In all of the hullabaloo over the feds ponying up the $350 million, it was somehow lost that there is a big monetary gap here. With only $10 million earmarked from Washington for the paraphernalia and technology of congestion taxing, the city's going to have to find a way to make up the difference. This is going to create an inevitable battle where some council members who have signed on to the mayor's plan, will now be really forced to put their money where their mouths are.
If the council folks have any second thoughts about all of this, they can take solace from today's NY Times editorial which envisions a borrowing scheme in order to make up for the shortfall: "The city could borrow against future fees to pay for the mechanisms, including traffic cameras, needed to collect the congestion charge, which is a fair deal." Really?
If, let's say, the congestion tax is an 18 month pilot, how does any borrowing scheme get to pay off the money owed within this period? It won't, and the city will be obligated in Robert Moses fashion to pay the money off-and to continue to charge until the Twelfth of Never; with never-ending escalators built in, as the city gets a new taxing mechanism.
In addition, as the Daily Politics blog is reporting, there is some question over whether or not the US DOT has actually committed the $350 million-and Richard Brodsky has written to Mary Peters to try to get a clarification of this key point. Without an ironclad commitment, the whole fiasco could turn into a giant game of three card monte.
Which is why we agree with Metro's take here: "Not So Fast," screams today's headline. And its story reflects Speaker Silver's severe skepticism of this grand plan, quoting Shelly on how the mayor's proposal wasn't on "easy street." Indeed it isn't, but it will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the coming months.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Columbia Changes Its Tune
Tonight CB#9 will meet to discuss the Columbia University expansion plan. All indications point to a fairly unanimous objection to the full scope of the university's proposal. What is emerging, however, is a changed perspective on the part of Columbia, a change that has been spurred by criticism (from this quarter in particular) that that its plan not only doesn't include any affordable housing, but that the plan's impact would displace thousands of low-income tenants.
As the NY Sun reports this morning; "Columbia is working with elected officials and community groups to forge an agreement that is likely to include a commitment by the university to fund the creation of affordable housing..." As the paper goes on to observe, this "represents a change from late last year," and, as Columbia spokesman Robert Kasdin told the Sun, "'There's a clear commitment by Columbia to address affordable housing'..."
The devil, as they say, is in the details here, since the CB is still upset by a number of other of the plan's features-particularly the university's use of eminent domain. Which does lead the door open, however, to a compromise with the area's largest property owner, Nick Sprayregen. Sprayregen has been developing (with our assistance) a plan to swap property with Columbia in order to create affordable housing while at the same time preserving Nick's own ownership rights.
So far, Columbia has not been very amenable to the discussion here, seemingly preferring to engage in a scurrilous campaign to demonize Sprayregen. We're confident that once the housing plan and swap become public, the negotiating dynamic will shift. There's still room for compromise, but that depends on the exercise of good faith. Let's see if the supply hasn't been squandered.
As the NY Sun reports this morning; "Columbia is working with elected officials and community groups to forge an agreement that is likely to include a commitment by the university to fund the creation of affordable housing..." As the paper goes on to observe, this "represents a change from late last year," and, as Columbia spokesman Robert Kasdin told the Sun, "'There's a clear commitment by Columbia to address affordable housing'..."
The devil, as they say, is in the details here, since the CB is still upset by a number of other of the plan's features-particularly the university's use of eminent domain. Which does lead the door open, however, to a compromise with the area's largest property owner, Nick Sprayregen. Sprayregen has been developing (with our assistance) a plan to swap property with Columbia in order to create affordable housing while at the same time preserving Nick's own ownership rights.
So far, Columbia has not been very amenable to the discussion here, seemingly preferring to engage in a scurrilous campaign to demonize Sprayregen. We're confident that once the housing plan and swap become public, the negotiating dynamic will shift. There's still room for compromise, but that depends on the exercise of good faith. Let's see if the supply hasn't been squandered.
Spinning At The Traffic Circle
Well, if you read some of the press coverage of the announcement that the federal government will be (maybe) sending the city around $350 million for (maybe) a traffic decongestion plan, you'd think that the skies had opened up and the the long crop-killing drought had ended. Some of the papers, so eager to sing in the Hallelujah chorus, even failed to get any potential critics of the mayor's plan into their panegyrics.
The NY Times and the NY Sun however, was an exception in this regard, and we need to single out William Neuman and Anni Karni for their even-handedness. As the Times story headline said: "New York to Get U.S. Traffic Aid, but With a Catch." One of the biggest catches? The fact that the city needs to find $200 million of its own money to fund the most controversial feature of the mayor's scheme: the plan to charge motorists for entering the CBD. The other? Shelly Silver ("Not So Fast, Silver Says..." is the Sun's caveat heading).
As the Times accurately points out, "The announcement was mixed news for Mr. Bloomberg," since he now has to come up with the lion's share of the money "to install a computerized system to monitor traffic and impose the fee..." The mixed news was greeted with disdain by the opponents of the mayor's plan. The money quote is from Congressman Weiner who sarcastically observed;
"'It's puzzling if you listen to the transportation secretary today about how important congestion pricing was to the plan... But obviously it wasn't important enough to fund it.'"
The money that is actually forthcoming here is for other parts of the plan-the transit infrastructure stuff that should precede any discussion of a new congestion tax. And given the MTA fiascoes of last week we think that it's probably not the best time to experiment with putting tens of thousands of more people on the trains and buses. As Weiner told Newsday, "You have to invest in the mass transit system first, before you penalize people for not using it.."
And then there is a disagreement about what the contingencies in the funding actually mean. Secretary Peters says that an alternative plan would be acceptable, if it matches the supposed 6% reduction in congestion that the mayor claims his plan will achieve. Bloomberg, on the other hand, points to a clause in the agreement that links funding to some variant of congestion pricing and hails the funding decision as a "major victory" for his specific scheme.
Speaker Silver, who alone has played the role of judicious elder statesman, is not buying this particular computer terminal from the mayor. As the NY Post points out: "But Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver...said he believes that there are an array of options that can satisfy the feds, ranging from an altered congestion-pricing plan to lowering of mass transit fees during peak hours to encourage ridership."
As we mentioned yesterday, all this means that there is a long and difficult road ahead, as it should be, since the mayor's scheme is a radical departure from current practice and deserves the fine tooth comb that we're confident Speaker Silver will give it. The misinforming, full-speed-ahead, cheers from the editorial pages should be muted so that the full implications of the mayor's plan can be dissected.
The NY Times and the NY Sun however, was an exception in this regard, and we need to single out William Neuman and Anni Karni for their even-handedness. As the Times story headline said: "New York to Get U.S. Traffic Aid, but With a Catch." One of the biggest catches? The fact that the city needs to find $200 million of its own money to fund the most controversial feature of the mayor's scheme: the plan to charge motorists for entering the CBD. The other? Shelly Silver ("Not So Fast, Silver Says..." is the Sun's caveat heading).
As the Times accurately points out, "The announcement was mixed news for Mr. Bloomberg," since he now has to come up with the lion's share of the money "to install a computerized system to monitor traffic and impose the fee..." The mixed news was greeted with disdain by the opponents of the mayor's plan. The money quote is from Congressman Weiner who sarcastically observed;
"'It's puzzling if you listen to the transportation secretary today about how important congestion pricing was to the plan... But obviously it wasn't important enough to fund it.'"
The money that is actually forthcoming here is for other parts of the plan-the transit infrastructure stuff that should precede any discussion of a new congestion tax. And given the MTA fiascoes of last week we think that it's probably not the best time to experiment with putting tens of thousands of more people on the trains and buses. As Weiner told Newsday, "You have to invest in the mass transit system first, before you penalize people for not using it.."
And then there is a disagreement about what the contingencies in the funding actually mean. Secretary Peters says that an alternative plan would be acceptable, if it matches the supposed 6% reduction in congestion that the mayor claims his plan will achieve. Bloomberg, on the other hand, points to a clause in the agreement that links funding to some variant of congestion pricing and hails the funding decision as a "major victory" for his specific scheme.
Speaker Silver, who alone has played the role of judicious elder statesman, is not buying this particular computer terminal from the mayor. As the NY Post points out: "But Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver...said he believes that there are an array of options that can satisfy the feds, ranging from an altered congestion-pricing plan to lowering of mass transit fees during peak hours to encourage ridership."
As we mentioned yesterday, all this means that there is a long and difficult road ahead, as it should be, since the mayor's scheme is a radical departure from current practice and deserves the fine tooth comb that we're confident Speaker Silver will give it. The misinforming, full-speed-ahead, cheers from the editorial pages should be muted so that the full implications of the mayor's plan can be dissected.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Peters Transports Us-But to Where?
Beware of bureaucrats who exhibit rhetorical flourishes, typically the substance behind the remarks is quite a bit less impressive. And so it is the case on one Mary Peters, someone who it appears may have an eye on a life after government as the Bush era comes to a close. How else to explain the effusiveness of her praise for the mayor's congestion tax?
Perhaps there is a genuine appreciation at work here but the following adulatory prose for the mayor, cited in the City Room Blog, doesn't have us suspending our disbelief: "He has stepped forward with a plan as brass and bold as New York itself. New Yorkers must understand that we must stop relying on yesterday's ideas to fight today's traffic jams." If it were up to us we would have paired brass with another word altogether. Clearly when it comes to the mayor, Secretary Peters has raised toady to its highest possible expression.
Still, as we have said, the money does offer the mayor a degree of solace-even if we disagree with our friends at City Room that, it "gives the mayor enormous leverage as he continues to press for his proposal." There are simply too many unknown variables in this equation, and the collapsing public trust of the MTA is certainly one of the bigger question marks. Still, we kind of agree with the Intelligencer folks who observed that; "Shelly Silver, we think, is going to have a whole lot more fun."
We also consider the issue of the actual real world impact of the mayor's plan to be, perhaps, the largest obstacle in the way of the mayor's success. It was fascinating to read the Secretary's comment that the DOT would consider alternatives devised by the commission, but that any other proposal would have to meet the "same performance goals" as mayor Bloomberg's plan. She went on to say-one thinks of Charlie McCarthy here-"it would be difficult for them to meet those performance objectives," if the commission's plan was substantially different from the congestion tax.
Here we get to the heart of this flim-flam; somewhat on the order of one lying and the other swearing to it. How the heck does Peters know what the mayor's plan will actually deliver in the way of congestion relief? No one has ever independently vetted the plan's assumptions, yet everyone in the amen chorus repeats the mayor's assertions as if they were part of some religious liturgy. Oh, and speaking of the chorus, we did get a kick out of the congratulatory remarks from the NYC Partnership that cited its "study" that "documented the high cost of traffic." Not mentioned was the role of all its own members in the exacerbation of the traffic they now so urgently are fighting to relieve.
It is time to put it all to the test. Given the benchmarks in this earmark, and the phony deadline posturing the mayor and DOT has done, it will be impossible for the mayor and his acolytes to refuse to subject the plan to the needed EIS; one that is not conducted by, as the Times might say, the "usual suspects." The review, however, needs to subject the mayor's plan to a full economic impact analysis as well-costs as well as benefits need to be properly juxtaposed.
If the review process goes forward in this manner we see a veritable minefields ahead, and we're inclined to agree with one observer who noted that; "In other words, this could be tougher than the Lincoln Tunnel during rush hour." (kudos to the Wonkster for this)
Perhaps there is a genuine appreciation at work here but the following adulatory prose for the mayor, cited in the City Room Blog, doesn't have us suspending our disbelief: "He has stepped forward with a plan as brass and bold as New York itself. New Yorkers must understand that we must stop relying on yesterday's ideas to fight today's traffic jams." If it were up to us we would have paired brass with another word altogether. Clearly when it comes to the mayor, Secretary Peters has raised toady to its highest possible expression.
Still, as we have said, the money does offer the mayor a degree of solace-even if we disagree with our friends at City Room that, it "gives the mayor enormous leverage as he continues to press for his proposal." There are simply too many unknown variables in this equation, and the collapsing public trust of the MTA is certainly one of the bigger question marks. Still, we kind of agree with the Intelligencer folks who observed that; "Shelly Silver, we think, is going to have a whole lot more fun."
We also consider the issue of the actual real world impact of the mayor's plan to be, perhaps, the largest obstacle in the way of the mayor's success. It was fascinating to read the Secretary's comment that the DOT would consider alternatives devised by the commission, but that any other proposal would have to meet the "same performance goals" as mayor Bloomberg's plan. She went on to say-one thinks of Charlie McCarthy here-"it would be difficult for them to meet those performance objectives," if the commission's plan was substantially different from the congestion tax.
Here we get to the heart of this flim-flam; somewhat on the order of one lying and the other swearing to it. How the heck does Peters know what the mayor's plan will actually deliver in the way of congestion relief? No one has ever independently vetted the plan's assumptions, yet everyone in the amen chorus repeats the mayor's assertions as if they were part of some religious liturgy. Oh, and speaking of the chorus, we did get a kick out of the congratulatory remarks from the NYC Partnership that cited its "study" that "documented the high cost of traffic." Not mentioned was the role of all its own members in the exacerbation of the traffic they now so urgently are fighting to relieve.
It is time to put it all to the test. Given the benchmarks in this earmark, and the phony deadline posturing the mayor and DOT has done, it will be impossible for the mayor and his acolytes to refuse to subject the plan to the needed EIS; one that is not conducted by, as the Times might say, the "usual suspects." The review, however, needs to subject the mayor's plan to a full economic impact analysis as well-costs as well as benefits need to be properly juxtaposed.
If the review process goes forward in this manner we see a veritable minefields ahead, and we're inclined to agree with one observer who noted that; "In other words, this could be tougher than the Lincoln Tunnel during rush hour." (kudos to the Wonkster for this)
Feds Money for Nothing?
The NY Times is reporting today that the federal government has made NYC one of the five finalists for transportation grants that are being earmarked to ease congestion in urban centers. There's no doubt, as the Times says, that the potential grant-estimated to be around $350 million by the NY Daily News, will put some additional pressure on state and city law makers to approve at least some portion of the mayor's taxing plan.
That would be a big mistake, If the events of the last week have taught us anything, it's that our metropolitan transit system is in utter shambles-with little accountability over how the funds currently generated are spent. Adding a new tax scheme-a plan that will at best only reduce congestion by small percentages-before the incoherent governing structure of the MTA is addressed is not sound public policy.
It's even less so when the mayor's traffic relief proposal has not been subjected to any independent environmental review-something that we believe is mandated by federal, state and city law. In particular, we need to know how much traffic-diverted from the CBD, will be diverted into neighborhoods where pollution and asthma rates are highest.
So the commission that has been set up needs to, as the Times observed on Sunday, examine not only the mayor's plan itself, but also the soundness of the targeted repository of these funds-the MTA. And the Times is correct that the citizens of the city would not be well-served if the commission is made up of the, "usual suspects." Too much is at stake, and no one should be willing to simply buy the mayor's pig-in-a-poke simply because he says, "Trust me."
That would be a big mistake, If the events of the last week have taught us anything, it's that our metropolitan transit system is in utter shambles-with little accountability over how the funds currently generated are spent. Adding a new tax scheme-a plan that will at best only reduce congestion by small percentages-before the incoherent governing structure of the MTA is addressed is not sound public policy.
It's even less so when the mayor's traffic relief proposal has not been subjected to any independent environmental review-something that we believe is mandated by federal, state and city law. In particular, we need to know how much traffic-diverted from the CBD, will be diverted into neighborhoods where pollution and asthma rates are highest.
So the commission that has been set up needs to, as the Times observed on Sunday, examine not only the mayor's plan itself, but also the soundness of the targeted repository of these funds-the MTA. And the Times is correct that the citizens of the city would not be well-served if the commission is made up of the, "usual suspects." Too much is at stake, and no one should be willing to simply buy the mayor's pig-in-a-poke simply because he says, "Trust me."
Monday, August 13, 2007
More MTA Questions
We have been writing about the lack of transparency and managerial competence over at the MTA. In this morning's NY Post Steve Cuozzo's column continues along this very same line; the agency has reached a point where to continue to allow it to collect revenue by raising fares is no longer an acceptable option. To use the MTA as a repository for any congestion tax is also irresponsible.
In Cuozzo's piece, the focus is on the inability of the agency to manage to even keep its own web site updated on a daily basis; and on the agency's failure to control the construction projects that are under its jurisdiction. As Cuozzo points out; "If the MTA can't keep up its web site on a dry day, should we be surprised that it can't promise that the trains will run next time it rains?"
Which leads us once again to the issue of the mayor's grand congestion tax plan. There is simply too much that is wrong with the governance of the MTA to create another revenue generating system that hits commuters in the wallet. After all, the whole stated purpose of the congestion tax is to help fund a more robust mass transit infrastructure. If we can't depend on the competence and expertise of the transit agency, how can any one in good conscience go forward with a tax scheme that is funneled into the MTA?
Which is why the call yesterday by Councilman Weprin for the mayor to create a commission to study the city's aging bridge and tunnel infrastructure, only makes partial sense. What we need is a commission to study the entire transit delivery system-with an eye towards the total revamping of the current dysfunctional public authority that has demonstrated its incompetence.
Until that happens, we shouldn't permit another penny of additional MTA funding-whether we call it a fare increase or a congestion tax. Let the mayor find another issue to tart up his efforts to present himself to a national audience.
In Cuozzo's piece, the focus is on the inability of the agency to manage to even keep its own web site updated on a daily basis; and on the agency's failure to control the construction projects that are under its jurisdiction. As Cuozzo points out; "If the MTA can't keep up its web site on a dry day, should we be surprised that it can't promise that the trains will run next time it rains?"
Which leads us once again to the issue of the mayor's grand congestion tax plan. There is simply too much that is wrong with the governance of the MTA to create another revenue generating system that hits commuters in the wallet. After all, the whole stated purpose of the congestion tax is to help fund a more robust mass transit infrastructure. If we can't depend on the competence and expertise of the transit agency, how can any one in good conscience go forward with a tax scheme that is funneled into the MTA?
Which is why the call yesterday by Councilman Weprin for the mayor to create a commission to study the city's aging bridge and tunnel infrastructure, only makes partial sense. What we need is a commission to study the entire transit delivery system-with an eye towards the total revamping of the current dysfunctional public authority that has demonstrated its incompetence.
Until that happens, we shouldn't permit another penny of additional MTA funding-whether we call it a fare increase or a congestion tax. Let the mayor find another issue to tart up his efforts to present himself to a national audience.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
MTA and the Public Trust
The NY Times has an editorial today that speaks of restoring "trust" in the MTA. In our view the concept of restoration implies the existence of a previous pristine condition-one that has been lost but, through the exercise of good will and hard work, can be found again. In the case of the MTA, however, there has really never been any such condition, certainly not one that would prompt the re-writing of some version of Paradise Lost.
In fact, the MTA is a monument to inefficiency and the absence of any real accountability. Certainly, given its governing charter, there is no reason for anyone living in NYC to grant the agency any credibility whatsoever. The flavor of this general sentiment is glimpsed in today's Letters Section of the NY Post-aptly titled, "Does the 'M' in MTA Stand for Moronic?"
As one writer eloquently points out; "The entire MTA organization is incompetent, from root to branch. Thanks to them we have a subway that is a disgrace to the greatest city in the world...Throwing more money at an organization this feckless would be like shoveling it into a furnace." Somehow, we think that this observation is a more prescient evaluation of the MTA-and the trust it engenders- than the tepid prose of the Times editorial.
Which brings us to the twin issues of a fare hike and the mayor's congestion tax. Clearly, in our view a comprehensive review of the MTA, both its governance and its capabilities, needs to precede any plan that increases the agency's revenue flow. In this context, the approval of any congestion tax would be akin to the gift of a prosthetic device to a quadriplegic.
What's interesting here is the remarkable evolution of the Times' view of the entire congestion plan. Looking back, we recall how the paper jumped on the mayor's bandwagon-with all of the enthusiasm of a paid clack. The congestion tax was an essential ingredient for the building up of a more robust mass transit infrastructure.
Now, however, the tone-and the direction-has taken a dramatic new turn. In today's editorial observation the paper starts to shift gears: "If Washington comes through, state and city elected leaders, including Governor Spitzer, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, will begin assembling a commission to come up with a plan that relieves gridlock. The inclination will be to load up the panel with the usual suspects. We hope they fight that urge, and include independent voices who can speak for New Yorkers who want a daily commute they can count on..."
So instead of the previous, "full speed ahead posture," the Times is now echoing the positions that we have been taking about the need for deliberation and caution. The commission, widely seen exclusively as a review mechanism for the mayor's plan, is now seen by the putative paper of record as a deliberative body charged with coming up with "a plan that relieves gridlock."
This is right on the money. A comprehensive transit review commission is needed; and the mayor's congestion tax needs to be evaluated within a much broader context. There are some serious governance deficiencies in the public authority's structure. Until they are addressed, not another penny more should be allocated to these unelected bureaucrats.
In fact, the MTA is a monument to inefficiency and the absence of any real accountability. Certainly, given its governing charter, there is no reason for anyone living in NYC to grant the agency any credibility whatsoever. The flavor of this general sentiment is glimpsed in today's Letters Section of the NY Post-aptly titled, "Does the 'M' in MTA Stand for Moronic?"
As one writer eloquently points out; "The entire MTA organization is incompetent, from root to branch. Thanks to them we have a subway that is a disgrace to the greatest city in the world...Throwing more money at an organization this feckless would be like shoveling it into a furnace." Somehow, we think that this observation is a more prescient evaluation of the MTA-and the trust it engenders- than the tepid prose of the Times editorial.
Which brings us to the twin issues of a fare hike and the mayor's congestion tax. Clearly, in our view a comprehensive review of the MTA, both its governance and its capabilities, needs to precede any plan that increases the agency's revenue flow. In this context, the approval of any congestion tax would be akin to the gift of a prosthetic device to a quadriplegic.
What's interesting here is the remarkable evolution of the Times' view of the entire congestion plan. Looking back, we recall how the paper jumped on the mayor's bandwagon-with all of the enthusiasm of a paid clack. The congestion tax was an essential ingredient for the building up of a more robust mass transit infrastructure.
Now, however, the tone-and the direction-has taken a dramatic new turn. In today's editorial observation the paper starts to shift gears: "If Washington comes through, state and city elected leaders, including Governor Spitzer, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, will begin assembling a commission to come up with a plan that relieves gridlock. The inclination will be to load up the panel with the usual suspects. We hope they fight that urge, and include independent voices who can speak for New Yorkers who want a daily commute they can count on..."
So instead of the previous, "full speed ahead posture," the Times is now echoing the positions that we have been taking about the need for deliberation and caution. The commission, widely seen exclusively as a review mechanism for the mayor's plan, is now seen by the putative paper of record as a deliberative body charged with coming up with "a plan that relieves gridlock."
This is right on the money. A comprehensive transit review commission is needed; and the mayor's congestion tax needs to be evaluated within a much broader context. There are some serious governance deficiencies in the public authority's structure. Until they are addressed, not another penny more should be allocated to these unelected bureaucrats.
There Goes the Neighborhood
We have been commenting on the unavoidable impact that the expansion of Columbia University will have on the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods. These impacts are so serious that, as Matthew Scheurman highlights, even the house consultants for the university are forced to point out that, "approximately 3,293 residents of the surrounding area are vulnerable to 'indirect displacement' due to upward rent pressure.'"
This is what is known in the parlance of the EIS as a "significant and adverse impact," and from what we know about these particular Columbia consultants, we'd bet that this analysis is skewed to the conservative side-with adverse impacts affecting a good many more residents than those thousands cited in the study. It's why BP Stringer has introduced his zoning protection plan, a measure aimed at slowing the tide of gentrification that he feels the CU expansion will unleash.
In today's NY Post, the paper goes into greater depth on what is already in the works in the Harlem neighborhoods in and around the footprint of Columbia's expansion. If you are a low-income tenant or a neighborhood retailer the picture isn't very pretty. Scores of local businesses, many who have been in Harlem for decades, have already been jettisoned, or are facing eviction shortly.
One such business, Bobby's Happy House-a Harlem music shop fixture-has been in the neighborhood for 61 years. As the granddaughter of the owner told the Post; "To tear this building down would essentially be to tear Harlem apart." And as the Post goes on to point out: "While developers tout plans for hotels, condominiums, office space and national retailers, local businesses are being left behind..." As the owner of the Record Shack on 125th Street says, "This is the economic lynching of the community, and it's not right."
Which brings us back to Columbia and its self-motivated expansion plan. The university, unlike the commercial developers who are descending like rapacious locusts on the changing Harlem community, is supposed to be motivated by a soupcon of public interest; after all, it's led by a First Amendment scholar who prides himself on defending the great American democratic traditions.
When it comes to real estate, however, CU is just another avaricious land owner. The displacement question is one that should be addressed by elected officials; instead they are chasing after Nick Sprayregen in a classic example of misfeasance and misdirection. Stop trying to create a classic red herring and open your eyes! Thousands of people are going to be thrown out of their homes and businesses while you are looking to suckle on the university teat.
The only issue that should be on the table for all of the area's elected officials is the threat of massive displacement and the disappearance of affordable housing. The "Housing Trust Fund" concept that CU has been floating is meaningless if not accompanied by actual brick and mortar-real housing being built for the people of the West Harlem community.
If it isn't, where exactly will the current residents go to live? Perhaps, the electeds agree with one of the commentators to the Real Estate blog at the Observer who said: "I am so tired of hearing about the poor being displaced in Manhattan. 'Let them live in the Bronx'..." Sounds like one of Bill Lynch's new coalition folks.
Columbia is asking the city and the state to act as its own private bulldozer. Isn't it incumbent on the elected representatives to hold the university accountable for its unavoidable displacement of long-time residents and shop owners? Instead, we get the scapegoating charade that wants to portray one business owner who doesn't want to submit to the bulldozer as the proverbial "enemy of the people." The charade must stop!
This is what is known in the parlance of the EIS as a "significant and adverse impact," and from what we know about these particular Columbia consultants, we'd bet that this analysis is skewed to the conservative side-with adverse impacts affecting a good many more residents than those thousands cited in the study. It's why BP Stringer has introduced his zoning protection plan, a measure aimed at slowing the tide of gentrification that he feels the CU expansion will unleash.
In today's NY Post, the paper goes into greater depth on what is already in the works in the Harlem neighborhoods in and around the footprint of Columbia's expansion. If you are a low-income tenant or a neighborhood retailer the picture isn't very pretty. Scores of local businesses, many who have been in Harlem for decades, have already been jettisoned, or are facing eviction shortly.
One such business, Bobby's Happy House-a Harlem music shop fixture-has been in the neighborhood for 61 years. As the granddaughter of the owner told the Post; "To tear this building down would essentially be to tear Harlem apart." And as the Post goes on to point out: "While developers tout plans for hotels, condominiums, office space and national retailers, local businesses are being left behind..." As the owner of the Record Shack on 125th Street says, "This is the economic lynching of the community, and it's not right."
Which brings us back to Columbia and its self-motivated expansion plan. The university, unlike the commercial developers who are descending like rapacious locusts on the changing Harlem community, is supposed to be motivated by a soupcon of public interest; after all, it's led by a First Amendment scholar who prides himself on defending the great American democratic traditions.
When it comes to real estate, however, CU is just another avaricious land owner. The displacement question is one that should be addressed by elected officials; instead they are chasing after Nick Sprayregen in a classic example of misfeasance and misdirection. Stop trying to create a classic red herring and open your eyes! Thousands of people are going to be thrown out of their homes and businesses while you are looking to suckle on the university teat.
The only issue that should be on the table for all of the area's elected officials is the threat of massive displacement and the disappearance of affordable housing. The "Housing Trust Fund" concept that CU has been floating is meaningless if not accompanied by actual brick and mortar-real housing being built for the people of the West Harlem community.
If it isn't, where exactly will the current residents go to live? Perhaps, the electeds agree with one of the commentators to the Real Estate blog at the Observer who said: "I am so tired of hearing about the poor being displaced in Manhattan. 'Let them live in the Bronx'..." Sounds like one of Bill Lynch's new coalition folks.
Columbia is asking the city and the state to act as its own private bulldozer. Isn't it incumbent on the elected representatives to hold the university accountable for its unavoidable displacement of long-time residents and shop owners? Instead, we get the scapegoating charade that wants to portray one business owner who doesn't want to submit to the bulldozer as the proverbial "enemy of the people." The charade must stop!
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Guillermo Linares: "Persona No Grata"
We couldn't resist a chuckle today when we saw yesterday's headline in El Diario (courtesy of The Politicker) saying that Gillermo Linares was considered a persona non grata in the Dominican community. The charge was brought by Nelson Pena, who heads up an umbrella group of various community organizations in Washington Heights.
Without going into the particulars of the dispute, it goes without saying that we're not surprised that Linares is being viewed with disdain by legitimate Dominican community groups. Back in 1995, the then Councilman Linares voted in favor of the Pathmark Supermarket development in East Harlem-after promising the Dominican supermarket owners that he would support their fight.
So now the wheel turns and Linares is back in the middle of controversy for failing to stick up for Dominican interests-so much so that he is being characterized as an "enemigo publico de los Dominicanos." It's a predictable situation for a public official who has demonstrated so little integrity throughout an undistinguished career.
Without going into the particulars of the dispute, it goes without saying that we're not surprised that Linares is being viewed with disdain by legitimate Dominican community groups. Back in 1995, the then Councilman Linares voted in favor of the Pathmark Supermarket development in East Harlem-after promising the Dominican supermarket owners that he would support their fight.
So now the wheel turns and Linares is back in the middle of controversy for failing to stick up for Dominican interests-so much so that he is being characterized as an "enemigo publico de los Dominicanos." It's a predictable situation for a public official who has demonstrated so little integrity throughout an undistinguished career.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Columbia and the "Outsiders"
As we approach the first community board deliberation over the Columbia expansion plan-a vote is scheduled for August, 20th-we can begin to see how the university is desperately trying to tarnish its opponents in order to deflect attention away from the fatal flaws in its vision for a total gentrification of West Harlem.
The diversionary tactics involve organizing the booty capitalists, and stigmatizing Nick Sprayregen, Columbia's bete noir in the expansion battle. As one of Bill Lynch's minions told the Columbia Spectator; "'There are people who are for this, and those people need to get their voice heard.'" Perhaps so, but none of these Columbia aficionados are the residents of the Till houses who are being evicted.
There was once a time when folks like Bill Lynch would have been on the front lines in defense of these tenants, but at $40,000 a month Lynch's priorities have been dramatically altered. As Tom Lehrer remarked about the shifting allegiances of the rocket scientist Werner Von Braun: "A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience. Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down. That's not my department, says Werner Von Braun."
Race baiting, however, is apparently harder to jettison. Enter Mr. Sprayregen who is, according to one of the Lynchites, "a wealthy developer from Westchester" trying to make believe that he represents the community when it should be clear that he's only interested in making a buck. And this is from a firm making an ill-deserved 40 grand a month while representing an institution that sees the eviction of low income tenants as in the community interest?
Will not Columbia's lion eyes be struck blind? Lost in this bit of sleight-of-hand is the inconvenient existence of a real community organization-CPC-representing scores of local groups and vehemently opposed to the university's solipsistic vision. Instead the lying Lynchers, in a blatant attempt to change the subject to Nick, try to fob off the following disinformation: "Wardally {Lynch acolyte Kevin} said the goal was to 'let them know who the opposition in this case really is.'"
Well, the flyers they're giving out don't point out the Columbia expansion is opposed by all of these community folks. No way. So Lynch doesn't really want to inform, so much as to divert attention and misinform. And the phony first amendment scholar who presides over this once great university has the gall, while trying to distance the university from Lynch'e gutter tactics, to call Sprayregen-a community business owner for over thirty years-an "outsider."
The blatant hypocrisy of these tactics have done little, however, to move the hearts and minds of the community. Oh yes, we almost forgot. There is a community board that is on record strenuously opposed to the Columbia land grab. Did Nick Sprayregen suborn all of those folks on CB9 who unanimously voted in favor of the 197-a plan?
And, as Crains In$ider reports this morning, the local board is more than likely to reject the university plan when the board takes it up later this month. These are the facts on the ground in West Harlem, and no astro-turf effort will change them.
But Lynch needs to be careful here. His efforts to stigmatize can easily turn around and bite him on his ample behind-he's opened a Pandora's Box. No one's going to sit back here and turn the other cheek. When the counterattack begins all of those who are on, or who are looking to get on, the Columbia gravy train will be exposed for the self-serving double dealers that they are. And when the larger community gets this message, there are certain elected officials who will soon see the handwriting on the wall.
The diversionary tactics involve organizing the booty capitalists, and stigmatizing Nick Sprayregen, Columbia's bete noir in the expansion battle. As one of Bill Lynch's minions told the Columbia Spectator; "'There are people who are for this, and those people need to get their voice heard.'" Perhaps so, but none of these Columbia aficionados are the residents of the Till houses who are being evicted.
There was once a time when folks like Bill Lynch would have been on the front lines in defense of these tenants, but at $40,000 a month Lynch's priorities have been dramatically altered. As Tom Lehrer remarked about the shifting allegiances of the rocket scientist Werner Von Braun: "A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience. Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down. That's not my department, says Werner Von Braun."
Race baiting, however, is apparently harder to jettison. Enter Mr. Sprayregen who is, according to one of the Lynchites, "a wealthy developer from Westchester" trying to make believe that he represents the community when it should be clear that he's only interested in making a buck. And this is from a firm making an ill-deserved 40 grand a month while representing an institution that sees the eviction of low income tenants as in the community interest?
Will not Columbia's lion eyes be struck blind? Lost in this bit of sleight-of-hand is the inconvenient existence of a real community organization-CPC-representing scores of local groups and vehemently opposed to the university's solipsistic vision. Instead the lying Lynchers, in a blatant attempt to change the subject to Nick, try to fob off the following disinformation: "Wardally {Lynch acolyte Kevin} said the goal was to 'let them know who the opposition in this case really is.'"
Well, the flyers they're giving out don't point out the Columbia expansion is opposed by all of these community folks. No way. So Lynch doesn't really want to inform, so much as to divert attention and misinform. And the phony first amendment scholar who presides over this once great university has the gall, while trying to distance the university from Lynch'e gutter tactics, to call Sprayregen-a community business owner for over thirty years-an "outsider."
The blatant hypocrisy of these tactics have done little, however, to move the hearts and minds of the community. Oh yes, we almost forgot. There is a community board that is on record strenuously opposed to the Columbia land grab. Did Nick Sprayregen suborn all of those folks on CB9 who unanimously voted in favor of the 197-a plan?
And, as Crains In$ider reports this morning, the local board is more than likely to reject the university plan when the board takes it up later this month. These are the facts on the ground in West Harlem, and no astro-turf effort will change them.
But Lynch needs to be careful here. His efforts to stigmatize can easily turn around and bite him on his ample behind-he's opened a Pandora's Box. No one's going to sit back here and turn the other cheek. When the counterattack begins all of those who are on, or who are looking to get on, the Columbia gravy train will be exposed for the self-serving double dealers that they are. And when the larger community gets this message, there are certain elected officials who will soon see the handwriting on the wall.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Sunshine's Not the Best Disinfectant
In spite of a virulent and scurrilous effort to assassinate the character of Nick Sprayregen, a campaign that was a prelude to the effort to remove him from the board of the West Harlem LDC, the attempt to dump Columbia's chief opponent from the local group ended in failure the other night. As the Observer pointed out, the effort was spearheaded by Susan Russell, a key aid to Councilman Robert Jackson. Russell has been trying for months to have Sprayregen removed, actions that raise questions over her impartiality in the entire land use matter.
The reason for suspicion here lies with the fact that it is the university-and certainly not anyone in the community-that stands to benefit most from Nick's removal. The suspicion is increased because of the actions of the councilman himself, who went out of his way to praise Columbia for its putative magnanimity in declaring that it wouldn't seek to invoke the use of eminent domain to evict low-income tenants from the expansion footprint. This faux benevolence masked the fact the the university was still moving forward with its plan to relocate the tenants-against their wishes and without any direct discussions with them.
The underlying deceitfulness of all this is underscored and exacerbated by the down-and-dirty campaign being waged by Bill Lynch-formerly known as a progressive-and his partner in crime, the publicist to the stars, Ken Sunshine. The dissemination of scurrilous flyers is this pairs first attempt to make race and class-but not Columbia- the issue in the land use battle. This is necessary because a close look at the facts of the expansion-and its impact on the community-would not place Columbia-the second biggest landlord in the city-in the best light.
This is a mega real estate deal with a great deal of backroom dealing. After all, when you have Columbia, and the state agency that is empowered to determine whether Sprayregen's property is "blighted" sharing the same consultant, even the obtuse can see the foundation of collusion that characterizes this expansion.
Normally when confronted with this kind of a deal we observe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Given who's advising Columbia, however, we think that the opposite is the case here. Sunlight, perhaps, but Sunshine-and all that goes with him- needs to be expunged with real a disinfectant if a real community-friendly expansion is to move forward..
The reason for suspicion here lies with the fact that it is the university-and certainly not anyone in the community-that stands to benefit most from Nick's removal. The suspicion is increased because of the actions of the councilman himself, who went out of his way to praise Columbia for its putative magnanimity in declaring that it wouldn't seek to invoke the use of eminent domain to evict low-income tenants from the expansion footprint. This faux benevolence masked the fact the the university was still moving forward with its plan to relocate the tenants-against their wishes and without any direct discussions with them.
The underlying deceitfulness of all this is underscored and exacerbated by the down-and-dirty campaign being waged by Bill Lynch-formerly known as a progressive-and his partner in crime, the publicist to the stars, Ken Sunshine. The dissemination of scurrilous flyers is this pairs first attempt to make race and class-but not Columbia- the issue in the land use battle. This is necessary because a close look at the facts of the expansion-and its impact on the community-would not place Columbia-the second biggest landlord in the city-in the best light.
This is a mega real estate deal with a great deal of backroom dealing. After all, when you have Columbia, and the state agency that is empowered to determine whether Sprayregen's property is "blighted" sharing the same consultant, even the obtuse can see the foundation of collusion that characterizes this expansion.
Normally when confronted with this kind of a deal we observe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Given who's advising Columbia, however, we think that the opposite is the case here. Sunlight, perhaps, but Sunshine-and all that goes with him- needs to be expunged with real a disinfectant if a real community-friendly expansion is to move forward..
Post Toasties: Breakfast of Chumpions
We've been reading local editorials in this town for over fifty years-admittedly, we did start young. Still, even with all of these years of editorial reading behind us, we don't think we've ever seen something quite as silly as today's editorial, titled Books Before Breakfast, in the NY Post.
Now we have come to admire the Post's levelheaded editorial posture on many issues of the day-it is one of the few local dailies to stand up four square on behalf of business in this city-particularly small business. Which is why today's observation in the paper was so jarring to us; it comes from being captive of a certain ideological point-of-view and, because of that, not being able to break out and see the facts on the ground clearly.
In this case it is about school breakfast program, a DOE effort that is woefully inadequate in meeting its basic mission: simply feeding as many of the eligible children as possible. In New York City's case, only 29% of those eligible are availing themselves of the free meals-compared to 94% in Newark. The Post, however, sees little wrong with the abysmal numbers.
The reason? It lies with the fact that Tuesday's press conference was led by Joel Berg and the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, a group that the Post disdains. In this case disdain clouds the paper's good judgment. The best example of this failure is the following: "Funny, we thought that students turning down free food is a fairly good indication that they're, well, not hungry."
The paper goes on to observe that the low participation rates are indicative of the fact that: "Hunger is simply not a problem in New York City." The real problem according to the Post is not hunger, but obesity. Think again. There is a real correlation between the fact that kids are not eating breakfast and the prevalence of obesity. When we taught many moons ago, and from what we've heard the situation hasn't changed that drastically, kids would come in to class with a bag of chip, a soda and some form of candy in a brown bag.
The issue here isn't hunger per se, but what the kids are eating and how what they're consuming affects their learning. The consumption of high sugar breakfasts leads to a temporary high, followed by a lethargy that weakens concentration and prompts the desire for more sugar in an addictive cycle (something to do with insulin). Learning is negatively impacted and the poor dietary choices are a direct contributory factor in the rising rates of childhood obesity.
Don't take our word for it. In a study done under the auspices of the Nutrition Consortium of New York it was demonstrated that a nutritious breakfast had a dramatic impact on school educational outcomes. Attention spans increased and school performance was enhanced. The key was feeding the kids in the classroom.
Which underscores the misguided nature of the Post's take on all of this; "None of this is, of course, is to diminish the struggles poor families endure to provide for their children-struggles that very often involve New York's still-dismal educational system...In fact, that's precisely why it would be a shame for New Yorkers to pay too much attention to the hunger lobby om this issue. Gotham schools have a lot that needs fixing-but breakfast isn't even near the top of the list."
The Post couldn't possibly be more off base here-getting the nutrition and obesity dynamic wrong, and then missing widely on the educational correlation between a good breakfast and improved school outcomes. Which is not to say that the delivery of an improved school breakfast program is without obstacles-and the classroom venue does pose a challenge. The failure to understand the importance of the effort, however, only gives an excuse to the DOE, which has lagged woefully behind other school districts in the delivery of a healthy breakfast for school kids.
Now we have come to admire the Post's levelheaded editorial posture on many issues of the day-it is one of the few local dailies to stand up four square on behalf of business in this city-particularly small business. Which is why today's observation in the paper was so jarring to us; it comes from being captive of a certain ideological point-of-view and, because of that, not being able to break out and see the facts on the ground clearly.
In this case it is about school breakfast program, a DOE effort that is woefully inadequate in meeting its basic mission: simply feeding as many of the eligible children as possible. In New York City's case, only 29% of those eligible are availing themselves of the free meals-compared to 94% in Newark. The Post, however, sees little wrong with the abysmal numbers.
The reason? It lies with the fact that Tuesday's press conference was led by Joel Berg and the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, a group that the Post disdains. In this case disdain clouds the paper's good judgment. The best example of this failure is the following: "Funny, we thought that students turning down free food is a fairly good indication that they're, well, not hungry."
The paper goes on to observe that the low participation rates are indicative of the fact that: "Hunger is simply not a problem in New York City." The real problem according to the Post is not hunger, but obesity. Think again. There is a real correlation between the fact that kids are not eating breakfast and the prevalence of obesity. When we taught many moons ago, and from what we've heard the situation hasn't changed that drastically, kids would come in to class with a bag of chip, a soda and some form of candy in a brown bag.
The issue here isn't hunger per se, but what the kids are eating and how what they're consuming affects their learning. The consumption of high sugar breakfasts leads to a temporary high, followed by a lethargy that weakens concentration and prompts the desire for more sugar in an addictive cycle (something to do with insulin). Learning is negatively impacted and the poor dietary choices are a direct contributory factor in the rising rates of childhood obesity.
Don't take our word for it. In a study done under the auspices of the Nutrition Consortium of New York it was demonstrated that a nutritious breakfast had a dramatic impact on school educational outcomes. Attention spans increased and school performance was enhanced. The key was feeding the kids in the classroom.
Which underscores the misguided nature of the Post's take on all of this; "None of this is, of course, is to diminish the struggles poor families endure to provide for their children-struggles that very often involve New York's still-dismal educational system...In fact, that's precisely why it would be a shame for New Yorkers to pay too much attention to the hunger lobby om this issue. Gotham schools have a lot that needs fixing-but breakfast isn't even near the top of the list."
The Post couldn't possibly be more off base here-getting the nutrition and obesity dynamic wrong, and then missing widely on the educational correlation between a good breakfast and improved school outcomes. Which is not to say that the delivery of an improved school breakfast program is without obstacles-and the classroom venue does pose a challenge. The failure to understand the importance of the effort, however, only gives an excuse to the DOE, which has lagged woefully behind other school districts in the delivery of a healthy breakfast for school kids.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
"Motorist Vilification and Taxation Plan"
There was a great piece in the Wall Street Journal last month (subscription required), that really exposes the mayor's congestion plan for what it is-a motorist vilification and taxation program that will do very little to reduce traffic and pollution. As Holman Jenkins underscores, "Listen to half an ear to the mayor and his acolytes, however, and their goal isn't easing congestion at all. It's raising money. The city's plan foresees only negligible improvement in traffic density and speeds, less than 8%, but millions for the city to spend on other priorities."
Jenkins goes on to highlight the dubious asthma prevention claims of the mayor and his supporters and further points out that, if traffic congestion was the real goal her, the mayor would be all for tolls on the East River bridges. "But something much bigger is afoot, and voters not just in New York should be paying attention."
The attention they should be paying is to the way the 6,000 cameras in London have become part of an elaborate surveillance system that makes Briton the most monitored society in the world. Even worse, this is all part of making motorists into a lucrative pinata-in Briton the cameras sent out 2.2 million traffic speeding tickets as a result of street cameras; "Tens of thousands more tickets were sent to drivers who had been photographed talking on cell phones or committing other minor offenses. More than one million of Briton's 33 million drivers are now one ticket away from losing their licenses." (added emphasis)
The implications here are far reaching-from both a financial as well as a personal privacy perspective. Think first of a mammoth PVB bolstered by a network of thousands of cameras all over the city streets. Now watch as the "fee" gets raised and drivers are bombarded by summonses, any number of which could be potentially challenged if the city actually had an equitable adjudication system.
As Jenkins observes, "The issue isn't cameras, but networks of cameras, combined with software to extract information from the pictures and match it with information held in databases. On top of it all, the issue is an overpowering political incentive to use the system to extract more and more money from motorists..."
All of which highlights what we have been saying all along. The mayor's plan is ill-conceived as a traffic relief program and, more in keeping with his propensity, is a plan to tax New Yorkers while making sure that they learn to behave better-or else!
If we need a better transit infrastructure-and more money to pay for it-there are much better ways to do this-as Comptroller Thompson's discussion of the MTA's proposed fare hikes in today's NY Post, makes abundantly clear. The State has shortchanged the city for too long and, as Thompson says, we need to reverse our priorities and recognize mass transit as an "economic engine."
In order to do this we need to coalesce around a more comprehensive mass transit plan, The mayor's congestion tax is a red herring, one with significant social costs, that doesn't address the problems in the most constructive manner; and by failing to do so, prevents us from developing the most optimal solutions to the overall public transit crisis. With the federal congestion money in abeyance, we need to look for a more creative solution.
Jenkins goes on to highlight the dubious asthma prevention claims of the mayor and his supporters and further points out that, if traffic congestion was the real goal her, the mayor would be all for tolls on the East River bridges. "But something much bigger is afoot, and voters not just in New York should be paying attention."
The attention they should be paying is to the way the 6,000 cameras in London have become part of an elaborate surveillance system that makes Briton the most monitored society in the world. Even worse, this is all part of making motorists into a lucrative pinata-in Briton the cameras sent out 2.2 million traffic speeding tickets as a result of street cameras; "Tens of thousands more tickets were sent to drivers who had been photographed talking on cell phones or committing other minor offenses. More than one million of Briton's 33 million drivers are now one ticket away from losing their licenses." (added emphasis)
The implications here are far reaching-from both a financial as well as a personal privacy perspective. Think first of a mammoth PVB bolstered by a network of thousands of cameras all over the city streets. Now watch as the "fee" gets raised and drivers are bombarded by summonses, any number of which could be potentially challenged if the city actually had an equitable adjudication system.
As Jenkins observes, "The issue isn't cameras, but networks of cameras, combined with software to extract information from the pictures and match it with information held in databases. On top of it all, the issue is an overpowering political incentive to use the system to extract more and more money from motorists..."
All of which highlights what we have been saying all along. The mayor's plan is ill-conceived as a traffic relief program and, more in keeping with his propensity, is a plan to tax New Yorkers while making sure that they learn to behave better-or else!
If we need a better transit infrastructure-and more money to pay for it-there are much better ways to do this-as Comptroller Thompson's discussion of the MTA's proposed fare hikes in today's NY Post, makes abundantly clear. The State has shortchanged the city for too long and, as Thompson says, we need to reverse our priorities and recognize mass transit as an "economic engine."
In order to do this we need to coalesce around a more comprehensive mass transit plan, The mayor's congestion tax is a red herring, one with significant social costs, that doesn't address the problems in the most constructive manner; and by failing to do so, prevents us from developing the most optimal solutions to the overall public transit crisis. With the federal congestion money in abeyance, we need to look for a more creative solution.
The Breakfast Flub
The NYC Coalition Against Hunger held its press conference yesterday, and we couldn't top the NY Post and its headline in today's paper-so we shamelessly copied it for our commentary. Clearly, there is something radically amiss in the schools when Newark is doing a much better job getting children to eat breakfast than we are in New York; and this is after Mayor Bloomberg established "Universal Breakfast," a program that allows any kid to eat without regard to eligibility.
The key here, as Coalition head Joel Berg pointed out, is for "the city to expand participation by serving breakfast in classrooms rather than cafeterias." That's the approach that enabled Newark to reach its 93% rate, leaving NYC red faced at 29%.
This poor record has a number of implications, as the report from Food Research and Action Center highlights. Our school kids in New York are part of a generation that is facing health challenges that have heretofore been unknown to us. Diabetes and heart disease, and an obesity epidemic that is shocking, are two results of lifestyles and poor eating habits that need to be changed-or, quite frankly, they will soon bankrupt us.
In addition, the failure to have a good breakfast has educational implications as well. Poor nutrition will effect attention spans and educational outcomes will inevitably suffer. And, with around 600,000 eligible children not eating, the city is forfeiting close to a million a day in federal and state revenue. Exacerbating the situation is the fact that, because there is a differential between what the city gets in aid and what it spends on each breakfast, there is an additional $60-$70 million a year lost-money that could go to additional nutritional programs.
All of which makes the DOE's response to the FRAC report even more questionable. As a spokeswoman for the Department told the NY Daily News, citing the fact that participation rates were at 14% in 2003, the current 29% is "a huge jump." That's what happens, it seems, when you don't set the bar too high-hyperbole replaces sober reevaluation.
The city needs to really move on this-especially when the mayor has made health and education such a high public policy priority. We need to devise a number of innovative pilot programs-and classroom breakfast is a good place to begin- and really look for ways to makes these dismal rates soar. As the NY Times reports this morning, "The Department of Education said yesterday that it would consider the proposal."
This is welcome news indeed. In Newark the Ed Department partnered with "Got Breakfast!" and the not-for-profit advocacy group helped boost participation. Maybe that's a good place to begin.
The key here, as Coalition head Joel Berg pointed out, is for "the city to expand participation by serving breakfast in classrooms rather than cafeterias." That's the approach that enabled Newark to reach its 93% rate, leaving NYC red faced at 29%.
This poor record has a number of implications, as the report from Food Research and Action Center highlights. Our school kids in New York are part of a generation that is facing health challenges that have heretofore been unknown to us. Diabetes and heart disease, and an obesity epidemic that is shocking, are two results of lifestyles and poor eating habits that need to be changed-or, quite frankly, they will soon bankrupt us.
In addition, the failure to have a good breakfast has educational implications as well. Poor nutrition will effect attention spans and educational outcomes will inevitably suffer. And, with around 600,000 eligible children not eating, the city is forfeiting close to a million a day in federal and state revenue. Exacerbating the situation is the fact that, because there is a differential between what the city gets in aid and what it spends on each breakfast, there is an additional $60-$70 million a year lost-money that could go to additional nutritional programs.
All of which makes the DOE's response to the FRAC report even more questionable. As a spokeswoman for the Department told the NY Daily News, citing the fact that participation rates were at 14% in 2003, the current 29% is "a huge jump." That's what happens, it seems, when you don't set the bar too high-hyperbole replaces sober reevaluation.
The city needs to really move on this-especially when the mayor has made health and education such a high public policy priority. We need to devise a number of innovative pilot programs-and classroom breakfast is a good place to begin- and really look for ways to makes these dismal rates soar. As the NY Times reports this morning, "The Department of Education said yesterday that it would consider the proposal."
This is welcome news indeed. In Newark the Ed Department partnered with "Got Breakfast!" and the not-for-profit advocacy group helped boost participation. Maybe that's a good place to begin.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Hungry for Better Results
A healthy breakfast is not only nutritionally crucial but also is an important element of successful school performance. However, according to a study by Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), New York City is virtually last among all major urban cities in providing low income children despite that fact that one in five New York City children live in homes that cannot afford a sufficient supply of food. Amazingly, though 80% are eligible, only 29% of NYC's school children that receive free lunches also receive breakfast. For context, consider that in Portland 98% and in Newark 96% of such students are served their morning meal.
This absolute failure of the Administration will be underscored today at 10:00 a.m. on the steps of city hall as Representative Anthony Weiner, State Senator Carl Kruger, Councilmen Gioia, Monseratte, and Weprin and the New York City Coalition Against Hunger rally to pressure the Department of Education to reverse their shameful performance when it comes to providing breakfast for the city's low-income youth.
In particular the speakers will emphasize that the most successful way to improve the participation rate in NYC's free school breakfast initiative is to move the program from the cafeteria to the classroom. As has been seen in Newark, where the program is very successful, kids are much more likely to opt for breakfast if the meals are distributed to all their peers in a such a way that eliminates stigma and the temptation to eat less nutritious foods.
This innovative approach needs to piloted in the city otherwise New York will continue to remain in an embarrassing and dangerous last when it comes to feeding its neediest students; and this dismal showing has educational, health and fiscal implications. With school performance still much in need of improvement, and with the city being challenged by an obesity epidemic, we need to insure that school kids eat a healthy breakfast-not to mention the tens of millions of dollars that New York City is leaving on the table because of its low school breakfast participation rate.
This absolute failure of the Administration will be underscored today at 10:00 a.m. on the steps of city hall as Representative Anthony Weiner, State Senator Carl Kruger, Councilmen Gioia, Monseratte, and Weprin and the New York City Coalition Against Hunger rally to pressure the Department of Education to reverse their shameful performance when it comes to providing breakfast for the city's low-income youth.
In particular the speakers will emphasize that the most successful way to improve the participation rate in NYC's free school breakfast initiative is to move the program from the cafeteria to the classroom. As has been seen in Newark, where the program is very successful, kids are much more likely to opt for breakfast if the meals are distributed to all their peers in a such a way that eliminates stigma and the temptation to eat less nutritious foods.
This innovative approach needs to piloted in the city otherwise New York will continue to remain in an embarrassing and dangerous last when it comes to feeding its neediest students; and this dismal showing has educational, health and fiscal implications. With school performance still much in need of improvement, and with the city being challenged by an obesity epidemic, we need to insure that school kids eat a healthy breakfast-not to mention the tens of millions of dollars that New York City is leaving on the table because of its low school breakfast participation rate.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Columbia's Duplicity
Much was made in the press about the apparent decision by CU to not try to invoke the use of eminent domain to remove tenants from the low income housing in the path of the university's expansion. In the view of the Coalition to Preserve Community (CPC), which will hold a press conference today at 11:15 in front of City Planning, the university's announcement was little more than a public relations charade, one that was issued in bad faith and was designed to create the false impression that the university's relationship with area tenants had reached some improved status.
In addition, was disappointed with the reactions of some of the area's elected officials who went out of their way to praise the university's decision. That was a mistake on their part and here's why: The university is still looking to evict the tenants from their homes. The fact that it is exploring alternative methods doesn't change the unacceptability of this basic fact. The reality here is that the tenants still want to stay, and Columbia is still looking to remove them; a situation that makes those who enthusiastically praise the university on the eminent domain ruse look incredibly foolish, and disingenuous.
CPC has told us that it opposes the university's strong arm tenant removal tactics , whatever label is used to describe them. Without the tenants approval of any relocation plan, all of the press releases in the world will not change the one basic reality here: Columbia University, with little or no regard for the community, is looking to steamroll the residents and businesses so that it can aggrandize its own selfish interests.
No amount of scapegoating of university opponents will change the facts on the ground: the Columbia plan is an attempt to steamroll the community, and use political muscle to stifle any accomodation to neighborhood wishes. Spineless representation enables this situation, and we will soon be making the munecos uncomfortable in their role as toadies to the corporate interests.
In addition, was disappointed with the reactions of some of the area's elected officials who went out of their way to praise the university's decision. That was a mistake on their part and here's why: The university is still looking to evict the tenants from their homes. The fact that it is exploring alternative methods doesn't change the unacceptability of this basic fact. The reality here is that the tenants still want to stay, and Columbia is still looking to remove them; a situation that makes those who enthusiastically praise the university on the eminent domain ruse look incredibly foolish, and disingenuous.
CPC has told us that it opposes the university's strong arm tenant removal tactics , whatever label is used to describe them. Without the tenants approval of any relocation plan, all of the press releases in the world will not change the one basic reality here: Columbia University, with little or no regard for the community, is looking to steamroll the residents and businesses so that it can aggrandize its own selfish interests.
No amount of scapegoating of university opponents will change the facts on the ground: the Columbia plan is an attempt to steamroll the community, and use political muscle to stifle any accomodation to neighborhood wishes. Spineless representation enables this situation, and we will soon be making the munecos uncomfortable in their role as toadies to the corporate interests.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Commuting Traffic Nonsense
In what was quite a fascinating round table discussion, three of our favorite bloggers sat down with NBC's Day DeDapper at the channel's News Forum for a discussion of politics. Naturally, the talk with Sewell Chan, Liz Benjamin and Azi Payabarah got around to the mayor's congestion taxing plan.
All three of these political observers agreed that the mayor was in for a difficult time in the next few months; and see any number of pitfalls in the way before any kind of acceptance of the mayor's plan can be achieved. Liz gets to the core of the mayor's problem: the substantive, political and personality differences between the Assembly Democrats (and many Democratic Senators we might add) and the mayor.
Here's her money quote: "...what I mean is that in the long term...this might be a question of should we kill the congestion pricing now or should we kill it later as far as the Assemble Democrats are concerned. I mean, I don't know exactly what's going to happen over the next few months that's going to significantly change their minds...And one of the things that really angers them regarding the mayor and the way he approached this was that he sort of seems to brush them aside and sort of downplayed their importance when it came to his plan."
She then goes on to point out that the mayor's aristocratic condescension really put the legislators off; "He just like, this is a great plan, this is going to work, it's important to reduce asthma, to reduce pollution, etc.,and yeah, yeah, it's the legislature yeah, they're going to do it. So I think that really made them-offended a number of legislators.
Sewell Chan goes on to say that the mayor still has time to improve his "care and feeding" of the legislators, and he's right, but little we've seen so far indicates that his skills lie in this area. Which leads the discussion into the establishment of the commission, and Azi's comments that it appears to him that there are any number of ways for the plan to fall-and the commission only recommends, but the legislature approves. As he points out; "But lawmakers still have to step forward."
The congestion tax discussion ends with DeDapper asking the three pundits about whether they're optimistic about the mayor's chance for success. All three agreed with the question: "None of you would be as optimistic as the mayor at this point?" Of course Bloomberg set the optimism bar pretty high here.
The real conundrum in all of this is how this commission process will unfold. The commission, as far as we know, is without both staff and any investigation resources. How will the commissioners, legislators and not policy experts, review the mayor's plan in order to determine whether its environmental assumptions are valid-after all, the mayor himself is arguing that any alternatives to his proposal must reduce traffic by the same 6.3% that he claims his own scheme does.
What this means is that all of the congestion relief, asthma reduction and pollution amelioration supposedly integral to the mayor's plan must be tested empirically. How will this be done? Will a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the plan's assertions find a wide gap between the rhetoric of the mayor and his supporters-some of whom take the car service in from Bay Ridge-and the actual impact of his planned tax? Will the mayor balk when the call for an EIS is made, giving fodder to the critics of the plan?
We agree that there is a great deal of time between now and the time when a final decision is made on all of this. One thing we are confident about, however, is that the more people find out about the real hardships and limitations of the mayor's plan, the more they will join with those legislators that are skeptical, and remain opposed to this new tax.
All three of these political observers agreed that the mayor was in for a difficult time in the next few months; and see any number of pitfalls in the way before any kind of acceptance of the mayor's plan can be achieved. Liz gets to the core of the mayor's problem: the substantive, political and personality differences between the Assembly Democrats (and many Democratic Senators we might add) and the mayor.
Here's her money quote: "...what I mean is that in the long term...this might be a question of should we kill the congestion pricing now or should we kill it later as far as the Assemble Democrats are concerned. I mean, I don't know exactly what's going to happen over the next few months that's going to significantly change their minds...And one of the things that really angers them regarding the mayor and the way he approached this was that he sort of seems to brush them aside and sort of downplayed their importance when it came to his plan."
She then goes on to point out that the mayor's aristocratic condescension really put the legislators off; "He just like, this is a great plan, this is going to work, it's important to reduce asthma, to reduce pollution, etc.,and yeah, yeah, it's the legislature yeah, they're going to do it. So I think that really made them-offended a number of legislators.
Sewell Chan goes on to say that the mayor still has time to improve his "care and feeding" of the legislators, and he's right, but little we've seen so far indicates that his skills lie in this area. Which leads the discussion into the establishment of the commission, and Azi's comments that it appears to him that there are any number of ways for the plan to fall-and the commission only recommends, but the legislature approves. As he points out; "But lawmakers still have to step forward."
The congestion tax discussion ends with DeDapper asking the three pundits about whether they're optimistic about the mayor's chance for success. All three agreed with the question: "None of you would be as optimistic as the mayor at this point?" Of course Bloomberg set the optimism bar pretty high here.
The real conundrum in all of this is how this commission process will unfold. The commission, as far as we know, is without both staff and any investigation resources. How will the commissioners, legislators and not policy experts, review the mayor's plan in order to determine whether its environmental assumptions are valid-after all, the mayor himself is arguing that any alternatives to his proposal must reduce traffic by the same 6.3% that he claims his own scheme does.
What this means is that all of the congestion relief, asthma reduction and pollution amelioration supposedly integral to the mayor's plan must be tested empirically. How will this be done? Will a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the plan's assertions find a wide gap between the rhetoric of the mayor and his supporters-some of whom take the car service in from Bay Ridge-and the actual impact of his planned tax? Will the mayor balk when the call for an EIS is made, giving fodder to the critics of the plan?
We agree that there is a great deal of time between now and the time when a final decision is made on all of this. One thing we are confident about, however, is that the more people find out about the real hardships and limitations of the mayor's plan, the more they will join with those legislators that are skeptical, and remain opposed to this new tax.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Fatty Tissue of Tall Tales
Our good friends at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) are at it again-don't you just love it when unelected folks arrogate to themselves a public interest mantle? This time as the NY Post reports this morning, they are out on the streets of New York gathering evidence on the level of compliance of fast food restaurants with the city's Trans fat ban. Some outlets are apparently doing better than others, if you believe the CSPI "study."
Our skepticism, of course, devolves from the fact that these self-appointed guardians of the public health have a vested interest in the outcomes that they find; primarily because the city's trans fat ban, and its menu labeling reg that is currently under court challenge, are the brainchild of none other than CSPI itself. And as we have pointed out, the menu labeling farce was cribbed directly from the CSPI material by the city's DOH.
New York is facing a critical public health crisis-with obesity and diabetes epidemics challenging the health resources of our city government. The way to tackle this problem is not through the implementation of heavy-handed regulations, but by the utilization of aggressive educational outreach directed at changing the hearts and minds side of the public health equation.
With most of the city's restaurants are making the shift over to non trans fat frying and baking, it is the silly menu labeling that most disturbs us. Putting calorie counts on certain fast food restaurants-in the absence of any nutritional knowledge among the customers of these places-is counterproductive; and at the same time is injurious to local business. We're hoping that the court feels the same.
Our skepticism, of course, devolves from the fact that these self-appointed guardians of the public health have a vested interest in the outcomes that they find; primarily because the city's trans fat ban, and its menu labeling reg that is currently under court challenge, are the brainchild of none other than CSPI itself. And as we have pointed out, the menu labeling farce was cribbed directly from the CSPI material by the city's DOH.
New York is facing a critical public health crisis-with obesity and diabetes epidemics challenging the health resources of our city government. The way to tackle this problem is not through the implementation of heavy-handed regulations, but by the utilization of aggressive educational outreach directed at changing the hearts and minds side of the public health equation.
With most of the city's restaurants are making the shift over to non trans fat frying and baking, it is the silly menu labeling that most disturbs us. Putting calorie counts on certain fast food restaurants-in the absence of any nutritional knowledge among the customers of these places-is counterproductive; and at the same time is injurious to local business. We're hoping that the court feels the same.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
The New Reggie Bar: Chewing on Sprayregen
In a continuation of our commentary on the attempts by Bill Lynch to generate grass roots support for Columbia's expansion, we want to take a look today at the attempt by the Lynchites to make Nick Sprayregen into a poster child for rich white privilege. These smear tactics might make some sense if it was Nick who was trying to evict low-income tenants and gentrify a large swath of West Harlem real estate.
It is of course Columbia that is trying to do all of these things-while using the power of the state to take away peoples' property. The tactics in play are therefore in the service of of a multi-billion dollar expansion effort and their very nature serves to underscore the lack of integrity of Columbia-which should be called on to denounce them in no uncertain terms. They are also useful to deflect attention away from the actual impacts that the university's expansion will have on the West Harlem community.
There is no coalition that Bill Lynch could form that could in any way defend the lack of affordable housing in the Columbia plan, or the gentrifying tsunami that the plan will certainly unleash-at least according to BP Stringer's incisive analysis of the situation. The solution? Ignore the plan's negative features, focus on the jobs (that Lynch will dole out to the faithful), and target Sparayregen for his race and class.
Which brings us to the Reverend Williams, a man who has stepped up to become the public face of the effort to tarnish Sprayregen. We take you back to his Village Voice letter of last week where the Reverend said the following: "Sprayregen is using his personal wealth and business interests to make himself the public face of those opposing the plan, many, including other religious leaders, question who and what he really represents."
Sounds quite sinister, doesn't it? Sprayregen, the front for some kind of cabal? As Williams continues in his tawdry innuendo: "But he's not a resident; he's a businessman. A businessman negotiating commercial development and luxury condo deals in Yonkers...Columbia University's proposal is a chance to revitalize our neighborhood. If Sprayregen actually lived here, or really cared about it, maybe he could see that."
Sprayregen, bad! Columbia, good! Why didn't we see that? Columbia's revitalization will uplift all of the neighborhood and only the rich white interloper is standing in the way. Doesn't this remind you of the Marx Brothers line?- "Who're going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?
Which brings us to the inconvenient fact that Nick Sprayregen is part of a racially and economically diverse grass roots coalition that thinks the Columbia plan stinks; and this coalition, in turn, is reflective of the unanimous sentiment of CB#9 that has an entirely different vision for the area than does the benevolent university.
So, Reverend Williams, who are the ones who really care about the community? Not the folks who are part of the paid army of astro-turf soldiers, looking to score off of the expansion drive. These booty capitalists are nothing but opportunists who are not representing the community-at least not the community as it is currently constitutes. After the gentrifying tsunami's cleansing effect, who knows, maybe it will become representative at that point?
So, in answer to the Williams slander, it is Sprayregen who is representing the community's interests, and using his personal resources to advance them. What Williams, and by extension Lynch, wants to do is to de-legitimize Nick so that the opposition to the gravy train will be diminished and everyone in line to eat can do so undisturbed.
It is of course Columbia that is trying to do all of these things-while using the power of the state to take away peoples' property. The tactics in play are therefore in the service of of a multi-billion dollar expansion effort and their very nature serves to underscore the lack of integrity of Columbia-which should be called on to denounce them in no uncertain terms. They are also useful to deflect attention away from the actual impacts that the university's expansion will have on the West Harlem community.
There is no coalition that Bill Lynch could form that could in any way defend the lack of affordable housing in the Columbia plan, or the gentrifying tsunami that the plan will certainly unleash-at least according to BP Stringer's incisive analysis of the situation. The solution? Ignore the plan's negative features, focus on the jobs (that Lynch will dole out to the faithful), and target Sparayregen for his race and class.
Which brings us to the Reverend Williams, a man who has stepped up to become the public face of the effort to tarnish Sprayregen. We take you back to his Village Voice letter of last week where the Reverend said the following: "Sprayregen is using his personal wealth and business interests to make himself the public face of those opposing the plan, many, including other religious leaders, question who and what he really represents."
Sounds quite sinister, doesn't it? Sprayregen, the front for some kind of cabal? As Williams continues in his tawdry innuendo: "But he's not a resident; he's a businessman. A businessman negotiating commercial development and luxury condo deals in Yonkers...Columbia University's proposal is a chance to revitalize our neighborhood. If Sprayregen actually lived here, or really cared about it, maybe he could see that."
Sprayregen, bad! Columbia, good! Why didn't we see that? Columbia's revitalization will uplift all of the neighborhood and only the rich white interloper is standing in the way. Doesn't this remind you of the Marx Brothers line?- "Who're going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?
Which brings us to the inconvenient fact that Nick Sprayregen is part of a racially and economically diverse grass roots coalition that thinks the Columbia plan stinks; and this coalition, in turn, is reflective of the unanimous sentiment of CB#9 that has an entirely different vision for the area than does the benevolent university.
So, Reverend Williams, who are the ones who really care about the community? Not the folks who are part of the paid army of astro-turf soldiers, looking to score off of the expansion drive. These booty capitalists are nothing but opportunists who are not representing the community-at least not the community as it is currently constitutes. After the gentrifying tsunami's cleansing effect, who knows, maybe it will become representative at that point?
So, in answer to the Williams slander, it is Sprayregen who is representing the community's interests, and using his personal resources to advance them. What Williams, and by extension Lynch, wants to do is to de-legitimize Nick so that the opposition to the gravy train will be diminished and everyone in line to eat can do so undisturbed.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Columbia's Lynch Hired to Weed the Garden
In his continuing focus on the Columbia University expansion effort, The Observer's Matt Scheurman takes a look today at the role of former Deputy Mayor Bil Lynch. It seems that Lynch, being paid $40,000 a month according to published reports, has been busy organizing his own grass roots coalition of employees and alumni of Columbia-as well as those who, "are supportive of the expansion because of the jobs they have heard about..."
All of which is well and good, because no one has denied that there are potential benefits inherent in the university's expansion. It is, however, somewhat beside the point since the real community concern has been in the all or nothing approach that the university has taken; as well as in the way in which Columbia, unlike Forest City Ratner in Brooklyn, has refrained from engaging the community in direct negotiations.
Which brings us to the issue of this WHLDC-a Trojan Horse in development. How many months has this entity labored? Not since Horton Hatches a Who has so much effort gone into an effort with so little to show for it. From our vantage point it looks like the classic Ali "Rope-a-Dope" strategy. You'd think by now that the LDC would have been able to devise 4 or 5 basic demands for the university.
And what are the electeds doing on the Board? The role of elected officials in a land use struggle is to act as honest brokers on behalf of the community, especially when a number of them will have to vote on the plan when it comes to them-either at the Borough Board or at the City Council. Even Adolfo Carrion didn't place himself on the negotiating team in the ill-conceived Gateway Mall CBA-while trying to steer the negotiations into a direction that he was comfortable with. Do you think that the presence of these officials might be one reason that the LDC has done very little?
The Lynch effort is, however, extremely interesting. What we do know is that the community opposition, as today's Newsday/AP story highlights, didn't coalesce as a result of any outside organizing; it has always been both genuine and passionate. So who will represent the Lynchites? Clearly, they will be folks who up until this time had no reason to voice support for Columbia's expansion.
Their entry into the conversation, then, would seem to require a catalyst; and with all due respect to Lynch, it can't be his good looks and charm that will be doing the pump priming. It is clearly a "Jerry McGuire" moment for the Lynch acolytes. Yet, what this creates, it seems to us, is a parallel negotiating process-an official one that involves the LDC, and an unofficial effort that is being spearheaded by Columbia's consultant.
If we were to bet here, we'd have to make Lynch the favorite to come out on top, since he is the one who represents Columbia and has its ear. If so, where does that leave the LDC? If we are right about the classic diversionary strategy in play here, it means that, in the final analysis, the LDC will adopt a platform that is in reality advanced by none other than Bill Lynch. In this kind of a dishonest process Jesse Masyr and Susan Russell are the quintessential midwives.
Will the results reflect genuine community interest? Given the structure of the process, and the role Lynch is playing, this is highly unlikely. In our view, the main community concern is the intertwined need for affordable housing and the fear of gentrification. Yet the Columbia plan completely avoids both sides of this equation-and don't expect to find a large contingent of housing advocates in Lynch's grass garden.
The bottom line in all of this is that no amount of weeding by Bill Lynch can change the fact that the university will, directly and indirectly, be displacing hundreds, if not thousands of low-income Harlem residents; and no amount of jawboning by Columbia about relocating those evicted should be taken with anything but the proverbial grain of salt.
In addition, with no negotiations or identifiable destinations identified up until this point, isn't it premature for Bob Jackson to be praising the university without qualification for agreeing to not use eminent domain to evict these tenants? Is there an agreement that we're not aware of? What if the tenants don't want to move from the neighborhood many have lived in for decades? The Columbia agreement, without any tenant assent to be moved, is pure smoke and mirrors; and praise from the elected officials here is redolent of bad faith.
All of which is well and good, because no one has denied that there are potential benefits inherent in the university's expansion. It is, however, somewhat beside the point since the real community concern has been in the all or nothing approach that the university has taken; as well as in the way in which Columbia, unlike Forest City Ratner in Brooklyn, has refrained from engaging the community in direct negotiations.
Which brings us to the issue of this WHLDC-a Trojan Horse in development. How many months has this entity labored? Not since Horton Hatches a Who has so much effort gone into an effort with so little to show for it. From our vantage point it looks like the classic Ali "Rope-a-Dope" strategy. You'd think by now that the LDC would have been able to devise 4 or 5 basic demands for the university.
And what are the electeds doing on the Board? The role of elected officials in a land use struggle is to act as honest brokers on behalf of the community, especially when a number of them will have to vote on the plan when it comes to them-either at the Borough Board or at the City Council. Even Adolfo Carrion didn't place himself on the negotiating team in the ill-conceived Gateway Mall CBA-while trying to steer the negotiations into a direction that he was comfortable with. Do you think that the presence of these officials might be one reason that the LDC has done very little?
The Lynch effort is, however, extremely interesting. What we do know is that the community opposition, as today's Newsday/AP story highlights, didn't coalesce as a result of any outside organizing; it has always been both genuine and passionate. So who will represent the Lynchites? Clearly, they will be folks who up until this time had no reason to voice support for Columbia's expansion.
Their entry into the conversation, then, would seem to require a catalyst; and with all due respect to Lynch, it can't be his good looks and charm that will be doing the pump priming. It is clearly a "Jerry McGuire" moment for the Lynch acolytes. Yet, what this creates, it seems to us, is a parallel negotiating process-an official one that involves the LDC, and an unofficial effort that is being spearheaded by Columbia's consultant.
If we were to bet here, we'd have to make Lynch the favorite to come out on top, since he is the one who represents Columbia and has its ear. If so, where does that leave the LDC? If we are right about the classic diversionary strategy in play here, it means that, in the final analysis, the LDC will adopt a platform that is in reality advanced by none other than Bill Lynch. In this kind of a dishonest process Jesse Masyr and Susan Russell are the quintessential midwives.
Will the results reflect genuine community interest? Given the structure of the process, and the role Lynch is playing, this is highly unlikely. In our view, the main community concern is the intertwined need for affordable housing and the fear of gentrification. Yet the Columbia plan completely avoids both sides of this equation-and don't expect to find a large contingent of housing advocates in Lynch's grass garden.
The bottom line in all of this is that no amount of weeding by Bill Lynch can change the fact that the university will, directly and indirectly, be displacing hundreds, if not thousands of low-income Harlem residents; and no amount of jawboning by Columbia about relocating those evicted should be taken with anything but the proverbial grain of salt.
In addition, with no negotiations or identifiable destinations identified up until this point, isn't it premature for Bob Jackson to be praising the university without qualification for agreeing to not use eminent domain to evict these tenants? Is there an agreement that we're not aware of? What if the tenants don't want to move from the neighborhood many have lived in for decades? The Columbia agreement, without any tenant assent to be moved, is pure smoke and mirrors; and praise from the elected officials here is redolent of bad faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
