Roc-ing the Restaurants

In today's NY Post there is a column by TomEliot on the efforts by a group called the Restaurant Opportunities Center to gain influence (organize?) over the city's restaurant industry. The confusion here is a result of the tactics and philosophy of the group; it eschews the direct organization of the workers in favor of organized protests that attempt to discourage patronizing of the targeted restaurants.

As we would say in New York, however, "not for nothing." It appears, at least according to the Post account, that the group will stop its protests if it is paid enough to simply go away. Even more disturbing is the philosophy of ROC's leader, a young woman by the name of Saru Jayaraman; "essentially she says she wants to eliminate capitalism from the restaurant industry."

ROC claims that it wants to unionize the non-union segment of the industry but so far it has unionized zilch and has no standing with the NLRB. We wonder what Local 6 has to say about all of this "organizing?' What we do know is that we don't need social conscience leeches like Jayaraman attacking the productive segments of our city's economy while contributing nothing themselves to the well-being of New Yorkers.

Healthy Bodegas and the Health Corps

We met with the Department of health last week to discuss thee "Healthy Bodega Initiative," a program that is designed to create greater access to healthier food choices for the city's low income shoppers. In order to make the program successful it is important that the stores themselves become aware of the importance of participation; and that it becomes worthwhile that they join in with the city in the effort.

That is why we were joined at the meeting by Jose Fernandez, the head of the Bodega Association. Fernandez understands that it is important that his stores collaborate with the city and the health advocates in the communities that the stores serve. It not only can create good will for the bodegas, it can also generate increased store traffic if the initiative is structured in the right way.

In order for that to happen, however, it is crucial that the folks in the neighborhoods become more aware of the need to choose healthier products to consume. This demand side of the equation is where the Health Corps comes in, and why Michele Bouchard, the group's new CEO was also present at the meeting last week.

The Health Corps is a school-based program that is designed to generate a health awareness and activism in New York City high schoolers. Already located in seven schools, the program is geared to expand into an additional twenty high schools in the Fall of 2007. The one missing ingredient in the HC curriculum was a methodology of community outreach; something that would enable the volunteers to get their message out into the neighborhoods where they live.

Creating a Health Corps/Bodega Association/Department of Health collaboration will give the Health Corps kids the opportunity to effect real world change by encouraging their fellow students, family members and neighbors, to purchase the healthier items that the local bodegas will be carrying. Once consumer demand is generated the stores will become enthusiastic partners as participation becomes a profit center for them.

In addition, we will also be meeting with the Affinity Health Plan folks to discuss an incentive program for consumers to purchase fruits, vegetables, and other healthier items. This program is envisioned to resemble the WIC voucher program and would give consumers a financial incentive to purchase the good stuff, and an incentive of course for the stores to stock all of the healthier products.

Barclays Redux

In today's NY Times the paper gets around to talking about the Barclays beef in the Atlantic Yards naming rights controversy. It begins to look more and more like we were correct when we observed that the moral outrage is more about politics and money. On the politics side the controversy allows the fight over the merits of the overall project to be kept alive in the public domain.

On the money side we have the acquisitive Roger Green who continues to use the controversy for a less noble purpose. As he told the Times, "At least as a point of negotiation...we should seek more." Similarly, newly elected assemblyman Jeffries opined that all options should remain open but "Barclays compensating the community for the wrongs" of the slave trade should be on the table.

Clearly, as is pointed out in the paper by Roger himself, if we excluded all of the companies that participated in the slave trade there would barely be a handful of firms left. Indeed, as an expert cited by the Times points out, the Barclays played a relatively minor role in the slave trade and anyone around in the 18Th century couldn't avoid having at least some tangential relationship-"either directly or indirectly"-to this economic reality.

So we would hope that the critics who have rushed into this whole dispute would take a deep breathe and realize that their remarks are tendentious, and are only designed to revive the dead horse that they have tried to ride in on. Like, Barbaro, however, they have been euthanized.

Blight? In the Eyes of the Beholder

The NY Sun is reporting that Columbia University has hired an outside consultant to demonstrate that the area in West Harlem that is in the line of their expansion is "blighted." The designation would pave the way for the use of eminent domain to oust the property holders that are unwilling to unload their land to the university.

In response, Norman Seigel, who represents the owners, says that he will challenge any such designation in court and that is there is blight in the area, "...it's been caused by Columbia." That all may be true and we support all of Norman's legal efforts but, regardless of the legal issues here. it still remains true that the Columbia plan is a failed plan because of its failure to address some of the compelling needs in the community.

Put simply, the plan is good for Columbia and any other benefits are collateral and not integral to the plan's features. This plan, then fails politically and the elected officials involved need to get cooking here if they are going to fulfill their representative function. After all, the expansion plan contradicts in total the community planning board's 197-A plan.

It's hard to see how the city can allow the university to develop 18 acres in Manhattan without any affordable housing, and the so-called development corporation that was set up to negotiate a CBA is appearing more and more to be a Trojan Horse with General Masyr leading the army of appeasers.

Spitzer to Tribes: "Show Me the Money"

In what feels like a breathe of fresh air to those of us who have been fighting on this issue for years, it is being reported today in the NY Times that Governor Spitzer, affirming what he told us in private over a year ago, will move swiftly to collect up to $200 million dollars in sales taxes "that the state says is owed by Indian tribes for businesses on their reservations." At least someone isn't afraid of "Indian violence."

It appears to us, given the figures that we have seen, that this revenue is actually considerably higher than $200 million, and there will also be a boost in sales tax as consumers return to the upstate stores that they abandoned as the state continued to raise taxes while refusing to enforce the law against the tribes. It will be interesting to see how the Indians respond to all this, but we will be glad to see someone else on the defensive for a change.

Winning Hearts and Stomachs

The public health community, aided and abetted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and an army of tort lawyers, doesn't really like the fast food industry. They see the McDonalds, Burger Kings, Wendys and KFCs as part of an evil unhealthy empire-and there is no question that they look down on the customers of these food outlets. They see the customers as the unenlightened and unwashed, dim bulbs badly in need of the assistance of their betters.

This underlying disdain and antipathy is what is behind the effort to force the fast food chains to post calorie labels on all of their menu and menu boards, an idea that could only be conceived by folks who never have owned a business, having spent their entire lives in the pursuit of a health nirvana for the less well-informed among us. They are part of a mindset that believes, just as the philosopher Rousseau did, that sometimes you just have to "force people to be free."

Which is why it is so refreshing to read the piece in today's Washington Post by Sebastian Mallaby. Mallaby goes into an in-depth evaluation of the response of McDonalds to a business downturn in 2002: "Besieged by its critics, the company suffered its first financial loss in 2002, and for a moment its hegemony seemed fragile. But then the empire struck back. After 44 consecutive months of sales growth McDonalds serves 6 million more customers a day than it did four years ago."

Why is this so? It did so because, unlike government that tends to reward failure, it responded swiftly to its critics and revamped its operations. And the company also did something that reflects the fact that it listens to its customers, especially when it comes to health; "It has listened to its health critics and adapted: it sold 304 million pounds of mixed greens in 2005, and the U.S. operation claims to be the nation's largest purchaser of apples."

And the company, just like most of its fast food cousins, provides extensive nutritional information to its customers. It is in this context that the silliness (if not so counterproductive and expensive) of the NYC DOH edict on menu labeling needs to be understood. Instead of the creative response of the private sector we are treated to the one size fits all dictum of the health commissars-taking their marching orders from those enemies of free enterprise (called capitalism in those quarters) at the CSPI.

Once again, the city's response to the obesity epidemic is to embark on a course that will do nothing to change the behavior of New Yorkers but will severely impact on the ability of the industry to be as productive as it can be. Make no mistake about it, the Department's proposal will cost independent franchise owners in the city millions of dollars in compliance costs (something that wasn't even a cost-benefit factor for the department in its deliberation).

Think about this: If these costs force local outlets to lay off one employee apiece, or not hire a youngster from the community because of the need to constantly pay for menu changes as new offerings are brought to the public, than the DOH initiative will have laid off thousands of workers. And for what?

For an unproven health scheme for which there is no research to demonstrate its potential efficacy? This is the kind of irresponsibility that we have come to expect from the self-proclaimed public interest anti-capitalists, but not from a government agency that is trusted to steward the health of millions of New Yorkers.

Beating on Barclays

Trying to revive a dead horse for another beating, the Daily News' Michael O'Keefe goes after the Nets deal with Barclays Bank in today's paper. It appears that erstwhile Nets supporter and former assembly-felon Roger Green feels that the milions of dollars that the bank has pledged to the sports community is "inadequate." Really?

Let's not kid ourselves all of this blather is nothing more than a simple Jerry McGuire moment from those who see the possibility of more Jeffersons hitting the borough's pavements.. As Green told the News, "I think activists and elected officials need to present Forest City Ratner and Barclays with an agenda..." How's this for an agenda: Get a real job Roger.

Lights, Cameras and, Hopefully, Action

In today's NY Daily News the paper's Albor Ruiz calls for the re-institution of the city's Operation Safe Store program, an initiative that has been allowed to lapse by the NYPD. In his column he quotes the Jose Fernandez, the head of the Bodega Association, "Bodegas are under seige, and the city needs to join with the Bodega Association to expand the security camera program throughout the city."

It appears that the robbers are targeting those stores that they know are not being properly surveilled. One team of crooks is apparently responsible for a string of at least eleven heists. And, as Ruiz points out, "Miraculously, no injuries have been reported in any of the incidents. Three years ago, however, 12 store owners and employees were killed and if the city doesn't respond than this situation is likely to re-occur.

Uncorking the Bottles

As the NY Times reports this morning the governor seems hell bent on expanding the state's returnable container law, otherwise known as the bottle bill. The harbinger of the Spitzer position is his appointment of Judy Enck as "deputy secretary for the environment." As he told the Times, "an expanded program for refreshment bottles and cans" {refreshment?} is one of his key environmental priorities.

Now we know Ms. Enck very well having debated her all over the state 25 years ago when she was a representative of something called the Environmental Planning Lobby. From there she was promoted to "senior associate" for the environment at NYPIRG. So for the better part of three decades Enck has worked for advocacy groups that have a built-in bias against the private sector. Her appointment means that the governor may lack a certain sensitivity to the concerns of food retailers, but it certainly means that the bottle bill express has left the station.

Menu Labeling: Who's Behind the "Research?"

In doing an analysis of the public health research that the NYC Department of Health is relying on for its menu labeling advocacy, we came across the fact that the agency cites two co-authors (and only these two) no less than five times in its assertion that "leading experts" support "nutritional labeling." This research is the only research citation the agency gives us, but it also refers us to a "report" done by the advocacy Center for Science in the Public Interest that says that the public wants this information.

Is this the kind of "analysis" that a city agency feels justifies turning an entire industry upside-down? Even worse, in the body of the Department's notice, there is a chart that purports to show how menu labeling would work. Only thing wrong-it is exactly the chart that CSPI uses in its own propaganda.

Unfortunately the chart is a bogus rendition of the "simplicity" of calorie charting, and fails to highlight the vast diversity of menu offerings and the inescapable bewilderment that would emerge from any attempt to post on the complexity of this diversity of choices. After all, Starbucks has around 84,000 different drink choices.

The Department's reaction to this problem is to allow for the posting of a "range" of calories for, as an example, the twenty or so different burrito offerings at Taco Bell. This range posting, however, would be nothing but thoroughly confusing to any consumer (Perhaps 200-800 calories, and with the consumer no further enlightened about her particular choice). And this is true for every fast food restaurant.

Why is the DOH relying on the "research" of an anti-business "consumer" group, a reliance that it would never allow if the advocacy was coming from a business organization. This is all part of the ideologically-driven misconception that self-described "consumer" or "public interest" groups aren't as self-serving as any other special interest would be.

Which gets us to the two researchers that the Department relies on to indicate that the menu labeling regulation would be efficacious. In doing some research we found that one of the co-authors, Scott Burton is, of all things, the Sam Walton Chair of Marketing at the University of Arkansas. So is this a researcher that the New York City Council wants to rely on for a measure that will cost franchisees tens of thousands of dollars in unnecessary costs?

We're going to find out since it now appears that Councilman Joel Rivera's alternative bill, one that is less restrictive and more comprehensive at the same time, will be introduced at the next stated council meeting. Let the games begin!

Barclays Billingsgate

Errol Louis, picking up on our own comments this week on the faux ire over the historic sins of Barclays Bank, attacks the hysteria and opines that there are many large corporations whose past sins deserve opprobrium but whose present behavior no where near resembles anything in its sordid past. As Louis says, "I readily concede, and have no doubt, that Barclays -like many companies with household names-profited from an untold number of monstrous crimes over the centuries."(my emphasis)

But Louis goes on the point out that this "blood money" theme, precisely because it is so common, is a thin reed to use in the attack on the Nets arena naming rights deal; "JPMorgan Chase, for instance, has multiple shameful connections to the slave trade and the Holocaust." (as does IBM as we have noted) This is surely indicative of the last gasp nature of the AY opposition.

Bottles, Cans, Disposers and Food Stores

In today's edition of Crain's In$ider it is reported that Governor Spitzer has placed recycling bins all over the capitol, a move that some see as a harbinger of his support for an expanded bottle bill ("bigger and better" only for those who really don't care about the profitability of local food stores). Proponents of the measure, particularly the virulently anti-business NYPIRG, simply don't care about what kind of havoc this will cause to space strapped supermarkets in New York City.

Now we know all about the so-called limitation on redemption that the bill proposes for stores under a certain size and the measure also says that any store in New York City that can find a redemption center within a half mile can have its responsibilities waived under the act. Which is precisely our point. If redemption were profitable than we would have seen a proliferation of these redemption outlets all over the city.

It simply isn't under current regulations and the space and sanitary problems are manifest despite what the bogus "FAQ" put out by NYPIRG. After all what are we to make of its assertion that sanitation isn't an issue because "A survey of health departments in all ten states with bottle bills found no reported incidences of health code violations...due to deposit systems."

Really? Now just who would have "reported" anything related to a store's deposit system? Did NYPIRG survey any of the stores and inquire into their extra costs of sanitation? Did the group examine the relationship, particularly in New York City, between the existence of sweet residue in the deposit containers and an increase in rodent infestation?

Of course not, because when it comes to defending business the NYPIRG agenda is always on the other side. The same is true for its position on Intro 133, the pilot program for commercial food waste disposers. Here's a measure that will eliminate store-based food waste and will increase recycling at store level by 99%! Yet NYPIRG, more concerned for the flora and fauna in Jamaica Bay than the public health of black and Latino neighborhoods is opposed to this dramatic recycling initiative. Why? Because it would make stores more economically viable, a variable that is simply off the group's one-sided ideological radar.

One last point. In the NYPIRG FAQ there is talk about the compatibility of deposit systems with curbside collection. In trying to make the case for compatibility, however, the group does the opposite and argues persuasively for the elimination of curbside when it says, "Bottle bills are more effective at collecting recyclables than curbside programs, and at no cost to tax payers."

Aside from the fact that most tax payers are also beverage consumers and will surely pay the deposit "tax" incurred with the extra costs of collection (plus the added-on costs if the government "reclaims" the unclaimed deposits from beverage wholesalers), this argument needs to be examined further. We have been pointing out for at least sixteen years that a fully developed deposit-redemption center system (one that by-passes food retailer entirely) can and should replace the expensive and ineffective curbside system.

NYPIRG and the rest of the environmental lobby simply can't see its way past the ideological commitment it has to an anachronistic urban curbside collection program. A free-standing deposit system with adequate handling and collection fees built into the system, would create jobs and enhance recycling while at the same time enabling food stores to go back to what they do best: food retailing.

Bodega Roberries Redux

In a pattern that is a repeat of the spate of bodegas robberies and murders four years ago, the Bronx is experienced a new crime wave directed at the boroughs most vulnerable retailers. As the NY Daily News reported last week, "Bronx detectives are hoping that the public-and a fat reward-will help them collar a team of bodega bandits that have been grabbing cash and lottery tickets from terrorized store owners up and down the borough."

This renewed violence has led the Bodega Association to call a news conference tomorrow in front of a local Bronx bodega at 2460 Holland Avenue at 1:00 PM. The press conference will be joined by local council member James Vacca who has represented Bronx neighborhood for over twenty five years, first as District Manager of CB# 10, and now as the local councilman. The councilman has always been a staunch proponent of public safety and his presence is welcome.

What is also distressing in all of this is that it appears that the robbers are taking care to target the most vulnerable stores, those without surveillance cameras. This is particularly unfortunate because in 2002, on the heels of a bodega crime wave, the NYPD had launched "Operation Safe Store"-(Tienda Segura). This pilot program was experimenting with the installation of security cameras at selected stores all over the city. The police department investment was more than matched by a grant from the City Council and over fifty stores were equipped.

The results of the pilot were positive but the NYPD never followed up with any expansion of the program and because of that the council initiative was also allowed to lapse. So now we are faced with another crisis, and one that might have been avoided if the NYPD had followed up on the success of their own pilot program.

We should also never forget that the city's confiscatory cigarette tax, a hike 0f over 1800%, led to a decline in sales at local bodegas and other outlets that exceeded $250 million a year! It would be fair if the city that can so easily harm the profitability of local stores (the mayor called it a "minor economic issue," but we would call it legalized theft) could also find a way to protect beleaguered store owners for the illegal predators.

Taxing Public Safety at Wal-Mart

There is an instructive article in today's Rockland Journal News about the public safety issues at the Palisades Mall in the town of Clarkstown. It seems that Clarkstown supervisor Alex Gromack is asking Rockland's County Executive to rebate a considerably larger slice of the county's sales tax because, in Gromack's words, "The county doesn't spend a single cent on the mall, but we provide policing, building and fire inspection. Our tax payers pay for the mall being here."

Food for thought, no? Certainly something that the Town of Ramapo needs to consider when it tries to evaluate the worth of allowing Wal-Mart to build a giant super center on Route 59. It costs Clarkstown $3.3 million a year to police the mall. As police chief Noonan told the Journal News "there are thousands of arrests for white collar crimes" at the mall.

Imagine what the Wal-Mart super center will bring to then quietude of Monsey. Now Chief Noonan does reassure us that the Palisades Mall "does not have a lot of violent crime," but how much is a lot, especially for tranquil, law-abiding Monsey? All of this brings us back to our original point about Wal-Mart's "high cost of low prices." Too often policy makers only focus on the so-called benefits but overlook the considerable costs that Wal-Mart adds to a local community.

Neighborhood Health

In this week's Gotham Gazette there is a post done on the Department of Health's neighborhood-by-neighborhood health survey. As we have discussed in the past it is quite clear that certain areas of the city have more health challenges, especially when it comes to the obesity epidemic and its health related problems.

The existence of this health disparity provides the impetus to the DOH's healthy bodega initiative as well as for its anti-trans fat and menu labeling efforts. In addition, the naming of a food czar and the launching by Speaker Quinn of her greenmarkets program is instigated by these health data.

What is missing here is the kind of grass roots activism that government sponsored efforts so often ignore (the idea is what we can do for them). This is precisely why the Health Corps is such a welcome idea. since it looks to activate the young people in the community to take the lead on creating healthier attitudes and life styles. Access to fruits and veggies is important, but wanting to eat them is an even more crucial variable in the war on obesity.

Food for the Thoughtless

The city, in a move that we felt was predictable all along, has hired a 31 year old "advocate for the poor" to be its first Coordinator of Food Policy. As the NY Times reports this morning, Benjamin Thomases will oversee a task force that will supervise a variety of city agencies in the effort to insure that poor folks get "nutritious food."

Mr. Thomases will also oversee the city's plan to expand its healthy bodega program, one that the Alliance has fully supported, to 1,000 grocery stores. However, the city is setting up its task force without the inclusion of any of the representatives of New York's food retailers or wholesalers in the mix. This is a huge mistake.

Just as we saw with the failure of the DOH's "outreach" to local restaurants on its trans fat initiative, city programs in the area of food distribution and retailing are doomed to fall on their face without the active participation of those who understand the economics of the system.

Even more ominous, is that the exclusion of the industry portends policy initiatives that will restrict the productivity of local business in the name of "health." Having even well-meaning and competent people who are not knowledgeable about the economics of the food business-and we're sure that Mr. Thomases is quite a competent person in many ways- make food policies, is a recipe for disaster.

AY Opponents Bank Shot

The attempt to delegitimize the Atlantic Yards project continues apace with today's story by the Daily News' Michael O'Keeke on the manufactured furor over the checkered history of Barclays Bank. And just as we said already, it's amusing how some folks take everything that is printed by certain media outlets as gospel.

Corporate histories are not always pristine. The advent of capitalism is often accompanied by events that in retrospect we find to be abhorrent-especially as perspectives mature and human right concerns become more central to our sensibilities. That being said, the current policies of Barclays bear little resemblance to the bank's past posture and to use the past to stigmatize the naming rights deal is a real rasping at straws; a grasping that glosses over the real good that the deal will bring to the athletic groups in Brooklyn.

Acorn's Bertha Lewis captures some of this when she tells the paper, "Today's civil rights agenda is about building affordable housing so black and Latino families can have a place to live in Brooklyn..." Atlantic Yards will be a major cause of resurgence in downtown Brooklyn and a fabulous boon to the boroughs young people.

Columbia's Tarnished Gem

In today's NY Daily News the paper's Errol Louis takes Columbia University to task for its, "my way or the highway" approach to the development of West Harlem. Louis, a big supporter of the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, makes it clear that the attempt to steamroll property owners, like storage company owner Nick Sprayregen, is simply unnecessary.

As Louis points out, "In fact, it's not necessary for Columbia to strong-arm anybody. As developer Bruce Ratner proved with Atlantic Yards, an early round of talks with legitimate long-standing community leaders can calm fears and serve as an important gesture of good faith towards local residents." What this means is that, "Columbia should be engaged in active dialogue with Sprayregen..."

Instead, the university, along with the city planning department, is moving ahead to certify the Columbia expansion plan-initiating the hot-house Ulurp process atmosphere- before any real dialogue with the locals has taken place. "That means that neighborhood people will only have about nine months to arrive at whatever deal they can..."

On top of this, of course, is the fact that the Columbia plan does not include any affordable housing component, and instead will evict hundreds of current low-income tenants. The negotiations over a community benefits agreement need to be done prior to certification so that the full scope of the plan's benefits are understood and fully digested before the clock is started on ULURP.

If not, than the whole process becomes a bum's rush and ultimately, just as with the BTM deal in the Bronx, a charade. It's time for some of the local elected officials to step up top the plate and create the proper climate for negotiation.

Bogus Barclay Brouhaha

We have just received some criticism over our enthusiastic response to the announced partnership between the Brooklyn Nets and Barclays Bank. The criticism revolves around the bank's putative history. We say putative only because we don't accept on face value the statements of folks who have a vested interest in opposing anything FCRC does around Atlantic Yards.

Now the critics in question pointed to an article that was published by the virulently anti-Atlantic Yards Brooklyn Paper. The article's title speaks about "blood money" and the "fact" that Barclays was "founded on slave money." Now let's for arguments sake assume that at least some of the allegations are true. What do they mean for the bank's current mangement and corporate make-up?

There are many families, countries and corporations whose histories contain things that the current members or leaders would find abhorrent. We've read about the role that IBM played in the final solution; and, of course, there is the sordid history of Henry Ford and anti-Semitism. We have no doubt that the naming of the new arena, the Ford Arena, would have generated the same sanctimony from the arena's critics. With just as little justification.

The attempt, however, by the Brooklyn Paper to whip up a racial backlash in this matter is a new low even for this yellow journalistic enterprise. Its editorial in this regard, one that states that it is an insult for black Brooklynites to have to pass by this "slave founded business," is an exercise in demonization that is unfair to what the Barclays Bank stands for today.

If it were up to these folks, Barclays would be tarred and feathered for its past (assuming that all of the allegations hold up) and be ostracized from polite company. Overlooked is the bank's current corporate policies and its huge financial commitment to the kids of the borough. The only real question here is what this deal means for all of the young people who will benefit from the work of the Brooklyn Sports Alliance. Everything else is simply a bad faith smokescreen.

Columbia Comes to the Table

In today's NY Sun the paper reports on the beginning of negotiations between Columbia and a local LDC that has been established to work out a community benefits agreement with the university. Columbia's public statement indicated a desire to work with the community but as is always the case in these kinds of things, the devil is most certainly in the details.

The key lightening rod here it seems to us is the fact that the 18 acre expansion plan does not include any affordable housing, and in fact calls for the eviction of hundreds of low-income tenants. Another problematic feature here is the inclusion of attorney Jesse Masyr as the "pro bono" legal representative for the LDC. In a curious retainer letter with the group Masyr reserves the right to get paid at a later date by "unknown third parties." It would appear that the LDC will do as well with Masyr as the British did with Nevil Chamberlain.