart
In today's Rockland Journal News the paper editorializes on the Wal-Mart $4 prescription drug plan and the paper opines that this is just the kind of thing that makes it so difficult to fight the giant retailer. No matter that the company's growth is at the expense of its low-paid employees and the small businesses that it eliminates, the fact that it can deliver lower prices fuels its metastization.
The News does, however, give kudos to the Alliance and Richard Lipsky for their fighting spirit in the face of the low price mantra; "Frankly, you can only admire the moxie associated with such a tough sell..." On the other hand, we have found that this has not been such a tough sell in any number of neighborhoods where we have successfully organized against the Walmonster.
Which brings us to the Monsey Wal-Mart plan. One of the key issues here is the traffic and its attendant dangers on Route 59 and assorted side roads around the proposed site. These dangers were brought home last Friday night when a Monsey mother of three was run down and killed. With an additional six million cars a year on area roads as a result of the Wal-Mart (should it be built), what happened Friday will sadly be repeated with all too much frequency.
Put very simply: The Route 58 corridor is simply too crowded and dangerous for a Wal-Mart to be built at the proposed location. Monsey doesn't need moxie to say NO! to this bad idea.
The News does, however, give kudos to the Alliance and Richard Lipsky for their fighting spirit in the face of the low price mantra; "Frankly, you can only admire the moxie associated with such a tough sell..." On the other hand, we have found that this has not been such a tough sell in any number of neighborhoods where we have successfully organized against the Walmonster.
Which brings us to the Monsey Wal-Mart plan. One of the key issues here is the traffic and its attendant dangers on Route 59 and assorted side roads around the proposed site. These dangers were brought home last Friday night when a Monsey mother of three was run down and killed. With an additional six million cars a year on area roads as a result of the Wal-Mart (should it be built), what happened Friday will sadly be repeated with all too much frequency.
Put very simply: The Route 58 corridor is simply too crowded and dangerous for a Wal-Mart to be built at the proposed location. Monsey doesn't need moxie to say NO! to this bad idea.
Trans Fat Ban Questioned
In today's NY Post the paper writes on the difference of opinion between Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor Daley of Chicago on the issue of trans fat. In an interview with PBS Daley told the viewers that if we banned the substance we'd all soon, "be eating carrots and tofu."
The Post also points out that while the National Academies' Institute of Medicine found that there were no safe levels of trans fat a ban on it would be "impractical" because trans fats are in so many different types of food. The NYC Department of Health is holding a hearing next Monday on a proposal to ban trans fat.
Our concern at the Alliance is not related to the scientific underpinning of the proposed ban. We're more worried about the impact that the proposal will have on the city's neighborhood restaurants, many of whom, at least according to our initial inquiries, haven't even heard of the ban. Don't forget, the city has thousands of restaurant owners who are not English fluent and whose primary source of information is the non-English media.
We'd like to see the proposal go through a more thorough vetting process whereby the DOH conducts a full "environmental review" of the proposal, one that would gauge the level of trans fat use in the boroughs' eateries as well as the cost of eliminating the substance for the businesses that are impacted.
This kind of process, needless to say, is better when coordinated with the legislative review procedures of the City Council- where a full set of hearings is conducted and where restaurant owners are given the chance to talk directly to the elected officials that represent their neighborhoods. The Council should press the mayor to collaborate here so that this proposal doesn't unfairly impact struggling neighborhood entrepreneurs.
The Post also points out that while the National Academies' Institute of Medicine found that there were no safe levels of trans fat a ban on it would be "impractical" because trans fats are in so many different types of food. The NYC Department of Health is holding a hearing next Monday on a proposal to ban trans fat.
Our concern at the Alliance is not related to the scientific underpinning of the proposed ban. We're more worried about the impact that the proposal will have on the city's neighborhood restaurants, many of whom, at least according to our initial inquiries, haven't even heard of the ban. Don't forget, the city has thousands of restaurant owners who are not English fluent and whose primary source of information is the non-English media.
We'd like to see the proposal go through a more thorough vetting process whereby the DOH conducts a full "environmental review" of the proposal, one that would gauge the level of trans fat use in the boroughs' eateries as well as the cost of eliminating the substance for the businesses that are impacted.
This kind of process, needless to say, is better when coordinated with the legislative review procedures of the City Council- where a full set of hearings is conducted and where restaurant owners are given the chance to talk directly to the elected officials that represent their neighborhoods. The Council should press the mayor to collaborate here so that this proposal doesn't unfairly impact struggling neighborhood entrepreneurs.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Post Up for Clubs
In today's NY Post the paper editorializes against the proposal, advanced by the Bloomberg administration, that would allow the city to shut down a club for two violent incidents or for two violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. The Post's key point: "Let's be clear: Mayor Mike should go very slow before burdening one of the city's most important industries with more regulations."
The paper goes on to indicate that the harsher regulations could make it very difficult for new clubs to start up and, in the view of the Alliance, would send a big "not in New York" signal to clubowners who would begin to look for more hospitable venues to invest their money in (something which is already happening because of the new SLA crackdown). As the Post highlights this is no way to treat an industry that generates roughly $700,000,000 in tax revenues every year.
The Post hits on another key issue when it indicates that the proposed regs would treat the
clubs as presumed guilty if an untoward incident occurred-something that bars and clubs all over the city are experiencing at present when they call the police to help quell potential trouble. As David Rabin is quoted saying in today's editorial, "Why on earth would I call the police ever again if I'm risking my entire business?"
The paper goes on to say that the clubs need to be more proactive in order to avoid draconian measures, yet it leaves out the most significant variable in the entire equation-the role of the police. Nothing will be done to really create a safer club atmosphere unless the cops begin to treat the industry as "one of the city's most important" ones. The mayor's proposed crackdown should not make anyone sanguine that this will happen soon.
The paper goes on to indicate that the harsher regulations could make it very difficult for new clubs to start up and, in the view of the Alliance, would send a big "not in New York" signal to clubowners who would begin to look for more hospitable venues to invest their money in (something which is already happening because of the new SLA crackdown). As the Post highlights this is no way to treat an industry that generates roughly $700,000,000 in tax revenues every year.
The Post hits on another key issue when it indicates that the proposed regs would treat the
clubs as presumed guilty if an untoward incident occurred-something that bars and clubs all over the city are experiencing at present when they call the police to help quell potential trouble. As David Rabin is quoted saying in today's editorial, "Why on earth would I call the police ever again if I'm risking my entire business?"
The paper goes on to say that the clubs need to be more proactive in order to avoid draconian measures, yet it leaves out the most significant variable in the entire equation-the role of the police. Nothing will be done to really create a safer club atmosphere unless the cops begin to treat the industry as "one of the city's most important" ones. The mayor's proposed crackdown should not make anyone sanguine that this will happen soon.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Bottle Bill Threat
Today's Crain'$ Insider is reporting that supporters of expanding the bottle bill are upbeat about their chances considering the fact that Eliot Spitzer has publicly supported the measure as Attorney General. They are probably right to be optimistic since Judy Enck, a long time bottle bill promoter, is Spitzer's environmental advisor.
The food and beverage folks have a great deal of work to do because if Spitzer puts the initiative into his first budget proposal it will be difficult for the industry to rely on the ability of Senate Majority Leader Bruno to stifle the measure.
The food and beverage folks have a great deal of work to do because if Spitzer puts the initiative into his first budget proposal it will be difficult for the industry to rely on the ability of Senate Majority Leader Bruno to stifle the measure.
Nightlife Hearing; The Threat and the Promise
Yesterday's hearing on four nightlife safety bills introduced at the City Council was a mixed bag for the industry. As the NY Daily News reports this morning there was some real movement evinced from the NYPD on the issue of Paid Detail. As the News points out, the department's government affairs representative, Susan Petito, told the council, "We're not prepared to take a position on it, however it'd something that we can further discuss."
The sentiment in favor of utilizing off-duty cops was echoed by Public Safety Committee Chair, Peter Vallone Jr., who said that there was no legal barrier to the use of these officers. Vallone cited the language of the SLA's recent legal opinion that said, "In addition, trade/neighborhood associations may-if permissible under local law-contract with police departments to have on-duty officers provide security for a particular area."
There is clearly room here to get a compromise since the major hang-ups, at least publicly, seem to revolve around language and definition (Off or on duty is a semantic distinction as far as the industry is concerned). The article in this morning's NY Sun also underscored the point, saying that Petito had apparently "opened the door" for the eventual deployment of cops in nightlife areas.
More ominously, however, was the administration's proposal to toughen the nuisance abatement law-making two violations grounds for a license revocation. This was the headline in the NY Post this morning and the main thrust of the paper's story (for some reason the paper's website is still posting yesterday's news so we can link the story now). This, as NYNA' David Rabin points out, will only make nightlife less safe because it will make clubs even more reluctant to call the cops if there is trouble. In the past, such a call for police intervention has led to the citing of the business for "unsafe premise."
Clearly, the proposed action by the NYPD, which would need council approval, belies any willingness on the part of NYPD to work cooperatively with the nightlife industry. It appears that the desire to enforce, rather than partner cooperatively, is still in the forefront of the police minsdset. Unless this changes the ability of the city to create a safer nightlife climate will be seriously in jeopardy.
The sentiment in favor of utilizing off-duty cops was echoed by Public Safety Committee Chair, Peter Vallone Jr., who said that there was no legal barrier to the use of these officers. Vallone cited the language of the SLA's recent legal opinion that said, "In addition, trade/neighborhood associations may-if permissible under local law-contract with police departments to have on-duty officers provide security for a particular area."
There is clearly room here to get a compromise since the major hang-ups, at least publicly, seem to revolve around language and definition (Off or on duty is a semantic distinction as far as the industry is concerned). The article in this morning's NY Sun also underscored the point, saying that Petito had apparently "opened the door" for the eventual deployment of cops in nightlife areas.
More ominously, however, was the administration's proposal to toughen the nuisance abatement law-making two violations grounds for a license revocation. This was the headline in the NY Post this morning and the main thrust of the paper's story (for some reason the paper's website is still posting yesterday's news so we can link the story now). This, as NYNA' David Rabin points out, will only make nightlife less safe because it will make clubs even more reluctant to call the cops if there is trouble. In the past, such a call for police intervention has led to the citing of the business for "unsafe premise."
Clearly, the proposed action by the NYPD, which would need council approval, belies any willingness on the part of NYPD to work cooperatively with the nightlife industry. It appears that the desire to enforce, rather than partner cooperatively, is still in the forefront of the police minsdset. Unless this changes the ability of the city to create a safer nightlife climate will be seriously in jeopardy.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Information Session Set for Monsey Wal-Mart
As the Rockland Journal News is reporting today, there will be an information session on the proposed Monsey Wal-Mart for next Thursday at Spring Valley Village Hall beginning at 7:30 in the evening. The meeting, sponsored by the Alliance and Legislator Ellen Jaffee, will focus on "The High Cost of Low Prices," and get into the economic and social costs that are not always apparent to the bargain hunters.
As the paper informs this morning, the Town of Ramapo has mandated a full environmental and economic impact analysis from the developer and it is expected that all of the required documentation will be submitted to the Town in the next few weeks. In what has to be described as a fatuous statement Jerrold Berlingham, managing director of National Realty who is developing the site , told the News, "We're pleased with the results of the studies we're doing...The business of the shopping center is to have anchor tenants that support smaller business."
If true, than we'd have to assume that the developer has decided not to put Wal-Mart into the site. After all, no box retailer does a better job at eliminating smaller competitors than the Walmonster. Berlingham's pleasure at the results of the data that his company commissioned, comically underscores our point about the poor methodology in this kind of land use issue- where the folks with the vested interest are assigned to generate the information for the Town to evaluate.
National Realty will have its own informational meeting in early November where it will unveil the results of its studies. As Berlingham remarks, with no apparent irony, "I find it difficult to have a meeting without any of these studies." Which is precisely why Legislator Jaffee has written the State DOT to request that they monitor any data submitted to Ramapo. Wal-Mart-driven stats are simply unreliable lowballing and there is a pressing need for an impartial evaluation.
As the paper informs this morning, the Town of Ramapo has mandated a full environmental and economic impact analysis from the developer and it is expected that all of the required documentation will be submitted to the Town in the next few weeks. In what has to be described as a fatuous statement Jerrold Berlingham, managing director of National Realty who is developing the site , told the News, "We're pleased with the results of the studies we're doing...The business of the shopping center is to have anchor tenants that support smaller business."
If true, than we'd have to assume that the developer has decided not to put Wal-Mart into the site. After all, no box retailer does a better job at eliminating smaller competitors than the Walmonster. Berlingham's pleasure at the results of the data that his company commissioned, comically underscores our point about the poor methodology in this kind of land use issue- where the folks with the vested interest are assigned to generate the information for the Town to evaluate.
National Realty will have its own informational meeting in early November where it will unveil the results of its studies. As Berlingham remarks, with no apparent irony, "I find it difficult to have a meeting without any of these studies." Which is precisely why Legislator Jaffee has written the State DOT to request that they monitor any data submitted to Ramapo. Wal-Mart-driven stats are simply unreliable lowballing and there is a pressing need for an impartial evaluation.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Wal-Mart and Anti-Semitism
A few weeks ago Abe Stauber, the head of the Ramapo Jewish Chamber of Commerce wrote an Op-ed piece for the Journal News of Rockland on the feared impact of Wal-Mart on his Monsey community. Stauber felt that the combination of traffic, crime and effects on neighborhood business would add up to a big negative for his Monsey.
This is a fair opinion, one that you might disagree with, but fair nevertheless since it is held by millions of Americans in small towns and large cities all over this country. Which is why we were so appalled by the response to Stauber's essay in a letter in this morning's Journal News. It was so offensive that we wonder whether the paper printed it precisely in order to expose its blatant anti-Semitic bile.
The letter, written by one Robert Smith of Montebello, starts by saying-quite adroitly given his animus-that he just wants to "call a spade a spade" (thankfully he wasn't talking about Spring Valley here). He goes on to tell the paper's readers that, "It is an ultra-Orthodox community trying to keep everyone else away."
Now Abe Stauber is an Orthodox Jew but t o say that his opinion reflects the monolithic view of all of that community-and to stigmatize it in this way-demonstrates the vicious bias of Mr. Smith. Forget the fact that the Tottenville community in Staten Island felt the same, as did hundreds of others just like it that have said, "NO" to Wal-Mart all over the country.
What Smith does is to attempt to take the legitimate concerns about Wal-Mart and transpose them into a peculiar feature of an insular (and selfish) community. After all, why would Smith ask rhetorically, "Now I ask you, Mr. Stauber, if the proposal was for a 216,00 square-foot Yeshiva, would it even be an issue?"
Now there could be at least twenty other kinds of development that Stauber and others in Monsey might prefer over the Wal-Mart, yet Smith is compelled to use the invidious Yeshiva example to make his jaundiced point. Smith is entitled to his opinion on Wal-Mart, and if he feels that it will "benefit everyone in our community" he can certainly make the case as strongly as his somewhat limited intellect enables him to do.
Making this dispute all about the Orthodox in Monsey has no place in the debate over the merits or demerits of the Walmonster. The proponents of the store do their cause a major disservice when they stoop to anti-Semitic vitriol.
This is a fair opinion, one that you might disagree with, but fair nevertheless since it is held by millions of Americans in small towns and large cities all over this country. Which is why we were so appalled by the response to Stauber's essay in a letter in this morning's Journal News. It was so offensive that we wonder whether the paper printed it precisely in order to expose its blatant anti-Semitic bile.
The letter, written by one Robert Smith of Montebello, starts by saying-quite adroitly given his animus-that he just wants to "call a spade a spade" (thankfully he wasn't talking about Spring Valley here). He goes on to tell the paper's readers that, "It is an ultra-Orthodox community trying to keep everyone else away."
Now Abe Stauber is an Orthodox Jew but t o say that his opinion reflects the monolithic view of all of that community-and to stigmatize it in this way-demonstrates the vicious bias of Mr. Smith. Forget the fact that the Tottenville community in Staten Island felt the same, as did hundreds of others just like it that have said, "NO" to Wal-Mart all over the country.
What Smith does is to attempt to take the legitimate concerns about Wal-Mart and transpose them into a peculiar feature of an insular (and selfish) community. After all, why would Smith ask rhetorically, "Now I ask you, Mr. Stauber, if the proposal was for a 216,00 square-foot Yeshiva, would it even be an issue?"
Now there could be at least twenty other kinds of development that Stauber and others in Monsey might prefer over the Wal-Mart, yet Smith is compelled to use the invidious Yeshiva example to make his jaundiced point. Smith is entitled to his opinion on Wal-Mart, and if he feels that it will "benefit everyone in our community" he can certainly make the case as strongly as his somewhat limited intellect enables him to do.
Making this dispute all about the Orthodox in Monsey has no place in the debate over the merits or demerits of the Walmonster. The proponents of the store do their cause a major disservice when they stoop to anti-Semitic vitriol.
Monday, October 16, 2006
More Focus On Healthy Eating
In today's NY Sun there's an article on a Harlem charter school's effort to get youngsters to eat healthier meals. This school is doing a study, led by Marlene Schwartz of the Yale (Rudd) Center for Food Policy and Obesity, to determine the eating habits of the students in order to get better insight into how to improve these habits.
This is the kind of policy initiative that fits right into the discussion we've been having on obesity, health and food policy in New York City. It seems to us, especially in our role of representing food retailers, that these store owners can become key players in any effort to improve the healthy eating of New Yorkers. We will, however, always be skeptical (as the Sun's Andrew Wolf is also today) about heavy-handed government regulation in this, or in any other area.
This is the kind of policy initiative that fits right into the discussion we've been having on obesity, health and food policy in New York City. It seems to us, especially in our role of representing food retailers, that these store owners can become key players in any effort to improve the healthy eating of New Yorkers. We will, however, always be skeptical (as the Sun's Andrew Wolf is also today) about heavy-handed government regulation in this, or in any other area.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Towards a Healthy Food Policy
The controversy that was unleashed when Councilman Joel Rivera mused about using zoning to restrict the proliferation of fast food outlets has tended to obscure the compelling issue of the availability of healthy food alternatives in the neighborhoods that Rivera was focusing on. It is an issue that Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez has tried to address with her initiative on "healthy bodegas."
There is an extremely provocative policy paper written by JC Dwyer that takes a look at the anomalous incidence of poverty and obesity in East Harlem. Dwyer does focus some attention on the role of fast food but goes on to take a long look at the lifestyles and attitudes of the people of East Harlem as well as the availability of health food options.
This is something that is also looked at by City Limits in its mapping of grocery stores and McDonalds in the city. While we would disagree with some of the superficial policy analysis in the Dwyer piece (in particular the comparison of East Harlem with the Upper East Side), it does have the merit of highlighting an important issue that deserves the attention of policy makers.
It is precisely why the NYC Department of Health has launched its program to encourage bodegas to offer vegetables and low fat milk to its customers (what the Velasquez initiative tries to incentivize). Clearly, the availability of healthy food is also the impetus behind Speaker Quinn's greenmarket proposal. As we have already argued, there is a better policy approach to address this problem: the building of more supermarket outlets and the encouragement of the existing store owners to work to provide healthier eating options.
Which is also a potential role for the nascent Health Corps that Rivera has been championing. The HC, situated currently in five city high schools, could potentially play an important educational and activist role in the community. As crucial as availability of healthy food options certainly is, a sea change in local attitudes and behavior must also be effected if the folks are going to avail themselves of these alternatives.
There is an extremely provocative policy paper written by JC Dwyer that takes a look at the anomalous incidence of poverty and obesity in East Harlem. Dwyer does focus some attention on the role of fast food but goes on to take a long look at the lifestyles and attitudes of the people of East Harlem as well as the availability of health food options.
This is something that is also looked at by City Limits in its mapping of grocery stores and McDonalds in the city. While we would disagree with some of the superficial policy analysis in the Dwyer piece (in particular the comparison of East Harlem with the Upper East Side), it does have the merit of highlighting an important issue that deserves the attention of policy makers.
It is precisely why the NYC Department of Health has launched its program to encourage bodegas to offer vegetables and low fat milk to its customers (what the Velasquez initiative tries to incentivize). Clearly, the availability of healthy food is also the impetus behind Speaker Quinn's greenmarket proposal. As we have already argued, there is a better policy approach to address this problem: the building of more supermarket outlets and the encouragement of the existing store owners to work to provide healthier eating options.
Which is also a potential role for the nascent Health Corps that Rivera has been championing. The HC, situated currently in five city high schools, could potentially play an important educational and activist role in the community. As crucial as availability of healthy food options certainly is, a sea change in local attitudes and behavior must also be effected if the folks are going to avail themselves of these alternatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
