In a prescient piece in Newsday, the paper's Dan Janison does a neat premortem on the congestion tax proposal. As he points out, in their desperation to salvage at least something from this political debacle, proponents of the tax are now latching on to the idea of tolling the East River bridges: "New York City's plan to charge motorists in Manhattan faces so many roadblocks on so many fronts that critics seem increasingly assured of its demise. But before this drama ends, you may see an old idea revived in a new form: first-ever tolls on vehicles crossing the East River bridges."
Kinda like grasping at straws, isn't it? If the idea of a congestion tax is taking a beating in the polls, why not propose bridge tolls? Or maybe, constrict the area of applicability. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky-a prime target of the advocates-takes the measure of this measure: "Lipstick on a pig," snipes Assemb. Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), a member of the state commission created to study Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal. "Twenty-six less blocks of a bad idea is still a bad idea."
Brodsky goes on to eulogize the whole scheme: "The mayor's plan is collapsing -- on the merits and on the politics," Brodsky said. "On the merits, because they don't have the ability to do mass-transit improvements up front, they haven't solved the neighborhood impact problems, they haven't solved the fundamental fairness problems of charging access to public streets. On the politics, even some people who support the concept of congestion pricing are not supporting or unable to support the mayor's plan."
And collapsing it is, no matter how many ads the bicycle helmets take out, or what manner of ad hominen attacks they conjure up, it all amounts to last ditch desperation from elite progressives and their moneyed enablers who have contempt for the average middle class motorist who doesn't but into their bucolic vision. Here's our Walter McCaffrey's take: "The fact that they're now trying to jury-rig the proposal suggests that they recognize that it is not going anywhere," says Walter McCaffrey, a private consultant who represents the group "Keep New York City Congestion Tax Free."
So, if this analysis is correct, we will be looking at another significant Doctoroff fiasco. Janison gets the last word on this: "As Doctoroff departs, he leaves a legacy of complicated projects that ran aground -- the 2012 Olympics bid, the airport-Ground Zero land swap and the West Side Stadium.If opponents on Long Island and in the five boroughs and the northern suburbs have their way, congestion pricing will soon join that list."
Friday, December 07, 2007
Buttleggers For Sure
Indian tribes on Long Island are threatening to sue John Catsimatidis because some of the retailer's law suit complaints were thrown out by a Federal judge. The one thing that has set the Indians on the war path is the allegation that they're operating black market-abetting businesses. As one Indian leader told Newsday: "Right now we're actually looking at suing him [Catsimatidis] for damages done to our reputation, calling us black marketeers and all of this kind of stuff," Gumbs said. "You can't just hurl these accusations. He made us look like absolute criminals. And this guy wants to be mayor of the biggest city in the world?"
Let them. Catsimatidis' allegations are right on the money, and the best defense against libel is the truth. Let these so-called honest businesses open up all of their books and records in order to determine how many cartons are flying down the LIE into New York City. Listen to their lament: "Gumbs, Unkechaug Chief Harry Wallace and the other defendants have argued that the smoke shops are legitimate enterprises that provide jobs and significant revenue to provide community assistance for heating and other utility bills and college tuition costs."They want us to stop because it benefits the community," Wallace said. "They want us to be a dependent, subservient community."
Nonsense, and as we pointed out to the paper: "The merits of the lawsuit notwithstanding, Mr. Catsimatidis was trying to bring equity to an inequitable situation where Indian retailers were taking advantage of the tax laws to the detriment of other retailers," said Richard Lipsky, who represents the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, a Manhattan-based advocacy group." Maybe the tribes should go into subprime lending instead.
All we're asking is that the tribes operate under the same conditions that all other retailers operate under. As Catsimatidis and ace attorney Bill Wachtell point out: "...Gristedes' attorney, William Wachtel, said Catsimatidis would have preferred if the city, state and federal governments "did their jobs in protecting the interest of honest business people faced with black market cigarettes being sold in front of their stores." Catsimatidis is, however, dedicated to pursuing the remaining claims, Wachtel said."
All of this could have easily been avoided if state officials hadn't been so derelict in their protection of the rights of legitimate retailers, as well as the tax payers of New York. Catsimatidis' lawsuit is doing a good job at filling an unfortunate public policy void.
Let them. Catsimatidis' allegations are right on the money, and the best defense against libel is the truth. Let these so-called honest businesses open up all of their books and records in order to determine how many cartons are flying down the LIE into New York City. Listen to their lament: "Gumbs, Unkechaug Chief Harry Wallace and the other defendants have argued that the smoke shops are legitimate enterprises that provide jobs and significant revenue to provide community assistance for heating and other utility bills and college tuition costs."They want us to stop because it benefits the community," Wallace said. "They want us to be a dependent, subservient community."
Nonsense, and as we pointed out to the paper: "The merits of the lawsuit notwithstanding, Mr. Catsimatidis was trying to bring equity to an inequitable situation where Indian retailers were taking advantage of the tax laws to the detriment of other retailers," said Richard Lipsky, who represents the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, a Manhattan-based advocacy group." Maybe the tribes should go into subprime lending instead.
All we're asking is that the tribes operate under the same conditions that all other retailers operate under. As Catsimatidis and ace attorney Bill Wachtell point out: "...Gristedes' attorney, William Wachtel, said Catsimatidis would have preferred if the city, state and federal governments "did their jobs in protecting the interest of honest business people faced with black market cigarettes being sold in front of their stores." Catsimatidis is, however, dedicated to pursuing the remaining claims, Wachtel said."
All of this could have easily been avoided if state officials hadn't been so derelict in their protection of the rights of legitimate retailers, as well as the tax payers of New York. Catsimatidis' lawsuit is doing a good job at filling an unfortunate public policy void.
Dander-Up and Out
Deputy Dan the Related man is leaving City Hall, Bloomberg LLP apparently has outbid the Related Companies for the Music Man's services. As the NY Times reports this morning, the departure has generated mixed feelings: "But just as Mr. Moses’ legacy is still intensely debated, interviews with more than a dozen experts and analysts suggest that Mr. Doctoroff’s effect on the city has been decidedly mixed. Some credited him with setting in motion comprehensive plans to guide growth in the city’s neighborhoods for decades to come, while others said he had often failed to see his plans through."
Then there's the way in which Deputy Dan operated-always with disdain for the small and minority businesses that do so much to sustain this city, but who fly far below the Doctoroff radar. On first entering government in 2003, DD immediately pushed the Fernandez Brothers out of the Bradhurst development project; and what was to become a trend, leveraged city funds to bring in his friend Steve Ross' Related Companies.
It became such a pronounced mode of operation that we gave it its own bane-"patricianage;" the process by which Related and to a lesser extent Vronado were given "special nation status" by the ever-accommodating deputy toady. The process reached its apotheosis with the debacle at the Bronx Terminal Market. Here Dan pushed out the mostly minority distributors, ran roughshod over city procurement policies, and no-bidded Related into a sweetheart deal that future analysts will label for what it is: a more sophisticated version of what the famed sage of Tammany Hall called, "honest graft."
The mayor's encomiums to his liege were touching, but, as Azi cites, disingenuous: "A notably unhappy Michael Bloomberg just announced that Dan Doctoroff is leaving City Hall, saying, "Dan brought muscle to economic development. Bloomberg also said that "unlike Robert Moses, Dan did it by working with the communities, not bulldozing them." Nothing like a parting jest to liven up a sad leave-taking.
The reality is that Dan's idea of community partnership is epitomized by the charade up in West Harlem over the Columbia expansion. Here Dan himself injected Jesse Masyr into the creation of a local development corporation charged with the negotiation of a community benefits agreement with Columbia. That's kind of like a valedictory to the Doctoroff approach to community input-the Machiavellian appearing to be good, rather than actually being good.
There's an old Wallace Stevens poem about Vladimir Lenin that has a line that goes something like this: "Lenin sat on a bench by a lake full of swans, the swans flew away; he was not a man for swans." Dan was not a man for collaboration with local communities, nor was he any kind of suitor for the little retailers and wholesalers who would never be seen chatting in the clubs that the Deputy frequented. He may have spearheaded some good-and not so good-large-scale developments but let's not reincarnate him as Jane Jacobs.
As the Times points out in regard to Doctoroff's failed Olympic and West Side Stadium projects: "But that approach {his impatience with politicians and bureaucracy} could also be his undoing, as was the case with the West Side stadium at the heart of the failed 2012 Olympic bid. Mr. Doctoroff gathered support from corporate executives, but underestimated the need to woo politicians and community groups." As Marc Shaw says: “The mayor didn’t hire Dan to do politics, nor would Dan have been good at politics.”
So Dan departs and as the pundits say, his legacy remains to be determined by more dispassionate future observers. From our lowly perch, however, nothing so becomes Dan as his leaving.
Then there's the way in which Deputy Dan operated-always with disdain for the small and minority businesses that do so much to sustain this city, but who fly far below the Doctoroff radar. On first entering government in 2003, DD immediately pushed the Fernandez Brothers out of the Bradhurst development project; and what was to become a trend, leveraged city funds to bring in his friend Steve Ross' Related Companies.
It became such a pronounced mode of operation that we gave it its own bane-"patricianage;" the process by which Related and to a lesser extent Vronado were given "special nation status" by the ever-accommodating deputy toady. The process reached its apotheosis with the debacle at the Bronx Terminal Market. Here Dan pushed out the mostly minority distributors, ran roughshod over city procurement policies, and no-bidded Related into a sweetheart deal that future analysts will label for what it is: a more sophisticated version of what the famed sage of Tammany Hall called, "honest graft."
The mayor's encomiums to his liege were touching, but, as Azi cites, disingenuous: "A notably unhappy Michael Bloomberg just announced that Dan Doctoroff is leaving City Hall, saying, "Dan brought muscle to economic development. Bloomberg also said that "unlike Robert Moses, Dan did it by working with the communities, not bulldozing them." Nothing like a parting jest to liven up a sad leave-taking.
The reality is that Dan's idea of community partnership is epitomized by the charade up in West Harlem over the Columbia expansion. Here Dan himself injected Jesse Masyr into the creation of a local development corporation charged with the negotiation of a community benefits agreement with Columbia. That's kind of like a valedictory to the Doctoroff approach to community input-the Machiavellian appearing to be good, rather than actually being good.
There's an old Wallace Stevens poem about Vladimir Lenin that has a line that goes something like this: "Lenin sat on a bench by a lake full of swans, the swans flew away; he was not a man for swans." Dan was not a man for collaboration with local communities, nor was he any kind of suitor for the little retailers and wholesalers who would never be seen chatting in the clubs that the Deputy frequented. He may have spearheaded some good-and not so good-large-scale developments but let's not reincarnate him as Jane Jacobs.
As the Times points out in regard to Doctoroff's failed Olympic and West Side Stadium projects: "But that approach {his impatience with politicians and bureaucracy} could also be his undoing, as was the case with the West Side stadium at the heart of the failed 2012 Olympic bid. Mr. Doctoroff gathered support from corporate executives, but underestimated the need to woo politicians and community groups." As Marc Shaw says: “The mayor didn’t hire Dan to do politics, nor would Dan have been good at politics.”
So Dan departs and as the pundits say, his legacy remains to be determined by more dispassionate future observers. From our lowly perch, however, nothing so becomes Dan as his leaving.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Advocates for Sale?
In this morning's Crain's Insider the newsletter reports on an advertising campaign being launched by Transportation Alternatives, under the headline, "SELLING DRIVING FEES:"
Congestion pricing will get a boost next week when Transportation Alternatives launches a series of advertisements in local newspapers showing mass-transit improvements that the proposal would bring. The marketing stems from polls that show a majority of New Yorkers favor driving fees if the proceeds are used to fund transit. The anticar
advocacy group is working behind the scenes as well, talking with labor unions to
align their interests."
We're wondering where this astroturf outfit is getting all of the cash from. A bunch of bicycle riding odd balls are suddenly flush with ad dollars and no one questions the money source? When have any of these groups had the cash to cavort in the media? Follow the money!
Congestion pricing will get a boost next week when Transportation Alternatives launches a series of advertisements in local newspapers showing mass-transit improvements that the proposal would bring. The marketing stems from polls that show a majority of New Yorkers favor driving fees if the proceeds are used to fund transit. The anticar
advocacy group is working behind the scenes as well, talking with labor unions to
align their interests."
We're wondering where this astroturf outfit is getting all of the cash from. A bunch of bicycle riding odd balls are suddenly flush with ad dollars and no one questions the money source? When have any of these groups had the cash to cavort in the media? Follow the money!
CBA Zirconium
The faux community involvement in the crafting of a community benefits agreement was put under critical scrutiny this week at a panel discussion at the Municipal Arts Society. As the Observer's Eliot Brown reports (welcome aboard Eliot), the panelists, particularly Abyssinian Reverend Calvin Butts, weren't impressed: "At a panel discussion last night on development in the city, multiple community organizers and the Reverend Calvin Butts, pastor of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church, criticized the process of forming community benefits agreements (CBAs) in order to bolster public and governmental support for large development projects."
Butts was pointedly upset by the fact that the university refused to include his Abyssinian Development Corporation, the most successful and legitimately indigenous grass roots development group in the Columbia expansion area. Instead, Columbia placed all of its capital in the politically generated West Harlem Development Corporation, a group that is under the control of the mayor's office, and tangentially, the area political establishment (and bears a striking resemblance to the crew assembled by BP Carrion on the Gateway Mall).
Here's Butts' trenchant observation: "Reverend Butts joined in the criticism, saying he had met with Columbia about forming a CBA, only to have the university close the door on him in order to talk exclusively with the Local Development Corporation. “We sent a plan that we thought covered all of the areas that you would want to cover, and immediately after that meeting—this is one of the real issues that I have—the representatives of Columbia cut off all communication. Not a word,” Mr. Butts said. “When the political establishment got involved, it polluted it.”
Another panelist, the well-respected former planning commissioner Ron Schiffman, observed that there should be a city land use policy promulgated that stipulates certain key community desirables, a view seconded by Butts: "The solution, at least according to Messrs. Shiffman and Butts: have the city or state create policies around issues such as the inclusion of affordable housing and similar matters, taking them off the negotiating table for each individual development. "
This is precisely the "reform of ULURP" position that seems to be percolating within the councils of labor, at least according to a Juan Gonzales column last week. Until this happens, and it is something that we have stressed over and over, we're going to continue to witness the hijacking of legitimate community interest by pols pandering to developer wishes.
Which brings us to the Columbia process. It's hard to see how anything really beneficial to the community can emerge from such a rigged process. And the MAS panelists, "directed their harshest words about CBAs toward the process currently going on in West Harlem, where a board of elected officials and community members are hashing out a CBA with Columbia University. With Columbia exclusively talking with the board, known as the West Harlem Local Development Corporation, the debate has been essentially closed to the rest of the community, the panelists argued."
It seems to us that the emerging results will resemble the old saying that, "a camel is a horse designed by committee." Maybe that will fly in the West Harlem desert.
Butts was pointedly upset by the fact that the university refused to include his Abyssinian Development Corporation, the most successful and legitimately indigenous grass roots development group in the Columbia expansion area. Instead, Columbia placed all of its capital in the politically generated West Harlem Development Corporation, a group that is under the control of the mayor's office, and tangentially, the area political establishment (and bears a striking resemblance to the crew assembled by BP Carrion on the Gateway Mall).
Here's Butts' trenchant observation: "Reverend Butts joined in the criticism, saying he had met with Columbia about forming a CBA, only to have the university close the door on him in order to talk exclusively with the Local Development Corporation. “We sent a plan that we thought covered all of the areas that you would want to cover, and immediately after that meeting—this is one of the real issues that I have—the representatives of Columbia cut off all communication. Not a word,” Mr. Butts said. “When the political establishment got involved, it polluted it.”
Another panelist, the well-respected former planning commissioner Ron Schiffman, observed that there should be a city land use policy promulgated that stipulates certain key community desirables, a view seconded by Butts: "The solution, at least according to Messrs. Shiffman and Butts: have the city or state create policies around issues such as the inclusion of affordable housing and similar matters, taking them off the negotiating table for each individual development. "
This is precisely the "reform of ULURP" position that seems to be percolating within the councils of labor, at least according to a Juan Gonzales column last week. Until this happens, and it is something that we have stressed over and over, we're going to continue to witness the hijacking of legitimate community interest by pols pandering to developer wishes.
Which brings us to the Columbia process. It's hard to see how anything really beneficial to the community can emerge from such a rigged process. And the MAS panelists, "directed their harshest words about CBAs toward the process currently going on in West Harlem, where a board of elected officials and community members are hashing out a CBA with Columbia University. With Columbia exclusively talking with the board, known as the West Harlem Local Development Corporation, the debate has been essentially closed to the rest of the community, the panelists argued."
It seems to us that the emerging results will resemble the old saying that, "a camel is a horse designed by committee." Maybe that will fly in the West Harlem desert.
Congestion Confusion
Crain's has been taking the lead on reporting how the whole congestion tax issue is generating acrimony and confusion. On Wednesday in the Insider the newsletter reported: "Although Mayor Mike Bloomberg objected Monday to moving the northern boundary of his proposed congestion-pricing zone to 60th Street from 86th Street, insiders say the administration is discussing changes.“We’re having pretty constructive dialogue,” says Marc Shaw, the former first deputy mayor who chairs the commission reshaping the mayor’s plan."
As well he should if he wants to get anything out of this process. In yesterday's NY Daily News the mayor tries to conflate the fare hike with his congestion tax, realizing that the hike is the one issue where his tax gets a fair hearing. As Bloomberg said in the News: "For the second time in two days, Mayor Bloomberg Tuesday criticized the MTA and said his congestion pricing proposal could reduce the need for a fare hike."
One of the mayor's allies on the Congestion Commission echoed this refrain: "Congestion pricing might have a better shot in Albany if fare hikes are halted, said Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign, a fare-hike foe." So, no matter what the fiscal reality in all of this, proponents of the congestion tax are trying to desperately latch on to the fare issue as their literal ticket to ride. In actuality, however, this is all fiscal sleight-of-hand, and the MTA can't be trusted with any more of the public's hard-earned money,
As well he should if he wants to get anything out of this process. In yesterday's NY Daily News the mayor tries to conflate the fare hike with his congestion tax, realizing that the hike is the one issue where his tax gets a fair hearing. As Bloomberg said in the News: "For the second time in two days, Mayor Bloomberg Tuesday criticized the MTA and said his congestion pricing proposal could reduce the need for a fare hike."
One of the mayor's allies on the Congestion Commission echoed this refrain: "Congestion pricing might have a better shot in Albany if fare hikes are halted, said Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign, a fare-hike foe." So, no matter what the fiscal reality in all of this, proponents of the congestion tax are trying to desperately latch on to the fare issue as their literal ticket to ride. In actuality, however, this is all fiscal sleight-of-hand, and the MTA can't be trusted with any more of the public's hard-earned money,
Wal-Mart Myths and Realities
In yesterday's NY Sun, the paper had an Op-ed piece that defended the Walmonster against the charge that it imports too many of its products from China: "We do not need another outlet for cheap Chinese crap," one guy said at last month's public gripe session, summing the zeitgeist: That too many of Wal-Mart's bargains are imported." The author then proceeds to stick a pin in this argument by pointing out that importing cheaper goods is part of the successful adaptation America has made in a post-industrial economy.
We don't think that this is such a bad argument, we just don't think that the whole "Chinese goods" animus is the ultimate reason why so many folks are not fans of the giant retailer. As we have said before, there are a plethora of reasons why people oppose the Walmonster-and for the Alliance it's all about neighborhoods and the importance of independent stores. The company's union practices, however, certainly adds to the antipathy.
But the impact of the Walmonster on the neighborhood is the reason why the store was rejected in Staten Island and, hopefully why it will be rejected in Monsey, NY. And that ain't myth, but the reality of the judgement of the folks in small towns and neighborhoods all over the country.
We don't think that this is such a bad argument, we just don't think that the whole "Chinese goods" animus is the ultimate reason why so many folks are not fans of the giant retailer. As we have said before, there are a plethora of reasons why people oppose the Walmonster-and for the Alliance it's all about neighborhoods and the importance of independent stores. The company's union practices, however, certainly adds to the antipathy.
But the impact of the Walmonster on the neighborhood is the reason why the store was rejected in Staten Island and, hopefully why it will be rejected in Monsey, NY. And that ain't myth, but the reality of the judgement of the folks in small towns and neighborhoods all over the country.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Misjudged
In a lawsuit brought by John Catsimatidis against Long Island Indian tribes, the supermarket owner argued that the Indian sales were fraudulent because they were alleged to be "tax free," when in reality no sales from Indians to non-Indians are exempt from New York State taxes. Now, according to the NY Times this morning, a Federal judge has upheld this claim while dismissing others.
Judge Amon's dismissal of the other allegations are indeed questionable: "In a decision rendered on Friday and announced yesterday, Judge Carol Bagley Amon of Federal District Court in Brooklyn dismissed the claim that the non-tax sales “created, fostered and nourished a thriving black market in illegally discounted cigarette sales” and also dismissed charges of corrupt business dealings and unfair competition."
That anyone, let alone a Federal judge, could say with a straight face that the Indian sales don't foster black market activities beggers the imagination-and Judge Amon should speak to the thousands of city bodegas that are being undersold by street dealers whose cigarettes come directly from the Indian source on the Island.
Of course, the impetus behind all of this is the fact that the US Supreme court has ruled that, as far as cigarettes are concerned, Indian sovereignty is irrelevant. The Times' take on this is, however, misleading: "The state sets minimum price levels for retailers and imposes a sales tax of $1.50 a pack. But historically, the state has not collected cigarette taxes from tribes within its borders because they are considered sovereign nations, so Indian-owned smoke shops have long sold cigarettes at far lower prices than non-Indian competitors."
On the contrary, the state has not enforced the law out of sheer pusillanimity-the fear of tribal violence. Then Attorney General Spitzer told us privately, that when he was governor this would all change. It does appear, though, that the more things change, the more they stay the same. As it was reported earlier this year: "As Gov. Eliot Spitzer gave up Wednesday on collecting sales tax on gas and cigarettes from Indian-owned stores, Bob Arnott was preparing to shut down his family-owned business this Saturday."
Mr. Arnott's perspective, as he is forced to shutter his business is telling: "I didn’t believe the governor when he said he was going to collect taxes,” Arnott said. “It’s how we gain traffic from people coming in and buying gas and cigarettes — when you lose cigarettes to customers, you lose everything.” In NYC, however, it is the buttlegging from the reservation that has taken over $200 million a year from legitimate retailers-something that the state and city authorities appear all too comfortable in allowing to continue. Judge, Amon, however, must be smoking something other than tobacco.
Judge Amon's dismissal of the other allegations are indeed questionable: "In a decision rendered on Friday and announced yesterday, Judge Carol Bagley Amon of Federal District Court in Brooklyn dismissed the claim that the non-tax sales “created, fostered and nourished a thriving black market in illegally discounted cigarette sales” and also dismissed charges of corrupt business dealings and unfair competition."
That anyone, let alone a Federal judge, could say with a straight face that the Indian sales don't foster black market activities beggers the imagination-and Judge Amon should speak to the thousands of city bodegas that are being undersold by street dealers whose cigarettes come directly from the Indian source on the Island.
Of course, the impetus behind all of this is the fact that the US Supreme court has ruled that, as far as cigarettes are concerned, Indian sovereignty is irrelevant. The Times' take on this is, however, misleading: "The state sets minimum price levels for retailers and imposes a sales tax of $1.50 a pack. But historically, the state has not collected cigarette taxes from tribes within its borders because they are considered sovereign nations, so Indian-owned smoke shops have long sold cigarettes at far lower prices than non-Indian competitors."
On the contrary, the state has not enforced the law out of sheer pusillanimity-the fear of tribal violence. Then Attorney General Spitzer told us privately, that when he was governor this would all change. It does appear, though, that the more things change, the more they stay the same. As it was reported earlier this year: "As Gov. Eliot Spitzer gave up Wednesday on collecting sales tax on gas and cigarettes from Indian-owned stores, Bob Arnott was preparing to shut down his family-owned business this Saturday."
Mr. Arnott's perspective, as he is forced to shutter his business is telling: "I didn’t believe the governor when he said he was going to collect taxes,” Arnott said. “It’s how we gain traffic from people coming in and buying gas and cigarettes — when you lose cigarettes to customers, you lose everything.” In NYC, however, it is the buttlegging from the reservation that has taken over $200 million a year from legitimate retailers-something that the state and city authorities appear all too comfortable in allowing to continue. Judge, Amon, however, must be smoking something other than tobacco.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Limited Sense
We don't usually agree with the Citizens Union about anything, but there's finally an issue that we can come together on: term limits. AS the City Room blog reported yesterday, Council Speaker Quinn has announced that she won't support any council effort to overturn the city's term limits law. As Quinn told the Daily Politics: "After careful consideration and discussions with my colleagues in the Council, I have decided not to pursue a change in New York City’s term limit law. I will neither support legislation nor will I seek or support a new referendum eliminating or altering term limits."
We understand all of the political considerations here, but the observations of Dick Dadey of the Citizens Union do resonate with us: "We fear that with less than two years until the next city election too many current council members are spending more time running for their next office instead of serving their constituents and giving the time needed to address important city issues. This is but one of several possible drawbacks to an eight year term."
City governance is not in perfect balance, and the power of the mayor reigns supreme in most areas. The Council can and should provide the kind of check on mayoral abuse that most legislatures do in a democratic system. The limits on council terms, however, further constrict the legislature's ability to constrain the chief executive-something that we've painfully watched over the past two years. There's little concern left for the legislative prerogatives of the council.
So we agree with Dadey's CU when he says that council terms might be best extended to 12 years, and the Speaker's political decision yesterday shouldn't foreclose debate on the subject: "Many New Yorkers have opinions on whether term limits should be kept or amended in some way. What is needed is a thoughtful and full public discussion on the issue before ruling in or out any change to term limits. While legislation would have been bad, we regret that the speaker’s decision may possibly prevent a fuller discussion of this important issue."
And we certainly disagree with the editorial perspective in today's NY Post, a view that wants to see the term limits lifted-but only for the mayor: "It's nice that Quinn listened to the voters, and abjured yet another pointless trip to the polls. Moreover, the speaker knows her members, and if she feels that two 4-year terms for them is enough - well, who's to argue? (For most of them, two 4-month terms is pushing the public-service envelope.) Still, a strong case could be made for lifting the limits for New York's top municipal post - mayor. The council's importance in municipal governance wanes year by year, while power accretes to the mayoralty. "
Which is precisely why an institutional check is badly needed. With all of the fawning over Mayor Mike, what folks lose sight of is his regal pretensions and basic lack of real democratic impulses. An unlimited term for someone with unlimited funds-or any chief executive of New York-is not a real good idea.
We understand all of the political considerations here, but the observations of Dick Dadey of the Citizens Union do resonate with us: "We fear that with less than two years until the next city election too many current council members are spending more time running for their next office instead of serving their constituents and giving the time needed to address important city issues. This is but one of several possible drawbacks to an eight year term."
City governance is not in perfect balance, and the power of the mayor reigns supreme in most areas. The Council can and should provide the kind of check on mayoral abuse that most legislatures do in a democratic system. The limits on council terms, however, further constrict the legislature's ability to constrain the chief executive-something that we've painfully watched over the past two years. There's little concern left for the legislative prerogatives of the council.
So we agree with Dadey's CU when he says that council terms might be best extended to 12 years, and the Speaker's political decision yesterday shouldn't foreclose debate on the subject: "Many New Yorkers have opinions on whether term limits should be kept or amended in some way. What is needed is a thoughtful and full public discussion on the issue before ruling in or out any change to term limits. While legislation would have been bad, we regret that the speaker’s decision may possibly prevent a fuller discussion of this important issue."
And we certainly disagree with the editorial perspective in today's NY Post, a view that wants to see the term limits lifted-but only for the mayor: "It's nice that Quinn listened to the voters, and abjured yet another pointless trip to the polls. Moreover, the speaker knows her members, and if she feels that two 4-year terms for them is enough - well, who's to argue? (For most of them, two 4-month terms is pushing the public-service envelope.) Still, a strong case could be made for lifting the limits for New York's top municipal post - mayor. The council's importance in municipal governance wanes year by year, while power accretes to the mayoralty. "
Which is precisely why an institutional check is badly needed. With all of the fawning over Mayor Mike, what folks lose sight of is his regal pretensions and basic lack of real democratic impulses. An unlimited term for someone with unlimited funds-or any chief executive of New York-is not a real good idea.
Columbia's Cotton Clubbing
In yesterday's NY Post, the paper focused on another business that is in the path of the Columbia University expansion-and doesn't want to be evicted by eminent domain. This time it's the Cotton Club on 125th Street, whose owner Johm Beatty told the Post: "The Cotton Club is not for sale,...I'm not going to negotiate a deal with Columbia because I don't want to leave...I have children and grandchildren who want to continue this history."
So now we add another complication to the CU mix, an African-American business that doesn't want to be moved by the gentrifying, diversity hypocrites of Morningside Heights. As Beatty emphasized: "They don't want black people to have any reason to be on their campus...This country tells you to pull yourself up by the bootstraps," said Beatty, who worked as a brick layer in South Carolina at the age of 10. He said his club, which offers blues and jazz on Fridays and Sunday gospel brunches to mostly European tourists hungry for some soul, is "a landmark institution."
Calling Al Sharpton. The university's real estate impulse is the underlying rationale for the Columbia Corporation, a rationale that is camouflaged by all of the cloaking liberal rhetoric that floats like a noxious miasma all over the college's campus.
So now we add another complication to the CU mix, an African-American business that doesn't want to be moved by the gentrifying, diversity hypocrites of Morningside Heights. As Beatty emphasized: "They don't want black people to have any reason to be on their campus...This country tells you to pull yourself up by the bootstraps," said Beatty, who worked as a brick layer in South Carolina at the age of 10. He said his club, which offers blues and jazz on Fridays and Sunday gospel brunches to mostly European tourists hungry for some soul, is "a landmark institution."
Calling Al Sharpton. The university's real estate impulse is the underlying rationale for the Columbia Corporation, a rationale that is camouflaged by all of the cloaking liberal rhetoric that floats like a noxious miasma all over the college's campus.
Monday, December 03, 2007
City Council Plasticity
We've been pointing out that the recently introduced bill on plastic bag recycling, Intro 640, is not only unfair to retailers, but is also unlikely to achieve the environmental goals that the bill's sponsors envision. Well. there are some folks at the council who do see this clearly, at they've introduced a resolution calling on the state to enact incentives for retailers to shift from plastics to other bag forms.
As the NY Sun writes this morning: "The city's effort to deal with plastic bags is growing more complicated, as council members Gale Brewer and Simcha Felder plan to introduce a resolution encouraging state government to provide tax incentives to retailers who stop handing out plastic bags." This is exactly the right approach, one that encourages change by creating incentives rather than expensive obligations. As we told the Sun in a truncated quote: "A lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, praised the incentives plan, saying it would divide the burden of eliminating plastic bags more evenly between bag manufacturers and businesses than the recycling plan."
If legitimate incentives are enacted on the state level, and the plastic bag industry perceived that there was a real threat, it would immediately become much more proactive on the recycling front-and not just by supporting a bill that places 99% of the burden on stores and about 1% on the folks who actually make millions manufacturing the bags.
Council woman Brewer captures the equity issues: "Ms. Brewer said yesterday that grocers see the recycling plan as a burden and that their thin profit margins make the transition to reusable bags from plastic difficult without additional incentives. "This bill would help tremendously with their economic issues," she said." Brewer has been a leader in trying to preserve the niche of independent retailers in NYC.
What's really predictable in all of this is the reaction of the Plastic Bag Alliance. Nothing underscores the nature of Intro 640's unfairness to retailers and its benefits to the baggers than this reaction: "Donna Dempsey, a spokeswoman for the plastic bag lobby, the Progressive Bag Alliance, said the plan would push consumers toward paper bags."If they were to take into consideration the environmental and unintended consequences of paper bags, they would reconsider their support for this bill," Ms. Dempsey said."
Translated: "plastic good, paper bad." Of course, if consumers started to get accustomed to reusing paper or cloth bags-or even plastic-the environment, if not the plastic people, would be better off. And in the process, retailers wouldn't be forced to bear yet another expensive burden.
As the NY Sun writes this morning: "The city's effort to deal with plastic bags is growing more complicated, as council members Gale Brewer and Simcha Felder plan to introduce a resolution encouraging state government to provide tax incentives to retailers who stop handing out plastic bags." This is exactly the right approach, one that encourages change by creating incentives rather than expensive obligations. As we told the Sun in a truncated quote: "A lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, praised the incentives plan, saying it would divide the burden of eliminating plastic bags more evenly between bag manufacturers and businesses than the recycling plan."
If legitimate incentives are enacted on the state level, and the plastic bag industry perceived that there was a real threat, it would immediately become much more proactive on the recycling front-and not just by supporting a bill that places 99% of the burden on stores and about 1% on the folks who actually make millions manufacturing the bags.
Council woman Brewer captures the equity issues: "Ms. Brewer said yesterday that grocers see the recycling plan as a burden and that their thin profit margins make the transition to reusable bags from plastic difficult without additional incentives. "This bill would help tremendously with their economic issues," she said." Brewer has been a leader in trying to preserve the niche of independent retailers in NYC.
What's really predictable in all of this is the reaction of the Plastic Bag Alliance. Nothing underscores the nature of Intro 640's unfairness to retailers and its benefits to the baggers than this reaction: "Donna Dempsey, a spokeswoman for the plastic bag lobby, the Progressive Bag Alliance, said the plan would push consumers toward paper bags."If they were to take into consideration the environmental and unintended consequences of paper bags, they would reconsider their support for this bill," Ms. Dempsey said."
Translated: "plastic good, paper bad." Of course, if consumers started to get accustomed to reusing paper or cloth bags-or even plastic-the environment, if not the plastic people, would be better off. And in the process, retailers wouldn't be forced to bear yet another expensive burden.
Columbia's Benefit Agreement?
The resignations of three of the board members from the West Harlem LDC, the group set up to ostensibly negotiate a community benefits agreement with Columbia University, has raised the question of how much the LDC actually represents community interests. As we have commented before, the fact that Jesse James Masyr is the board's attorney and advisor creates the impression that there may well be a fox in this particular chicken coop, and that the legitimate interests of the local community may be sacrificed.
Now we have received, courtesy of the resigned Mr. Sprayregen, a copy of a statement from the LDC commenting on the resignations. It is a marvel of newspeak. Here's a sample: "Entrusted with doing the people’s work and making certain that the terms of a CBA address the community’s needs and desires as they relate to the proposed Columbia University expansion, the WHLDC has held open forums, convened public sessions of its weekly general meetings and included many community members in its working groups to ensure that the public is kept informed and community feedback is obtained. As is consistent with public outcry, the WHLDC remains opposed to the use of eminent domain for private conveyance."
The statement, however, contrasts sharply with the perception-underscored by the resignees but echoed by many in the West Harlem community-that the real negotiations have little to do with "open forums," and more to do with the agendas of sitting politicians. It does seem. however, that Jesse M. has learned something from his Bronx experience with CBAs-at least create the impression of openness.
And the WHLDC has done just that, with an impressive display of numerous, interminable, and going nowhere gatherings. Unlike the Yankee Stadium and Bronx Terminal Market debacles, that saw the Bronx BP essentially create his own benefits package in the name of the community, the current CBA process has all of the appearance of openness; which brings to mind Machiavelli's dictum: "It's always better to appear good, than to be good."
Of course the proof here will be in the pudding that the LDC concocts. Given the posture of the two local council members, however, we can believe that the results will be more than de minimis. The Spectator captures this skepticism in its editorial this morning: " But although the University has effectively won the bureaucratic battle for expansion, the administration should remember that they have yet to convince many students and neighborhood residents that their proposal is a sound and ethical one for the community."
The current faux populist process is unlikely to overcome the suspicion in the community. As the Spectator points out and gets the last word: "While this decision cements the broad outline of expansion, many issues remain unresolved. Members of the community are still anxious over many potential problems, like the potential use of eminent domain, gentrification, and the loss of affordable housing. If the administration wants tensions to subside, it must find a way to connect with these residents and make clear that Columbia intends to expand responsibly. The resignations last week of high-profile figures in the West Harlem Local Development Corporation heighten the perception that Columbia is circumventing community leaders in favor of cutting deals with powerful politicians."
Now we have received, courtesy of the resigned Mr. Sprayregen, a copy of a statement from the LDC commenting on the resignations. It is a marvel of newspeak. Here's a sample: "Entrusted with doing the people’s work and making certain that the terms of a CBA address the community’s needs and desires as they relate to the proposed Columbia University expansion, the WHLDC has held open forums, convened public sessions of its weekly general meetings and included many community members in its working groups to ensure that the public is kept informed and community feedback is obtained. As is consistent with public outcry, the WHLDC remains opposed to the use of eminent domain for private conveyance."
The statement, however, contrasts sharply with the perception-underscored by the resignees but echoed by many in the West Harlem community-that the real negotiations have little to do with "open forums," and more to do with the agendas of sitting politicians. It does seem. however, that Jesse M. has learned something from his Bronx experience with CBAs-at least create the impression of openness.
And the WHLDC has done just that, with an impressive display of numerous, interminable, and going nowhere gatherings. Unlike the Yankee Stadium and Bronx Terminal Market debacles, that saw the Bronx BP essentially create his own benefits package in the name of the community, the current CBA process has all of the appearance of openness; which brings to mind Machiavelli's dictum: "It's always better to appear good, than to be good."
Of course the proof here will be in the pudding that the LDC concocts. Given the posture of the two local council members, however, we can believe that the results will be more than de minimis. The Spectator captures this skepticism in its editorial this morning: " But although the University has effectively won the bureaucratic battle for expansion, the administration should remember that they have yet to convince many students and neighborhood residents that their proposal is a sound and ethical one for the community."
The current faux populist process is unlikely to overcome the suspicion in the community. As the Spectator points out and gets the last word: "While this decision cements the broad outline of expansion, many issues remain unresolved. Members of the community are still anxious over many potential problems, like the potential use of eminent domain, gentrification, and the loss of affordable housing. If the administration wants tensions to subside, it must find a way to connect with these residents and make clear that Columbia intends to expand responsibly. The resignations last week of high-profile figures in the West Harlem Local Development Corporation heighten the perception that Columbia is circumventing community leaders in favor of cutting deals with powerful politicians."
Immigrant Circumlocutions
We have commented before about the tendentious tendency of some folks-self-described as "pro-immigrant"-to ascribe an anti-immigrant bias to those of us who are upset by the rising tide of illegal immigration. An editorial in yesterday's NY Post highlights some of this dishonesty.
The Post was commenting on a study put out by the Fiscal Policy Institute that highlighted the real contributions that are made by immigrants to NYC's economy: "FPI's study concluded that immigrants contributed $229 billion to the New York state economy in 2006; that's about 22.4 percent of the state's GDP." FPI, however, saw its study as a powerful rebuttal to that old standby-"anti-immigrant" sentiment.
As the Post points out, however, the controversial is not raging over immigration per se: "While the report is a quaint reminder of the part immigrants play in the New York story - as they always have - it does nothing to speak to the issue of the moment: that is, illegal immigration."
Which is exactly what emerges from another study that was highlighted in yesterday's NY Times. This report, done by the Center for Immigration Studies found that, at least in New York: "Foreign-born New Yorkers are better educated, more likely to have health insurance and less likely to have entered the country illegally compared with immigrants in the rest of the country, according to a new analysis."
Which may be why, as the Times speculates, the immigration issue has generated less controversy here (but, as the Post points out: "To the extent that immigration is controversial these days, though, the issue is generally how much illegal immigration should be tolerated - and what, if any, social and societal benefits should accrue to those here illegally.") And it may be that, since we New Yorkers recognize the contributions of legal immigrants, we are less likely to be motivated by immigration animus.
All of which underscores the extent to which it is the cheer leading claque for illegal immigration that has tried to hijack the debate through a dishonest use of language. The more the DMI Drummers do this, the more they will marginalize themselves and the electeds who think its good to march under their flag.
The Post was commenting on a study put out by the Fiscal Policy Institute that highlighted the real contributions that are made by immigrants to NYC's economy: "FPI's study concluded that immigrants contributed $229 billion to the New York state economy in 2006; that's about 22.4 percent of the state's GDP." FPI, however, saw its study as a powerful rebuttal to that old standby-"anti-immigrant" sentiment.
As the Post points out, however, the controversial is not raging over immigration per se: "While the report is a quaint reminder of the part immigrants play in the New York story - as they always have - it does nothing to speak to the issue of the moment: that is, illegal immigration."
Which is exactly what emerges from another study that was highlighted in yesterday's NY Times. This report, done by the Center for Immigration Studies found that, at least in New York: "Foreign-born New Yorkers are better educated, more likely to have health insurance and less likely to have entered the country illegally compared with immigrants in the rest of the country, according to a new analysis."
Which may be why, as the Times speculates, the immigration issue has generated less controversy here (but, as the Post points out: "To the extent that immigration is controversial these days, though, the issue is generally how much illegal immigration should be tolerated - and what, if any, social and societal benefits should accrue to those here illegally.") And it may be that, since we New Yorkers recognize the contributions of legal immigrants, we are less likely to be motivated by immigration animus.
All of which underscores the extent to which it is the cheer leading claque for illegal immigration that has tried to hijack the debate through a dishonest use of language. The more the DMI Drummers do this, the more they will marginalize themselves and the electeds who think its good to march under their flag.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Plastic Bag Politics
The City Council held a hearing yesterday on a bill, Intro 640, that would mandate the recycling of plastic bags in stores larger than 5,000 square feet. The Alliance is opposed to the bill as currently drafted and we made our objections known at the hearing. As the City Room blog pointed out: “The plastic bag recycling, aside from being a headache, will also impose some significant costs on the stores,” said Richard Lipsky of the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, one of the bill’s most vehement critics."
One of our biggest concerns is the apparent lack of concern at the council about the costs and obligations that are being foisted on local stores. The record-keeping responsibilities-the idea that store owners can easily manage to weigh and record the weights of the bags they collect-are impractical and, because of the city enforcement mechanisms, potentially costly as well.
And the idea that somehow all of this is good for the stores, that plastic bag recycling will become a "profit center," as someone from the Plastic Bag Alliance alleged, is too ludicrous to give any credence to. As Mitch Klein of Krasdale Foods pointed out at the hearing yesterday, this is going to cost independent supermarkets plenty-and there's nothing in the bill that gives the stores any relief, while the plastic bag manufacturers really have no fiscal exposure in all of this.
This factor was brought out in this morning's S.I. Advance story, where the paper indicated that one of the lobbyists that represents supplier interests is Councilman McMahon'e brother Tom: "The American Chemistry Council, a trade association, testified yesterday in favor of the bill. The council employs the Albany lobbying firm of Brown McMahon & Weinraub LLC, of which McMahon's brother, Thomas, is a principal. The lobbying firm has earned $18,000 this year for its efforts."
The councilman, for his part, said that there was really no conflict here: "The councilman said there is no conflict of interest because he favored the legislation before he knew of the involvement of his brother, who was not present yesterday. He also said he would publicly disclose the relationship prior to taking a vote, for which a date is not yet set."
The point, however, is that the bill doesn't place nearly enough obligations on the deep-pocketed bag manufacturers ant the chemical resin suppliers-the local stores who employ tens of thousands of folks and contribute millions to the local economy are literally left holding the bag. If that's true, and we believe it is, than the conflict becomes manifest.
This legislation needs a lot of work in order to make it both equitable and workable; and we hope that the Speaker will realize this and take an active role in insuring that the interests of store owners and their employees are looked after.
One of our biggest concerns is the apparent lack of concern at the council about the costs and obligations that are being foisted on local stores. The record-keeping responsibilities-the idea that store owners can easily manage to weigh and record the weights of the bags they collect-are impractical and, because of the city enforcement mechanisms, potentially costly as well.
And the idea that somehow all of this is good for the stores, that plastic bag recycling will become a "profit center," as someone from the Plastic Bag Alliance alleged, is too ludicrous to give any credence to. As Mitch Klein of Krasdale Foods pointed out at the hearing yesterday, this is going to cost independent supermarkets plenty-and there's nothing in the bill that gives the stores any relief, while the plastic bag manufacturers really have no fiscal exposure in all of this.
This factor was brought out in this morning's S.I. Advance story, where the paper indicated that one of the lobbyists that represents supplier interests is Councilman McMahon'e brother Tom: "The American Chemistry Council, a trade association, testified yesterday in favor of the bill. The council employs the Albany lobbying firm of Brown McMahon & Weinraub LLC, of which McMahon's brother, Thomas, is a principal. The lobbying firm has earned $18,000 this year for its efforts."
The councilman, for his part, said that there was really no conflict here: "The councilman said there is no conflict of interest because he favored the legislation before he knew of the involvement of his brother, who was not present yesterday. He also said he would publicly disclose the relationship prior to taking a vote, for which a date is not yet set."
The point, however, is that the bill doesn't place nearly enough obligations on the deep-pocketed bag manufacturers ant the chemical resin suppliers-the local stores who employ tens of thousands of folks and contribute millions to the local economy are literally left holding the bag. If that's true, and we believe it is, than the conflict becomes manifest.
This legislation needs a lot of work in order to make it both equitable and workable; and we hope that the Speaker will realize this and take an active role in insuring that the interests of store owners and their employees are looked after.
A Community Resigned to its Fate
As we mentioned yesterday, (and thanks to Liz for the link) three of the board members of the West Harlem LDC resigned from the body to protest its lack of transparency and authenticity. As our client Nick Sprayregen told the Observer: "Further, I for one, do not want to be a signatory to a document that could represent such a sell-out of the community and that represents something that is not what the community wants.”
This is all so expected. As soon as we found out that Jesse James Masyr was "hired" to represent the LDC in its negotiations for a Community Benefits Agreement we knew that a sell-out was likely on the way. The last time that Jesse did the CBA tango was over at the Bronx Terminal Market where, working for the developer Related, he helped BP Carrion to craft an agreement that his mentors found acceptable-so much so that they heaped considerable gratitude on the leader of the borough. One knowledgeable observer called this a "subversion of the land use process"-and the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.The only thing a genuine community hires Masyr for is to draw up its last will and testament.
And the fact that, as we've commented before, Masyr has an agreement with the LDC to work "pro bono," except for the proviso that he can be compensated at a later date by a third party. We know that it ain't Tom DeMott that's gonna cut old Jesse a big check. It's time to reprise "The Sting," with Masyr in the Paul Newman role. Metro's headline today says it all: "Columbia plan ‘rigged’?
All of which underscores the hilarity of Masyr's comments to the Observer: "“This has not been a behind the scenes process,” Mr. Masyr said. “We are probably a bit too transparent to really be able to negotiate. When it becomes apparent that not everybody was pulling in the same direction, we have a problem.”
And while you are negotiating this kind of CBA you don't need folks who want to aggressively advocate on behalf of local residents and businesses: "Our mission is clear, our vision is clear. We are going to negotiate a community benefits agreement,” the lawyer, Jesse Masyr, said. “I think that you could make the argument that two out of the three members never really intended to fulfill the mission of the LDC.”
Unlike, for instance, Susan Russell, gal Friday to Councilman Bob Jackson, someone whose only raison d'etre in life is to make sure that the community gets every last benefit from the rapacious university developer. Au Contraire you say? We must have the wrong Susan Russell; this Russell is the Terrier to the Stringer Spaniel-and she's carrying Masyr's water in a blue and white bucket. As she told the Spectator: “It’s not like people are trying to exclude others, but there has to be a certain level of practicality there,” she said. “Everyone on that board is absolutely dedicated to this community, and I can say that without hesitation.”
Say what? Sounds quite Orwellian to us-on the order of "all the pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others." Which is all the more reason why this land use process needs the dose of disinfectant that labor is threatening to bring to it. Enough with the faux CBAs and the legerdemain practiced by those to whom justice means, just us.
Update
Crain's writes the following on the CBA trail:
COLUMBIA TALKS
"Three people who oppose Columbia University’s Manhattanville expansion resigned
Wednesday from the West Harlem Local Development Corp., the organization that is negotiating
a package of community benefits to compensate for lost businesses and residences.
A school source says the resignations herald a pending agreement on the
package and that the three left so that they would not be party to the terms. But one of those who resigned, business owner Nick Sprayregen, says he did so to inform the public that the parties are nowhere near an accord—which as an LDC member he could
not do because he was under a gag agreement. Only Wednesday did the LDC begin
talking with its lawyer about enforcement mechanisms in case Columbia doesn’t keep
its promises, he says."
Clearly, there will be an agreement negotiated that reflects the interests of CU more than it does any genuine grass roots sentiment. All of which was part of the hand writing on the wall when Jesse James came to West Harlem.
This is all so expected. As soon as we found out that Jesse James Masyr was "hired" to represent the LDC in its negotiations for a Community Benefits Agreement we knew that a sell-out was likely on the way. The last time that Jesse did the CBA tango was over at the Bronx Terminal Market where, working for the developer Related, he helped BP Carrion to craft an agreement that his mentors found acceptable-so much so that they heaped considerable gratitude on the leader of the borough. One knowledgeable observer called this a "subversion of the land use process"-and the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.The only thing a genuine community hires Masyr for is to draw up its last will and testament.
And the fact that, as we've commented before, Masyr has an agreement with the LDC to work "pro bono," except for the proviso that he can be compensated at a later date by a third party. We know that it ain't Tom DeMott that's gonna cut old Jesse a big check. It's time to reprise "The Sting," with Masyr in the Paul Newman role. Metro's headline today says it all: "Columbia plan ‘rigged’?
All of which underscores the hilarity of Masyr's comments to the Observer: "“This has not been a behind the scenes process,” Mr. Masyr said. “We are probably a bit too transparent to really be able to negotiate. When it becomes apparent that not everybody was pulling in the same direction, we have a problem.”
And while you are negotiating this kind of CBA you don't need folks who want to aggressively advocate on behalf of local residents and businesses: "Our mission is clear, our vision is clear. We are going to negotiate a community benefits agreement,” the lawyer, Jesse Masyr, said. “I think that you could make the argument that two out of the three members never really intended to fulfill the mission of the LDC.”
Unlike, for instance, Susan Russell, gal Friday to Councilman Bob Jackson, someone whose only raison d'etre in life is to make sure that the community gets every last benefit from the rapacious university developer. Au Contraire you say? We must have the wrong Susan Russell; this Russell is the Terrier to the Stringer Spaniel-and she's carrying Masyr's water in a blue and white bucket. As she told the Spectator: “It’s not like people are trying to exclude others, but there has to be a certain level of practicality there,” she said. “Everyone on that board is absolutely dedicated to this community, and I can say that without hesitation.”
Say what? Sounds quite Orwellian to us-on the order of "all the pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others." Which is all the more reason why this land use process needs the dose of disinfectant that labor is threatening to bring to it. Enough with the faux CBAs and the legerdemain practiced by those to whom justice means, just us.
Update
Crain's writes the following on the CBA trail:
COLUMBIA TALKS
"Three people who oppose Columbia University’s Manhattanville expansion resigned
Wednesday from the West Harlem Local Development Corp., the organization that is negotiating
a package of community benefits to compensate for lost businesses and residences.
A school source says the resignations herald a pending agreement on the
package and that the three left so that they would not be party to the terms. But one of those who resigned, business owner Nick Sprayregen, says he did so to inform the public that the parties are nowhere near an accord—which as an LDC member he could
not do because he was under a gag agreement. Only Wednesday did the LDC begin
talking with its lawyer about enforcement mechanisms in case Columbia doesn’t keep
its promises, he says."
Clearly, there will be an agreement negotiated that reflects the interests of CU more than it does any genuine grass roots sentiment. All of which was part of the hand writing on the wall when Jesse James came to West Harlem.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Labor's New Vision
There's a new land use dynamic on the way, and the leader of the new direction is the Central Labor Council. As the NY Daily News' Juan Gonzales points out this morning: "The city's major union leaders have secretly approved a new campaign to block future redevelopment projects in the city unless each includes tough new livable wage and affordable housing guarantees, the Daily News has learned."
This new initiative could very well change the entire land use review process, and create a major challenge to the way in which development decisions are made. As Gonzales says: "Ever since the heyday of master builder Robert Moses, the city's labor unions have routinely backed the real estate industry's big development projects as a source of construction jobs. Now, organized labor and the real estate industry could be on a collision course."
And it should be clear to everyone that labor is the one player in the city's political process that has the ability to alter the way business is done. This is not only a major step, it is a welcome one as well. It can pave the way for the ending of sweetheart deals and phony community benefits agreements that leave small businesses and neighborhoods out in the cold.
One of the major focuses in all of this is affordable housing. Here's what one labor person told Gonzales: "[Mayor] Bloomberg and [Deputy Mayor Daniel] Doctoroff are upzoning dozens of neighborhoods all over town," one top union leader said. "They're creating huge windfalls for developers, trading air rights all over the place that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, our union members can't even afford to live in this city anymore. This has to stop."
Which brings us to Columbia and Willets Point-both making news today. On the Columbia front, Lipsky client Nick Sprayregen will be joining two other members of the West Harlem LDC at City Hall, Tom DeMott and Luisa Henriquez, to announce their resignation from the board that was supposed to be set up to negotiate a CBA with the university. Their experience with this Potemkin Village underscores our earlier point about the nmew ULURP sham: CBAs that are in reality backroom political deals.
As the press release for the three members points out: "Three board members of the West Harlem Local Development Corporation, a not-for-profit entity specifically created to negotiate a community benefits agreement with Columbia University in connection with its proposed expansion into West Harlem, will resign from the LDC citing back-door dealing and a rigged process. Tom DeMott, Nick Sprayregen and Luisa Henriquez who represent tenants in the area and businesses and residents facing forced removal within the footprint say that the block voting of most elected officials, a rigged land review process, and marginalization of the community have made it impossible for the LDC to function as intended and that it is now merely serving as a cover for behind-the scenes-negotiations."
The fact that the CU expansion has gone this far without a single local official saying word one about affordable housing-or any other word about anything-highlights the need for labor to step into a policy void. And the CLC has already initiated discussions with Sprayregen that would lead to a land swap with Columbia and the building of 1,000 units of housing.
As far as Willets Point goes, the City Council will be holding a hearing today on the potential redevelopment of the huge site-and if they stay on message here, the labor movement should resist any development of the area before a comprehensive benefit plan is devised. No pig-in-a-poke, and Doctoroff carte blanche, that will leave labor and the council outside looking in when this deal is finally done.
So what is labor looking to do here? "Among the reforms the labor leaders want are major changes to the city's zoning laws, greater transparency in development projects and stronger teeth in the city's land review procedures, known as ULURP. Exactly what we have been clamoring for over the past two decades."
And if the political elites are tone deaf? "If they can't reach agreement with City Hall and the City Council, the union chiefs say, they will launch a major public relations campaign, mobilize their members to attend City Council hearings and gear up to elect new candidates in the 2009 municipal elections who support the campaign." Let the games begin!
Update
Newsday has an interesting Willets Point story today-and the central theme, also present in the Columbia expansion fight, is over the definition of what constitutes blight. As one business owner told the paper the city itself is at fault for any blight: "The Bloomberg administration cites blight and pollution as its primary concerns about the current properties. But Bono, one of 10 business owners who formed the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association to fight the redevelopment, maintains the land is not contaminated and that the city itself is to blame for the blight."
Yet, as is typical in cases like these, proponents of redevelopment cite activities or certain businesses that don't meet the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, as a reason to, well, throw the baby out with the bathwater. As our friend Evan Stavisky tells the paper: "...that while there are many legitimate businesses in Willets Point, the area has been "a haven for chop shops and questionable characters."
Wholesale removal, though, seems a bit extreme when it is reported that over 2,500 people are employed in the area, and that many of these folks are entry level workers who would find it difficult to get work elsewhere. We're curious to see how this all plays out in light of the new vision of labor.
This new initiative could very well change the entire land use review process, and create a major challenge to the way in which development decisions are made. As Gonzales says: "Ever since the heyday of master builder Robert Moses, the city's labor unions have routinely backed the real estate industry's big development projects as a source of construction jobs. Now, organized labor and the real estate industry could be on a collision course."
And it should be clear to everyone that labor is the one player in the city's political process that has the ability to alter the way business is done. This is not only a major step, it is a welcome one as well. It can pave the way for the ending of sweetheart deals and phony community benefits agreements that leave small businesses and neighborhoods out in the cold.
One of the major focuses in all of this is affordable housing. Here's what one labor person told Gonzales: "[Mayor] Bloomberg and [Deputy Mayor Daniel] Doctoroff are upzoning dozens of neighborhoods all over town," one top union leader said. "They're creating huge windfalls for developers, trading air rights all over the place that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, our union members can't even afford to live in this city anymore. This has to stop."
Which brings us to Columbia and Willets Point-both making news today. On the Columbia front, Lipsky client Nick Sprayregen will be joining two other members of the West Harlem LDC at City Hall, Tom DeMott and Luisa Henriquez, to announce their resignation from the board that was supposed to be set up to negotiate a CBA with the university. Their experience with this Potemkin Village underscores our earlier point about the nmew ULURP sham: CBAs that are in reality backroom political deals.
As the press release for the three members points out: "Three board members of the West Harlem Local Development Corporation, a not-for-profit entity specifically created to negotiate a community benefits agreement with Columbia University in connection with its proposed expansion into West Harlem, will resign from the LDC citing back-door dealing and a rigged process. Tom DeMott, Nick Sprayregen and Luisa Henriquez who represent tenants in the area and businesses and residents facing forced removal within the footprint say that the block voting of most elected officials, a rigged land review process, and marginalization of the community have made it impossible for the LDC to function as intended and that it is now merely serving as a cover for behind-the scenes-negotiations."
The fact that the CU expansion has gone this far without a single local official saying word one about affordable housing-or any other word about anything-highlights the need for labor to step into a policy void. And the CLC has already initiated discussions with Sprayregen that would lead to a land swap with Columbia and the building of 1,000 units of housing.
As far as Willets Point goes, the City Council will be holding a hearing today on the potential redevelopment of the huge site-and if they stay on message here, the labor movement should resist any development of the area before a comprehensive benefit plan is devised. No pig-in-a-poke, and Doctoroff carte blanche, that will leave labor and the council outside looking in when this deal is finally done.
So what is labor looking to do here? "Among the reforms the labor leaders want are major changes to the city's zoning laws, greater transparency in development projects and stronger teeth in the city's land review procedures, known as ULURP. Exactly what we have been clamoring for over the past two decades."
And if the political elites are tone deaf? "If they can't reach agreement with City Hall and the City Council, the union chiefs say, they will launch a major public relations campaign, mobilize their members to attend City Council hearings and gear up to elect new candidates in the 2009 municipal elections who support the campaign." Let the games begin!
Update
Newsday has an interesting Willets Point story today-and the central theme, also present in the Columbia expansion fight, is over the definition of what constitutes blight. As one business owner told the paper the city itself is at fault for any blight: "The Bloomberg administration cites blight and pollution as its primary concerns about the current properties. But Bono, one of 10 business owners who formed the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association to fight the redevelopment, maintains the land is not contaminated and that the city itself is to blame for the blight."
Yet, as is typical in cases like these, proponents of redevelopment cite activities or certain businesses that don't meet the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, as a reason to, well, throw the baby out with the bathwater. As our friend Evan Stavisky tells the paper: "...that while there are many legitimate businesses in Willets Point, the area has been "a haven for chop shops and questionable characters."
Wholesale removal, though, seems a bit extreme when it is reported that over 2,500 people are employed in the area, and that many of these folks are entry level workers who would find it difficult to get work elsewhere. We're curious to see how this all plays out in light of the new vision of labor.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Goodby Dolly
The news that City Planning Commissioner Dolly Williams was leaving the body because of a conflict of interest didn't do much to move us; we just don't hold the Commission in enough regard to really react to the news. Others, however feel differently. As the NY Sun reports, DDD's Daniel Goldstein looks favorably upon Williams' removal because of conflicts involving Atlantic Yards, and her replacement by Shirley McRae, a sometime critic of the project: "As for the new commissioner: "It's got to be an improvement over someone who's just been fined over conflicts of interest," Mr. Goldstein said. He added that he was encouraged by Ms. McRae's critical perspective on the Atlantic Yards issue during her time on the local community board."
Goldstein should really temper his enthusiasm, it tends to place too much emphasis on the import of all of this minor maneuvering. After all, a conflict at the planning commission, a body that faithfully discharges the mayor's will, has little impact on the resolution of any individual issue; it's not a venue where democracy is exercised.
And the fact that the state named Forest Taylor as an ombudsman is even less noteworthy. In the years that Taylor was supposedly Gifford Miller's chief of staff. we can't recall a more evanescent figure in out 25 years of lobbying the city council. An ombudsman is nothing more than an emotional release point for those with a particular beef; not, like Goldstein, for those who want the whole project to disappear.
The problem here lies with the development process rather than the behavior of planning commissioners. The selection of developers and of sites; the decisions about what should be built-all are more significant than the parsing of the review process. Over the past 25 years there's been only a few of us who have successfully, and consistently, stopped developments from happening.
Under the current administration, however, the scope of possible opposition has narrowed-a situation that is exacerbated by the relationship between current council leadership and the mayor. When you add to this the fact that a handful of developers-really two-have been treated as favored nations, you can see just how limited the whole scope of potential opposition has become.
So, in reference to the leaving of Dolly Williams we're reminded of the old proverb: "the law punishes the thief who steals the goose from off of the common; but lets the greater felon loose, who steals the commons from the goose."
Goldstein should really temper his enthusiasm, it tends to place too much emphasis on the import of all of this minor maneuvering. After all, a conflict at the planning commission, a body that faithfully discharges the mayor's will, has little impact on the resolution of any individual issue; it's not a venue where democracy is exercised.
And the fact that the state named Forest Taylor as an ombudsman is even less noteworthy. In the years that Taylor was supposedly Gifford Miller's chief of staff. we can't recall a more evanescent figure in out 25 years of lobbying the city council. An ombudsman is nothing more than an emotional release point for those with a particular beef; not, like Goldstein, for those who want the whole project to disappear.
The problem here lies with the development process rather than the behavior of planning commissioners. The selection of developers and of sites; the decisions about what should be built-all are more significant than the parsing of the review process. Over the past 25 years there's been only a few of us who have successfully, and consistently, stopped developments from happening.
Under the current administration, however, the scope of possible opposition has narrowed-a situation that is exacerbated by the relationship between current council leadership and the mayor. When you add to this the fact that a handful of developers-really two-have been treated as favored nations, you can see just how limited the whole scope of potential opposition has become.
So, in reference to the leaving of Dolly Williams we're reminded of the old proverb: "the law punishes the thief who steals the goose from off of the common; but lets the greater felon loose, who steals the commons from the goose."
Heavy-Handed Calorie Reprise
The City Room blog is reporting on the second effort by the Department of Health to impose a menu labeling scheme on some local restaurants-the first such attempt fell by the judicial waste side in September. As the blog points out: "Then, in September, a United States District Court judge struck down the rule, saying the way it was worded conflicted with federal regulations. But the judge, Richard J. Howell, provided suggestions in his decision for ways the city could avoid running afoul of federal law, and city officials vowed to do so.
And now they have done just that, with the same uninformed commentary by self-appointed guardians of the public health who no zero about fast food restaurants and, less understandably, apparently are ignorant of some basic health issues. Here's what one such expert told the hearing held yesterday: “It is a common-sense measure that poses no risk to anyone,” said Amy J. Schwartz, executive director of the Public Health Association of New York City.
Ms. Schwartz told the hearing panel that studies have shown people eating outside the home consume 15 percent fewer calories when they are given the calorie count of menu items."
That, my friends, is an absolute lie! It is, however, quite fair in the minds of the advocates to lie as long as it is deemed to be in a good cause. There are no peer-reviewed studies that indicate that folks are consuming less when their made aware of the calories they're eating. And the only study done in New York City was done by the DOH itself.
What did that study "find?" It found that consumers at Subway! supposedly consumed 50 less calories when the calorie counts were made available. 50-at a restaurant that markets its healthy alternative status (leaving aside the fact that the study was done by the very department seeking to impose the menu rules).
The fact is that there are no social science studies that give any degree of confidence about the efficacy of what the department of health is doing. There are some studies that do show that consumers, when they are informed about calorie counts, actually choose the higher calorie items. assuming a more tasty alternative in their choice.
So, once again, the city is performing a social experiment at the expense of local restaurant owners. No harm, Ms Schwartz? The loss of local business, and the potential loss of employment could be a serious harm to neighborhood economies; but the DOH is undeterred and hasn't bothered to do any cost/benefit analysis, so sure are they in their own rectitude.
Hopefully, the industry will also challenge this rule as successfully as it did for the first. Heaven protect us from a government imbued with a sense of its own benevolence.
And now they have done just that, with the same uninformed commentary by self-appointed guardians of the public health who no zero about fast food restaurants and, less understandably, apparently are ignorant of some basic health issues. Here's what one such expert told the hearing held yesterday: “It is a common-sense measure that poses no risk to anyone,” said Amy J. Schwartz, executive director of the Public Health Association of New York City.
Ms. Schwartz told the hearing panel that studies have shown people eating outside the home consume 15 percent fewer calories when they are given the calorie count of menu items."
That, my friends, is an absolute lie! It is, however, quite fair in the minds of the advocates to lie as long as it is deemed to be in a good cause. There are no peer-reviewed studies that indicate that folks are consuming less when their made aware of the calories they're eating. And the only study done in New York City was done by the DOH itself.
What did that study "find?" It found that consumers at Subway! supposedly consumed 50 less calories when the calorie counts were made available. 50-at a restaurant that markets its healthy alternative status (leaving aside the fact that the study was done by the very department seeking to impose the menu rules).
The fact is that there are no social science studies that give any degree of confidence about the efficacy of what the department of health is doing. There are some studies that do show that consumers, when they are informed about calorie counts, actually choose the higher calorie items. assuming a more tasty alternative in their choice.
So, once again, the city is performing a social experiment at the expense of local restaurant owners. No harm, Ms Schwartz? The loss of local business, and the potential loss of employment could be a serious harm to neighborhood economies; but the DOH is undeterred and hasn't bothered to do any cost/benefit analysis, so sure are they in their own rectitude.
Hopefully, the industry will also challenge this rule as successfully as it did for the first. Heaven protect us from a government imbued with a sense of its own benevolence.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wise Observations
In today's Real Estate blog in the Observer, Matthew Schuerman highlights a couple of important points. In the first place he points out that Commissioner Phillips, a one time foe turned friend, made it clear that she saw the Sprayregen land swap as a key feature of an improved expansion plan: "Ms. Phillips took the floor. She listed a number of elements of the plan that she wished would be changed, among them, a land swap between the moving company Tuck-It-Away and Columbia to reduce the need for eminent domain."
Hooray for Karen, someone who understands the essence of a development partnership and can clearly see why CU's plan falls short. Also kudos need to go out to Commissioner Cantor who abstained from an approval because of the eminent domain issue: "But, while lauding the economic development that Columbia’s expansion promises to bring to upper Manhattan, Mr. Cantor objected to the state’s possible use of eminent domain to acquire some commercial properties that Columbia could not buy outright, on the grounds that less government was good government, and that, over the next 20 years, land owners would be stuck in limbo, unable to improve their parcels and yet unwilling to sell them off."
What's apparent is that the ED issue here is causing a certain degree of skittishness, and even New York's Burden expressed the wish that the use of this method wouldn't be necessary. As the Spectator pointed out: "Emphasizing her hope that eminent domain will not be necessary, Burden said, “Approval of the Columbia University plan would not be a vote in favor of eminent domain, and it is altogether possible that Columbia’s plan will be fully realized without eminent domain.”
Yes it certainly is possible, but we'll need to see a large dose of good faith and political will exercised before we're sanguine about averting a mega-battle over this contentious issue. Stay tuned, because these things will be front and center in the coming weeks.
Hooray for Karen, someone who understands the essence of a development partnership and can clearly see why CU's plan falls short. Also kudos need to go out to Commissioner Cantor who abstained from an approval because of the eminent domain issue: "But, while lauding the economic development that Columbia’s expansion promises to bring to upper Manhattan, Mr. Cantor objected to the state’s possible use of eminent domain to acquire some commercial properties that Columbia could not buy outright, on the grounds that less government was good government, and that, over the next 20 years, land owners would be stuck in limbo, unable to improve their parcels and yet unwilling to sell them off."
What's apparent is that the ED issue here is causing a certain degree of skittishness, and even New York's Burden expressed the wish that the use of this method wouldn't be necessary. As the Spectator pointed out: "Emphasizing her hope that eminent domain will not be necessary, Burden said, “Approval of the Columbia University plan would not be a vote in favor of eminent domain, and it is altogether possible that Columbia’s plan will be fully realized without eminent domain.”
Yes it certainly is possible, but we'll need to see a large dose of good faith and political will exercised before we're sanguine about averting a mega-battle over this contentious issue. Stay tuned, because these things will be front and center in the coming weeks.
CPC Plans, and God Laughs
As expected, the City Planning Commission voted yesterday to approve the expansion of Columbia University into West Harlem. The Commission, whose majority is controlled by the mayor, faithfully did what it was told to do-and did so without any recognition of the potential negative impact that expansion would have on existing businesses or residents.
Keep in mind that the EIS determined that up to 5,000 local residents were in danger of either direct or indirect displacement; yet nothing in the Commission's "modification" addresses this salient issue, or indicates how and where these folks are going to find affordable housing. Some planning!
Yet, it must be said, that CPC did as much as could be expected from an agency without any scope of independent action; and don't forget all of the wonderful landscaping that Commissioner Burden has included-not really comprehending the irony of providing landscaping for an area that will witness the displacement of people from their homes and businesses from their locations. You know, you may be forced out, but think of all the pretty trees that will take your place. There's a reason we call Amanda "New York's Burden."
At the same time, we were surprised by the fortitude of our old friend Karen Phillips, the one dissenting Commission voice. As the NY Daily News reports: "Only Commissioner Karen Phillips voted against the expansion, citing concerns that it could cause "economic, cultural and social damage" to the surrounding area." What Phillips went on to say was that the real contribution that CU's expansion will bring should not been done at the expense of the local community.
The local did come out and forcefully express their displeasure at the whole exercise in faux democracy. As the NY Post reports: "Dozens of Harlem residents shouted their opposition to the development during the meeting. One opponent, Tom DeMott, threw fistfuls of green paper he called "Bollinger Dollars," in reference to university President Lee Bollinger. Another, Nellie Bailey, called Columbia's expansion "a plan to dismantle and restructure Harlem. You are driving blacks, Latinos and working-class whites out of Harlem."
The Commission did, however, do one substantive change to the Columbia scheme. It knocked out the large academic buildings that CU had planned for the East Side of Broadway. Here's the Post's take: "Columbia's plan won the key approval only after the commission made several changes, including replacing two research buildings on Broadway with university housing and lowering the height of both buildings. "The commission has been particularly concerned that the proposed concentration of six academic research buildings fronting along Broadway would potentially diminish the ability to create a vibrant and active corridor," said Amanda Burden, director of city planning."
How interesting! That's exactly the area that has been proposed for the land swap between CU and property owner Nick Sprayregen-and CPC designates it for "university housing." A better idea is, of course, housing for locals and not just student transients-something that is central to the Sprayregen swap. We simply can't get over the Commission's callous disregard of the housing issue. Well, we guess that's what happens when you turn a planning agency over to New York's version of Lady Bird Johnson.
But, as the Spectator reports this morning, housing is in the picture-just not for local residents: "Columbia also announced on Monday that it would build nearly 1,000 housing units for employees, in an effort to offset the increased demand for housing that the expansion will generate. In addition, the University agreed to contribute $4 million to legal-aid services for Manhattanville tenants, including protection from unlawful harassment or eviction."
So, once again, Columbia looks to take care of its own, and the heck with any one else. All of which means that it will be up to the City Council to craft a better compromise, a road that has been paved by the Commission's passage of both the CU plan as well as the community board's 197-a plan. As the City Room blog pointed out yesterday: "The plan now goes to the City Council, which is expected to modify it before giving final approval."
Keep in mind that the EIS determined that up to 5,000 local residents were in danger of either direct or indirect displacement; yet nothing in the Commission's "modification" addresses this salient issue, or indicates how and where these folks are going to find affordable housing. Some planning!
Yet, it must be said, that CPC did as much as could be expected from an agency without any scope of independent action; and don't forget all of the wonderful landscaping that Commissioner Burden has included-not really comprehending the irony of providing landscaping for an area that will witness the displacement of people from their homes and businesses from their locations. You know, you may be forced out, but think of all the pretty trees that will take your place. There's a reason we call Amanda "New York's Burden."
At the same time, we were surprised by the fortitude of our old friend Karen Phillips, the one dissenting Commission voice. As the NY Daily News reports: "Only Commissioner Karen Phillips voted against the expansion, citing concerns that it could cause "economic, cultural and social damage" to the surrounding area." What Phillips went on to say was that the real contribution that CU's expansion will bring should not been done at the expense of the local community.
The local did come out and forcefully express their displeasure at the whole exercise in faux democracy. As the NY Post reports: "Dozens of Harlem residents shouted their opposition to the development during the meeting. One opponent, Tom DeMott, threw fistfuls of green paper he called "Bollinger Dollars," in reference to university President Lee Bollinger. Another, Nellie Bailey, called Columbia's expansion "a plan to dismantle and restructure Harlem. You are driving blacks, Latinos and working-class whites out of Harlem."
The Commission did, however, do one substantive change to the Columbia scheme. It knocked out the large academic buildings that CU had planned for the East Side of Broadway. Here's the Post's take: "Columbia's plan won the key approval only after the commission made several changes, including replacing two research buildings on Broadway with university housing and lowering the height of both buildings. "The commission has been particularly concerned that the proposed concentration of six academic research buildings fronting along Broadway would potentially diminish the ability to create a vibrant and active corridor," said Amanda Burden, director of city planning."
How interesting! That's exactly the area that has been proposed for the land swap between CU and property owner Nick Sprayregen-and CPC designates it for "university housing." A better idea is, of course, housing for locals and not just student transients-something that is central to the Sprayregen swap. We simply can't get over the Commission's callous disregard of the housing issue. Well, we guess that's what happens when you turn a planning agency over to New York's version of Lady Bird Johnson.
But, as the Spectator reports this morning, housing is in the picture-just not for local residents: "Columbia also announced on Monday that it would build nearly 1,000 housing units for employees, in an effort to offset the increased demand for housing that the expansion will generate. In addition, the University agreed to contribute $4 million to legal-aid services for Manhattanville tenants, including protection from unlawful harassment or eviction."
So, once again, Columbia looks to take care of its own, and the heck with any one else. All of which means that it will be up to the City Council to craft a better compromise, a road that has been paved by the Commission's passage of both the CU plan as well as the community board's 197-a plan. As the City Room blog pointed out yesterday: "The plan now goes to the City Council, which is expected to modify it before giving final approval."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
