In yesterday's NY Daily News the paper's Errol Louis reports on the growing exodus of middle-class New Yorkers. Citing a report done by Comptroller Thompson, Louis worries about what this exodus means for the kind of city New York will become: "It means the backbone of the city is weakening as hundreds of thousands of teachers, cops, firefighters, bus drivers, security guards, transit workers, barbers and administrators - a big slice of the people who make the city go - give up on New York every year."
And Louis is quite right. What he doesn't comment on, however-in his otherwise incisive column-is the way in which municipal government is often directly responsible for this mass exodus. The fact is that the high cost of living in this city-a reality that has often been derided by our wealthy mayor-is a major factor in the reason why people choose to relocate. Louis hints at this when he observes that; "In reality, professionals are statistically more likely to size up their buying power and quality of life and start scanning real estate listings in nearby suburbs or in places like Atlanta, West Palm Beach and Raleigh-Durham."
This high cost is directly related to the outrageous taxing policies that make NYC one of the most expensive places to live. When the mayor pushed through his 18% property tax increase in 2002-an increase that was exacerbated by higher assessments as well-we were treated to a spate of exodus stories that have since died down in the wake of the media's canonization of Mayor Mike.
Now, however, the chickens are coming home to roost, and with them also comes the realization that all of are high tax enablers are almost as big as danger as the elected officials who blithely raise fees in the name of fiscal "prudence." These are the DMI kind of folks who define the middle class down to such a degree that the category loses all recognition. And these are the people who try to insist that are car commuters are privileged by invidiously comparing them to mass transit users in the congestion taxing debate. The reality is that our car commuters are the ones most likely to, in Louis' words, "size up their buying power," and look around for less expensive places to live. The mayor's congestion fee is simply another tax-as New Yorkers in poll after poll scream out.
Which brings us to Louis' political point: we need to craft policy so that we can preserve this vital resource that our middle class represents. This means, as Errol points out, that the cries for "affordable housing" need to be tempered somewhat by the realization that the middle class is being squeezed by the housing crunch. Here's Louis' money quote:
"That means we have to end the zero-sum politics that pits the needs of the poor against those of the middle class. Look at any of the big development projects around the city that include affordable housing - Atlantic Yards, Queens West, conversion of the Domino sugar factory on the Brooklyn waterfront - and there's a fight about whether subsidizing middle-class families amounts to a wasteful "giveaway" of resources best reserved for the very poor."
The size and scope of municipal government needs to be squarely addressed, and the 2009 wannabees will have to do that if they want to make the step up on the governmental ladder. The mayor's wealth has dazzled our media watchdogs and has given him a Reagen-like Teflon status. Those who try to emulate him best beware.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
ED Threatens Uniques Businesses at the Point
In today's NY Times the paper takes a look at some of the unique businesses located on the Willets Point site that the city has slated for an eminent domain-drive redevelopment. In some ways, the article creates an impression of a bunch of fly-by-night businesses whose disappearance would create few tears for anyone. Clearly, this is not an accurate picture of the level of economic activity-some of it quite unique-that goes on in this area.
As we have pointed out, and as Tom Angotti's study underscores, there are 225 different businesses at the Point employing around 2,000 workers. A high percentage of the firms are owned by immigrant entrepreneurs, and they in turn service the immigrant communities of Queens. In addition, the area has been pointedly neglected by the city government, to the extent that the businesses would be justified to sue for theft of services-given the fact that the "blight" that is clearly evident is directly attributable to the failure of the city to maintain the neighborhood.
What Willets Point represents, much as the Bronx Terminal Market did, is the vibrancy of minority entrepreneurs. It's too bad that the mayor, who so often praises the contribution of immigrants to New York, can't walk the walk when it comes to immigrant businesses. Instead, he is quick to give them the hook when he friends in the real estate community come salivating.
The fact remains that the displacement of all of these workers and businesses will not be compensated by the building of a retail mall, luxury housing and a hotel-all in an area where transportation infrastructure is weak (so much for congestion pricing). What's fascinating here is that the Bloombergistas want to ULURP the area before there is a developer selected, which if done, would mean that the City Council would be handing the mayor a carte blanche ticket to ride that would denude the body of its Charter-driven oversight role. It will be fascinating to see how this eminent domain battle will play out as the council term winds down.
As we have pointed out, and as Tom Angotti's study underscores, there are 225 different businesses at the Point employing around 2,000 workers. A high percentage of the firms are owned by immigrant entrepreneurs, and they in turn service the immigrant communities of Queens. In addition, the area has been pointedly neglected by the city government, to the extent that the businesses would be justified to sue for theft of services-given the fact that the "blight" that is clearly evident is directly attributable to the failure of the city to maintain the neighborhood.
What Willets Point represents, much as the Bronx Terminal Market did, is the vibrancy of minority entrepreneurs. It's too bad that the mayor, who so often praises the contribution of immigrants to New York, can't walk the walk when it comes to immigrant businesses. Instead, he is quick to give them the hook when he friends in the real estate community come salivating.
The fact remains that the displacement of all of these workers and businesses will not be compensated by the building of a retail mall, luxury housing and a hotel-all in an area where transportation infrastructure is weak (so much for congestion pricing). What's fascinating here is that the Bloombergistas want to ULURP the area before there is a developer selected, which if done, would mean that the City Council would be handing the mayor a carte blanche ticket to ride that would denude the body of its Charter-driven oversight role. It will be fascinating to see how this eminent domain battle will play out as the council term winds down.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Et Tu, Calvin?
Last night on NY1, the Reverend Calvin Butts took Columbia to task over its failure to reach out to the Abbysinian Development Corporation's leader on the issue of the university's expansion: "Columbia is moving in a way that is really alienating a lot of the community members who have been really interested in working with them to develop a good plan, particularly where affordable housing is concerned,” said Butts.
As we have pointed out, the third rail for this project is the affordable housing issue, and the university's lack of any revealed plan certainly makes it vulnerable to the attacks that have been coming from a wide range of community leaders. We have already made the overture to Columbia on the issue of swapping land owned by the area's largest property owner to the university in exchange for other space that could then be converted into affordable housing.
So far, the silence has been deafening, but there are elected leaders and other affordable housing advocates who are working behind the scenes to push the university in the right direction. Hopefully, the speak-out by the Reverand Butts will get the Columbia officials off of theirs.
As we have pointed out, the third rail for this project is the affordable housing issue, and the university's lack of any revealed plan certainly makes it vulnerable to the attacks that have been coming from a wide range of community leaders. We have already made the overture to Columbia on the issue of swapping land owned by the area's largest property owner to the university in exchange for other space that could then be converted into affordable housing.
So far, the silence has been deafening, but there are elected leaders and other affordable housing advocates who are working behind the scenes to push the university in the right direction. Hopefully, the speak-out by the Reverand Butts will get the Columbia officials off of theirs.
Putting the Horse Before the A La Carte
In the aftermath of the judge's decision to throw out the city's menu labeling rule, the speculation is increasing that the battle may have only begun. As the NY Times' Ray Rivera wrote yesterday (and Rivera has a keen eye for the issue), "The restaurant industry seemed buoyed when a federal judge this week struck down a city health regulation that would have required nearly 2,400 New York City restaurants to post calorie information on their menus. But the ruling may backfire on the industry, leading to a broader range of restaurants’ being bound by a nearly identical menu-labeling requirement."
Which will only mean that the fight will continue to escalate, especially if the city widens its scope to include all 23,000 local eateries. Lost in the legal musings, however, is the philosophy behind the mayor's plan to make all of you eat your spinach. Clearly, Bloomberg believes that it is the role of government, in a paraphrase of Rousseau, to force you to be healthy. As he told the Times: “Anyone who thinks we’re going to walk away from trying to tell the public what they’re eating and what it’s doing to them doesn’t understand the obligation this city’s health department has,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday. “We have to tell people how to lead better lives.”
Which begs the question whether the Department of Health knows how best to do all of this education. Judging by the nature of the department's cockamamie menu rule it hasn't got a clue. After all, as the NY Daily News reported yesterday, most New Yorkers don't have any idea about the calories contained in what they're eating, and if pressed to explain the importance of this calorie information we believe the overall ignorance of this basic nutritional information would be breath taking. Put simply, the information does no good without the appropriate health education that would allow folks to make healthier choices.
And we haven't even gone into the fact that the DOH rule excludes any other kinds of health information being posted-information that many of the fast food chains already have on their web sites or in store brochures. Calorie counts, and calorie counts alone can be confusing and misleading, and this is on top of the fact that the city has no social science research that indicates that posting will lead to better eating habits.
On top of this, the rule itself is so bizarrely constructed that confusion will inevitably reign. As we have commented before, the fact that the chains, because of the multiplicity of offerings, will be forced to post a range of calories (Burritos-400 to 1500 calories), will make the information simply unusable. In addition, the department will not force eateries to post any condiment information which will add to the confusion when a customer chooses the grilled chicken salad-perhaps at 400 calories-only to add on dressing that effectively (and unknown to the eater) doubles the caloric intake.
Thee social experiment here is not without unintended consequences. It will cost the industry millions of dollars in compliance costs yet the DOH, unlike the FDA, never even bothered to do any cost benefit analysis that is required under federal regulations (something Judge Holwell seems to ignore in his questionable ruling). In our view, if the cost of compliance costs one kid an after school job then this whole experiment wasn't worth it. Every one's concerned with health, but the mayor doesn't seem to be concerned with the health of neighborhood business.
Which will only mean that the fight will continue to escalate, especially if the city widens its scope to include all 23,000 local eateries. Lost in the legal musings, however, is the philosophy behind the mayor's plan to make all of you eat your spinach. Clearly, Bloomberg believes that it is the role of government, in a paraphrase of Rousseau, to force you to be healthy. As he told the Times: “Anyone who thinks we’re going to walk away from trying to tell the public what they’re eating and what it’s doing to them doesn’t understand the obligation this city’s health department has,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday. “We have to tell people how to lead better lives.”
Which begs the question whether the Department of Health knows how best to do all of this education. Judging by the nature of the department's cockamamie menu rule it hasn't got a clue. After all, as the NY Daily News reported yesterday, most New Yorkers don't have any idea about the calories contained in what they're eating, and if pressed to explain the importance of this calorie information we believe the overall ignorance of this basic nutritional information would be breath taking. Put simply, the information does no good without the appropriate health education that would allow folks to make healthier choices.
And we haven't even gone into the fact that the DOH rule excludes any other kinds of health information being posted-information that many of the fast food chains already have on their web sites or in store brochures. Calorie counts, and calorie counts alone can be confusing and misleading, and this is on top of the fact that the city has no social science research that indicates that posting will lead to better eating habits.
On top of this, the rule itself is so bizarrely constructed that confusion will inevitably reign. As we have commented before, the fact that the chains, because of the multiplicity of offerings, will be forced to post a range of calories (Burritos-400 to 1500 calories), will make the information simply unusable. In addition, the department will not force eateries to post any condiment information which will add to the confusion when a customer chooses the grilled chicken salad-perhaps at 400 calories-only to add on dressing that effectively (and unknown to the eater) doubles the caloric intake.
Thee social experiment here is not without unintended consequences. It will cost the industry millions of dollars in compliance costs yet the DOH, unlike the FDA, never even bothered to do any cost benefit analysis that is required under federal regulations (something Judge Holwell seems to ignore in his questionable ruling). In our view, if the cost of compliance costs one kid an after school job then this whole experiment wasn't worth it. Every one's concerned with health, but the mayor doesn't seem to be concerned with the health of neighborhood business.
Checkbook Morality
The long awaited Bloomberg funded poverty policy was announced the other day, and if possible it looks even worse than we first thought-this is a disaster waiting to happen launched by a paternalistic mayor who hasn't a clue about the kind of impact his program will have, nor the message that it sends to millions of low income people who are already struggling to do the right things for their children.
This is what the Manhattan Institute's Heather McDonald nailed when she assailed the mayor's scheme: "The idea that the residents of Brooklyn and Central Harlem are engaged in a "struggle," as Bloomberg put it, against starvation and depredation is a fantasy. Many teens who will be enrolled in "Opportunity NYC" likely wear the latest sneakers and carry pagers and cell phones. Their problem is motivation, not the unforgiving demands of a subsistence economy."
It is this motivation matrix that the pay for play concept seeks to redress. In doing so, the mayor and his defenders like to make the comparison to the capitalist imperative that gets people to sacrifice in anticipation of monetary reward. They couldn't be further from the truth. In the Protestant Ethic-based capitalist calculus, motivation-the inculcation of a strong system of beliefs- precedes behavior. It deals with the sense of personal responsibility and is based on the support of the family. The financial payoffs come much later.
To think that the placement of a crude bounty on behavior will lead to some sort of transvaluation is mindboggling in its stupidity. What it will lead to is a cynical -and ever-escalating-gaming of a social welfare behemoth, the one that will inevitably have to be created to monitor all of this nonsense. Has anyone bothered to do a business projection of what this kind of sysyem will cost if it ever, heaven forbid, transfered over to the public dime?
Which brings us to plan that was unveiled on Wednesday. Already, in the comments of one lucky recipient, we can see the problems that will unfold: "I'm happy. I'm grateful," he declared, sounding somewhat amazed at his good fortune.
"To get paid to do things I'm doing anyway is a welcome feeling."
Why did this dad get chosen if he was already doing most of what the mayor's plan seeks to encourage? Will choosing the "high-end" recipient skew any efficacy study of the merits of this program? What about the parent whose doing nothing, or is too dysfunctional to really parent properly? Will we need to pay this kind of parent more, and will this be fair to those low-income moms and dads who are strenuously trying to make the daily efforts that all parents should be making?
This is all too much for us to contemplate, and indicates to us that the mayor has too much of his own money to burn. It also fails to address the single most important variable in the poverty equation-the rise of single parent homes. As Steve Malanga points out in the City Journal; "Of course, there’s another road out of poverty: waiting until marriage to have children. In the vast majority of out-of-wedlock births, if the fathers of the children had married the mothers, dad’s earnings would have kept the family out of the poorhouse. In New York, in fact, only 3.5 percent of married families in which the husband works full-time are poor."
Tackling this issue, however, will run the mayor afoul of the bien pensants of his clack of politically correct enablers-those not-so-poor folks who are also waiting expectantly for a small piece of the Bloomberg fortune. Don't expect these do-gooders to provide any real critique of what the mayor wants to eventually foist on the beleaguered tax payers of New York.
The real policy issue here is being obscured, and by doing so, the mayor is obscuring any chance that honest discussion and meaningful change will ever occur for the intransigent percentage of those folks who have not been reached by the dramatically successful welfare reforms of the past 15 years. Mike, keep your money.
This is what the Manhattan Institute's Heather McDonald nailed when she assailed the mayor's scheme: "The idea that the residents of Brooklyn and Central Harlem are engaged in a "struggle," as Bloomberg put it, against starvation and depredation is a fantasy. Many teens who will be enrolled in "Opportunity NYC" likely wear the latest sneakers and carry pagers and cell phones. Their problem is motivation, not the unforgiving demands of a subsistence economy."
It is this motivation matrix that the pay for play concept seeks to redress. In doing so, the mayor and his defenders like to make the comparison to the capitalist imperative that gets people to sacrifice in anticipation of monetary reward. They couldn't be further from the truth. In the Protestant Ethic-based capitalist calculus, motivation-the inculcation of a strong system of beliefs- precedes behavior. It deals with the sense of personal responsibility and is based on the support of the family. The financial payoffs come much later.
To think that the placement of a crude bounty on behavior will lead to some sort of transvaluation is mindboggling in its stupidity. What it will lead to is a cynical -and ever-escalating-gaming of a social welfare behemoth, the one that will inevitably have to be created to monitor all of this nonsense. Has anyone bothered to do a business projection of what this kind of sysyem will cost if it ever, heaven forbid, transfered over to the public dime?
Which brings us to plan that was unveiled on Wednesday. Already, in the comments of one lucky recipient, we can see the problems that will unfold: "I'm happy. I'm grateful," he declared, sounding somewhat amazed at his good fortune.
"To get paid to do things I'm doing anyway is a welcome feeling."
Why did this dad get chosen if he was already doing most of what the mayor's plan seeks to encourage? Will choosing the "high-end" recipient skew any efficacy study of the merits of this program? What about the parent whose doing nothing, or is too dysfunctional to really parent properly? Will we need to pay this kind of parent more, and will this be fair to those low-income moms and dads who are strenuously trying to make the daily efforts that all parents should be making?
This is all too much for us to contemplate, and indicates to us that the mayor has too much of his own money to burn. It also fails to address the single most important variable in the poverty equation-the rise of single parent homes. As Steve Malanga points out in the City Journal; "Of course, there’s another road out of poverty: waiting until marriage to have children. In the vast majority of out-of-wedlock births, if the fathers of the children had married the mothers, dad’s earnings would have kept the family out of the poorhouse. In New York, in fact, only 3.5 percent of married families in which the husband works full-time are poor."
Tackling this issue, however, will run the mayor afoul of the bien pensants of his clack of politically correct enablers-those not-so-poor folks who are also waiting expectantly for a small piece of the Bloomberg fortune. Don't expect these do-gooders to provide any real critique of what the mayor wants to eventually foist on the beleaguered tax payers of New York.
The real policy issue here is being obscured, and by doing so, the mayor is obscuring any chance that honest discussion and meaningful change will ever occur for the intransigent percentage of those folks who have not been reached by the dramatically successful welfare reforms of the past 15 years. Mike, keep your money.
Let's Eat!
In yesterday's NY Daily News, the paper's Errol Louis strongly urged Chancellor Klein to make sure that the city's school kids eat their free breakfast. This declaration comes on the heels of the FRAC report that found that NY schools came in second to last among all of the country's major cities. Louis also acknowledged the advocacy role of the NYC Coalition Against Hunger, the group that called attention to the report last month.
As we have also pointed out, the fact that city kids are not availing themselves of the free breakfast has health, educational and fiscal implications. As the Nutrition Consortium of New York State has pointed out, in commenting on its pilot breakfast programs in 20 upstate school districts, eating a good school breakfast has profound educational benefits. In addition, eating the right nutritionally sound breakfast can also have a significant effect on the city's growing obesity epidemic.
Which is why the Health Corps has teamed up with the Got Breakfast Foundation and is pushing, along with the hunger coalition, to get the schools to institute a pilot breakfast in the classroom program. At this writing it appears that the UFT will also be supportive of the effort, and meetings are scheduled with key school food personnel to discuss the potential of a pilot program.
The obesity epidemic must be challenged at all levels of public policy. As HC founder Dr. Mehmet Oz wrote in the Daily News last month: "Our country is facing an unprecedented health crisis, with obesity rates reaching epidemic proportions. This crisis is even worse in New York City, where, for example, the Bronx leads other boroughs in the prevalence of heart disease, diabetes and strokes - symptoms that can all be traced back to the growing legion of overweight New Yorkers."
So kudos to Errol Louis for recognizing this, and for also pointing out the city is losing hundreds of millions of federal dollars in the process: "Not only is this wasteful - the city is passing up an estimated $49 million a year in federal funds by not getting these eligible kids signed up - but it's educationally unsound. A hungry kid - or, worse, a kid eating candy or junk food for breakfast - can't sit and focus on learning." Let's hope this can all be changed for the better.
As we have also pointed out, the fact that city kids are not availing themselves of the free breakfast has health, educational and fiscal implications. As the Nutrition Consortium of New York State has pointed out, in commenting on its pilot breakfast programs in 20 upstate school districts, eating a good school breakfast has profound educational benefits. In addition, eating the right nutritionally sound breakfast can also have a significant effect on the city's growing obesity epidemic.
Which is why the Health Corps has teamed up with the Got Breakfast Foundation and is pushing, along with the hunger coalition, to get the schools to institute a pilot breakfast in the classroom program. At this writing it appears that the UFT will also be supportive of the effort, and meetings are scheduled with key school food personnel to discuss the potential of a pilot program.
The obesity epidemic must be challenged at all levels of public policy. As HC founder Dr. Mehmet Oz wrote in the Daily News last month: "Our country is facing an unprecedented health crisis, with obesity rates reaching epidemic proportions. This crisis is even worse in New York City, where, for example, the Bronx leads other boroughs in the prevalence of heart disease, diabetes and strokes - symptoms that can all be traced back to the growing legion of overweight New Yorkers."
So kudos to Errol Louis for recognizing this, and for also pointing out the city is losing hundreds of millions of federal dollars in the process: "Not only is this wasteful - the city is passing up an estimated $49 million a year in federal funds by not getting these eligible kids signed up - but it's educationally unsound. A hungry kid - or, worse, a kid eating candy or junk food for breakfast - can't sit and focus on learning." Let's hope this can all be changed for the better.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
More Menu Revisions
Confusion continues to reign over Judge Holwell's decision to throw out the city's calorie regulation. No one seems sure, and the press reports are similarly unclear, whether the city can proceed to rewrite its rule in a way that limits its application to the smaller percentage of chain stores. Here's today's NY Daily News take:
"A Manhattan federal judge handed the city a supersized setback yesterday when he junked a rule forcing fast-food restaurants to post calorie contents on menus.
Judge Richard Holwell found the regulation violates federal law, which says eateries don't have to list calorie counts on the menu if they voluntarily post them someplace else - like the Internet. A Manhattan federal judge handed the city a supersized setback yesterday when he junked a rule forcing fast-food restaurants to post calorie contents on menus.
Judge Richard Holwell found the regulation violates federal law, which says eateries don't have to list calorie counts on the menu if they voluntarily post them someplace else - like the Internet."
Advocates of the measure feel that the city can proceed but it's clear that anything that it does would be subject to another legal challenge, a challenge whose results are uncertain. At this time, as the NY Times reports, "It was unclear whether the city would try to adopt a regulation that might satisfy the judge." The tricky issue here is that the judge felt that the city couldn't punish only those restaurants that voluntarily posted calorie information; The city, he ruled, could have required all restaurants or all chain restaurants to post the caloric contents of their dishes, but was not allowed to regulate how those that chose to do so voluntarily went about it because of the existing federal law.
So can the city make calorie posting mandatory for only chain stores? We can't say for sure. This should, however, be a signal for the DOH to sit down with the industry and craft a compromise. Given the animus down at Worth Street to fast food we don't think that this will happen,
"A Manhattan federal judge handed the city a supersized setback yesterday when he junked a rule forcing fast-food restaurants to post calorie contents on menus.
Judge Richard Holwell found the regulation violates federal law, which says eateries don't have to list calorie counts on the menu if they voluntarily post them someplace else - like the Internet. A Manhattan federal judge handed the city a supersized setback yesterday when he junked a rule forcing fast-food restaurants to post calorie contents on menus.
Judge Richard Holwell found the regulation violates federal law, which says eateries don't have to list calorie counts on the menu if they voluntarily post them someplace else - like the Internet."
Advocates of the measure feel that the city can proceed but it's clear that anything that it does would be subject to another legal challenge, a challenge whose results are uncertain. At this time, as the NY Times reports, "It was unclear whether the city would try to adopt a regulation that might satisfy the judge." The tricky issue here is that the judge felt that the city couldn't punish only those restaurants that voluntarily posted calorie information; The city, he ruled, could have required all restaurants or all chain restaurants to post the caloric contents of their dishes, but was not allowed to regulate how those that chose to do so voluntarily went about it because of the existing federal law.
So can the city make calorie posting mandatory for only chain stores? We can't say for sure. This should, however, be a signal for the DOH to sit down with the industry and craft a compromise. Given the animus down at Worth Street to fast food we don't think that this will happen,
Gridlock Sam Speaks the Truth
In today's NY Daily News, former transportation commissioner, and environmental consultant Sam Schwartz makes a dramatic Op-Ed statement on the causes and remedies for congestion in New York city. He persuasively points out how the recent taxi strike immediately made the congested streets much less so, and advises that the elimination of 1,00 medallion cabs would go along way towards making city streets more passable: "So, one way to reduce congestion is to reduce the number of taxis - permanently. I did the math when I was traffic commissioner and found that the optimum number of taxis was just under 12,000. We now have more than 13,000."
Schwartz goes on to suggest that the black cars and limos be restricted, and a tax of $100 be put on out-of-town trucks who use our streets to short cut their travels. In addition, the reinstating of two-way tolls on the Verrazano would also help in alleviating this problem. His money quote: "The third big troublemaker is the through truck, or trucks with neither origin nor destination in Manhattan's central business district. Our current pricing scheme - double tolls to go out via the Verrazano Bridge and no tolls to drive through downtown and midtown - encourages truckers to clog many key arteries inside the city. More than 10,000 trucks a day are doing this."
The former commissioner also goes after placard parking as an additional 8% contributor to the downtown congestion. Towards the end, almost as an afterthought, he supports congestion pricing-but with the following circumspect language: "The final piece of the puzzle is the most controversial: congestion pricing. We should proceed now. But we don't need to wage an all-or-nothing battle on congestion pricing to combat traffic. By targeting the four major culprit vehicles that are the root cause of most traffic, we can create a little breathing room on our streets."
So we begin to see that there are alternatives to the mayor's tax. We wonder, what kind of congestion reduction can we achieve with the Schwartz plan? We think that this approach, and we're certain that there are others, should be put to the test-as of course the mayor's plan should be as well-since there has been no independent review of any of this, only self-serving posturing by folks who believe that they speak ex cathedra.
Schwartz goes on to suggest that the black cars and limos be restricted, and a tax of $100 be put on out-of-town trucks who use our streets to short cut their travels. In addition, the reinstating of two-way tolls on the Verrazano would also help in alleviating this problem. His money quote: "The third big troublemaker is the through truck, or trucks with neither origin nor destination in Manhattan's central business district. Our current pricing scheme - double tolls to go out via the Verrazano Bridge and no tolls to drive through downtown and midtown - encourages truckers to clog many key arteries inside the city. More than 10,000 trucks a day are doing this."
The former commissioner also goes after placard parking as an additional 8% contributor to the downtown congestion. Towards the end, almost as an afterthought, he supports congestion pricing-but with the following circumspect language: "The final piece of the puzzle is the most controversial: congestion pricing. We should proceed now. But we don't need to wage an all-or-nothing battle on congestion pricing to combat traffic. By targeting the four major culprit vehicles that are the root cause of most traffic, we can create a little breathing room on our streets."
So we begin to see that there are alternatives to the mayor's tax. We wonder, what kind of congestion reduction can we achieve with the Schwartz plan? We think that this approach, and we're certain that there are others, should be put to the test-as of course the mayor's plan should be as well-since there has been no independent review of any of this, only self-serving posturing by folks who believe that they speak ex cathedra.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Let's Take It to the Streets
Yesterday Liz blogs posts about the "blogwars" between the Streetsblog folks and the Alliance. As it turns out, however, the war is a lot less than meets the eye since our fellow bloggers-but not some of their over-heated commenters-really have nothing but kind words for us. As Aaron Naparstek said on their web site yesterday: "He is an entertaining writer, an experienced political player, and a skilled propagandist (in these quarters, that's a compliment). If Mayor Bloomberg's congestion relief efforts are ultimately shot down in Albany, Lipsky will deserve a fair share of the credit."
This fulsome praise does give us pause, and at the same time, gives us a chance to re-think some of the provocative prose we used to describe these folks. What was really concerning us was the way in which the earnestness of the mayor's chorus was being exploited. The last thing we'd like to see is the people with real environmental concerns strapped to the masthead on the good ship permanent government-precisely because we know that most of the congestion price advocates wouldn't hesitate to join us in our battles against the Relateds and Vronados of the world when they seek to litter the landscape with box stores. Yet, these are the real estate forces lining up with the mayor to save the environment.
So, I guess that the advice here is to be careful who you get into bed with, because when the permanent government is using you as an ally it might just not be all about-or even anything about-the saving of the environment. And Aaron, when we say be careful of biting the hand that feeds you, it is sound advice since the attack on Dinowitz can only come back to hurt your cause in the Assembly. We are, however, properly chastised and will move on to continue to battle the disingenuousness of much of the "pay for play" environmentalists who are so eager to suck at the teat of the mogul's millions after years of starving in the policy desert.
This fulsome praise does give us pause, and at the same time, gives us a chance to re-think some of the provocative prose we used to describe these folks. What was really concerning us was the way in which the earnestness of the mayor's chorus was being exploited. The last thing we'd like to see is the people with real environmental concerns strapped to the masthead on the good ship permanent government-precisely because we know that most of the congestion price advocates wouldn't hesitate to join us in our battles against the Relateds and Vronados of the world when they seek to litter the landscape with box stores. Yet, these are the real estate forces lining up with the mayor to save the environment.
So, I guess that the advice here is to be careful who you get into bed with, because when the permanent government is using you as an ally it might just not be all about-or even anything about-the saving of the environment. And Aaron, when we say be careful of biting the hand that feeds you, it is sound advice since the attack on Dinowitz can only come back to hurt your cause in the Assembly. We are, however, properly chastised and will move on to continue to battle the disingenuousness of much of the "pay for play" environmentalists who are so eager to suck at the teat of the mogul's millions after years of starving in the policy desert.
Valid Criticism of CU's Land Swap
In the ongoing dialogue between Nick Sprayregen and the community there has been a health exchange over the parameters of the proposed land swap. Many of the concerns raised are valid in their focus on the level of affordable housing that needs to come out of any negotiations with the university.
It seems to us that the key point here is that any agreement between CU and Nick that yields only (approx) 1,000 units of affordable housing is not sufficient to address the real needs of the community. This is especially true since the university's expansion is projected to directly and indirectly displace more than 5,000 residents.
Therefore, it makes sense for the community to treat the swap as simply a good start-not a dramatic breakthrough that absolves Columbia of all of its housing responsibilities. So we were probably way too expansive when we remarked that the swap would give the community the affordable housing that it "desperately needs." Better phrased would have been that the swap would be a good start toward giving the community the affordable housing that it deserves!
It seems to us that the key point here is that any agreement between CU and Nick that yields only (approx) 1,000 units of affordable housing is not sufficient to address the real needs of the community. This is especially true since the university's expansion is projected to directly and indirectly displace more than 5,000 residents.
Therefore, it makes sense for the community to treat the swap as simply a good start-not a dramatic breakthrough that absolves Columbia of all of its housing responsibilities. So we were probably way too expansive when we remarked that the swap would give the community the affordable housing that it "desperately needs." Better phrased would have been that the swap would be a good start toward giving the community the affordable housing that it deserves!
What's on the Menu?
In what is at first blush somewhat of a convoluted decision, Judge Richard J. Holwell tossed out the city's menu labeling regulation that would have required those fast food restaurants that currently provide nutritional information to their customers-and only those-to post calorie counts on their menus and menu boards. As the NY Times is reporting, Judge Holwell "banned the city from enacting the regulation, but only because federal law already covers some of the same provisions it sought to put in place."
What's curious, however, is the judge's reasoning here: "The judge made the somewhat strange point that the voluntary nature of the regulation was the reason he had tossed it out. The city, he ruled, could have required all restaurants (or, say, all chain restaurants) to post the caloric contents of their dishes, but was not allowed to regulate how those that chose to do so voluntarily went about it."
This doesn't make much sense to us, and seems to open the door to: (a) requiring calorie posting; and, (b) requiring the posting of the calories in a prescribed manner. How this would make the rule more legally palatable isn't really clear, and seems to be the narrowest of technicalities.
The AP story seems to imply a different take on all of this: "Howell said that conflicted with federal regulations because the rule wasn't mandatory for all restaurants. Federal regulations already advise restaurants how to post the information voluntarily." So can the city still narrowly apply its rule to only the chains, or will it have to place all 23,000 city eateries under the law's rubric? We don't really know.
The NY Sun's story adds to this confusion (through no fault of its own): "The ruling suggests that if the city required restaurants to disclose calorie counts in the first place, it could then regulate how the calorie information was displayed. The city is 'free to erect mandatory disclosure requirements,' the ruling said."
All of which elides the key contention made by the city-that the posting of calorie counts would aid in the fight against obesity. This is pure speculation since there is no empirical data that suggests that this outcome is likely. It all amounts to an expensive social science experiment that fails to understand how consumers are currently making their dining choices. Hopefully, we can devise a better way to combat the serious obesity crisis that threatens the health of so many New Yorkers.
What's curious, however, is the judge's reasoning here: "The judge made the somewhat strange point that the voluntary nature of the regulation was the reason he had tossed it out. The city, he ruled, could have required all restaurants (or, say, all chain restaurants) to post the caloric contents of their dishes, but was not allowed to regulate how those that chose to do so voluntarily went about it."
This doesn't make much sense to us, and seems to open the door to: (a) requiring calorie posting; and, (b) requiring the posting of the calories in a prescribed manner. How this would make the rule more legally palatable isn't really clear, and seems to be the narrowest of technicalities.
The AP story seems to imply a different take on all of this: "Howell said that conflicted with federal regulations because the rule wasn't mandatory for all restaurants. Federal regulations already advise restaurants how to post the information voluntarily." So can the city still narrowly apply its rule to only the chains, or will it have to place all 23,000 city eateries under the law's rubric? We don't really know.
The NY Sun's story adds to this confusion (through no fault of its own): "The ruling suggests that if the city required restaurants to disclose calorie counts in the first place, it could then regulate how the calorie information was displayed. The city is 'free to erect mandatory disclosure requirements,' the ruling said."
All of which elides the key contention made by the city-that the posting of calorie counts would aid in the fight against obesity. This is pure speculation since there is no empirical data that suggests that this outcome is likely. It all amounts to an expensive social science experiment that fails to understand how consumers are currently making their dining choices. Hopefully, we can devise a better way to combat the serious obesity crisis that threatens the health of so many New Yorkers.
A Limited Idea
In today's NY Sun, the paper reports on the rumored effort by a number of former council members to return to their old seats on that legislative body. This possibility was met with scorn from a number of folks who thinks that it would violate the spirit of the term limits law; "One of the reasons people twice voted for term limits was an expression of wanting new blood, new thoughts, new ideas," a founder of the group, People to Stop a Self Serving Council, Kenneth Moltner, said. "One would have hoped that the City Council would have heard the will of the voters and wouldn't try to go against that will."
With all due respect to Mr. Molter and his group, neither of which we've ever heard of, this is all a load of crap. New ideas indeed! What Molter fails to understand is that the basic structure of New York City government singularly favors the chief executive. Term limiting the council has the effect of eroding the necessary checks and balances on mayoral excess. A term limited member, with an eye on the next possible office, is less likely to want to challenge a chief executive who holds almost all of the budgetary purse strings.
This is especially true if a mayor is fairly popular-often the precise time when a check on mayoral power is most needed. Much of this is already visible under the current council leadership and, even if we admit the possibility that the Speaker's extraordinarily close relationship with Mayor Bloomberg is an anomaly, it doesn't take away from the fact that a two-term council-with an inevitable one term leadership-is no match for a mayor. The inevitable result is what we have seen-the erosion of the legislative prerogative and the aggrandizement of executive power.
The optimal solution here, from a simple good government perspective, is to minimally increase the council term limit to twelve years. This increase would give council members a greater stake in the integrity of their own institution, and give New Yorkers a needed counterweight to chief executives who have never been known for papal infallibility.
With all due respect to Mr. Molter and his group, neither of which we've ever heard of, this is all a load of crap. New ideas indeed! What Molter fails to understand is that the basic structure of New York City government singularly favors the chief executive. Term limiting the council has the effect of eroding the necessary checks and balances on mayoral excess. A term limited member, with an eye on the next possible office, is less likely to want to challenge a chief executive who holds almost all of the budgetary purse strings.
This is especially true if a mayor is fairly popular-often the precise time when a check on mayoral power is most needed. Much of this is already visible under the current council leadership and, even if we admit the possibility that the Speaker's extraordinarily close relationship with Mayor Bloomberg is an anomaly, it doesn't take away from the fact that a two-term council-with an inevitable one term leadership-is no match for a mayor. The inevitable result is what we have seen-the erosion of the legislative prerogative and the aggrandizement of executive power.
The optimal solution here, from a simple good government perspective, is to minimally increase the council term limit to twelve years. This increase would give council members a greater stake in the integrity of their own institution, and give New Yorkers a needed counterweight to chief executives who have never been known for papal infallibility.
Bank Shot
The Times' City Room Blog posted a story about the proliferation of bank branches in so many areas of the city. This story should be read as a companion piece to the NY Sun article about the decline of mom and pop stores in the city-the subject of a hearing conducted by David Yasskey's Small Business Committee.
The bank explosion, and similar phenomenon with drug stores, is causing the disappearance of local small businesses-stores that provide vital services to their neighborhoods. In addition, the result of all this is a loss of diversity and vitality as all the city's neighborhoods begin to resemble each other as a result of this homogenization process. As one City Room commenter said: "I think it’s a blessing that in my neighborhood I am no more than 100 steps from an ATM. Not to mention only 100 steps from a place to buy dental floss. OK, so I can’t buy a good piece of fruit without several blocks, and one of the best pizza places in the city (in my neighborhood) is under dire threat, etc. But who needs fruit or a Mom and Pop pizza joint when you have such great access to cash and floss?"
Another really big concern here is the loss of neighborhood supermarkets, driven out by the rents that the banks, drug stores and national chains can afford to lay out. As an another City Roomer remarked: "Supermarkets around Manhattan are forced to close as their leases expire. They cannot pay the levels of rent that bank branches pay. The New York Times actually ran a story about the dwindling number of grocery stores in the city. Now we can understand the reason."
All of this was the focus of the Yassky hearing (Gale Brewer was a co-chair). At the hearing Rob Walsh, commissioner of Small Business Services, expressed sympathy with the law makers concerns but told the hearing that there weren't many easy solutions. Walsh might want to think outside of his boss' narrow big business perspective and examine how the use of overall tax reductions, leavened with some creative zoning ideas, could stem the exodus of one of the features that make this city so interesting.
The bank explosion, and similar phenomenon with drug stores, is causing the disappearance of local small businesses-stores that provide vital services to their neighborhoods. In addition, the result of all this is a loss of diversity and vitality as all the city's neighborhoods begin to resemble each other as a result of this homogenization process. As one City Room commenter said: "I think it’s a blessing that in my neighborhood I am no more than 100 steps from an ATM. Not to mention only 100 steps from a place to buy dental floss. OK, so I can’t buy a good piece of fruit without several blocks, and one of the best pizza places in the city (in my neighborhood) is under dire threat, etc. But who needs fruit or a Mom and Pop pizza joint when you have such great access to cash and floss?"
Another really big concern here is the loss of neighborhood supermarkets, driven out by the rents that the banks, drug stores and national chains can afford to lay out. As an another City Roomer remarked: "Supermarkets around Manhattan are forced to close as their leases expire. They cannot pay the levels of rent that bank branches pay. The New York Times actually ran a story about the dwindling number of grocery stores in the city. Now we can understand the reason."
All of this was the focus of the Yassky hearing (Gale Brewer was a co-chair). At the hearing Rob Walsh, commissioner of Small Business Services, expressed sympathy with the law makers concerns but told the hearing that there weren't many easy solutions. Walsh might want to think outside of his boss' narrow big business perspective and examine how the use of overall tax reductions, leavened with some creative zoning ideas, could stem the exodus of one of the features that make this city so interesting.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Bollinger and Free Speech
The Sun is reporting today on a "free speech" panel, hosted by Columbia University, that will include the anti-Israel academic John Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer has written on what he perceives is the power of the "Israel Lobby" to push American foreign policy in a direction that harms this country's national interest. He has written nothing, of course, on the hundreds of millions of petro dollars that have been used to support pro-Arab positions, nor has he opined at all on the Saudi funding of extreme Islamic madrases in this country and around the world.
What we always find fascinating in all of this is how universities like Columbia are always doing free speech back flips when the speakers have an anti-American or ant-Israeli message. Heaven forbid that they would take the same position if the speaker's were conservative or took strong nationalistic positions.
We saw this clearly when the Minutemen tried, but failed, to exercise their free speech rights at a Columbia forum last year. As we said at the time, rights and obligations only seem to flow one way up a Morningside Heights, and the first amendment concerns of President Bollinger are clearly selective-he barely manged a slap on the wrist to the fascists that disrupted the Minutemen event.
Yet when it comes to an anti-Semite like Mearsheimer, Bollinger becomes Sir Galahad: "The president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, defended the university's decision to host Mr. Mearsheimer on the panel. "This clearly falls within the core principle of academic freedom," Mr. Bollinger said in a statement. "One would hope that those committed to a robust First Amendment would see the vital importance of ensuring that our universities are places where free speech can be exercised, as well as taught."
Quite the Captain Courageous, our friend Bollinger. Without double standards Lee wouldn't have any standards at all.
What we always find fascinating in all of this is how universities like Columbia are always doing free speech back flips when the speakers have an anti-American or ant-Israeli message. Heaven forbid that they would take the same position if the speaker's were conservative or took strong nationalistic positions.
We saw this clearly when the Minutemen tried, but failed, to exercise their free speech rights at a Columbia forum last year. As we said at the time, rights and obligations only seem to flow one way up a Morningside Heights, and the first amendment concerns of President Bollinger are clearly selective-he barely manged a slap on the wrist to the fascists that disrupted the Minutemen event.
Yet when it comes to an anti-Semite like Mearsheimer, Bollinger becomes Sir Galahad: "The president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, defended the university's decision to host Mr. Mearsheimer on the panel. "This clearly falls within the core principle of academic freedom," Mr. Bollinger said in a statement. "One would hope that those committed to a robust First Amendment would see the vital importance of ensuring that our universities are places where free speech can be exercised, as well as taught."
Quite the Captain Courageous, our friend Bollinger. Without double standards Lee wouldn't have any standards at all.
Dinowitz: Kiss My ReButtal
In our just posted rebuttal of the Streetsblog attack on Assemblyman Jeff Dinowitz, upbraided for his failure to uphold "progressive" values, we described these kinds of critics-and we'll add the Transportation Alternatives folks into the mix-as "useful idiots." Useful because they are being used as a poignant choir for, not only the mayor's own political ambitions, but also for the commercial interests of the real estate permanent government. Idiots, because they are persistent in making broad and unsupportable statements about the overall impact and efficacy of the mayor's congestion tax scheme.
As it turns out, Dinowitz is quite effective in defending his own position, as he does in his rebuttal in the New York Press. The assemblyman is particularly incisive in underscoring just how the mayor and his dimwitted amen choir were so willing to cut off any debate on the congestion tax: "We only got this commission thanks to Speaker Silver and the Assembly majority, but if supporters had their way debate would have been cut off on July 16 without a single hearing or town hall meeting being held by the city."
Dinowitz goes on to point out that the advocates are creating a false dichotomy between the folks who drive to work and those who take mass transit. He cogently highlights the fact that, although only 5% of Bronxites drive, the mayor's plan is overwhelming rejected by borough residents in poll after poll. As he tells his critic: "Since, according to Mr. Naparstek, only 5.2% of my constituents actually drive into Manhattan, it must mean that most people who take mass transit in the Bronx also oppose congestion pricing. Could it be that they don’t have faith that the MTA will actually deliver on mass transit improvements? Is it possible they don’t really believe that the plan is fair? Maybe they just think that a lot more work needs to be done to improve the plan."
As we have said, the critics are not doing their cause much good. Over the top statements and personal invective, so characteristic of some denizens of the netroots, will only make the legislature that much more skeptical of a plan that they think needs a great deal more thought. This biting the hand that feeds you approach, which we can only hope will continue into total self-immolation, is not a very smart lobbying strategy.
As it turns out, Dinowitz is quite effective in defending his own position, as he does in his rebuttal in the New York Press. The assemblyman is particularly incisive in underscoring just how the mayor and his dimwitted amen choir were so willing to cut off any debate on the congestion tax: "We only got this commission thanks to Speaker Silver and the Assembly majority, but if supporters had their way debate would have been cut off on July 16 without a single hearing or town hall meeting being held by the city."
Dinowitz goes on to point out that the advocates are creating a false dichotomy between the folks who drive to work and those who take mass transit. He cogently highlights the fact that, although only 5% of Bronxites drive, the mayor's plan is overwhelming rejected by borough residents in poll after poll. As he tells his critic: "Since, according to Mr. Naparstek, only 5.2% of my constituents actually drive into Manhattan, it must mean that most people who take mass transit in the Bronx also oppose congestion pricing. Could it be that they don’t have faith that the MTA will actually deliver on mass transit improvements? Is it possible they don’t really believe that the plan is fair? Maybe they just think that a lot more work needs to be done to improve the plan."
As we have said, the critics are not doing their cause much good. Over the top statements and personal invective, so characteristic of some denizens of the netroots, will only make the legislature that much more skeptical of a plan that they think needs a great deal more thought. This biting the hand that feeds you approach, which we can only hope will continue into total self-immolation, is not a very smart lobbying strategy.
Street Sleepers
It appears that the Dinowitz Op-Ed piece that we commented on, has caused quite a stir with the street corner ideologues. The Streetsblog, apparently dedicated it appears to returning New York back to the 19th century, takes strong issue with Dinowitz, and does so with the invidious mention of the fact that, by opposing the congestion tax, he's doing so "on behalf of 5.2% of his constituents."
What we have here is a phony zero-sum characterization of the policy dispute, one that pits the bad (read rich and white) car commuters against the good (less affluent) transit riders. All of this Dinowitz trashing is done with a level of self-righteousness that will not do the supporters of the mayor's scheme much good in Albany. In fact, we'd almost believe it if we were told that Lipsky and McCaffrey were orchestrating the campaign-so counterproductive is the level of vitriol.
The reality is that you can oppose the mayor's tax for many good reasons-the primary one being that it is an expensive method to not achieve certain environmental goals. That all of the enviros are willing to swallow whole the rationales of the Bloombergistas would be laughable, if it weren't so sad. Folks, you're being used as cannon fodder for two special interests here: the promotion of the mayor's quixotic national run on the one hand, and the cultivation of real estate greed on the other. All of those phony developers putting out lachrymose crap about asthma are interested in development rights on the far west side and other lucrative venues. They should be running those ads with knee pads.
So we disagree with the Streetsbloggers, and caution them about Lenin's observation about "useful idiots." This plan of the mayor's is far from the "most realistic opportunity for traffic reduction and increased transit funding in decades." It is, however, a great way for the Parsons Brinckerhoff's of the world to get even richer than they are; all at the expense of those disparaged middle class commuters.
And as for the folks at something called the Albany Project who also attack Dinowitz for not being sufficiently "progressive," we wonder who they'd replace the Dinowitzes, Jaffees and Brodskys with? Chris Quinn and her loyal council brigade?
What we have here is a phony zero-sum characterization of the policy dispute, one that pits the bad (read rich and white) car commuters against the good (less affluent) transit riders. All of this Dinowitz trashing is done with a level of self-righteousness that will not do the supporters of the mayor's scheme much good in Albany. In fact, we'd almost believe it if we were told that Lipsky and McCaffrey were orchestrating the campaign-so counterproductive is the level of vitriol.
The reality is that you can oppose the mayor's tax for many good reasons-the primary one being that it is an expensive method to not achieve certain environmental goals. That all of the enviros are willing to swallow whole the rationales of the Bloombergistas would be laughable, if it weren't so sad. Folks, you're being used as cannon fodder for two special interests here: the promotion of the mayor's quixotic national run on the one hand, and the cultivation of real estate greed on the other. All of those phony developers putting out lachrymose crap about asthma are interested in development rights on the far west side and other lucrative venues. They should be running those ads with knee pads.
So we disagree with the Streetsbloggers, and caution them about Lenin's observation about "useful idiots." This plan of the mayor's is far from the "most realistic opportunity for traffic reduction and increased transit funding in decades." It is, however, a great way for the Parsons Brinckerhoff's of the world to get even richer than they are; all at the expense of those disparaged middle class commuters.
And as for the folks at something called the Albany Project who also attack Dinowitz for not being sufficiently "progressive," we wonder who they'd replace the Dinowitzes, Jaffees and Brodskys with? Chris Quinn and her loyal council brigade?
Friday, September 07, 2007
More Skepticism On Congestion Tax
In this week's Riverdale Press (with a heads up from Liz), Assemblyman Jeff Dinowitz writes about how he feels about the mayor's proposed congestion tax. His reaction? "I applaud the mayor for attempting to take bold steps to improve the environment, but I deplore the efforts by proponents to steamroll a plan that may have a good intent but has many problems which must be overcome. While I am very open to taking major steps to reduce traffic in Manhattan and throughout the city and am not totally closed to a different form of congestion pricing, if I had to vote on this plan today as presented I would vote "no."
Dinowitz describes his initial positive response to the mayor's plan, but goes on to say that the more he looked at the details, and the more the mayor and his minions refused to answer some important questions, the more skeptical he became. He is particularly troubled by the way the mayor tried to bum rush this radical remake of the city's traffic: "I have been very troubled by the efforts of the mayor and supporters of congestion pricing to ram it through with as little discussion as possible. Something which involves such an important change in the way New York operates should have been brought up much earlier than nine or 10 weeks before the end of the legislative session."
He goes on to question the asthma argument and the expensive ad campaign that accompanied it. Dinowitz fails to see just how CBD traffic reduction will ameliorate congestion in those neighborhoods where asthma is a serious health threat. In addition, he envisions his neighborhood being turned into a Park-and-Ride by commuters looking to hop mass transit-and avoid the tax- on their way in from the suburbs.
Finally, Dinowitz ridicules the make-up of the congestion commission and, much like Councilman Fidler, sees the stacked deck as not very conducive to a fair disposition of the efficacy of the mayor's plan: "Unfortunately, the commission, whose members are appointed by the mayor, governor, council speaker and the four state legislative leaders, appears stacked in favor of one side of the argument, putting into question its ability to be fair. The 17 members consist mostly of Manhattan residents and, it appears, no residents of the Bronx or Staten Island."
Which is exactly what we have been saying all along. If the mayor and his supporters felt that stacking the commission made any political sense, well, I've got a West Side Stadium that I'd love to sell them. All they have really manged to do here is to alienate the most important constituents: the legislators who will deliberate and vote on the congestion tax.
Dinowitz describes his initial positive response to the mayor's plan, but goes on to say that the more he looked at the details, and the more the mayor and his minions refused to answer some important questions, the more skeptical he became. He is particularly troubled by the way the mayor tried to bum rush this radical remake of the city's traffic: "I have been very troubled by the efforts of the mayor and supporters of congestion pricing to ram it through with as little discussion as possible. Something which involves such an important change in the way New York operates should have been brought up much earlier than nine or 10 weeks before the end of the legislative session."
He goes on to question the asthma argument and the expensive ad campaign that accompanied it. Dinowitz fails to see just how CBD traffic reduction will ameliorate congestion in those neighborhoods where asthma is a serious health threat. In addition, he envisions his neighborhood being turned into a Park-and-Ride by commuters looking to hop mass transit-and avoid the tax- on their way in from the suburbs.
Finally, Dinowitz ridicules the make-up of the congestion commission and, much like Councilman Fidler, sees the stacked deck as not very conducive to a fair disposition of the efficacy of the mayor's plan: "Unfortunately, the commission, whose members are appointed by the mayor, governor, council speaker and the four state legislative leaders, appears stacked in favor of one side of the argument, putting into question its ability to be fair. The 17 members consist mostly of Manhattan residents and, it appears, no residents of the Bronx or Staten Island."
Which is exactly what we have been saying all along. If the mayor and his supporters felt that stacking the commission made any political sense, well, I've got a West Side Stadium that I'd love to sell them. All they have really manged to do here is to alienate the most important constituents: the legislators who will deliberate and vote on the congestion tax.
Bloomberg and the Poor
The DMI has a post on the mayor's new poverty policy initiative, and Maureen Lane describes some of what the mayor's trying to do without really evaluating either the philosophical underpinnings of the program, or the practical implications-something that we have done at length elsewhere. Lane's focus, however, is on the overall welfare situation, and she feels that the current stipend is too small, while the work requirement of 35 hours a week is too onerous.
Perhaps it is, but we remain somewhat skeptical, especially when Lane's lachrymose prose describes the arduousness of single moms who are working and going to school. "Where are the fathers," one is tempted to ask, but of course such questions are left unsaid by most for fear of being labeled callous or politically incorrect. It has always been hard for people to go to school and work at the same time, and to do so with young children is indeed hard.
Is is useful public policy, however, to increase the subsidies for these folks? Will this encourage others to behave in ways that has led to the difficulties these people find themselves in? If the current allocation is "shamefully inadequate," than what is adequate, and will this lead to a slippery slope of greater dependency among more people?
These are not silly questions. Let's not forget that so many of the folks that are most vocal about "inadequacy"-and we have no idea if Lane is one of them-were the same people who excoriated Clinton and Giuliani for their efforts to reduce welfare dependency. Let's also not forget that the mothers Lane talks about are also the victims of some of the terrible choices that they made, and that these choices also have consequences. The goal of public policy should be to strike the proper balance between compassion for the struggle and concern for the perpetuation of dependency.
After all, someone has to pay the bills for all of this, and there are hard working middle class New Yorkers who have to get up at 5 o'clock, juggle the kids and work, while making sure that they get all of their bills paid. Their concerns, and the taxes that they pay, need to be part of this discussion. We need to be sure that the policies we support are the best ones for insuring that the, "aid people receiving welfare {will enable them} to get family sustaining jobs" (and not just sustain the bureaucrats in their oversight roles).
Perhaps it is, but we remain somewhat skeptical, especially when Lane's lachrymose prose describes the arduousness of single moms who are working and going to school. "Where are the fathers," one is tempted to ask, but of course such questions are left unsaid by most for fear of being labeled callous or politically incorrect. It has always been hard for people to go to school and work at the same time, and to do so with young children is indeed hard.
Is is useful public policy, however, to increase the subsidies for these folks? Will this encourage others to behave in ways that has led to the difficulties these people find themselves in? If the current allocation is "shamefully inadequate," than what is adequate, and will this lead to a slippery slope of greater dependency among more people?
These are not silly questions. Let's not forget that so many of the folks that are most vocal about "inadequacy"-and we have no idea if Lane is one of them-were the same people who excoriated Clinton and Giuliani for their efforts to reduce welfare dependency. Let's also not forget that the mothers Lane talks about are also the victims of some of the terrible choices that they made, and that these choices also have consequences. The goal of public policy should be to strike the proper balance between compassion for the struggle and concern for the perpetuation of dependency.
After all, someone has to pay the bills for all of this, and there are hard working middle class New Yorkers who have to get up at 5 o'clock, juggle the kids and work, while making sure that they get all of their bills paid. Their concerns, and the taxes that they pay, need to be part of this discussion. We need to be sure that the policies we support are the best ones for insuring that the, "aid people receiving welfare {will enable them} to get family sustaining jobs" (and not just sustain the bureaucrats in their oversight roles).
No ExSpectorating CU Land Swap
In a follow-up to the post done by the Observer's Matthew Scheurman, the Columbia Spectator has written a more comprehensive story on the proposal by Nick Sprayregen to swap properties with the university in order to build affordable housing. As the paper reports; "For the past three to four months, Sprayregen and his 'advisers,' as he referred to his architects, his lawyer Norman Siegel, and other professionals he is working with, have been creating a new proposal that, while a second choice to holding on to his current property, would give Sprayregen more space and allow Columbia to build a contiguous campus."
While Sprayregen told the Spectator that he feels the almost unanimous opposition to the Columbia plan makes his fight against the use of eminent domain that much more winnable, he's willing to compromise if it means that the community can come out ahead; "As part of Sprayregen's plan, he would build about 1,000 units of housing. A percentage of the units would meet West Harlem residents' standards of affordability, but he does not know exactly how much."
The level of affordability is something that needs to be worked out with the university and the area's elected officials. However, given Columbia's stated desire to help spur affordable housing for West Harlem it isn't a stretch to envision that the university could, through the creation of a housing trust fund- if it really wants to be a major stakeholder in keeping the neighborhood truly diverse- insure the affordability of the great majority of the 1,000 units.
To its credit Columbia, while not commenting on the specifics of the Sprayregen concept, has been responsive to the public appeal of the swap, saying that it was open to negotiation. As university spokeswoman Laverna Fountain told the Spectator; "'We absolutely would talk to him, no questions asked.'"
In the coming weeks, we believe that the Sprayregen Swap will begin to gain more and more adherents, in the community as well as among elected officials and housing advocates. It will because it makes so much sense; and especially if it ends up with the neighborhood getting the affordable housing that the community desparately needs, and the current Columbia expansion plan lacks.
While Sprayregen told the Spectator that he feels the almost unanimous opposition to the Columbia plan makes his fight against the use of eminent domain that much more winnable, he's willing to compromise if it means that the community can come out ahead; "As part of Sprayregen's plan, he would build about 1,000 units of housing. A percentage of the units would meet West Harlem residents' standards of affordability, but he does not know exactly how much."
The level of affordability is something that needs to be worked out with the university and the area's elected officials. However, given Columbia's stated desire to help spur affordable housing for West Harlem it isn't a stretch to envision that the university could, through the creation of a housing trust fund- if it really wants to be a major stakeholder in keeping the neighborhood truly diverse- insure the affordability of the great majority of the 1,000 units.
To its credit Columbia, while not commenting on the specifics of the Sprayregen concept, has been responsive to the public appeal of the swap, saying that it was open to negotiation. As university spokeswoman Laverna Fountain told the Spectator; "'We absolutely would talk to him, no questions asked.'"
In the coming weeks, we believe that the Sprayregen Swap will begin to gain more and more adherents, in the community as well as among elected officials and housing advocates. It will because it makes so much sense; and especially if it ends up with the neighborhood getting the affordable housing that the community desparately needs, and the current Columbia expansion plan lacks.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Mom and Popped
As the NY Sun is reporting today, the City Council's Small Business Committee will hold a hearing to explore the possibility of providing tax breaks for small local retailers in an effort to preserve the diversity of neighborhood shopping. The council action is in response to the proliferation of national chain stores-the West Side is particularly overrun-in neighborhoods that are losing their distinct local flavor as a result.
We are totally sympathetic with the effort, no one has been more out front in the defense of neighborhood stores than we have over the past twenty five years; at the same time that we realize how difficult it is to craft any legislative response to this homogenization process. We do know, however, that this administration would be the last one we'd expect to have any real concern about this process: there has never been a bigger cheer leader for the national-Wall Street financed-chains than the mayor, someone who grew up in Medford and has no empathy for neighborhoods.
That is why the comments of "small business commissioner" Walsh don't surprise us at all. As the Sun reports: "The city's small-business commissioner, Robert Walsh, who is scheduled to testify at a council hearing today on small businesses, said he is concerned that during a strong economic period, people "are frowning upon, if you will, many of the nationally recognized businesses."
Clearly, this is someone who not only doesn't get it, it is someone whose comments indicate that it is time for a change at the top of the agency that he so poorly represents. Let's not forget, Walsh is the same guy who defended Ikea against the efforts of the Fifth Avenue BID to stop the giant retailer's push into Sunset Park; and Walsh, as the commissioner ostensibly in charge of the city's public markets, sat mutely by while 23 small distributors were evicted from the Bronx Terminal Market.
New York City neighborhood need retail diversity, it's what makes the city vibrant and unique. This is something that the Municipal Arts Society has recognized, as its current tribute to Jane Jacobs underscores. MAS executive director Vanessa Gruen makes the point well: "We are losing much of what makes New York so special," she said. "There are so many neighborhoods that are losing their neighborhood services. Banks are moving in. Duane Reades are moving in. It is going too far." And she goes on to point out; "" Jane Jacobs was all about neighborhoods. Not only preserving your neighborhood, but enjoying your neighborhood," Ms. Gruen said. "We are trying to get ordinary New Yorkers to become active in what happens to their city."
Clearly, what we need is a policy that recognizes the importance of diversity, but at the same time, one that is sensitive to the need to not enact well-meaning regulations that unwittingly dampen entrepreneurism. Our friend Steve Malanga is right about what the council should, in general, be doing: "Their goal should be to lower property taxes for all businesses in the city," he said, adding that the proposal to create targeted property tax cuts for neighborhood retailers is "a very narrow approach to a very large problem." Malanga's right, although we'd add the amelioration of the regulatory burden to his prescription.
At the same time, however, and perhaps zoning is one approach, we need to try to preserve the affordability of neighborhoods so independent retail activity can be preserved. This is especially important because some vital retail services-such as supermarkets-are disappearing from many neighborhoods of the city. Maybe health concerns will stimulate the mayor and his minions to have some needed rachmones for neighborhood stores?
We are totally sympathetic with the effort, no one has been more out front in the defense of neighborhood stores than we have over the past twenty five years; at the same time that we realize how difficult it is to craft any legislative response to this homogenization process. We do know, however, that this administration would be the last one we'd expect to have any real concern about this process: there has never been a bigger cheer leader for the national-Wall Street financed-chains than the mayor, someone who grew up in Medford and has no empathy for neighborhoods.
That is why the comments of "small business commissioner" Walsh don't surprise us at all. As the Sun reports: "The city's small-business commissioner, Robert Walsh, who is scheduled to testify at a council hearing today on small businesses, said he is concerned that during a strong economic period, people "are frowning upon, if you will, many of the nationally recognized businesses."
Clearly, this is someone who not only doesn't get it, it is someone whose comments indicate that it is time for a change at the top of the agency that he so poorly represents. Let's not forget, Walsh is the same guy who defended Ikea against the efforts of the Fifth Avenue BID to stop the giant retailer's push into Sunset Park; and Walsh, as the commissioner ostensibly in charge of the city's public markets, sat mutely by while 23 small distributors were evicted from the Bronx Terminal Market.
New York City neighborhood need retail diversity, it's what makes the city vibrant and unique. This is something that the Municipal Arts Society has recognized, as its current tribute to Jane Jacobs underscores. MAS executive director Vanessa Gruen makes the point well: "We are losing much of what makes New York so special," she said. "There are so many neighborhoods that are losing their neighborhood services. Banks are moving in. Duane Reades are moving in. It is going too far." And she goes on to point out; "" Jane Jacobs was all about neighborhoods. Not only preserving your neighborhood, but enjoying your neighborhood," Ms. Gruen said. "We are trying to get ordinary New Yorkers to become active in what happens to their city."
Clearly, what we need is a policy that recognizes the importance of diversity, but at the same time, one that is sensitive to the need to not enact well-meaning regulations that unwittingly dampen entrepreneurism. Our friend Steve Malanga is right about what the council should, in general, be doing: "Their goal should be to lower property taxes for all businesses in the city," he said, adding that the proposal to create targeted property tax cuts for neighborhood retailers is "a very narrow approach to a very large problem." Malanga's right, although we'd add the amelioration of the regulatory burden to his prescription.
At the same time, however, and perhaps zoning is one approach, we need to try to preserve the affordability of neighborhoods so independent retail activity can be preserved. This is especially important because some vital retail services-such as supermarkets-are disappearing from many neighborhoods of the city. Maybe health concerns will stimulate the mayor and his minions to have some needed rachmones for neighborhood stores?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
