In yesterday's NY Times the paper analyzes the Bloomberg boomlet from the standpoint of the mayor's ideological positioning; and finds that the mayor's political views puts him squarely in the center-of the Democratic Party: “If you put him on the national Congressional spectrum,” said Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale University, “he would be in the middle — of the Democratic Party.”
The Times story also points out something we've said before: the mayor's philosophical bent, were he to be elected, will cause a great deal of blowback from conservative forces that are more prevalent in the country than they are in liberal NYC. As the Times puts it: "But judged strictly on the issues, it is hard to discern the grounds on which Mr. Bloomberg might midwife a new kind of fusion politics, even if he wants to."
This point is underscored by the hearty Bloomberg shout out from the DMI's Andrea Batista Schlesinger who told the paper (with an observation that finds the Drummer in unusual agreement with our own view of the mayor): “He may not have an ideology about political parties, but he definitely has an ideology about government — that it has a progressive role in our lives,” said Andrea Batista Schlesinger, executive director of the Drum Major Institute, a New York-based liberal research group. “The idea that he’s some kind of middle-of-the-road candidate doesn’t do justice to his own values.”
Precisely so, which means that Mayor Mike is gonna have to do some fancy-an no doubt expensive-foot work in order to distract the voters away from his core beliefs. To say that Bloomberg is wealthy enough to resist the allure of lobbyists and special interests does not alter the fact that his world view is an anathema to many Americans-and if the Schlesingers of the political world are the mayor's cheer leaders then you really can't stray much farther from the views of mainstream Americans.
The only discordant note we found in the well done Confessore analysis at the Times, was his musing about the way the mayor has at times straddled conservative as well as liberal views: "In areas like education and poverty, some experts say, Mr. Bloomberg has blended traditionally liberal and conservative policies with notable success. In city schools, for example, he has pursued greater centralization, stringent performance accountability measures and merit pay — the last of which has few adherents among Democratic candidates — while sharply increasing teacher salaries. He has proposed a new, nuanced definition of poverty, something liberals have long supported, while starting a pilot program that offers cash incentives to the poor to attend school or job training, a policy that echoes the thinking of some conservative scholars."
This analysis doesn't really hold up well, since the mayor's pay to behave approach to poverty has been ridiculed by conservative scholars; and his educational policies-and their relative poor success rate-has drawn criticism from across the ideological spectrum. The NY Sun's defense of the Bloomberg candidacy from a more conservative angle, emphasizes tort reform and a more muscular approach to certain foreign policy issues. Yet that too fell rather flat with us. Andrea Batista Schlesinger is closer to the mark on the mayor's true political sensibilities.
Which isn't stopping all of the speculation; as the NY Daily News' Kirsten Danis writes yesterday about the "buzz" surrounding the mayor's western swing this week; and the NY Post's Dave Seifman begins speculating about the mayor's successor in a special election if he runs and wins! If it were up to the NY press core the mayor would announce his intention to run immediately-yet in today's NY Post, Harry Siegel offers a more sober view of the mayor and his prospects; one that critiques the lack of media scrutiny of a chief executive who, "has alchemized a record of mediocre accomplishments into a rep as a highly competent, unideological reformer worthy of the presidency."
We're hopeful that a Bloomberg run would lead to more Siegel-like scrutiny of a rather unclothed emperor. Run Mike run!
Monday, January 07, 2008
Friday, January 04, 2008
Sharpton and Bloomberg
Just when we'd thought that we'd seen everything, we picked up the NY Daily News this morning to discover that the Bloomberg boomlet had another fan: the Reverend Al Sharpton. And wouldn't you know, Reverend Al is on the same page as we are-a supporter of the chaos theory of politics.
Sharpton, in speculating about the outcome of next week's greybeard summit told the News readers: "As one who has employed shock therapy on occasion to get the system to work, I support such a meeting - and am keenly interested in what a Bloomberg candidacy would mean for America. If I were his adviser (which I am not), I would urge him to base the core of his domestic platform on the notion that education is the civil rights issue for the 21st century, because without it, one cannot pursue the American Dream."
What we can't quite figure out here is what the backstory is. We do know that, while shock therapy is a Sharpton calling card, this can't be the whole story by any means. If Al's writing this kind of Op-ed than it means that there's something in it for Al. Our supposition is that chaos here is directed at one Barack Obama, someone who's rapidly speeding the Reverend off to obsolescence. The threat of a Bloomberg candidacy would, if Obama is the nominee-or even if he's in striking distance-make the Sharpton mantra that much more relevant.
Certainly the education issue is a red herring here since Sharpton has never publicly to our knowledge heaped any praise on Bloomberg for his putative reforms in this area. And, as we have commented before, the Reverend is treading on thin ice if he wants to go skating on the education rink with the mayor.
Which doesn't stop the NY Sun from continuing to promote the mayor for what we feel are dubious reasons-particularly its support in today's editorial of a "pro growth" policy on immigration. And the paper's reporting on Doug Schoen's musings about the potential success of a third part effort strikes us as simply special pleading by the paper.
But continue to plead by all means. Whether it's chaos or shock therapy the Bloomberg run would be smashing good fun for us all-and it just might give us the opportunity to peak behind the curtain to see how little the Wizard of NYC really is.
Sharpton, in speculating about the outcome of next week's greybeard summit told the News readers: "As one who has employed shock therapy on occasion to get the system to work, I support such a meeting - and am keenly interested in what a Bloomberg candidacy would mean for America. If I were his adviser (which I am not), I would urge him to base the core of his domestic platform on the notion that education is the civil rights issue for the 21st century, because without it, one cannot pursue the American Dream."
What we can't quite figure out here is what the backstory is. We do know that, while shock therapy is a Sharpton calling card, this can't be the whole story by any means. If Al's writing this kind of Op-ed than it means that there's something in it for Al. Our supposition is that chaos here is directed at one Barack Obama, someone who's rapidly speeding the Reverend off to obsolescence. The threat of a Bloomberg candidacy would, if Obama is the nominee-or even if he's in striking distance-make the Sharpton mantra that much more relevant.
Certainly the education issue is a red herring here since Sharpton has never publicly to our knowledge heaped any praise on Bloomberg for his putative reforms in this area. And, as we have commented before, the Reverend is treading on thin ice if he wants to go skating on the education rink with the mayor.
Which doesn't stop the NY Sun from continuing to promote the mayor for what we feel are dubious reasons-particularly its support in today's editorial of a "pro growth" policy on immigration. And the paper's reporting on Doug Schoen's musings about the potential success of a third part effort strikes us as simply special pleading by the paper.
But continue to plead by all means. Whether it's chaos or shock therapy the Bloomberg run would be smashing good fun for us all-and it just might give us the opportunity to peak behind the curtain to see how little the Wizard of NYC really is.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Dopey Peddlers
As far as false nostrums are concerned, the idea that the poor of the city are obese because they lack access to fresh fruits and vegetables ranks right up there; the problem is not availabilty but desirability-people must be educated so that demand is generated for the produce. We saw some of this silliness on exhibit right at the end of the year when the mayor and council speaker announced that they would introduce "Green Carts" legislation in the new year.
The speaker's observations here are to our point. She cited the absence of supermarkets in some neighborhoods as compelling the need for the introduction of 1500 produce peddlers in "high need" neighborhoods. As we've said before, this is a bad idea based on a false premise.
Over ten years ago, we had lunch for the first time with the NYC Partnership's Kathy Wylde. In the course of the pleasant conversation, Wylde told us that in her housing work for the partnership she had discovered that in every neighborhood where they were looking to build affordable housing the re was a dearth of retail services-the one major exception was supermarkets; she found them in every area that the Partnership went to-and she was right.
The need for peddlers is being based on the advocacy of certain groups that have always decried the supposed lack of healthy food access in the city's low income neighborhoods. Their major focus has been on two things: first, the fact that there are more supermarkets per capita in higher income neighborhoods, and secondly, on the lack of fresh produce at the city's 13,000 bodegas-something that is used to underscore the need for green markets, and now peddlers.
Now it may be true, and we'd actually agree, that there's a need to build more large, modern markets in some of the city's low income communities. These stores will, because they draw on a wider trade area, be able to stock a greater volume and variety of produce. It's also true that the city's food policy coordinator, Ben Thomasses, recognizes this need and is looking to do something positive in this regard.
The bodega critique is, however, a red herring, and a distraction from this more important task; as is the introduction of 1500 peddlers into these communities. The peddlers will only look to set up in front of existing supermarkets, precisely because that's where all of the retail foot traffic is. This will, of course, cannibalize those tax paying store owners-and their employees' jobs- just like the peddlers in Manhattan are already doing.
So we welcome the introduction of the legislation from the standpoint of educating the City Council about this retail reality-and the anti-union philosophy that wittingly or not underpins the policy initiative. We're hopeful that once the speaker and her colleagues understand all of this, there will be a policy redirection that makes more sense than the current one.
The speaker's observations here are to our point. She cited the absence of supermarkets in some neighborhoods as compelling the need for the introduction of 1500 produce peddlers in "high need" neighborhoods. As we've said before, this is a bad idea based on a false premise.
Over ten years ago, we had lunch for the first time with the NYC Partnership's Kathy Wylde. In the course of the pleasant conversation, Wylde told us that in her housing work for the partnership she had discovered that in every neighborhood where they were looking to build affordable housing the re was a dearth of retail services-the one major exception was supermarkets; she found them in every area that the Partnership went to-and she was right.
The need for peddlers is being based on the advocacy of certain groups that have always decried the supposed lack of healthy food access in the city's low income neighborhoods. Their major focus has been on two things: first, the fact that there are more supermarkets per capita in higher income neighborhoods, and secondly, on the lack of fresh produce at the city's 13,000 bodegas-something that is used to underscore the need for green markets, and now peddlers.
Now it may be true, and we'd actually agree, that there's a need to build more large, modern markets in some of the city's low income communities. These stores will, because they draw on a wider trade area, be able to stock a greater volume and variety of produce. It's also true that the city's food policy coordinator, Ben Thomasses, recognizes this need and is looking to do something positive in this regard.
The bodega critique is, however, a red herring, and a distraction from this more important task; as is the introduction of 1500 peddlers into these communities. The peddlers will only look to set up in front of existing supermarkets, precisely because that's where all of the retail foot traffic is. This will, of course, cannibalize those tax paying store owners-and their employees' jobs- just like the peddlers in Manhattan are already doing.
So we welcome the introduction of the legislation from the standpoint of educating the City Council about this retail reality-and the anti-union philosophy that wittingly or not underpins the policy initiative. We're hopeful that once the speaker and her colleagues understand all of this, there will be a policy redirection that makes more sense than the current one.
Bipartisan BS
The cant coming from the bipartisan brigade has been ratcheted up by its wealthiest enthusiast, Mayor Mike. As the NY Sun reports this morning, the mayor has begun to sharply criticize his putative rivals for their supposed shortcomings, as he prepares to attend a conference in Oklahoma called for by a bunch of irrelevant, aged Brahmans: "Mr. Bloomberg said he is attending the Oklahoma conference to "find a way to take an independent approach to government" and to "find a way to get partisanship out of politics and get the special interests out."
This is, of course, simply a load of crap-and it recalls the Progressive Age when, as Richard Hofstadter has pointed out, the "better folks" were feeling squeezed out by the newly empowered democratic surge of immigrants. Put simply, it is interest groups that generate the democratic vitality of American politics, and those who seek to either eliminate them or rein them in, are the same folks who are uncomfortable with the messier features of a democratic polity.
This all goes back quite a long way, but the basic philosophical underpinnings got a very trenchant exposition in Theodore Lowi's The End of Liberalism. Lowi felt that the interplay of interests insufficiently promoted the public good, and searched for a better process to achieve this philosophical Holy Grail. It should be pointed out that Lowi began his analytical journey studying politics in NYC.
The so-called independent approach to politics that Bloomberg talked about yesterday would find a comfortable niche in Lowi's world view. It's a world where expertise supersedes democratic bickering-and it hearkens back to the Platonic tradition that was suspicious of the masses and their ability to govern. We should remember, however, that the American political tradition recognizes the importance of voluntary associations and factions-as anyone familiar with Federalist X and the work of Tocqueville will attest.
When we eliminate the role of these intermediary institutions we're simply paving the way for something that's quite less democratic, and certainly something that doesn't necessarily lead to the public good; since it is based on the assumption that the "independent way" (really a euphemism for the rule of the expert or the philosopher king, if you will) is superior to the cacophony of "special interests."
And when you deconstruct the term "special interests," what do you discover? We think you'll find that it represents all of the multi varied interest groups that make up a democratic polity; with many of these groups actually being represented by nefarious folks called lobbyists. Ironically, what we see here is the obverse of the shrill cry of the Edwards campaign, coming from a suspicion of certain corporate groups that represent the wrong special interests. The logical progression in both strands of thought, however is, as we've said, something a good deal less democratic than the system we have today-since in both views there is a larger public good that can only be discerned by the wise expert and/or the initiated chosen ones.
So, as the NY Times also reports, the mayor is off on his own version of the Yellow Brick Road. And he offers the following observation: "With unusually dismissive language, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg offered tart assessments of his potential presidential rivals at a news conference on Wednesday, suggesting they are offering meaningless bromides rather than serious answers to the problems confronting the country."
So we await the pronouncements of our own philosopher king, someone for whom bromides is apparently an anathema; someone who is willing perhaps to spend up to a billion dollars to simply speak the truth, unencumbered by special interests- to a public that is starved for honesty in a tawdry political world that needs to be remade by Mayor Mike. This is all on the order of the Santa Claus fable, and we'll leave you with the jolly old elf's patented phrase: "Ho, Ho, Ho."
Update
Today's Wall Street Journal has an excellent critique of the Bloomberg boomlet, with a useful evaluation of the mayor's rather mixed tenure as the city's chief executive: "What Mayor Bloomberg hasn't done is challenge the union status quo over the unsustainable city work force and pensions, which will become a crisis for some future mayor. He has dodged this burden himself because of the revenue boom that has flowed from New York's financial industry in the wake of the Bush tax cuts. He has also been able to play the role of nonpartisan healer in part because Mr. Giuliani was willing to take on the city's liberal interest groups on taxes, welfare, crime and public order. Mr. Bloomberg has a better bedside manner than Mr. Giuliani, but it's also easier to be popular when you're not picking as many policy fights."
In addition, the Journal also points out that a good third party run needs an issue, one that has usually appeals to some aspect of popular discontent. The paper speculates that his will be "competence," and writes the above in critical response. As we've said, however, the Bloomberg faux issue will be non-partisan independence. Still, we can't wait for the deconstruction to begin, and all praise to the ESJ for the first salvo.
This is, of course, simply a load of crap-and it recalls the Progressive Age when, as Richard Hofstadter has pointed out, the "better folks" were feeling squeezed out by the newly empowered democratic surge of immigrants. Put simply, it is interest groups that generate the democratic vitality of American politics, and those who seek to either eliminate them or rein them in, are the same folks who are uncomfortable with the messier features of a democratic polity.
This all goes back quite a long way, but the basic philosophical underpinnings got a very trenchant exposition in Theodore Lowi's The End of Liberalism. Lowi felt that the interplay of interests insufficiently promoted the public good, and searched for a better process to achieve this philosophical Holy Grail. It should be pointed out that Lowi began his analytical journey studying politics in NYC.
The so-called independent approach to politics that Bloomberg talked about yesterday would find a comfortable niche in Lowi's world view. It's a world where expertise supersedes democratic bickering-and it hearkens back to the Platonic tradition that was suspicious of the masses and their ability to govern. We should remember, however, that the American political tradition recognizes the importance of voluntary associations and factions-as anyone familiar with Federalist X and the work of Tocqueville will attest.
When we eliminate the role of these intermediary institutions we're simply paving the way for something that's quite less democratic, and certainly something that doesn't necessarily lead to the public good; since it is based on the assumption that the "independent way" (really a euphemism for the rule of the expert or the philosopher king, if you will) is superior to the cacophony of "special interests."
And when you deconstruct the term "special interests," what do you discover? We think you'll find that it represents all of the multi varied interest groups that make up a democratic polity; with many of these groups actually being represented by nefarious folks called lobbyists. Ironically, what we see here is the obverse of the shrill cry of the Edwards campaign, coming from a suspicion of certain corporate groups that represent the wrong special interests. The logical progression in both strands of thought, however is, as we've said, something a good deal less democratic than the system we have today-since in both views there is a larger public good that can only be discerned by the wise expert and/or the initiated chosen ones.
So, as the NY Times also reports, the mayor is off on his own version of the Yellow Brick Road. And he offers the following observation: "With unusually dismissive language, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg offered tart assessments of his potential presidential rivals at a news conference on Wednesday, suggesting they are offering meaningless bromides rather than serious answers to the problems confronting the country."
So we await the pronouncements of our own philosopher king, someone for whom bromides is apparently an anathema; someone who is willing perhaps to spend up to a billion dollars to simply speak the truth, unencumbered by special interests- to a public that is starved for honesty in a tawdry political world that needs to be remade by Mayor Mike. This is all on the order of the Santa Claus fable, and we'll leave you with the jolly old elf's patented phrase: "Ho, Ho, Ho."
Update
Today's Wall Street Journal has an excellent critique of the Bloomberg boomlet, with a useful evaluation of the mayor's rather mixed tenure as the city's chief executive: "What Mayor Bloomberg hasn't done is challenge the union status quo over the unsustainable city work force and pensions, which will become a crisis for some future mayor. He has dodged this burden himself because of the revenue boom that has flowed from New York's financial industry in the wake of the Bush tax cuts. He has also been able to play the role of nonpartisan healer in part because Mr. Giuliani was willing to take on the city's liberal interest groups on taxes, welfare, crime and public order. Mr. Bloomberg has a better bedside manner than Mr. Giuliani, but it's also easier to be popular when you're not picking as many policy fights."
In addition, the Journal also points out that a good third party run needs an issue, one that has usually appeals to some aspect of popular discontent. The paper speculates that his will be "competence," and writes the above in critical response. As we've said, however, the Bloomberg faux issue will be non-partisan independence. Still, we can't wait for the deconstruction to begin, and all praise to the ESJ for the first salvo.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Yankees Park and Deride
Juan Gonzales continues his exposes of the Yankee Stadium wheeling and dealing in today's NY Daily News: "The Yankees and hundreds of their VIPs will get free valet parking for the next 40 years, courtesy of New York taxpayers. The startling revelation of yet another subsidy for the richest team in baseball is buried deep in the fine print of a $237 million tax-exempt bond offering that city officials quietly issued the week before Christmas."
Perhaps this will also become part of the rich development legacy that the media has been fawning over with the departure of Deputy Dan-with the NY Daily News' Errol Louis actually pointing to the sweetheart deal that left minority vendors at the old BTM out in the cold, as an example of the goodness of the dearly departed Dan?
What we do know is that the stench coming out of the Bronx will not be ameliorated by all of the greening of the borough that comes as a result of the new stadium-two "parks" on top of parking garages built for VIPs-will not make up for the beautiful old parks that had to be destroyed for the new Yankee development.
This is certainly not what's going to happen over at Coney Island in Brooklyn, where State Senator Kruger is getting ready to insure that there will be no sleight-of-hand by the city's EDC. Here we're sure that alienation will become more of an existential concept than it was in the borough were developers feed on carrion on a daily basis.
Perhaps this will also become part of the rich development legacy that the media has been fawning over with the departure of Deputy Dan-with the NY Daily News' Errol Louis actually pointing to the sweetheart deal that left minority vendors at the old BTM out in the cold, as an example of the goodness of the dearly departed Dan?
What we do know is that the stench coming out of the Bronx will not be ameliorated by all of the greening of the borough that comes as a result of the new stadium-two "parks" on top of parking garages built for VIPs-will not make up for the beautiful old parks that had to be destroyed for the new Yankee development.
This is certainly not what's going to happen over at Coney Island in Brooklyn, where State Senator Kruger is getting ready to insure that there will be no sleight-of-hand by the city's EDC. Here we're sure that alienation will become more of an existential concept than it was in the borough were developers feed on carrion on a daily basis.
Bloomberg in 2008?
It's quite the heady time if you're Mike Bloomberg. A new year dawns and it appears to be full of promise for New York's wealthy chief executive-with media outlets, the NY Daily News and the NY Sun just this morning, full of speculation that Mayor Mike will soon go on a spending spree. In spite of what you may have read here, we simply can't wait.
It's not as if we think that Bloomberg is some sort of a political savior for the curing of the American malaise. Quite the contrary, we think that he's ill-equipped, both from an ideological as well as a personality perspective, to lead this country during this perilous period. But his candidacy would create political chaos, and we're big fans of chaos; though we certainly can't see him playing second fiddle to McCain, as Bill Safire suggested this week.
Put simply, Mike Blomberg is the perfect city manager, a post where inspiration isn't a job requisite. So we're amused by all of the breathlessness over the possibility; the latest yesterday by our friends at the NY Post. In that paper's view: "It wouldn't hurt the country - and, given Mayor Mike's ability to break issues down to their component parts, such an effort might stimulate some grown-up political conversation in 2008."
Indeed it just might do that, but as the NY Times reported yesterday, it won't be an easy route to the Oval Office: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, eyeing an independent presidential bid, faces a hodgepodge of local requirements to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia..," but not to worry, "The mayor’s aides are confident that he can do it, and that he would deploy armies of paid signature-gatherers nationwide if he runs. The foot soldiers are typically paid about $2 for every signature collected, though sometimes higher if their services are in heavy demand."
And we're really not sure about the degree with which Mayot Mike's hundreds of millions of dollars of political ads would, "stimulate some grown-up political conversation in 2008." They would certainly do a great deal for the self promotion of the mayor who, in the manner of Lew Lehrman when he ran for governor in the eighties, could spend hundreds of millions on a losing campaign only to discover that his net worth would actually increase from all of the exposure.
So ring in the new year with gusto Mike. You have a great opportunity to roil the political waters, in NYC as well as all over the country, in spite of what the speculators told Newsday yesterday that the city would run just fine while the mayor was out campaigning. We can't wait to see how all of this plays out.
It's not as if we think that Bloomberg is some sort of a political savior for the curing of the American malaise. Quite the contrary, we think that he's ill-equipped, both from an ideological as well as a personality perspective, to lead this country during this perilous period. But his candidacy would create political chaos, and we're big fans of chaos; though we certainly can't see him playing second fiddle to McCain, as Bill Safire suggested this week.
Put simply, Mike Blomberg is the perfect city manager, a post where inspiration isn't a job requisite. So we're amused by all of the breathlessness over the possibility; the latest yesterday by our friends at the NY Post. In that paper's view: "It wouldn't hurt the country - and, given Mayor Mike's ability to break issues down to their component parts, such an effort might stimulate some grown-up political conversation in 2008."
Indeed it just might do that, but as the NY Times reported yesterday, it won't be an easy route to the Oval Office: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, eyeing an independent presidential bid, faces a hodgepodge of local requirements to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia..," but not to worry, "The mayor’s aides are confident that he can do it, and that he would deploy armies of paid signature-gatherers nationwide if he runs. The foot soldiers are typically paid about $2 for every signature collected, though sometimes higher if their services are in heavy demand."
And we're really not sure about the degree with which Mayot Mike's hundreds of millions of dollars of political ads would, "stimulate some grown-up political conversation in 2008." They would certainly do a great deal for the self promotion of the mayor who, in the manner of Lew Lehrman when he ran for governor in the eighties, could spend hundreds of millions on a losing campaign only to discover that his net worth would actually increase from all of the exposure.
So ring in the new year with gusto Mike. You have a great opportunity to roil the political waters, in NYC as well as all over the country, in spite of what the speculators told Newsday yesterday that the city would run just fine while the mayor was out campaigning. We can't wait to see how all of this plays out.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Giving Them a Run for His Money
As we have been saying for the past year, the mayor's pursuit of a special interest-his own ambition-has been the undergirding for his miraculous transformation into poverty crusader and an environmental activist. Whether or not you feel all of this is in the public interest or not depends on your own political perspective.
Now, however, the cat's about to get out of the bag-and the coy speculation about the mayor's political future looks like it's gonna turn into something a bit more significant; as today's NY Times story about a confab of alter kocher independents fuels talk of a presidetial plunge: "Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run."
What strikes us here about all of this is the ideological bipartisanship that appears to underlay all of this speculation. The term, of course, contains just a bit of irony-as some of the political oldsters, worrying over their own obsolescence, talk about the compelling need for less partisanship if we're going to be able to properly address the country's problems: "Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”
This is without question a complete crock. The abjuring of ideology from the country's political dialogue is a complete misreading of the current political stalemate. The stalemate devolves from two starkly divergent world views, and bipartisanship is not only no panacea, it amounts to little more than gibberish when you get beyond the drooling over the prospects of someone spending a billion dollars to buy the country's highest office.
Partisanship and its ideological underpinnings are essential to facing forcefully the challenges of Islamic terrorism, illegal immigration, the health care crisis, and the restructuring of the American economy to address a number of other political issues. And, of course, it's important to emphasize that the mayor's own Nanny world view will generate its own potential for political gridlock-not to mention the revenge of all of the "special interests" if by some miracle he would be elevated to the presidency.
The fact of the matter is that Mike Bloomberg's political views do not resonate all that well with the vast majority of Americans, and his minority presidency would create a new form of gridlock, whether it was post partisan or not. Which makes the following comment by former Governor Boren and former Senator Nunn in today's NY Daily News rather droll: "Today, we are a house divided," they wrote to other politicians invited to the powwow. "We believe that the next President must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available - without regard to political party - to help lead our nation."
All of this back to the future bipartisan banter is useful only for camouflaging the ambitious musing of the mayor; after all, no one really cares what all of these political has-beens have to say. And isn't it ridiculous, in the middle of a political campaign, to cite the need for bipartisanship as a rationale for all of this? Here's what Boren said to the NY Post: "But if we don't see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy."
So we've got the oldsters longing for a renewed political relevance teaming up with Daddy Warbucks to create this faux issue, one that is sure to stimulate the masses if a billion dollar ad campaign is used on its behalf. Perhaps so, but trust us here, it will have nothing to do whatsoever with solving some of the perilous problems that the country faces today.
Now, however, the cat's about to get out of the bag-and the coy speculation about the mayor's political future looks like it's gonna turn into something a bit more significant; as today's NY Times story about a confab of alter kocher independents fuels talk of a presidetial plunge: "Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run."
What strikes us here about all of this is the ideological bipartisanship that appears to underlay all of this speculation. The term, of course, contains just a bit of irony-as some of the political oldsters, worrying over their own obsolescence, talk about the compelling need for less partisanship if we're going to be able to properly address the country's problems: "Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”
This is without question a complete crock. The abjuring of ideology from the country's political dialogue is a complete misreading of the current political stalemate. The stalemate devolves from two starkly divergent world views, and bipartisanship is not only no panacea, it amounts to little more than gibberish when you get beyond the drooling over the prospects of someone spending a billion dollars to buy the country's highest office.
Partisanship and its ideological underpinnings are essential to facing forcefully the challenges of Islamic terrorism, illegal immigration, the health care crisis, and the restructuring of the American economy to address a number of other political issues. And, of course, it's important to emphasize that the mayor's own Nanny world view will generate its own potential for political gridlock-not to mention the revenge of all of the "special interests" if by some miracle he would be elevated to the presidency.
The fact of the matter is that Mike Bloomberg's political views do not resonate all that well with the vast majority of Americans, and his minority presidency would create a new form of gridlock, whether it was post partisan or not. Which makes the following comment by former Governor Boren and former Senator Nunn in today's NY Daily News rather droll: "Today, we are a house divided," they wrote to other politicians invited to the powwow. "We believe that the next President must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available - without regard to political party - to help lead our nation."
All of this back to the future bipartisan banter is useful only for camouflaging the ambitious musing of the mayor; after all, no one really cares what all of these political has-beens have to say. And isn't it ridiculous, in the middle of a political campaign, to cite the need for bipartisanship as a rationale for all of this? Here's what Boren said to the NY Post: "But if we don't see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy."
So we've got the oldsters longing for a renewed political relevance teaming up with Daddy Warbucks to create this faux issue, one that is sure to stimulate the masses if a billion dollar ad campaign is used on its behalf. Perhaps so, but trust us here, it will have nothing to do whatsoever with solving some of the perilous problems that the country faces today.
Poverty Pimps
In the 1970's Mayor Ed Koch coined the term "poverty pimps" to describe the social service empires created by the likes of Ramon Velez. Ever since then, poverty has become a lucrative industry for a slew of foundations and academic consultants. What all of these minions fail to understand is that a well functioning economic system is always a better remedy for poverty than any of their schemes-particularly for the Black and Latino masses that they pretend to be so concerned about. Or, as Tom Lehrer says in his "The Folk Song Army:" "We all hate poverty, war, and injustice-unlike the rest of you squares."
So now it's Mike Bloomberg's turn at the wheel. With all the fervor of a newly hire Ford Foundation consultant, the mayor is out to find the magic elixir for poverty. This year he has pioneered for New York's poor a Mexican initiative that will pay folks to behave more industriously. As Errol Louis optimistically tells us in a column yesterday: "Scholars and pundits will be watching the anti-poverty initiative to see whether the innovative ideas - like giving cash rewards to students and parents for things like getting a library card or attending parent-teacher meetings - really change people's behavior."
Errol needs to carefully look at how all of that mishogos will be evaluated-and who will be assigned the review task. With the mayor's money in play, the house odds are likely to yield predictable results; with independent auditing given short shrift.
What's really fascinating in all this, is how the mayor stands on Rudy's shoulders. The fact remains that Mike Bloomberg in 1993 would have been so over his head in dealing with NYC's culture of political poverty that he would have been a hopeless failure; the city needed a sea change that Giuliani created, a change that allowed a Mike Bloomberg to emerge as a competent technocratic leader in its wake.
The irony, of course, is that Rudy is scorned locally, while Mayor Mike basks in 70% approval ratings while contemplating his own run for the presidency. In yesterday's weekly musing Little Mike Lupica brings home this point with the following snarky observation: "By the way, how is it possible that the murder rate could have gone down with somebody other than Rudy as mayor?"
How indeed? Not to mention the welfare roles that plummeted when the former mayor took a tough approach to fraud, and to the generational perpetuation of a birthright to the dole. Now Mayor Mike comes in on third base and everyone marvels at the triple he hit.
Which brings us to yesterday's front page NY Times story about Bloomberg's search for a new definition of poverty. Why this is front page news eludes us, but it does put front and center the mayor's national aspiration to appear to be an innovative thinker on all many of issues.
Of course, this search for a new definition has a certain political positioning motive. As the Times wrote: "The politics of determining a poverty level are intense because the number largely determines eligibility for numerous federal entitlement programs. And, perhaps as important, it is used by people across the political spectrum as they debate how well this nation cares for its less fortunate."
Yes, there it is-"caring." The mayor as had any number of political epiphanies-the environment comes immediately to mind; and inherent in all of them is the caring motif. Yet in all of these rather banal sentiments we detect the standard stale bromides of a senescent progressivism that continues to look towards expanding the role of government at the expense of middle class tax payers.
Here's the money quote: "Though city officials insist they are approaching this undertaking without bias, it is almost impossible to separate the process from politics. Douglas J. Besharov, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, is watching the New York experiment intently and not without some cynicism that the city will come up with a far too generous formula. "It is highly likely they will come up with a higher poverty rate," he said. "It is perfectly safe politically in New York and it certainly is a good P.R. device for the mayor who wants to be a poverty crusader.”
Crusader indeed, but one whose ability to ride his progressive steed is built on the less than liberal notion of accountability and tough love that the former mayor pioneered in a city whose political class was petrified in amber. All we're seeing from Mayor Mike is old whine in better and more expensive packaging. They offer nothing of innovative value for the country.
So now it's Mike Bloomberg's turn at the wheel. With all the fervor of a newly hire Ford Foundation consultant, the mayor is out to find the magic elixir for poverty. This year he has pioneered for New York's poor a Mexican initiative that will pay folks to behave more industriously. As Errol Louis optimistically tells us in a column yesterday: "Scholars and pundits will be watching the anti-poverty initiative to see whether the innovative ideas - like giving cash rewards to students and parents for things like getting a library card or attending parent-teacher meetings - really change people's behavior."
Errol needs to carefully look at how all of that mishogos will be evaluated-and who will be assigned the review task. With the mayor's money in play, the house odds are likely to yield predictable results; with independent auditing given short shrift.
What's really fascinating in all this, is how the mayor stands on Rudy's shoulders. The fact remains that Mike Bloomberg in 1993 would have been so over his head in dealing with NYC's culture of political poverty that he would have been a hopeless failure; the city needed a sea change that Giuliani created, a change that allowed a Mike Bloomberg to emerge as a competent technocratic leader in its wake.
The irony, of course, is that Rudy is scorned locally, while Mayor Mike basks in 70% approval ratings while contemplating his own run for the presidency. In yesterday's weekly musing Little Mike Lupica brings home this point with the following snarky observation: "By the way, how is it possible that the murder rate could have gone down with somebody other than Rudy as mayor?"
How indeed? Not to mention the welfare roles that plummeted when the former mayor took a tough approach to fraud, and to the generational perpetuation of a birthright to the dole. Now Mayor Mike comes in on third base and everyone marvels at the triple he hit.
Which brings us to yesterday's front page NY Times story about Bloomberg's search for a new definition of poverty. Why this is front page news eludes us, but it does put front and center the mayor's national aspiration to appear to be an innovative thinker on all many of issues.
Of course, this search for a new definition has a certain political positioning motive. As the Times wrote: "The politics of determining a poverty level are intense because the number largely determines eligibility for numerous federal entitlement programs. And, perhaps as important, it is used by people across the political spectrum as they debate how well this nation cares for its less fortunate."
Yes, there it is-"caring." The mayor as had any number of political epiphanies-the environment comes immediately to mind; and inherent in all of them is the caring motif. Yet in all of these rather banal sentiments we detect the standard stale bromides of a senescent progressivism that continues to look towards expanding the role of government at the expense of middle class tax payers.
Here's the money quote: "Though city officials insist they are approaching this undertaking without bias, it is almost impossible to separate the process from politics. Douglas J. Besharov, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, is watching the New York experiment intently and not without some cynicism that the city will come up with a far too generous formula. "It is highly likely they will come up with a higher poverty rate," he said. "It is perfectly safe politically in New York and it certainly is a good P.R. device for the mayor who wants to be a poverty crusader.”
Crusader indeed, but one whose ability to ride his progressive steed is built on the less than liberal notion of accountability and tough love that the former mayor pioneered in a city whose political class was petrified in amber. All we're seeing from Mayor Mike is old whine in better and more expensive packaging. They offer nothing of innovative value for the country.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Gansevoort Redux
In today's NY Times, the paper reports on the press conference held by State Senator Carl Kruger on the plans to redevelop Coney Island. Kruger warned that any plan would have to be subjected to a full state environmental review-before any alienation of the parkland could go forward. As the NY Post writes today: "Kruger produced an advisory opinion from the state Department of Environmental Conservation saying its signoff is required prior to any request made to Albany to engage in land swaps involving parks."
If it feels like deja vu, then you're recalling the fight over the recycling center on the West Side, the one that the city lost because state electeds wouldn't approve of the alienation of the Hudson River parkland. As the Times points out, the intervention of the DEC could well delay this disposition process for a year or more: "The advisory opinion, issued Nov. 30, does not address the Coney Island plan directly, but contends that an environmental impact review, a process that could take a year or more, is required for any change in public parkland to non park use, and must be completed before state approval is sought."
As we pointed out yesterday, and as the Times reiterates today, this throws down the gauntlet to the new deputy mayor for economic development: "It is likely to present Robert C. Lieber, the mayor’s new deputy mayor of economic development, with one of his first big challenges as he takes office on Jan. 8. He has already been deeply involved in the Coney Island proposal in his current position as head of the city’s Economic Development Corporation."
What this means is that the city will have to tread cautiously over the redevelopment of the area, much more so then if just the city council was involved; the state legislature has been much less a junior partner of the mayor than the city's legislature. So, as long as Kruger and others are in his corner, Joe Sitt may very well be sitting pretty.
If it feels like deja vu, then you're recalling the fight over the recycling center on the West Side, the one that the city lost because state electeds wouldn't approve of the alienation of the Hudson River parkland. As the Times points out, the intervention of the DEC could well delay this disposition process for a year or more: "The advisory opinion, issued Nov. 30, does not address the Coney Island plan directly, but contends that an environmental impact review, a process that could take a year or more, is required for any change in public parkland to non park use, and must be completed before state approval is sought."
As we pointed out yesterday, and as the Times reiterates today, this throws down the gauntlet to the new deputy mayor for economic development: "It is likely to present Robert C. Lieber, the mayor’s new deputy mayor of economic development, with one of his first big challenges as he takes office on Jan. 8. He has already been deeply involved in the Coney Island proposal in his current position as head of the city’s Economic Development Corporation."
What this means is that the city will have to tread cautiously over the redevelopment of the area, much more so then if just the city council was involved; the state legislature has been much less a junior partner of the mayor than the city's legislature. So, as long as Kruger and others are in his corner, Joe Sitt may very well be sitting pretty.
Friday, December 28, 2007
The More Things Change: Lieber and Small Business
The announcement yesterday that EDC head Robert Lieber was appointed by the mayor to replace Deputy Dan serves to send a consistent message: apparently nothing's going to change down at City Hall in regards to the lack of concern for small business and neighborhood retailers. We hope we're wrong, but there's certainly no indication that anything will be different. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Some within city government said he had not done enough to reach out to neighborhood residents and business owners where developments are planned."
What's new here? Deputy Dan ran roughshod over neighborhoods and small businesses in the service of his real estate friends. Lieber's actions regarding the Willets Point development, and his planning around Coney Island are a clear indication that the more things change with the Bloombertgistas, the more they stay the same. As Councilman Avella told the Times: "In my opinion, the institutional arrogance that has permeated the E.D.C. for years has not changed under him,” said City Councilman Tony Avella, chairman of the council’s subcommittee on zoning and franchises."
In fact, Lieber continues the trend of hiring folks from the financial sector who simply have no clue about what the economic engine is for the city's diverse neighborhoods. In fact, for the past six years economic development-from newsstands and bodegas, to supermarkets and small distributors-has simply ignored the little guys who make up the bulk of the city's aggregate economic activity.
So we'll see if Mr. Lieber is able to break out of this mold now that he's got his own shoes to fill. The Iron Triangle will be a huge test for him, and we hope that Peter Vallone Sr. is right when he tells the Times: "He’s been trying, literally with both hands tied behind his back, to do the right thing,” Mr. Vallone said. “The point is he really is trying, which hasn’t happened before now.”
The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding; but we don't see either the Willets Point or Coney Island ending well for the locals. The mayor, however, continues to believe that those who come from his own insular world are the ones who are best trained to rule. As he told the NY Sun: "His skills and experience in the private sector and in city government will serve him well as he fills some very big shoes here at City Hall." For us, though, those skills and experience amount to little more than a "trained incapacity" to understand and deal with those sectors that don't breathe the same rarefied air as the mayor and his cohort of masters of the universe.
What's new here? Deputy Dan ran roughshod over neighborhoods and small businesses in the service of his real estate friends. Lieber's actions regarding the Willets Point development, and his planning around Coney Island are a clear indication that the more things change with the Bloombertgistas, the more they stay the same. As Councilman Avella told the Times: "In my opinion, the institutional arrogance that has permeated the E.D.C. for years has not changed under him,” said City Councilman Tony Avella, chairman of the council’s subcommittee on zoning and franchises."
In fact, Lieber continues the trend of hiring folks from the financial sector who simply have no clue about what the economic engine is for the city's diverse neighborhoods. In fact, for the past six years economic development-from newsstands and bodegas, to supermarkets and small distributors-has simply ignored the little guys who make up the bulk of the city's aggregate economic activity.
So we'll see if Mr. Lieber is able to break out of this mold now that he's got his own shoes to fill. The Iron Triangle will be a huge test for him, and we hope that Peter Vallone Sr. is right when he tells the Times: "He’s been trying, literally with both hands tied behind his back, to do the right thing,” Mr. Vallone said. “The point is he really is trying, which hasn’t happened before now.”
The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding; but we don't see either the Willets Point or Coney Island ending well for the locals. The mayor, however, continues to believe that those who come from his own insular world are the ones who are best trained to rule. As he told the NY Sun: "His skills and experience in the private sector and in city government will serve him well as he fills some very big shoes here at City Hall." For us, though, those skills and experience amount to little more than a "trained incapacity" to understand and deal with those sectors that don't breathe the same rarefied air as the mayor and his cohort of masters of the universe.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Money in Politics: The Mayor and "Special Interests"
We have been commenting now for some time about the illusion that Mike Bloomberg's wealth somehow places him "above politics," and the special interests that the good government groups characterize as the source of all evil in the political system. It is the weltanschauung that leads to all of the campaign finance laws, and the often absurd efforts to rid the democratic system of lobbyists.
It is, however, rendered as theater of the absurd when a multi-billionaire enters into the arena; now the stacked deck gives way to the casino owner who is able to win consistently because of the control that comes from owning the joint and being able to set the house odds. So it goes with Mayor Mike and his money-something that the intrepid Ray Rivera is starting to look at in the NY Times-continuing with a story today on the three blind mice COIB ruling regarding the Bloomberg Foundation.
Let's remember how the mayor successfully portrayed himself as the "ant-politician" two years ago while running for re-election. As the NY Times told us: "In his speech, Mr. Bloomberg defined himself as a sort of antipolitician who, free from the messy impositions of "donors, special interests, patronage or partisanship," has focused solely on what is best for all New Yorkers. He said that mayors "solve problems not by taking both sides of big issues, but by deciding what's right and then going after it," and that "honest leadership that doesn't waver or blow with the wind."
What all of this rodomontade amounts to is a slick shining of a gullible public; and an incurious media that all too often has played the useful idiot when it comes to the mayor. The tide, though appears to be turning, and the Wizard won't look so awesome when you get to look behind the curtain. The fact remains that Mike Bloomberg continues to pursue one gigantic special interest-his own ambition.
Whether its congestion taxing and a new found interest in the environment, or an educational "reform" agenda that employs scores of public relations staffers to convince folks that the agenda is bearing remarkable fruit in the face of mounting contradictory evidence; it all comes down to advancing the Bloomberg brand.
There's one intriguing line in today's Times story: "He is also a philanthropist whose private giving often involves nonprofit agencies active in civic and neighborhood affairs." Rivera's next step should be to get behind this curtain. Who knows where all of the intersections lead? One thing's for certain: It ain't all about the pursuit of the public good.
It is, however, rendered as theater of the absurd when a multi-billionaire enters into the arena; now the stacked deck gives way to the casino owner who is able to win consistently because of the control that comes from owning the joint and being able to set the house odds. So it goes with Mayor Mike and his money-something that the intrepid Ray Rivera is starting to look at in the NY Times-continuing with a story today on the three blind mice COIB ruling regarding the Bloomberg Foundation.
Let's remember how the mayor successfully portrayed himself as the "ant-politician" two years ago while running for re-election. As the NY Times told us: "In his speech, Mr. Bloomberg defined himself as a sort of antipolitician who, free from the messy impositions of "donors, special interests, patronage or partisanship," has focused solely on what is best for all New Yorkers. He said that mayors "solve problems not by taking both sides of big issues, but by deciding what's right and then going after it," and that "honest leadership that doesn't waver or blow with the wind."
What all of this rodomontade amounts to is a slick shining of a gullible public; and an incurious media that all too often has played the useful idiot when it comes to the mayor. The tide, though appears to be turning, and the Wizard won't look so awesome when you get to look behind the curtain. The fact remains that Mike Bloomberg continues to pursue one gigantic special interest-his own ambition.
Whether its congestion taxing and a new found interest in the environment, or an educational "reform" agenda that employs scores of public relations staffers to convince folks that the agenda is bearing remarkable fruit in the face of mounting contradictory evidence; it all comes down to advancing the Bloomberg brand.
There's one intriguing line in today's Times story: "He is also a philanthropist whose private giving often involves nonprofit agencies active in civic and neighborhood affairs." Rivera's next step should be to get behind this curtain. Who knows where all of the intersections lead? One thing's for certain: It ain't all about the pursuit of the public good.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Nick's Knock
In today's NY Post Nick Sprayregen lays down the eminent domain gauntlet to Columbia: "I remain steadfast that Columbia has met its match in me. I will not back down; I'll do everything I can to show the ESDC and the courts why eminent domain should not be used here. If need be, I will litigate this matter all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court."
At the same time, however, Nick recognizes that the re-zoning is a good thing since, "For too long, this area has been subject to an antiquated designation as a manufacturing zone. Thanks to this rezoning, much of West Harlem can now smartly be revitalized into a vibrant mixed-use community." The question still remains: Will the new plan be as good as it can be for the West Harlem community?
The answer to that lies to a great extent with Columbia and the area's elected officials. If a consensus can be reached over a swap of properties, all of the landowners can become part of the revitalization effort-and West Harlem can be at least partially incorporated into the university's expansion vision.
At the same time, however, Nick recognizes that the re-zoning is a good thing since, "For too long, this area has been subject to an antiquated designation as a manufacturing zone. Thanks to this rezoning, much of West Harlem can now smartly be revitalized into a vibrant mixed-use community." The question still remains: Will the new plan be as good as it can be for the West Harlem community?
The answer to that lies to a great extent with Columbia and the area's elected officials. If a consensus can be reached over a swap of properties, all of the landowners can become part of the revitalization effort-and West Harlem can be at least partially incorporated into the university's expansion vision.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Columbia's Housing Benefits
According to today's Spectator, the amount of money that Columbia has pledged for affordable housing in the CBA doesn't appear to be much more than the original $24 million that it had agreed to invest when BP Stringer had signed on to the deal. That being said, the city has apparently ponied up a large amount to fill in the breach: "The memorandum includes the $24 million Columbia previously announced it would spend on affordable housing and an additional $20 million toward “inclined services” intended to meet other requirements for quality-of-life improvement, Russell said. The City has pledged an additional $150 million separate from the benefits memorandum toward affordable housing in the Community Board 9 area of West Harlem."
If so, then the university has struck a real good deal for itself, since the taxpayers are footing the bill for any new housing in and around the expansion area. We'd be willing to bet, however, that Columbia will be willing to invest even more if the right situation presents itself. Stay tuned on this.
If so, then the university has struck a real good deal for itself, since the taxpayers are footing the bill for any new housing in and around the expansion area. We'd be willing to bet, however, that Columbia will be willing to invest even more if the right situation presents itself. Stay tuned on this.
And we're also certain that local elected officials will be in the front lines on the effort to encourage the university to avoid ED and partner in significant housing for the impacted West Harlem community. There's something in the swap deal for all the parties to this dispute.
Billions of Conflicts
As we have been saying all along, the successful portrayal by the Bloombergistas and their enablers that the mayor's wealth obviates any political conflicts of interest, simply doesn't stand up to even a mild scrutiny-something that's rarely been done, which is why Kirsten Danis' column in the NY Daily News yesterday was so refreshing.
Danis focused on the moonlighting that some Bloomberg staffers are doing over at his charitable foundation: "Mayor Bloomberg's closest aide, Deputy Mayor Patti Harris, has been working for his charitable foundation without first getting clearance from city ethics watchdogs. Harris, who earns $227,219 a year on the city payroll, took on an advisory role for the Bloomberg Family Foundation, which the mayor set up last year to give away his billions."
It's clear to us that the mayor's wealth, and his willingness to either give it away or withhold it, can play a significant role in the city's policy deliberations. We've speculated that some of the "good government" support for congestion pricing may have been influenced this way-certainly, as Errol Louis observed yesterday, there was an uncritical rush to support a poorly thought-out policy: "Everyone, especially the civic groups, should have slowed down the debate long enough to educate the public about the actual problem, its consequences and the best ways to deal with it."
What we need now is more of what Danis has offered: a well researched effort to look at the various intersections between Bloomberg the mayor, the mogul, and the philanthropist. The absence of the paper of record in all of this-with Charlie Bagli as a meritorious exception-underscores the power of the mayor at muting the recognition that his own self interest is not coterminous with that of the public's.
Danis focused on the moonlighting that some Bloomberg staffers are doing over at his charitable foundation: "Mayor Bloomberg's closest aide, Deputy Mayor Patti Harris, has been working for his charitable foundation without first getting clearance from city ethics watchdogs. Harris, who earns $227,219 a year on the city payroll, took on an advisory role for the Bloomberg Family Foundation, which the mayor set up last year to give away his billions."
It's clear to us that the mayor's wealth, and his willingness to either give it away or withhold it, can play a significant role in the city's policy deliberations. We've speculated that some of the "good government" support for congestion pricing may have been influenced this way-certainly, as Errol Louis observed yesterday, there was an uncritical rush to support a poorly thought-out policy: "Everyone, especially the civic groups, should have slowed down the debate long enough to educate the public about the actual problem, its consequences and the best ways to deal with it."
What we need now is more of what Danis has offered: a well researched effort to look at the various intersections between Bloomberg the mayor, the mogul, and the philanthropist. The absence of the paper of record in all of this-with Charlie Bagli as a meritorious exception-underscores the power of the mayor at muting the recognition that his own self interest is not coterminous with that of the public's.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Sprayregen's No Custer
In this morning's NY Times, the paper focuses on the last remaining property owners who are holding out against the university's expansion. Nick Sprayregen, Anne Whitman and company are portrayed as the Last of the Mohicans, with a little bit of General Custer as well.
What the paper's missing, is that these holdouts pose a real threat, and if good faith bargaining isn't going to take place, Columbia's plans are gonna be put into a delaying pattern that will frustrate all of the folks who're looking to get to work on the expansion. As Whitman says; “No way Columbia is going to steal this property right out from underneath me,” Ms. Whitman said in August 2006. “Remember that man who stood in front of the tank at Tiananmen Square? That’s me.”
Sprayregen feels the same: "He has vowed that he will spend as much money as it takes to keep the university from getting his property via eminent domain. On one of his buildings hangs a giant banner, reading “Stop Eminent Domain Abuse!” that is visible to riders on the No. 1 subway line through Harlem. “This isn’t about money, I’m fighting them over principle — I strongly believe the use of eminent domain here is wrong,” said Mr. Sprayregen, who said he has finished 20 marathons but has stopped running in order to devote more time to battling the university. “I have the strong desire — and the financial ability — to take this all the way to the Supreme Court,” he said."
It really behooves everyone involved to get real negotiations going-and our conversations with all of the key local officials indicates that this will happen soon; with even ESDC apparently interested in avoiding a widely publicized and messy legal battle. As Sprayregen told the Times: "In recent weeks, Mr. Sprayregen said, he has talked with the university about trading his buildings inside the expansion zone for university property outside the zone. Columbia would not comment on Thursday about those discussions."
While it's unfortunate that property rights aren't of much concern to the City Council leadership, the impediment that these intrepid folks pose to the city's vision of progress is the incentive that will generate the kind of dialogue that can only lead to a win for all involved. In the end, we believe the city and Columbia will deal, and the folks of West Harlem just might get a measure of equity as a result.
That being said, the Columbia ED fight will be seen as a tempest in a tea pot when compared to the battle over Willets Point; where over 200 businesses and thousands of immigrant workers are at risk. As the NY Daily News points out this morning: "The battle over Columbia University's expansion plan has ended in the City Council. But the bigger war over eminent domain may be just getting started."
Which is going to put Christine Quinn directly in the spotlight, as she continues her metamorphosis from community activist to, well we're not really sure. As she told the News: "Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) offered that eminent domain "should be used carefully and cautiously, and it should only by used when there is an overriding greater good in the interest of the city." What we do know, is that there's a certain townhouse on 79th Street that will never face the ED bulldozer.
What the paper's missing, is that these holdouts pose a real threat, and if good faith bargaining isn't going to take place, Columbia's plans are gonna be put into a delaying pattern that will frustrate all of the folks who're looking to get to work on the expansion. As Whitman says; “No way Columbia is going to steal this property right out from underneath me,” Ms. Whitman said in August 2006. “Remember that man who stood in front of the tank at Tiananmen Square? That’s me.”
Sprayregen feels the same: "He has vowed that he will spend as much money as it takes to keep the university from getting his property via eminent domain. On one of his buildings hangs a giant banner, reading “Stop Eminent Domain Abuse!” that is visible to riders on the No. 1 subway line through Harlem. “This isn’t about money, I’m fighting them over principle — I strongly believe the use of eminent domain here is wrong,” said Mr. Sprayregen, who said he has finished 20 marathons but has stopped running in order to devote more time to battling the university. “I have the strong desire — and the financial ability — to take this all the way to the Supreme Court,” he said."
It really behooves everyone involved to get real negotiations going-and our conversations with all of the key local officials indicates that this will happen soon; with even ESDC apparently interested in avoiding a widely publicized and messy legal battle. As Sprayregen told the Times: "In recent weeks, Mr. Sprayregen said, he has talked with the university about trading his buildings inside the expansion zone for university property outside the zone. Columbia would not comment on Thursday about those discussions."
While it's unfortunate that property rights aren't of much concern to the City Council leadership, the impediment that these intrepid folks pose to the city's vision of progress is the incentive that will generate the kind of dialogue that can only lead to a win for all involved. In the end, we believe the city and Columbia will deal, and the folks of West Harlem just might get a measure of equity as a result.
That being said, the Columbia ED fight will be seen as a tempest in a tea pot when compared to the battle over Willets Point; where over 200 businesses and thousands of immigrant workers are at risk. As the NY Daily News points out this morning: "The battle over Columbia University's expansion plan has ended in the City Council. But the bigger war over eminent domain may be just getting started."
Which is going to put Christine Quinn directly in the spotlight, as she continues her metamorphosis from community activist to, well we're not really sure. As she told the News: "Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) offered that eminent domain "should be used carefully and cautiously, and it should only by used when there is an overriding greater good in the interest of the city." What we do know, is that there's a certain townhouse on 79th Street that will never face the ED bulldozer.
Handwriting on the Willets Point Wall
The just concluded Columbia land use application doesn't bode well for the hundreds of businesses and thousands of workers over at Willets Point. The mayor and council speaker have given the clearest indication possible that private property is no longer sacrosanct in this city-assuming that it ever was.
As today's NY Daily News points out, the city's redevelopment effort at the Point has been long on promises but short on legitimate proposals for those who work and own businesses at what is known as the Iron Triangle: "They promised to take care of everybody, that they would relocate everybody," said Gerald Antonacci, whose family has owned Crown Container, a waste transfer station, since 1976. "It's all smoke and mirrors," he said. "They're going through the motions."
So now, as were about to see the certification of a land use application to rezone the area, we can see that as far as the council leadership is concerned, the problems of the small businesses at the Point are of little or no concern, You see, if the council is willing to rezone the 50 acres without the benefit of a development plan or the existence of a designated developer, it will have effectively ceded its entire land use authority to the mayor's office. It might as well just put up a "Going Out of Business" sign.
We're pretty familiar with the entire scenario; it's a repeat of the debacle at the Bronx Terminal Market, where relocation promises turned out to be empty, and the small distributors were summarily dismissed with small severance checks. This time, however, the businesses in question own the property and can't be so easily thrust aside.
The people of the city need to wake up. The Speaker's statements on eminent domain are chilling and should be a clarion call to all property owners. First Columbia, now Willets Point. When and where will it stop?
As today's NY Daily News points out, the city's redevelopment effort at the Point has been long on promises but short on legitimate proposals for those who work and own businesses at what is known as the Iron Triangle: "They promised to take care of everybody, that they would relocate everybody," said Gerald Antonacci, whose family has owned Crown Container, a waste transfer station, since 1976. "It's all smoke and mirrors," he said. "They're going through the motions."
So now, as were about to see the certification of a land use application to rezone the area, we can see that as far as the council leadership is concerned, the problems of the small businesses at the Point are of little or no concern, You see, if the council is willing to rezone the 50 acres without the benefit of a development plan or the existence of a designated developer, it will have effectively ceded its entire land use authority to the mayor's office. It might as well just put up a "Going Out of Business" sign.
We're pretty familiar with the entire scenario; it's a repeat of the debacle at the Bronx Terminal Market, where relocation promises turned out to be empty, and the small distributors were summarily dismissed with small severance checks. This time, however, the businesses in question own the property and can't be so easily thrust aside.
The people of the city need to wake up. The Speaker's statements on eminent domain are chilling and should be a clarion call to all property owners. First Columbia, now Willets Point. When and where will it stop?
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Columbia Ex Post Facto
In today's NY Post the paper's story on the Columbia expansion vote brings out a number of interesting points. For the first time there is a direct dollar amount put on the affordable housing initiative: "Councilman Robert Jackson (D-Manhattan), who helped push through what would be one of the largest expansion projects in recent Manhattan history, put the total value of the benefits package at $150 million. He said most of the money would go toward affordable housing."
Well and good, and the inimitable Dave Seifman also points out that the vitriol in the debate addressed the issue of eminent domain, but goes on to say that the issue may become moot: "One official said that only three commercial property owners haven't settled yet with Columbia, and two were closing in on a deal."
Perhaps, he's right but we're a long way from a resolution to this issue; and as an editorial in the NY Sun points out, the abuse of ED is pronounced in NY State. Therefore, it will take a great deal of effort from many of the local elected officials to see the Sprayregen swap through to a successful conclusion. The greater this effort is, however, the more expeditious an equitable expansion will be able to go forward.
Well and good, and the inimitable Dave Seifman also points out that the vitriol in the debate addressed the issue of eminent domain, but goes on to say that the issue may become moot: "One official said that only three commercial property owners haven't settled yet with Columbia, and two were closing in on a deal."
Perhaps, he's right but we're a long way from a resolution to this issue; and as an editorial in the NY Sun points out, the abuse of ED is pronounced in NY State. Therefore, it will take a great deal of effort from many of the local elected officials to see the Sprayregen swap through to a successful conclusion. The greater this effort is, however, the more expeditious an equitable expansion will be able to go forward.
The Council's Domain
In the culmination of the Council's vote on behalf of the Columbia expansion, Speaker Quinn addressed the eminent domain issue. As she told the NY Sun: "Let me be clear — I think eminent domain should be used infrequently. It should be used carefully and cautiously and it should only be used when there is an overriding greater good in the interest of the city and I think certainly the possible creation of 6,000 jobs, economic development, job creation — those are relevant reasons and appropriate reasons to use eminent domain."
She is clear here to us. What her statement means is that there are virtually no circumstances involving any large economic development project where she wouldn't approve the use of eminent domain-all such projects involve job creation and economic development, Our issue, and it has been all along, is the need to incorporate a process that addresses property rights and recognizes that they are fundamental to liberty.
That does not mean that, at the end of the day, that ED isn't used; it just means that the potential use of ED is elevated into the center of the land use discussion-something that the Council chose not to do, even while they made very sure to include all of the community benefits as a critical feature of legislative approval. If the use of ED is not germane to ULURP, as we're told repeatedly, than neither is the amount of money that Columbia ponies up for affordable housing.
Which brings us to the community benefits. Does anyone know the process by which CU will be held accountable? Here's the money quote from Metro: "The CBA was still being finalized, and the terms were not disclosed to Council members before the vote. LDC president and C.B. 9 member Patricia Jones said a memorandum of understanding — “the precursor” to an agreement — has been signed in which Columbia would contribute $150 million for affordable housing, job creation, arts programming and historic preservation. The deal will also include a high school and K–8 school. City Councilman Robert Jackson said his community needed jobs, better schools, affordable housing and health care. “These needs will hopefully be met,” he said. “Can I guarantee that? Absolutely not, just like I can’t guarantee I’ll be alive tomorrow,” said Jackson, who had a rep on the LDC. “I believe this is the best plan we can do under the circumstances.”
Can you believe that, with weeks left on the ULURP clock, the Council leadership rushed this to a vote before anyone knows what the deal is, or how it will be enforced? As Council member Barron told the NY Times: “I don’t think we should rush to give Columbia University a Christmas present,” Councilman Charles Barron said before he voted against the plan. “We’re here to support the people’s right to participate in this process.”
Which means that city and state elected officials have a great deal of responsibility here-and as we've emphasized before, the area of affordable housing is the central conundrum because no one knows the size of Columbia's check or where any housing will be built to mitigate the potential displacement of 5,000 local residents.
All in all, however, this was not a good day for the council's vaunted reinvention as an accountable and transparent legislature. It remains for others to take the responsibility of balancing the equities here, and in insuring that the expansion moves forward both expeditiously and fairly.
She is clear here to us. What her statement means is that there are virtually no circumstances involving any large economic development project where she wouldn't approve the use of eminent domain-all such projects involve job creation and economic development, Our issue, and it has been all along, is the need to incorporate a process that addresses property rights and recognizes that they are fundamental to liberty.
That does not mean that, at the end of the day, that ED isn't used; it just means that the potential use of ED is elevated into the center of the land use discussion-something that the Council chose not to do, even while they made very sure to include all of the community benefits as a critical feature of legislative approval. If the use of ED is not germane to ULURP, as we're told repeatedly, than neither is the amount of money that Columbia ponies up for affordable housing.
Which brings us to the community benefits. Does anyone know the process by which CU will be held accountable? Here's the money quote from Metro: "The CBA was still being finalized, and the terms were not disclosed to Council members before the vote. LDC president and C.B. 9 member Patricia Jones said a memorandum of understanding — “the precursor” to an agreement — has been signed in which Columbia would contribute $150 million for affordable housing, job creation, arts programming and historic preservation. The deal will also include a high school and K–8 school. City Councilman Robert Jackson said his community needed jobs, better schools, affordable housing and health care. “These needs will hopefully be met,” he said. “Can I guarantee that? Absolutely not, just like I can’t guarantee I’ll be alive tomorrow,” said Jackson, who had a rep on the LDC. “I believe this is the best plan we can do under the circumstances.”
Can you believe that, with weeks left on the ULURP clock, the Council leadership rushed this to a vote before anyone knows what the deal is, or how it will be enforced? As Council member Barron told the NY Times: “I don’t think we should rush to give Columbia University a Christmas present,” Councilman Charles Barron said before he voted against the plan. “We’re here to support the people’s right to participate in this process.”
Which means that city and state elected officials have a great deal of responsibility here-and as we've emphasized before, the area of affordable housing is the central conundrum because no one knows the size of Columbia's check or where any housing will be built to mitigate the potential displacement of 5,000 local residents.
All in all, however, this was not a good day for the council's vaunted reinvention as an accountable and transparent legislature. It remains for others to take the responsibility of balancing the equities here, and in insuring that the expansion moves forward both expeditiously and fairly.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Columbia Deal
We'll be posting on this more as the parameters of the deal that the City Council has struck become clearer. What has amused us, however, is the extent to which every council member that we spoke to this morning had simply no idea about what was in this deal. Not only that, given the unseemly haste with which the council moved this deal-the fastest we've ever seen a huge project like this go forward, it appears that the West Harlem LDC was left breathless.
As the Spectator reports this morning, "Although community advisory groups will form to direct the LDC as part of the agreement, local resident and LDC member Maritta Dunn said a more detailed agreement could have been reached were it not for the possibility of a Wednesday Council vote. “We’re not all pleased,” Dunn said. “We consider it a starting point to move forward. …We really feel that a lot more could have been done and handled differently.” Indeed, and the fate of the property owners could have been brought into the negotiations if council leadership had even a soupcon of concern for the rights of property ownership.
We're awaiting the details of the deal, and the amount of money that the university will be pledging for affordable housing. As the Observer has reported the LDC, "...is trying to finalize beforehand a set of pledges for the school to make on issues such as affordable housing, education and job training."
This is crucial because it will impact the negotiations between property owner Sprayregen our client in the battle, and the university. As we said at the hearing last week, it does no one any good if Columbia's housing pledge cannot be implemented because there's no identified space to build. We remind everyone that the EIS has stated that the expansion will put between 3,000 and 5,000 residents at risk of displacement. We're wondering how the city council deal will address this issue, or if it will even bother.
Update
As Liz is reporting, City Hall has announced a deal on the Columbia expansion that is the epitome of vacuity. Reporters we have talked to are shaking their heads trying to figure out what has actually been negotiated-although Crain's is reporting that, "Despite community opposition, the university has completed the land-use approval process with most of its plan intact, making only a few concessions. If that's the case, and we're by no means certain that it is, than what to make of the Speaker's comments in the release?-"After working with Columbia University, Community Board 9, community advocates and local elected officials, we've come up with a plan that will both preserve and improve areas of West Harlem," said Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn."
What community activists is she referring to? The drug addicts who were bused in to the hearings because there was no real grass roots support for the plan? And what about the displacement issue? Nothing in the vacuous release gives us even a hint. But, as Crain's goes on to report, the political process now shifts to the state where the issue of eminent domain will come front and center: "Next, the university must submit a general project plan to the Empire State Development Corp., which has the final say over whether properties can be taken by eminent domain, against an owner's will. However, that may not be necessary. The three business owners who were refusing to sell to Columbia resumed talks with the university last Friday."
Perhaps their right; but the ED issue should have been front and center in the council's truncated negotiation, since property rights are as much a community benefit as anything else. It now appears as if no one's property is safe as long as the City Council is in session.
As the Spectator reports this morning, "Although community advisory groups will form to direct the LDC as part of the agreement, local resident and LDC member Maritta Dunn said a more detailed agreement could have been reached were it not for the possibility of a Wednesday Council vote. “We’re not all pleased,” Dunn said. “We consider it a starting point to move forward. …We really feel that a lot more could have been done and handled differently.” Indeed, and the fate of the property owners could have been brought into the negotiations if council leadership had even a soupcon of concern for the rights of property ownership.
We're awaiting the details of the deal, and the amount of money that the university will be pledging for affordable housing. As the Observer has reported the LDC, "...is trying to finalize beforehand a set of pledges for the school to make on issues such as affordable housing, education and job training."
This is crucial because it will impact the negotiations between property owner Sprayregen our client in the battle, and the university. As we said at the hearing last week, it does no one any good if Columbia's housing pledge cannot be implemented because there's no identified space to build. We remind everyone that the EIS has stated that the expansion will put between 3,000 and 5,000 residents at risk of displacement. We're wondering how the city council deal will address this issue, or if it will even bother.
Update
As Liz is reporting, City Hall has announced a deal on the Columbia expansion that is the epitome of vacuity. Reporters we have talked to are shaking their heads trying to figure out what has actually been negotiated-although Crain's is reporting that, "Despite community opposition, the university has completed the land-use approval process with most of its plan intact, making only a few concessions. If that's the case, and we're by no means certain that it is, than what to make of the Speaker's comments in the release?-"After working with Columbia University, Community Board 9, community advocates and local elected officials, we've come up with a plan that will both preserve and improve areas of West Harlem," said Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn."
What community activists is she referring to? The drug addicts who were bused in to the hearings because there was no real grass roots support for the plan? And what about the displacement issue? Nothing in the vacuous release gives us even a hint. But, as Crain's goes on to report, the political process now shifts to the state where the issue of eminent domain will come front and center: "Next, the university must submit a general project plan to the Empire State Development Corp., which has the final say over whether properties can be taken by eminent domain, against an owner's will. However, that may not be necessary. The three business owners who were refusing to sell to Columbia resumed talks with the university last Friday."
Perhaps their right; but the ED issue should have been front and center in the council's truncated negotiation, since property rights are as much a community benefit as anything else. It now appears as if no one's property is safe as long as the City Council is in session.
More A La Cart
The City Room posted a story on the carting legislation, and the myth making continues- "...and fresh food is less accessible in low-income neighborhoods." Jennifer Lee's story does, however bring out a very interesting point, one that policy makers need to heed: healthier food costs more, something that the NY Times reported on a few weeks ago.
The Times story told us: "Healthy eating really does cost more. That’s what University of Washington researchers found when they compared the prices of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle area. Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a result of inflation." So we're not only facing a demand problem, but an income one as well.
The folks in low income areas need to find ways to stretch their food dollars, and they can't do this in a healthy way: "The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods." With no food subsidies here, how will the peddler proliferation have its intended healthy impact?
The professor who did the University of Washington deserves the last word, and it's really food for thought: "If you have $3 to feed yourself, your choices gravitate toward foods which give you the most calories per dollar,’’ said Dr. Drewnowski. “Not only are the empty calories cheaper, but the healthy foods are becoming more and more expensive. Vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods.”
The Times story told us: "Healthy eating really does cost more. That’s what University of Washington researchers found when they compared the prices of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle area. Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a result of inflation." So we're not only facing a demand problem, but an income one as well.
The folks in low income areas need to find ways to stretch their food dollars, and they can't do this in a healthy way: "The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods." With no food subsidies here, how will the peddler proliferation have its intended healthy impact?
The professor who did the University of Washington deserves the last word, and it's really food for thought: "If you have $3 to feed yourself, your choices gravitate toward foods which give you the most calories per dollar,’’ said Dr. Drewnowski. “Not only are the empty calories cheaper, but the healthy foods are becoming more and more expensive. Vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
