In addition to the coverage in today's NY Sun, yesterday's press conference in support of a city council resolution that urges the US Senate to pass the King amendment, the measure that protects whistle blowers who report suspicious activity, also received good notice in today's SI Advance.
The Advance points out that all three of the SI members have signed on to the bill and that Vito Fosella, the congressman from the Island, is a strong supporter of the measure. In addition, John Catsimatidis' presence at the press conference, and his potential role as Republican mayoral candidate in 2009, is mentioned.
What needs to be done now, is for the reso's supporters to push Speaker Quinn to hold hearings on the measure in the Council's State and Federal Legislation Committee. So far, there is no indication of where Quinn stands on this important homeland security question.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
ESDC Shifts Gears on Eminent Domain?
In today's Crain's In$ider, the newsletter reports that new ESDC head Patrick Foye may be more coy on the use of eminent domain than his predecessor at the agency. As he told the Crain's breakfast yesterday, "'Taking someones property without their consent is a serious matter and should be a last resort,' especially when it's done for private and not government use..."
All of which creates an even more interesting situation with the issue of the expansion of Columbia University, an expansion that the university's president says, cannot be done without the exercise of eminent domain. Of course, this is simply self-serving drivel. Columbia has plenty of room in its 18 acre plan to grow without taking any private property whatsoever.
As the lobbyists for one of the major property owners threatened, we will be delighted to sit down with the University and with ESDC to explain just how expansion can move forward in collaboration with the property owners, all for the overall common good. We anticiapte making this case politically, and think that it would be in Columbia's interest to modify its serf-serving position.
All of which creates an even more interesting situation with the issue of the expansion of Columbia University, an expansion that the university's president says, cannot be done without the exercise of eminent domain. Of course, this is simply self-serving drivel. Columbia has plenty of room in its 18 acre plan to grow without taking any private property whatsoever.
As the lobbyists for one of the major property owners threatened, we will be delighted to sit down with the University and with ESDC to explain just how expansion can move forward in collaboration with the property owners, all for the overall common good. We anticiapte making this case politically, and think that it would be in Columbia's interest to modify its serf-serving position.
Whistling Past the Graveyard
The furor over the King whistle blower legislation found its way to City Hall yesterday as a resolution supporting the congressman's measure was introduced by Councilman Monseratte,. And, as the NY Sun reports, a press conference led by the councilman, was also held and was attended by New York business leader John Catsimatidis. Catsimatidis has taken out ads in support of King's initiative, a bill that needs Senate support to go into law, and was the impetus behind the resolution that was introduced yesterday.
In addition, the Republican minority leader of the Council, Jimmy Oddo of Staten Island, was joined on the steps of City Hall by his Republican colleague Vinnie Ignizio and Council Finance Chair David Weprin. Councilmen Recchia, Nelson and Gentile are also co-sponsoring the resolution and it is hoped that the measure will garner the backing of a majority of the body. It wil be intriguing to see what position the speaker takes on this issue.
An interesting feature of the Sun story is the fact that US Senator Charles Schumer announced that he "generally" is supportive of whistle blower protection, and that he would, "have to take a look" at the legislation. Senator Clinton's office was unavailable for comment. With the events of the Jersey Jihadists still fresh in our minds, it would seem that whistle blower protection should be a legislative priority for all New York lawmakers.
In addition, the Republican minority leader of the Council, Jimmy Oddo of Staten Island, was joined on the steps of City Hall by his Republican colleague Vinnie Ignizio and Council Finance Chair David Weprin. Councilmen Recchia, Nelson and Gentile are also co-sponsoring the resolution and it is hoped that the measure will garner the backing of a majority of the body. It wil be intriguing to see what position the speaker takes on this issue.
An interesting feature of the Sun story is the fact that US Senator Charles Schumer announced that he "generally" is supportive of whistle blower protection, and that he would, "have to take a look" at the legislation. Senator Clinton's office was unavailable for comment. With the events of the Jersey Jihadists still fresh in our minds, it would seem that whistle blower protection should be a legislative priority for all New York lawmakers.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Sustaining the Permanent Government
In their path breaking book on New York City government, The Abuse of Power, Jack Newfield and Paul Du Brul coined the phrase "permanent government." The term, devolved from the C. Wright Mills power elite concept, referred to the fact that this city's power elite was an intersection of government officials, lobbyists and real estate interests. While these authors may have gone a bit overboard in their denunciatory rhetoric, the permanent government concept retains its usefulness as an analytical tool.
We can get a glimpse of this power nexus in operation when we take a look at the proposed development of Willets Point.The development in question is analyzed by Tom Angotti in a post on the Gotham Gazette's website. In the Angotti discussion, he questions the concept of "sustainable development" when applied to the Iron Triangle project.
The problem here is that, in Angotti's words, "Sustainability should mean sustaining the economic livelihoods of people as well as preserving the environment. But under this plan, the thriving local economy in some immigrant communities in Queens could be overwhelmed by megaprojects and their corporate tenants."
Which gets us to the very heart of the Bloomberg notion of sustainability: sustaining the real estate interests that he sees as the economic backbone of his city. There is absolutely no idea here of sustaining, let alone nurturing, the small business entrepreneurs that make up the bulk of enterprise at the Point.
And then there is the congestion issue that Kermit the Mayor is wearing like a regular Johnny Appleseed. He envisions over 5,000 units of housing, and there's simply no way for the already overcrowded 7 line to accommodate these folks. Which means, at least until all of the transit improvements are actually in place, that the new Willets Point residents will take to the road.
This has been exactly our point about the mayor's congestion pricing plan. This enviro-chic proposal completely ignores the auto dependent development that the mayor continues to push in the outer boroughs. Angotti's end quote is worth reading: "Are megaprojects, like the one planned for Willets Point, consistent with the vision of sustainable development. Or would more modest efforts, aimed at nurturing existing neighborhoods like Corona, be more sustainable and cost-effective?"
We can get a glimpse of this power nexus in operation when we take a look at the proposed development of Willets Point.The development in question is analyzed by Tom Angotti in a post on the Gotham Gazette's website. In the Angotti discussion, he questions the concept of "sustainable development" when applied to the Iron Triangle project.
The problem here is that, in Angotti's words, "Sustainability should mean sustaining the economic livelihoods of people as well as preserving the environment. But under this plan, the thriving local economy in some immigrant communities in Queens could be overwhelmed by megaprojects and their corporate tenants."
Which gets us to the very heart of the Bloomberg notion of sustainability: sustaining the real estate interests that he sees as the economic backbone of his city. There is absolutely no idea here of sustaining, let alone nurturing, the small business entrepreneurs that make up the bulk of enterprise at the Point.
And then there is the congestion issue that Kermit the Mayor is wearing like a regular Johnny Appleseed. He envisions over 5,000 units of housing, and there's simply no way for the already overcrowded 7 line to accommodate these folks. Which means, at least until all of the transit improvements are actually in place, that the new Willets Point residents will take to the road.
This has been exactly our point about the mayor's congestion pricing plan. This enviro-chic proposal completely ignores the auto dependent development that the mayor continues to push in the outer boroughs. Angotti's end quote is worth reading: "Are megaprojects, like the one planned for Willets Point, consistent with the vision of sustainable development. Or would more modest efforts, aimed at nurturing existing neighborhoods like Corona, be more sustainable and cost-effective?"
Whistleblower Hero: Nadler Reconsiders
In today's NY Sun the paper's Russell Berman reports that Congressman Jerry Nadler, who originally voted against the King amendment, has now changed his position and will support the measure. As he told the Sun, "We want to encourage people to reprt what they think is suspicious..."
It turns out that the King motion to recommit, which led up to the passage of the amendment, was voted on part lines according to Naddler. Yet that doesn't explain why the bill was able to pass overwhelmingly in the Democrat-controlled House. In any case, the Nadler switch is good news, and hopefully is a harbinger of what the Senate will decide to do once the bill reaches it.
Sometime soon we hope, since the events over in New Jersey are a stark reminder of the threat that we are still living under. It is the kind of threat that demands citizen vigilance; and we were lucky that a Kinko's clerk was just that in the Garden State, because it was his alertness, as US Attorney Christopher Christie points out, that led to the successful foiling of this terror plot. As Christie told the News, "He deserves a lot of credit for coming forward and doing the right thing."
It turns out that the King motion to recommit, which led up to the passage of the amendment, was voted on part lines according to Naddler. Yet that doesn't explain why the bill was able to pass overwhelmingly in the Democrat-controlled House. In any case, the Nadler switch is good news, and hopefully is a harbinger of what the Senate will decide to do once the bill reaches it.
Sometime soon we hope, since the events over in New Jersey are a stark reminder of the threat that we are still living under. It is the kind of threat that demands citizen vigilance; and we were lucky that a Kinko's clerk was just that in the Garden State, because it was his alertness, as US Attorney Christopher Christie points out, that led to the successful foiling of this terror plot. As Christie told the News, "He deserves a lot of credit for coming forward and doing the right thing."
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Homeland Insecurity
Tomorrow at City Hall there will be a press conference in support of the so-called Peter King amendment. The King bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly, would immunize whistle blowers who report suspicious activities to the proper homeland security authorities. The press conference will highlight a resolution that is being introduced by Councilman Monseratte and six of his colleagues. The reso calls on the US Senate to follow the House's lead and create the immunity from lawsuits needed to insure that our citizens won't be intimidated in reporting untoward behavior.
What lends tomorrow's event greater poignancy is the breaking news of the foiling of the plot by six Islamic radicals to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. The key to the successful intervention was the alert behavior of a clerk at a local Fotomat who suspected that these folks may have been up to no good. He blew the whistle!-and now our servicemen and women are no longer threatened.
In order for New Yorkers and all Americans to remain safe we need for all of our citizens to be alert and vigilant. If they are afraid that they'll be forced to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees they just might decide to remain silent-and allow thousands of people to die as a result. The only thing perplexing in all of this is why some of our New York electeds don't get it.
What lends tomorrow's event greater poignancy is the breaking news of the foiling of the plot by six Islamic radicals to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. The key to the successful intervention was the alert behavior of a clerk at a local Fotomat who suspected that these folks may have been up to no good. He blew the whistle!-and now our servicemen and women are no longer threatened.
In order for New Yorkers and all Americans to remain safe we need for all of our citizens to be alert and vigilant. If they are afraid that they'll be forced to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees they just might decide to remain silent-and allow thousands of people to die as a result. The only thing perplexing in all of this is why some of our New York electeds don't get it.
Congestion Clouds Clear Thinking
There's an interesting post today on the Gotham Gazette website by Bruce Schaller in defense of the mayor's congestion pricing plan. Schaller, a transportation advisor, ventures into the political realm in his post today and foresees that New Yorkers will eventually buy into the mayor's scheme. Let's examine his prediction.
The major thrust of his argument is that once New Yorkers are apprised of the benefits of the plan they won't hesitate to sign on to the proposal; "As the debate continues, it is likely that New Yorkers will focus more on the benefits to them personally and the city at large." The problem with Schaller's assertion is that it is premised on his strong belief in a mass transportation ethos, and he is so convinced of the rectitude of his belief that he can't help but believe that his fellow citizens will follow in the path of righteousness.
What Schaller envisions is all of the wonderful things that the congestion tax revenue would subsidize ( money that, "would fund the $31 billion in transit projects"). It is literally a transportation advocates wet dream, a cornucopia of subway construction, bridge repair and infrastructure bolstering. As he points out, "Far more people will benefit from the mayor's plan than will be affected by the congestion fee."
Ah yes, but Bruce neglects an important axiom of politics, one that was articulated by Robert Dahl many years ago: "An intense minority will overwhelm an apathetic majority." There will be a passionate and intense opposition to the mayor's plan, and the majority of folks who would supposedly benefit from it may not be as susceptible, as Bruce is, to the putative future benefits.
In addition, there are a great number of cynical New Yorkers who will see the generation of this kind of money, and the creation of a "transportation financing authority," as a boondoggle in the making (And won't, we believe, see clearly the environmental benefits that Schaller does). Also, don't forget that most New Yorkers will be very lucky to live long enough to see any of these grandiose plans come to fruition.
Yet all of the questionable political musings are in fact a cover for the ideological-tax and spend-mindset that animates Schaller's arguments. He points out, tendentiously in our view, that "outer borough auto commuters tend to have higher incomes than subway commuters, so a fee that improves transit is actually more equitable than the current system. In fact, auto commuters who use the free bridges are being subsidized by transit users whose taxes pay for bridge reconstruction and maintenance. Is that equitable?"
Why yes, it is eminently equitable because, as Schaller indicates, the higher income folks are the ones coming in in this manner and it is their greater income generation that fuels the economic engine. Equity in this case is not encompassed in by a redistributive mentality, but by a system that innervates the most ambitious wealth generators (who in turn raise employment levels and incomes for the transit riders).
One final thought. Schaller concludes his piece by talking about the fact that "childhood asthma rates are four times higher in the city than nationally." In regards to the mayor's plan this is a classic straw man argument. The reason it is inheres in the glaring lacuna in the mayor's Utopian greening of New York proposal. The gap here devolves from the fact that the mayor fails to mention, not a single word, his five years of oute borough big box shopping center development that will add millions of more tons of CO2 emissions to the city's air.
What are we to make of the building of over 500,000 square feet of box store malls on the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market-the geographic area that has been labelled 'asthma alley'?" What about the expansion of Gateway Estates in Brooklyn, the mall that chokes the Belt Parkway every weekend? Exacerbating these developments, and don't forget Willets Point on the horizon, is the fact that they pull shoppers off of the neighborhood walk-to-shop areas that the mayor hasn't shown the slightest degree of appreciation for.
Any view of a sustainable New York that doesn't address these issues is not only a diluted one, it is also hypocritical, since the man spearheading PlaNYC is none other than Deputy Dan, the major cheerleader for all of the box store projects of his friend at Related, Steve Ross. So our view is that Schaller needs to get out more and get a better grip on the pulse of the city. We strongly believe that Anthony Weiner's political instincts are more prescient than BMT Bruce.
The major thrust of his argument is that once New Yorkers are apprised of the benefits of the plan they won't hesitate to sign on to the proposal; "As the debate continues, it is likely that New Yorkers will focus more on the benefits to them personally and the city at large." The problem with Schaller's assertion is that it is premised on his strong belief in a mass transportation ethos, and he is so convinced of the rectitude of his belief that he can't help but believe that his fellow citizens will follow in the path of righteousness.
What Schaller envisions is all of the wonderful things that the congestion tax revenue would subsidize ( money that, "would fund the $31 billion in transit projects"). It is literally a transportation advocates wet dream, a cornucopia of subway construction, bridge repair and infrastructure bolstering. As he points out, "Far more people will benefit from the mayor's plan than will be affected by the congestion fee."
Ah yes, but Bruce neglects an important axiom of politics, one that was articulated by Robert Dahl many years ago: "An intense minority will overwhelm an apathetic majority." There will be a passionate and intense opposition to the mayor's plan, and the majority of folks who would supposedly benefit from it may not be as susceptible, as Bruce is, to the putative future benefits.
In addition, there are a great number of cynical New Yorkers who will see the generation of this kind of money, and the creation of a "transportation financing authority," as a boondoggle in the making (And won't, we believe, see clearly the environmental benefits that Schaller does). Also, don't forget that most New Yorkers will be very lucky to live long enough to see any of these grandiose plans come to fruition.
Yet all of the questionable political musings are in fact a cover for the ideological-tax and spend-mindset that animates Schaller's arguments. He points out, tendentiously in our view, that "outer borough auto commuters tend to have higher incomes than subway commuters, so a fee that improves transit is actually more equitable than the current system. In fact, auto commuters who use the free bridges are being subsidized by transit users whose taxes pay for bridge reconstruction and maintenance. Is that equitable?"
Why yes, it is eminently equitable because, as Schaller indicates, the higher income folks are the ones coming in in this manner and it is their greater income generation that fuels the economic engine. Equity in this case is not encompassed in by a redistributive mentality, but by a system that innervates the most ambitious wealth generators (who in turn raise employment levels and incomes for the transit riders).
One final thought. Schaller concludes his piece by talking about the fact that "childhood asthma rates are four times higher in the city than nationally." In regards to the mayor's plan this is a classic straw man argument. The reason it is inheres in the glaring lacuna in the mayor's Utopian greening of New York proposal. The gap here devolves from the fact that the mayor fails to mention, not a single word, his five years of oute borough big box shopping center development that will add millions of more tons of CO2 emissions to the city's air.
What are we to make of the building of over 500,000 square feet of box store malls on the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market-the geographic area that has been labelled 'asthma alley'?" What about the expansion of Gateway Estates in Brooklyn, the mall that chokes the Belt Parkway every weekend? Exacerbating these developments, and don't forget Willets Point on the horizon, is the fact that they pull shoppers off of the neighborhood walk-to-shop areas that the mayor hasn't shown the slightest degree of appreciation for.
Any view of a sustainable New York that doesn't address these issues is not only a diluted one, it is also hypocritical, since the man spearheading PlaNYC is none other than Deputy Dan, the major cheerleader for all of the box store projects of his friend at Related, Steve Ross. So our view is that Schaller needs to get out more and get a better grip on the pulse of the city. We strongly believe that Anthony Weiner's political instincts are more prescient than BMT Bruce.
Not Ike and Tina Turner
In this morning's NY Sun, the paper's Bradley Hope does a good job at uncovering what we knew instinctively was being passed off as education at New York City's Beacon School: indoctrination masquerading as "social justice." There is simply no place in the public schools for these kinds of ideologues. Critical thinking is not developed through the heavy-handed use of left wing agit-prop.
This is precisely why the DOE needs to come down hard on this politicization of the curriculum, and why we are so skeptical of the effort by the department to open up a high school for Arabic language and culture. The seemingly welcome cultural opening is easily transformed into something a good deal less salutary when ideologues take over, as they will certainly do with dopecrats at the helm of the department.
This is brought home by Hope's story when he quotes the blissfully ignorant remarks of a former Beacon student about teacher Nat Turner; "He focuses on things that you don't normally focus on...you are able to question things that you thought were just the way it was." In the jargon, this is known as deconstruction. The problem is that it is the kind of critique that is reserved exclusively for the dominant cultural ethos, and is never applied to the perspective of the critical educator herself.
It is the kind of one way street that reminds us again of the cold war anecdote about the American and the Soviet citizen who meet on the street. The American tells his acquaintance, "In my country we are all free to criticize the president." To which the Soviet replies; "My country is no different than yours. In the Soviet Union we are also all free to criticize your president."
What's missing at the Beacon's of the world is true academic diversity and intellectual challenge. The student's remarks quoted indicate the mindset of someone who believes that some sort of new truth has been revealed. Kids at high school age are so susceptible to this kind of influence that in some cases it can be seen as intellectual child abuse. The "red diaper Baby" syndrome is the prime example of the impact of this kind of "education." It's time to clean house at Beacon-now!
This is precisely why the DOE needs to come down hard on this politicization of the curriculum, and why we are so skeptical of the effort by the department to open up a high school for Arabic language and culture. The seemingly welcome cultural opening is easily transformed into something a good deal less salutary when ideologues take over, as they will certainly do with dopecrats at the helm of the department.
This is brought home by Hope's story when he quotes the blissfully ignorant remarks of a former Beacon student about teacher Nat Turner; "He focuses on things that you don't normally focus on...you are able to question things that you thought were just the way it was." In the jargon, this is known as deconstruction. The problem is that it is the kind of critique that is reserved exclusively for the dominant cultural ethos, and is never applied to the perspective of the critical educator herself.
It is the kind of one way street that reminds us again of the cold war anecdote about the American and the Soviet citizen who meet on the street. The American tells his acquaintance, "In my country we are all free to criticize the president." To which the Soviet replies; "My country is no different than yours. In the Soviet Union we are also all free to criticize your president."
What's missing at the Beacon's of the world is true academic diversity and intellectual challenge. The student's remarks quoted indicate the mindset of someone who believes that some sort of new truth has been revealed. Kids at high school age are so susceptible to this kind of influence that in some cases it can be seen as intellectual child abuse. The "red diaper Baby" syndrome is the prime example of the impact of this kind of "education." It's time to clean house at Beacon-now!
Monday, May 07, 2007
The Man With a Plan
The NY Post's Dave Seifman comments this morning on the mayor's grandiose plans, both for the sustainable city he envisions for 2030, and for the building of tens of thousands of units of affordable housing. On the greening issue, Seifman reports that insiders believe that it will be very difficult for the mayor to get his congestion pricing scheme approved.
At the same time, he argues that Bloomberg's high popularity and overall tenacity are two factors working in his favor. Maybe so, but the clock is ticking and there are forces at work that will make it doubtful for the mayor to force feed congestion pricing to outer borough residents. Not even the bennies the NY Sun is reporting he's offering to these folks-extra express buses and residential parking permits-will be sufficient to allow the lame duck success in this taxing venture.
At the same time, he argues that Bloomberg's high popularity and overall tenacity are two factors working in his favor. Maybe so, but the clock is ticking and there are forces at work that will make it doubtful for the mayor to force feed congestion pricing to outer borough residents. Not even the bennies the NY Sun is reporting he's offering to these folks-extra express buses and residential parking permits-will be sufficient to allow the lame duck success in this taxing venture.
A Fine Mess
As we have been commenting on, the city's unrestrained use of New York's restaurants as a cash cow continues unabated. As the NY Post reports this morning, this year's fine totals are expected to reach over $27 million, an increase of 25% over the previous years collection. Now, with trans fat and menu labeling on the horizon, the sky really is the limit for the voracious bureaucracy at the DOH.
Dr. Frieden, in defending the record increase, told the Post, "Really, absolutely, truly we have no target for restaurant fines...We want the food to be cleaner. Period." Well, we believe you Tom. At least about the target. He wouldn't want his inspectors to slow down when approaching an artificial quota.
Frieden than went on to say, stretching our willingness to suspend our disbelief, that he wished that the fines "went to zero." The Department's sole concern about cleanliness is belied, however, by its arcane, point-driven, inspection system, one that is constructed precisely to generate revenue and has little bearing on customer protection.
What we have in this city is a bureaucratic enforcement structure that is designed to increase the cost of doing business here. With DOH and DCA, two agencies with a built-in bias against entrepreneurism, we can see just how much the city devalues the hard work of its neighborhood retailers.
The disappearance of these two agencies would harm the city a great deal less than if the commercial strips of the neighborhoods were denuded of their shops. The proper balance between economic development and consumer protection has long ago gone way out of whack in this city.
Dr. Frieden, in defending the record increase, told the Post, "Really, absolutely, truly we have no target for restaurant fines...We want the food to be cleaner. Period." Well, we believe you Tom. At least about the target. He wouldn't want his inspectors to slow down when approaching an artificial quota.
Frieden than went on to say, stretching our willingness to suspend our disbelief, that he wished that the fines "went to zero." The Department's sole concern about cleanliness is belied, however, by its arcane, point-driven, inspection system, one that is constructed precisely to generate revenue and has little bearing on customer protection.
What we have in this city is a bureaucratic enforcement structure that is designed to increase the cost of doing business here. With DOH and DCA, two agencies with a built-in bias against entrepreneurism, we can see just how much the city devalues the hard work of its neighborhood retailers.
The disappearance of these two agencies would harm the city a great deal less than if the commercial strips of the neighborhoods were denuded of their shops. The proper balance between economic development and consumer protection has long ago gone way out of whack in this city.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Go Down Moses
In today's City Section of the NY Times, the paper's excellent reporter Michael Powell takes a look at the revisionist critique of Robert Caro's behemoth bio of Robert Moses. It seems that a number of historian's now feel the Caro's view of the master planner was too harsh. The debate raises a few interesting questions about the tension between planning and democracy.
The crucial criticism of Moses is that, on innumerable occasions, he ran roughshod over the wishes of neighborhood residents in the path of one of his development schemes. His destruction of the working class Jewish Bronx neighborhood in order to build the CBX is usually one of the most frequent examples cited concerning Moses' arrogant edifice complex.
The revisionists, however, argue that Moses, in spite of all the warts that they acknowledge he had, "...built with quality and remarkable honesty, and we need to return to some of that today." As Powell points out, the revisionists see the need to resurrect Moses' "grand vision and iron will."
Of course there will always be planners who will look nostalgically at an archetype like Moses. Planners are, by nature, transfixed by grand architectural schemes and less concerned about those whose neighborhoods are in the path of the bulldozers. Now it appears that there are some historians who stand similarly transfixed, and the fact that one of the leading revisionists comes out of Columbia, a university looking to impose its own ubber-vision on a West Harlem community, only adds to the provocative nature of the debate over the legacy of Robert Moses.
What seems clear to us, is that the Moses debate is healthy. A creative tension is needed between the planning impulse and the need to maintain democratic controls over that impulse. It all goes back to the debate between Plato and Aristotle about the desirability of a philosopher king. In Plato's analogy, it is the shoemaker alone who knows how to skillfully make shoes. We need, however, to always keep in mind the Aristotelian rejoinder-It is only the wearer who can tell if the shoes pinch.
The crucial criticism of Moses is that, on innumerable occasions, he ran roughshod over the wishes of neighborhood residents in the path of one of his development schemes. His destruction of the working class Jewish Bronx neighborhood in order to build the CBX is usually one of the most frequent examples cited concerning Moses' arrogant edifice complex.
The revisionists, however, argue that Moses, in spite of all the warts that they acknowledge he had, "...built with quality and remarkable honesty, and we need to return to some of that today." As Powell points out, the revisionists see the need to resurrect Moses' "grand vision and iron will."
Of course there will always be planners who will look nostalgically at an archetype like Moses. Planners are, by nature, transfixed by grand architectural schemes and less concerned about those whose neighborhoods are in the path of the bulldozers. Now it appears that there are some historians who stand similarly transfixed, and the fact that one of the leading revisionists comes out of Columbia, a university looking to impose its own ubber-vision on a West Harlem community, only adds to the provocative nature of the debate over the legacy of Robert Moses.
What seems clear to us, is that the Moses debate is healthy. A creative tension is needed between the planning impulse and the need to maintain democratic controls over that impulse. It all goes back to the debate between Plato and Aristotle about the desirability of a philosopher king. In Plato's analogy, it is the shoemaker alone who knows how to skillfully make shoes. We need, however, to always keep in mind the Aristotelian rejoinder-It is only the wearer who can tell if the shoes pinch.
Columbia's Exceptionalism
In this morning's NY Daily News there is an interesting story on the city's ongoing efforts to build 350,000 new units of affordable housing. As the paper points out, "With New York's housing market squeezed by high demand, city planners are seeking new urban frontiers for residential development."
Deputy Dan captures the Bloomberg zeitgeist when he tells the paper, "What we're doing is scouring the city for opportunities...We can't afford to let transit-accessible areas go undeveloped." Hey Dan, the Broadway local stops at 125Th Street and 137Th Street, and the 18 acres that Columbia University wants to develop all for itself should be considered prime for new housing. Or is Columbia's expansion an exception to the city's stated policy goals?
The essence of the city's new housing plans calls for the building of "high density housing," which means "high rises or voluminous, squat buildings, near transportation hubs." As usual, the debate centers around the need to make as much of the new housing affordable, and just what the term affordable actually means,
What is clear, however, is that Columbia's aim to upscale the West Harlem neighborhood that it is looking to build in, will create an unstoppable gentrification wave that will sweep through the surrounding working class neighborhoods. That is, unless the mayor and his planning minions intervene to alter the university's monolithic, Columbia-centric vision.
If they don't, then the comments of New School urban planner Andrew White will become prophetic: "'If we continue having the super-wealthy coming to buy second and third homes...it's going to be extremely difficult for anybody else to live in Manhattan.'" Which, as we have repeatedly pointed out, makes the effort to amend the Columbia expansion scheme all the more essential.
Deputy Dan captures the Bloomberg zeitgeist when he tells the paper, "What we're doing is scouring the city for opportunities...We can't afford to let transit-accessible areas go undeveloped." Hey Dan, the Broadway local stops at 125Th Street and 137Th Street, and the 18 acres that Columbia University wants to develop all for itself should be considered prime for new housing. Or is Columbia's expansion an exception to the city's stated policy goals?
The essence of the city's new housing plans calls for the building of "high density housing," which means "high rises or voluminous, squat buildings, near transportation hubs." As usual, the debate centers around the need to make as much of the new housing affordable, and just what the term affordable actually means,
What is clear, however, is that Columbia's aim to upscale the West Harlem neighborhood that it is looking to build in, will create an unstoppable gentrification wave that will sweep through the surrounding working class neighborhoods. That is, unless the mayor and his planning minions intervene to alter the university's monolithic, Columbia-centric vision.
If they don't, then the comments of New School urban planner Andrew White will become prophetic: "'If we continue having the super-wealthy coming to buy second and third homes...it's going to be extremely difficult for anybody else to live in Manhattan.'" Which, as we have repeatedly pointed out, makes the effort to amend the Columbia expansion scheme all the more essential.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Poll-Tax
Well now, according to a poll that was conducted by the New York City Partnership, sixty percent of the people who now drive to work would stop if the mayor's congestion pricing plan was enacted. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the poll is even partially accurate, i.e., a substantial number of commuters would be forced off the roads as a result of the mayor's tax. What would this mean for the folks forced to do so?
To answer this question you first need to examine why these people are driving in the first place. The answer is rather simple. In many parts of the city-Southeast Queens, Mill Basin Staten Island's South Shore, the Northeast Bronx, just to name a few areas-the transit system is not an accommodating alternative. Forcing these folks onto buses and trains will, unlike the mayor's commute, drastically increase the time it takes to get to work.
So when the mayor talks about the impact of "capitalism," and does so in reference to the fact that the congestion tax will force commuters off the roads, what he really is saying that he is happy that thousands of outer-borough New Yorkers will now have to spend anywhere from a half hour to an hour in extra commuting time in order to get to their workplace.
This is the kind of callous disregard for average people that the mayor is becoming more and more known for. As he told his radio audience, he believes that the people who drive to work can afford the tax "because otherwise they'll take mass transit." He can't really understand the difficult choices that people in certain areas of the city are forced to make in order to feed their families. It reminds me so much of what one of my history professors once said when I asked him about a midterm: "Richard, It's just a question of mind over matter. I don't mind, and you don't matter."
Which gets us to the issue of the state of a great many parts of the city's transportation infrastructure. Put very simply, many of the train lines are already severely overcrowded. What will be the impact of funneling thousands of additional riders onto these trains? The mayor apparently recognizes this when he says that "...we must do a better job of providing mass transit in parts of the city where the city never invested in the past..."
In the meantime, however, those forced off the roads are left out in the lurch, waiting for the day when all of this extra transit tax monies can be channeled into building more subways. Short term heartache in exchange for long term "sustainability." As the poet once said, though, "In the long run we're all dead."
To answer this question you first need to examine why these people are driving in the first place. The answer is rather simple. In many parts of the city-Southeast Queens, Mill Basin Staten Island's South Shore, the Northeast Bronx, just to name a few areas-the transit system is not an accommodating alternative. Forcing these folks onto buses and trains will, unlike the mayor's commute, drastically increase the time it takes to get to work.
So when the mayor talks about the impact of "capitalism," and does so in reference to the fact that the congestion tax will force commuters off the roads, what he really is saying that he is happy that thousands of outer-borough New Yorkers will now have to spend anywhere from a half hour to an hour in extra commuting time in order to get to their workplace.
This is the kind of callous disregard for average people that the mayor is becoming more and more known for. As he told his radio audience, he believes that the people who drive to work can afford the tax "because otherwise they'll take mass transit." He can't really understand the difficult choices that people in certain areas of the city are forced to make in order to feed their families. It reminds me so much of what one of my history professors once said when I asked him about a midterm: "Richard, It's just a question of mind over matter. I don't mind, and you don't matter."
Which gets us to the issue of the state of a great many parts of the city's transportation infrastructure. Put very simply, many of the train lines are already severely overcrowded. What will be the impact of funneling thousands of additional riders onto these trains? The mayor apparently recognizes this when he says that "...we must do a better job of providing mass transit in parts of the city where the city never invested in the past..."
In the meantime, however, those forced off the roads are left out in the lurch, waiting for the day when all of this extra transit tax monies can be channeled into building more subways. Short term heartache in exchange for long term "sustainability." As the poet once said, though, "In the long run we're all dead."
Friday, May 04, 2007
Lights Out on the Lower East Side
Newsday is reporting that a number of night clubs have been closing as the Lower East Side transforms itself into a more gentrified setting. Frankly, we're not surprised. As we have been commenting all along, the city has no judicious public policy for nurturing its multi-billion dollar nightlife industry.
As neighborhoods become more residential it becomes more challenging to run clubs that are generally noisy and fit poorly in the changing community milieu. What the city has done, through its ill-thought-out enforcement efforts, is to steer clubs into certain areas. Then instead of restricting residential development in these areas, it allows for spot zoning and loft development that leads to conflicts with the nightlife activity.
So, the tax incentive ideas advanced by Councilman Gerson to help nurture this vibrancy on the Lower East Side, will be for nought if there isn't a concerted effort to create club zones that don't abut residential neighborhoods. The same is true on the Far West Side. Without a clear policy initiative in this area, the city's economic night life engine will be silenced.
As neighborhoods become more residential it becomes more challenging to run clubs that are generally noisy and fit poorly in the changing community milieu. What the city has done, through its ill-thought-out enforcement efforts, is to steer clubs into certain areas. Then instead of restricting residential development in these areas, it allows for spot zoning and loft development that leads to conflicts with the nightlife activity.
So, the tax incentive ideas advanced by Councilman Gerson to help nurture this vibrancy on the Lower East Side, will be for nought if there isn't a concerted effort to create club zones that don't abut residential neighborhoods. The same is true on the Far West Side. Without a clear policy initiative in this area, the city's economic night life engine will be silenced.
Related Hits the Wall
As Crain's is reporting today, the proposal by the Related Companies to build an entertainment complex on Pier 40 on the West Side has run into a wall of community opposition. If you remember, it was Related that was designated-without any bidding process- to take over the old BTM and build a mall in spite of the opposition of the merchants who were evicted from the site.
This time, however, things are starkly different, as over 1,500 community residents came out for a public hearing on Related's proposal. Apparently, what you can do to bogart residents of the South Bronx is not likely to work on the activist Manhattan neighborhoods of Chelsea and Hell's Kitchen. From our vantage point, it couldn't happen to a better company, one that has gotten more from this administration than any other single real estate firm.
This time, however, things are starkly different, as over 1,500 community residents came out for a public hearing on Related's proposal. Apparently, what you can do to bogart residents of the South Bronx is not likely to work on the activist Manhattan neighborhoods of Chelsea and Hell's Kitchen. From our vantage point, it couldn't happen to a better company, one that has gotten more from this administration than any other single real estate firm.
Social Justice: Indoctrination Pure and Simple
There has been a number of controversies lately over the injection of a politicized curriculum into the city's public schools. Most recently, the sojourn of Nat Turner's Beacon School students to Cuba caused some consternation, but the issue runs deeper than this one glaring example and Andrew Wolf has called attention to the larger concern.
What we are seeing is that there is a cadre (good word comrades) of self-styled radical retrogrades who feel that it is their duty to raise the consciousness of the city's school children. That's not, however, the major cause for worry in this regard. What's even more bothersome is the useful idiots over at DOE who has set up 15 "social justice" high schools all over town. In league with these dopeycrats is something called The New York Collective on Radical Education, a group that is looking to, among other things, teach math in such a way as to "prove" that Hurricane Katrina was less a natural disaster than a consequence of American racism.
All of this is reinforced in a letter that is published today in the NY Sun. The letter, written by someone named Sally Lee, who is with a group called Teachers Unite. Lee tells us that all teachers bring their ideologies into the classroom: "When educators declare themselves neutral or apolitical, but then proceed to teach one interpretation of history or one approach to problem solving, they inadvertently reinforce dominant ideologies about how the world works."
And do you know something?-she is absolutely right. All education is about socialization, and all socialization reflects the world views of the society that sponsors it. Ms. Lee's problem is that she just doesn't like the assumptions of the society that she lives in; the one that apparently pays her salary to teach as well.
Here's her worldview. Speaking of her radical cohort she tells the Sun's readers; "Many of these educators recognize that white supremacy, capitalism, misogyny, and imperialism, are forces that permeate the globe..." Interesting, and as an aside you notice that this radical wretch doesn't mention the permeation of jihadism as a force that might actually incinerate her charges on the subway or in their homes.
So we can see that Ms. Lee leans, well, leeward, if you're someone who "don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." The point being that if Lee and her merry band of faux revolutionaries want to foment a radical reordering of this society they should do so on their own dime, and not expect to be paid by the fascist state for teaching their dangerous nonsense.
As to the idea of social justice, it really is "just us," revolutionary vanguard. It is the same tired themes that brought us the gulag, the forced collectivization of the kulaks, and the show trial. Not to mention the immiseration of millions through economic collapse and mass starvation. Chancellor Klein better wake up here. Our kids are doing badly enough with the standard curriculum, they don't need to be indoctrinated by half-baked revolutionary ideas that will cripple any chance they might have for academic success.
What we are seeing is that there is a cadre (good word comrades) of self-styled radical retrogrades who feel that it is their duty to raise the consciousness of the city's school children. That's not, however, the major cause for worry in this regard. What's even more bothersome is the useful idiots over at DOE who has set up 15 "social justice" high schools all over town. In league with these dopeycrats is something called The New York Collective on Radical Education, a group that is looking to, among other things, teach math in such a way as to "prove" that Hurricane Katrina was less a natural disaster than a consequence of American racism.
All of this is reinforced in a letter that is published today in the NY Sun. The letter, written by someone named Sally Lee, who is with a group called Teachers Unite. Lee tells us that all teachers bring their ideologies into the classroom: "When educators declare themselves neutral or apolitical, but then proceed to teach one interpretation of history or one approach to problem solving, they inadvertently reinforce dominant ideologies about how the world works."
And do you know something?-she is absolutely right. All education is about socialization, and all socialization reflects the world views of the society that sponsors it. Ms. Lee's problem is that she just doesn't like the assumptions of the society that she lives in; the one that apparently pays her salary to teach as well.
Here's her worldview. Speaking of her radical cohort she tells the Sun's readers; "Many of these educators recognize that white supremacy, capitalism, misogyny, and imperialism, are forces that permeate the globe..." Interesting, and as an aside you notice that this radical wretch doesn't mention the permeation of jihadism as a force that might actually incinerate her charges on the subway or in their homes.
So we can see that Ms. Lee leans, well, leeward, if you're someone who "don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." The point being that if Lee and her merry band of faux revolutionaries want to foment a radical reordering of this society they should do so on their own dime, and not expect to be paid by the fascist state for teaching their dangerous nonsense.
As to the idea of social justice, it really is "just us," revolutionary vanguard. It is the same tired themes that brought us the gulag, the forced collectivization of the kulaks, and the show trial. Not to mention the immiseration of millions through economic collapse and mass starvation. Chancellor Klein better wake up here. Our kids are doing badly enough with the standard curriculum, they don't need to be indoctrinated by half-baked revolutionary ideas that will cripple any chance they might have for academic success.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Recycling Pessimism
The just released IBO report on recycling makes for depressing reading. Put simply, the cost of recycling, around $206 per ton, is so high that it is more cost-effective to simply through the garbage out. Have no fear, however, help is here-in the form of the city's new office of recycling.
This new office, a product of the mayoral-speaker political union, is looking to ramp up recycling rates through intensive educational out-reach efforts. If the city remains unable to increase capture rates, the wastefulness of this romantic throwback to the euphoria of earth day will continue to bleed tax payer dollars.
Our money is definitely on the Office's continued failure to increase the amount of recyclables necessary to make this program even somewhat fiscally prudent. In the end, we believe that the only hope to really ramp up the recycling rates in town will devolve from a prudent expansion of the state's bottle law, something that we have been advocating for the past twenty years. In addition, the introduction of food waste disposers would jack up commercial recycling to record levels, but the measure would actually aid the private sector so it remains an anathema to elected officials.
This new office, a product of the mayoral-speaker political union, is looking to ramp up recycling rates through intensive educational out-reach efforts. If the city remains unable to increase capture rates, the wastefulness of this romantic throwback to the euphoria of earth day will continue to bleed tax payer dollars.
Our money is definitely on the Office's continued failure to increase the amount of recyclables necessary to make this program even somewhat fiscally prudent. In the end, we believe that the only hope to really ramp up the recycling rates in town will devolve from a prudent expansion of the state's bottle law, something that we have been advocating for the past twenty years. In addition, the introduction of food waste disposers would jack up commercial recycling to record levels, but the measure would actually aid the private sector so it remains an anathema to elected officials.
Columbia's Not in the House
As we have been commenting, the Columbia expansion plan raises some serious questions on the issue of affordable housing. These questions are underscored by a report that is posted on the DMI website. The report, issued by the city's Rent Guidelines Board, is titled the 2007 Income and Affordability Study.
This report points out that "income levels are not going up for working class New Yorkers." In many so-called affordable neighborhoods, residents are paying over 50% of their income for rent. As DMI highlights: "Further rent increases without a corresponding rise in income will force many will force many of these families to either double up, leave the city, or go homeless."
So the city's affordable housing crisis continues unabated in spite of all of the mayor's seemingly good intentions. All of which underscores the seriousness of the situation if Columbia University is allowed to expand its campus without any concomitant commitment to build affordable housing-within and around the foot print of its new campus.
This report points out that "income levels are not going up for working class New Yorkers." In many so-called affordable neighborhoods, residents are paying over 50% of their income for rent. As DMI highlights: "Further rent increases without a corresponding rise in income will force many will force many of these families to either double up, leave the city, or go homeless."
So the city's affordable housing crisis continues unabated in spite of all of the mayor's seemingly good intentions. All of which underscores the seriousness of the situation if Columbia University is allowed to expand its campus without any concomitant commitment to build affordable housing-within and around the foot print of its new campus.
Pointed Questions
Yesterday the city unveiled the plans it has to redevelop Willets Point. The only thing missing? Well, an actual developer for one thing. In what is certainly a most unusual case, the city is trying to evict hundreds of businesses and thousands of employees from an area, and ULURP its rezoning proposal, before it actually designates a firm to do the redevelopment work.
What this means is that the city council will really be asked to accept a pig in a poke, a development scheme that lacks any tangible details, and without these details it really is giving the mayor carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants after the council approves the vague vision. The city could, it it wants, bring a Wal-Mart into the project or any other use that. in hind site, the council might have found objectionable, if it had only known the truth beforehand,
Even worse, after rezoning and clearing the land it might be determined that no developer had any interest in the site until after the city spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, to remediate a site that has been known as a dump for toxic materials-and as an area with virtually no infrastructure.
On top of all this, of course, is the fact that in doing this the city will need to remove business owners through the use of eminent domain. The BTM contract killing was bad enough, with its scores of businesses and hundreds of employees. The Point, however, as Tom Angotti points out, has hundreds of businesses and thousands of predominately minority workers. The so-called blighted nature of the area is in reality a tribute to the years of municipal neglect, a neglect that has been so severe that the businesses would be within their rights to sue for the city's failure to provide services to these tax paying firms.
One major irony in all of this is the mayor, on his Kermit the Frog kick, is touting the development for its greenness, "a model for sustainability and environmental stewardship." Is he kidding? The proposal calls for 5,500 units of housing. How are these people going to get to work? On the 7 Line that is way overcrowded? If not, than I guess the roadways in this area will be able to accommodate the residential, commercial, retail and convention traffic that the site is being hyped for.
So much for the touted reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Earth to mayor. Manhattan is not the only part of the city contributing to the air quality challenges you've been harping on ad nauseum over the past few weeks. The current traffic capacities in this area are already at their limits.
So now the gauntlet will be thrown down to the council, a body that has not exhibited the kind of checks and balances that we've come to expect from a healthy legislature. Will the council rubber stamp this effort without being privy to any of the details of the actual development? Or will it, in New York lottery fashion, simply take a chance on, "A dollar and a dream?"
The Willets Point businesses are waiting nervously to find out the answer to this serious question, because, as one business owner told the NY Sun, "There's no place to go-where are they going to relocate us?" Clearly, the use of eminent domain and the "relocation" of the existing businesses is little more than a thinly disguised death sentence from an administration that has absolutely no use for small businesses.
What this means is that the city council will really be asked to accept a pig in a poke, a development scheme that lacks any tangible details, and without these details it really is giving the mayor carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants after the council approves the vague vision. The city could, it it wants, bring a Wal-Mart into the project or any other use that. in hind site, the council might have found objectionable, if it had only known the truth beforehand,
Even worse, after rezoning and clearing the land it might be determined that no developer had any interest in the site until after the city spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, to remediate a site that has been known as a dump for toxic materials-and as an area with virtually no infrastructure.
On top of all this, of course, is the fact that in doing this the city will need to remove business owners through the use of eminent domain. The BTM contract killing was bad enough, with its scores of businesses and hundreds of employees. The Point, however, as Tom Angotti points out, has hundreds of businesses and thousands of predominately minority workers. The so-called blighted nature of the area is in reality a tribute to the years of municipal neglect, a neglect that has been so severe that the businesses would be within their rights to sue for the city's failure to provide services to these tax paying firms.
One major irony in all of this is the mayor, on his Kermit the Frog kick, is touting the development for its greenness, "a model for sustainability and environmental stewardship." Is he kidding? The proposal calls for 5,500 units of housing. How are these people going to get to work? On the 7 Line that is way overcrowded? If not, than I guess the roadways in this area will be able to accommodate the residential, commercial, retail and convention traffic that the site is being hyped for.
So much for the touted reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Earth to mayor. Manhattan is not the only part of the city contributing to the air quality challenges you've been harping on ad nauseum over the past few weeks. The current traffic capacities in this area are already at their limits.
So now the gauntlet will be thrown down to the council, a body that has not exhibited the kind of checks and balances that we've come to expect from a healthy legislature. Will the council rubber stamp this effort without being privy to any of the details of the actual development? Or will it, in New York lottery fashion, simply take a chance on, "A dollar and a dream?"
The Willets Point businesses are waiting nervously to find out the answer to this serious question, because, as one business owner told the NY Sun, "There's no place to go-where are they going to relocate us?" Clearly, the use of eminent domain and the "relocation" of the existing businesses is little more than a thinly disguised death sentence from an administration that has absolutely no use for small businesses.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Honest Brokering the Columbia Expansion
The final scoping document that was released yesterday was conducted by the folks at AKRF. This firm is what amounts to eminence when it comes to environmental review in this town. As far as we're concerned, however, they are no more than the usual suspects. They can be depended on to short shrift a meaningful analysis of the negative consequences of any development project.
We clearly remember the role the firm played in the fated attempt by Mayor Giuliani to open a mega store flood gate in the city. Their analysis was so pro forma that it led you to wonder whether the firm had actually done any of the requisite work at all. All of their so-called evaluation of big box proliferation seemed cribbed from a compilation of the work that the firm had done on previous mega-store projects all over the city. And it was fatally flawed and deficient.
In the current Columbia scope there is one key variable that needs to be thoroughly and honestly evaluated-the issue of "indirect displacement" of local residents. This is the issue that prompted BP Stringer to issue his re-zoning proposal last month. On page 38 of the scope AKRF outlines the issue: "The objective of the indirect residential displacement analysis is to determine if the Proposed Action would increase property values and thus rents throughout the study area, making it difficult for existing residents to afford their housing."
The issue is crucial because Columbia not only refrains from proposing any new housing for one of the largest underdeveloped Manhattan parcels, but the university also proposes evicting scores of low income tenants. In addition, the zoning that the university is advancing would make any residential building all but impossible. Given these variables, the fact that the expansion might also lead to the displacement of untold numbers of local tenants would seem to make this entire proposal antithetical to any conceived local interest.
One last key point. If indirect displacement is a distinct possibility then how can any conscientious elected official be satisfied with AKRF as the evaluator? This issue is too important to be left to the firm that has shilled on behalf of developers for the past two decades. It is imperative that an honest broker be brought in to analyze the residential displacement issue. Maybe Jesse Masyr is available?
We clearly remember the role the firm played in the fated attempt by Mayor Giuliani to open a mega store flood gate in the city. Their analysis was so pro forma that it led you to wonder whether the firm had actually done any of the requisite work at all. All of their so-called evaluation of big box proliferation seemed cribbed from a compilation of the work that the firm had done on previous mega-store projects all over the city. And it was fatally flawed and deficient.
In the current Columbia scope there is one key variable that needs to be thoroughly and honestly evaluated-the issue of "indirect displacement" of local residents. This is the issue that prompted BP Stringer to issue his re-zoning proposal last month. On page 38 of the scope AKRF outlines the issue: "The objective of the indirect residential displacement analysis is to determine if the Proposed Action would increase property values and thus rents throughout the study area, making it difficult for existing residents to afford their housing."
The issue is crucial because Columbia not only refrains from proposing any new housing for one of the largest underdeveloped Manhattan parcels, but the university also proposes evicting scores of low income tenants. In addition, the zoning that the university is advancing would make any residential building all but impossible. Given these variables, the fact that the expansion might also lead to the displacement of untold numbers of local tenants would seem to make this entire proposal antithetical to any conceived local interest.
One last key point. If indirect displacement is a distinct possibility then how can any conscientious elected official be satisfied with AKRF as the evaluator? This issue is too important to be left to the firm that has shilled on behalf of developers for the past two decades. It is imperative that an honest broker be brought in to analyze the residential displacement issue. Maybe Jesse Masyr is available?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
