The sheer joy and sense of community that was expressed yesterday at the celebration of the Giants' Super Bowl victory demonstrates something of significance for the civic life of our city. As Mike Lupica points out, in today's NY Daily News, quoting a beat cop, ("Joy Now Reigns Where Tears Once Fell"): "First time since the attack that we had people down here, at least like this," he said. "This is like a day out of the old New York."
Civic spirit on display, a people brought to gether by a sports team, and an annonymous urban sprawl cohering with the a common bond-this is the full possibility of a sports team, and why sports holds the place it does in our hearts. It is also what, hopefully, the future holds for Brooklyn when the Nets rock in in 2010.
Brooklyn will be energized by the Nets in a way that the football Giants simply can't do. The reason lies with the sport of basketball itself-indelibly ingrained in the asphalt of Broownsville as mush as it is on the sandy courts of Manhattan Beach. It has been labeled the city game, but Brooklyn stands out as something special-from Connie Hawkins and Roger Brown, to Stephon Marbury, Jamal Tinsley and the emerging Lance Stephenson.
When the Nets come to Brooklyn first the borough and then the whole city will, if things break right, be in for a special treat. The team-through the work of the Brooklyn Sports Alliance-will become a part of the communities of the borough in a way that links them all together. And if the rivalry with what Marty Markowitz calls the "Manhattan Knicks" takes off-well, "Fuhgettabout it!"
So we know all about the controversy in the Atlantic Yards development, but it will all soon fade as the reality of the Brooklyn Nets begins to merge into the borough's heartbeat. The Develop Don't Destroy banners will become curios, and the Lebron James lead Nets will waltz down the Canyon of Heroes with the eyes of an adoring borough on them.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Domino Theory
Sometimes the preservationist impulse runs afoul of the basic laws of economics. So it seems is the case of the development of the Domino Sugar factory in Brooklyn, where the landmarkians are protesting the building of a mixed-use complex above and around the old factory site.
As the NY Sun reports: "Preservationists are set to clash with the company redeveloping the Domino sugar refinery on the Williamsburg waterfront at a Landmarks Preservation Commission hearing today. As part of the second-largest development in Brooklyn, which will include five 40-story towers, the developer, Community Preservation Corporation Resources, is seeking to add a five-story glass structure onto the roof of the Domino building, which was given a landmark status in September."
What the opponents need to recognize is that preservation needs to complement, not stymie development: "The president of CPCR, Michael Lappin, said the glass addition is appropriate and is required to make the project economically viable. The developer bought the site for $56 million in 2004, and it did not oppose efforts to have part of the factory landmarked, which means that any significant changes to the building must be approved by the 11-member commission. "There is an enormous cost to preserve the building. We are trying to create some economics that absorbs that cost. It is reasonable to spread some of that around," Mr. Lappin said."
Indeed it is, or else the project will not be economically viable and able to move forward-a fate that might also await the Kingsbridge Armory site in the Bronx, where the cost of preservation actually acts to frustrate more community friendly development schemes. So it should be seen as a cautionary tale here.
The Domino plan is too important to be left to the stodgy brigade, or to the "community activists" that the NY Daily News writes about today, to decide. As the developer tells the paper: "CPC spokesman Richard Edmonds said the developer is working to find ways to save the sign - though he stopped short of promising it will be preserved. "There are engineering complexities involved in it, but we want to save the sign as much as the community," Edmonds said."
And how much affordable housing do the activists want to see in their community? If the sign is that important than something might have to give. This sugar can't make a cake that you can both have and eat.
As the NY Sun reports: "Preservationists are set to clash with the company redeveloping the Domino sugar refinery on the Williamsburg waterfront at a Landmarks Preservation Commission hearing today. As part of the second-largest development in Brooklyn, which will include five 40-story towers, the developer, Community Preservation Corporation Resources, is seeking to add a five-story glass structure onto the roof of the Domino building, which was given a landmark status in September."
What the opponents need to recognize is that preservation needs to complement, not stymie development: "The president of CPCR, Michael Lappin, said the glass addition is appropriate and is required to make the project economically viable. The developer bought the site for $56 million in 2004, and it did not oppose efforts to have part of the factory landmarked, which means that any significant changes to the building must be approved by the 11-member commission. "There is an enormous cost to preserve the building. We are trying to create some economics that absorbs that cost. It is reasonable to spread some of that around," Mr. Lappin said."
Indeed it is, or else the project will not be economically viable and able to move forward-a fate that might also await the Kingsbridge Armory site in the Bronx, where the cost of preservation actually acts to frustrate more community friendly development schemes. So it should be seen as a cautionary tale here.
The Domino plan is too important to be left to the stodgy brigade, or to the "community activists" that the NY Daily News writes about today, to decide. As the developer tells the paper: "CPC spokesman Richard Edmonds said the developer is working to find ways to save the sign - though he stopped short of promising it will be preserved. "There are engineering complexities involved in it, but we want to save the sign as much as the community," Edmonds said."
And how much affordable housing do the activists want to see in their community? If the sign is that important than something might have to give. This sugar can't make a cake that you can both have and eat.
Delay and Destroy
In its effort to kill the Atlantic Yards project, the Develop Don't Destroy folks have gone into their version of the Four Corners offense-try to hold the ball long enough to eke out a victory over a better team. But, as the NY Daily News editorializes this morning, the courts need to speed up the process and give the DDD crowd (to mix metaphors) a well-deserved delay of game penalty.
As the News points out: "Every month costs Ratner $12 million, and financing has become increasingly difficult in the subprime mortgage credit crunch. The developer has asked the Appellate Division to force Develop Don't Destroy to make its case on an expedited basis.
That must happen. The opponents are engaged in an abuse of process that threatens great public harm. The court should order them to proceed forthwith so the matter can be decided on the merits once and for all."
This kind of rear guard legal strategy is exactly why the courts are being held in such low esteem-a failure to deal with the abuse of legal process. All of Brooklyn (or at least the majority of Brooklynites) is waiting for the Nets to come an energize the borough and hopefully, just like the Giants today, parade down the Canyon of Heroes with a NBA championship. Daniel needs to take the money and run.
As the News points out: "Every month costs Ratner $12 million, and financing has become increasingly difficult in the subprime mortgage credit crunch. The developer has asked the Appellate Division to force Develop Don't Destroy to make its case on an expedited basis.
That must happen. The opponents are engaged in an abuse of process that threatens great public harm. The court should order them to proceed forthwith so the matter can be decided on the merits once and for all."
This kind of rear guard legal strategy is exactly why the courts are being held in such low esteem-a failure to deal with the abuse of legal process. All of Brooklyn (or at least the majority of Brooklynites) is waiting for the Nets to come an energize the borough and hopefully, just like the Giants today, parade down the Canyon of Heroes with a NBA championship. Daniel needs to take the money and run.
Monday, February 04, 2008
To Your Health-Or Else!
In today's NY Post the paper reports on the flap over Hillary Clinton's health plan-and the controversy is instructive: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday for the first time that there might be some pain involved in her health-care plan - revealing she might garnishee the wages of people who try to skirt proposed mandatory insurance requirements."
But there's more to this than first meets the eye. You see, once you make all of this mandatory-after all it's for your health, isn't it?-you open the way for all kinds of coercive measures. If I the tax payer am footing your health bill I expect that you'll behave in a healthy way, or at least in a way that I believe is the healthy way for you to behave.
You're going to need to eat the right foods, exercise the right amount of time, and you're not going to be able to abuse your body with unhealthy substances such as alcohol, drugs and nicotine. On the road to health we're going to create what von Hayek called the Road to Serfdom, a world where health planning will inevitably lead to the loss of individual choices-and it won't stop with health.
We've already caught a glimpse of this Brave New World in the health policies of Bloomberg and Frieden. As we've commented before, "preventative medicine" can have ominous implications. As we pointed out a year ago: "There is a level of zeal that underlies this mayoral rhetoric that is far from being benign in its implications. In order to elevate prevention of disease over treatment there is a need to insinuate the government directly into the lives of Americans; a be healthy or else policy. This is necessary because, as one public health expert, Doug Badger of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, told the NY Sun, "The problem with prevention is that so much of it is about individual behavior and individual choices...I just don't know what sort of government programs would encourage people to take better care of themselves."
There is a long strain of this kind of philosophy im American history, and it can be trace back to the Progressive era's promotion of a eugenics policy that saw the health of the body politic being infected by the lesser breeds and races. It is, as Jonah Goldberg has pointed out in his Liberal Fascism book, a short side step to the German version implemented by the Nazis.
Now no one is saying that the concern over the people's health leads inevitably to fascism; but the need to utilize the power of the state to force people to be healthy has some rather unpleasant unintended consequences. Health choices need to be made by individuals who are provided with the best information we can give them. Ultimately, however, when you force people to be healthy you end up forcing them to do a lot of other less sanguine things.
But there's more to this than first meets the eye. You see, once you make all of this mandatory-after all it's for your health, isn't it?-you open the way for all kinds of coercive measures. If I the tax payer am footing your health bill I expect that you'll behave in a healthy way, or at least in a way that I believe is the healthy way for you to behave.
You're going to need to eat the right foods, exercise the right amount of time, and you're not going to be able to abuse your body with unhealthy substances such as alcohol, drugs and nicotine. On the road to health we're going to create what von Hayek called the Road to Serfdom, a world where health planning will inevitably lead to the loss of individual choices-and it won't stop with health.
We've already caught a glimpse of this Brave New World in the health policies of Bloomberg and Frieden. As we've commented before, "preventative medicine" can have ominous implications. As we pointed out a year ago: "There is a level of zeal that underlies this mayoral rhetoric that is far from being benign in its implications. In order to elevate prevention of disease over treatment there is a need to insinuate the government directly into the lives of Americans; a be healthy or else policy. This is necessary because, as one public health expert, Doug Badger of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, told the NY Sun, "The problem with prevention is that so much of it is about individual behavior and individual choices...I just don't know what sort of government programs would encourage people to take better care of themselves."
There is a long strain of this kind of philosophy im American history, and it can be trace back to the Progressive era's promotion of a eugenics policy that saw the health of the body politic being infected by the lesser breeds and races. It is, as Jonah Goldberg has pointed out in his Liberal Fascism book, a short side step to the German version implemented by the Nazis.
Now no one is saying that the concern over the people's health leads inevitably to fascism; but the need to utilize the power of the state to force people to be healthy has some rather unpleasant unintended consequences. Health choices need to be made by individuals who are provided with the best information we can give them. Ultimately, however, when you force people to be healthy you end up forcing them to do a lot of other less sanguine things.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Spectator on Green Carts
This week's hearing on "green carts" gets a comprehensive look from the Columbia Spectator. As the paper reports: "At an over three-hour-long City Council hearing on the bill Thursday, members of the Committee for Consumer Affairs proved the matter was more complicated than apples and oranges. While public health experts and grocery proprietors laud the bill for its efforts to help combat Harlem’s health problems, the hearing met with a chorus of aggravated small business owners and street vendors outside City Hall who censure the plan as unreasonable."
As the article highlights, the disagreement over the bill's merits lies with differing definitions of causation. For the proponents of Intro 665, it's all about the lack of access to fresh produce; while opponents of the bill highlight income and education-and cite the plentiful produce options in many of the targeted neighborhoods.
Which gets us to the heart of the opposition arguments. The city advances a proposal without doing any empirical analysis of the existing store locations-instead it grounds this legislation on articles of faith surrounding the "food deserts" that exist in certain neighborhoods.
Some of this emerges in the Spectator's lede: "Lilliam Lara assembles piles of fresh produce behind the counter at Stephanie Grocery at 116th Street and Frederick Douglass Boulevard. Her daughter, after whom the store is named, stands at the cashier, surrounded by a colorful array of tomatoes, avocados, bananas, and grapes, as well as the usual hodgepodge of chips, cans of Coca-Cola, and six-packs of beer.Lara, one of over 400 Harlem bodega owners, said nutritional options in Upper Manhattan are lacking, despite her efforts to bring them to the neighborhood. “In this area they forget about health,” she said in Spanish. “Many people suffer.”
What does this mean? Let's deconstruct. Here's one of those bodegas, you know the ones that don't carry any healthy stuff, and the owner-a Hispanic woman no less-is providing the kind of array of fresh produce that all of us would envy. Yet she says, "In this area, they forget about health..." The lede, then is somewhat misleading-implying that people are suffering from a lack of access, when Lilliam Lara is saying that it is the community that "forgets" about health, and "many people suffer." She's emphasizing the lack of demand here, and she's right.
As Sunny Kim says in the story: That’s BS,” Sunny Kim said. “If they want to improve their nutrition, they can go to nearby supermarkets. There are fruits and vegetables all over New York City.” Councilman Felder echoes this sentiment: "Some council members questioned whether areas where people do not eat nutritionally are without stores that sell fruits and vegetables. “We know people aren’t eating enough fruits and vegetables, but we don’t know if there’s a problem with availability,” city council member Simcha Felder (D-Brooklyn) said."
Interestingly, one of the bill's proponents underscored one of our key points about the income variable: “Most anyone in the field is acknowledging that we have a toxic environment for obesity and that we have to look everywhere we can for healthier choices,” said Dr. Sharon Akabas of the Institute of Human Nutrition at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons. Higher rates of obesity correspond to lower socioeconomic levels, and often the task of affording healthy foods can create the largest hurdle, she said."
The task here is to utilize the existing store network to improve both access and affordability: "Kim and Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who represents the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, suggested alternatives to what they called “pushcarts” and “peddlers” incentives and bonuses for small grocers to stock healthier options and reduced fees for outdoor “stoop permits.”
The WIC voucher program is also an excellent way to stimulate demand, Perhaps, just as we are initiating an "economic stimulus" program in Washington, we need to institute a "healthy eating" stimulus program that incentivizes healthier food choices. The WIC changes are, then, only a good modest beginning.
All of which means that Intro 665, as it is currently drafted, is not the answer to the city's "toxic obesity environment." A better bill needs to emerge, one that recognizes the positive role that the existing network of bodegas, green grocers, and supermarkets already play in providing New Yorkers access to the food they both want and need. And in doing so, we can't ignore the demand side of the equation-and the education needed to change life styles and behavior.
As the article highlights, the disagreement over the bill's merits lies with differing definitions of causation. For the proponents of Intro 665, it's all about the lack of access to fresh produce; while opponents of the bill highlight income and education-and cite the plentiful produce options in many of the targeted neighborhoods.
Which gets us to the heart of the opposition arguments. The city advances a proposal without doing any empirical analysis of the existing store locations-instead it grounds this legislation on articles of faith surrounding the "food deserts" that exist in certain neighborhoods.
Some of this emerges in the Spectator's lede: "Lilliam Lara assembles piles of fresh produce behind the counter at Stephanie Grocery at 116th Street and Frederick Douglass Boulevard. Her daughter, after whom the store is named, stands at the cashier, surrounded by a colorful array of tomatoes, avocados, bananas, and grapes, as well as the usual hodgepodge of chips, cans of Coca-Cola, and six-packs of beer.Lara, one of over 400 Harlem bodega owners, said nutritional options in Upper Manhattan are lacking, despite her efforts to bring them to the neighborhood. “In this area they forget about health,” she said in Spanish. “Many people suffer.”
What does this mean? Let's deconstruct. Here's one of those bodegas, you know the ones that don't carry any healthy stuff, and the owner-a Hispanic woman no less-is providing the kind of array of fresh produce that all of us would envy. Yet she says, "In this area, they forget about health..." The lede, then is somewhat misleading-implying that people are suffering from a lack of access, when Lilliam Lara is saying that it is the community that "forgets" about health, and "many people suffer." She's emphasizing the lack of demand here, and she's right.
As Sunny Kim says in the story: That’s BS,” Sunny Kim said. “If they want to improve their nutrition, they can go to nearby supermarkets. There are fruits and vegetables all over New York City.” Councilman Felder echoes this sentiment: "Some council members questioned whether areas where people do not eat nutritionally are without stores that sell fruits and vegetables. “We know people aren’t eating enough fruits and vegetables, but we don’t know if there’s a problem with availability,” city council member Simcha Felder (D-Brooklyn) said."
Interestingly, one of the bill's proponents underscored one of our key points about the income variable: “Most anyone in the field is acknowledging that we have a toxic environment for obesity and that we have to look everywhere we can for healthier choices,” said Dr. Sharon Akabas of the Institute of Human Nutrition at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons. Higher rates of obesity correspond to lower socioeconomic levels, and often the task of affording healthy foods can create the largest hurdle, she said."
The task here is to utilize the existing store network to improve both access and affordability: "Kim and Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who represents the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, suggested alternatives to what they called “pushcarts” and “peddlers” incentives and bonuses for small grocers to stock healthier options and reduced fees for outdoor “stoop permits.”
The WIC voucher program is also an excellent way to stimulate demand, Perhaps, just as we are initiating an "economic stimulus" program in Washington, we need to institute a "healthy eating" stimulus program that incentivizes healthier food choices. The WIC changes are, then, only a good modest beginning.
All of which means that Intro 665, as it is currently drafted, is not the answer to the city's "toxic obesity environment." A better bill needs to emerge, one that recognizes the positive role that the existing network of bodegas, green grocers, and supermarkets already play in providing New Yorkers access to the food they both want and need. And in doing so, we can't ignore the demand side of the equation-and the education needed to change life styles and behavior.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Suitflay on the Menu
Once again (thanks to Liz for the link), the Restaurant Association is going to court to overturn the DOH's latest effort at calorie posting. As the Association says: "This is the second time NYSRA has been forced to file suit to stop this inflexible and unworkable regulation. NYSRA’s challenge last June to a similar regulation by the New York City Board of Health was upheld by the federal courts and the regulation was struck down in the fall of 2007. The NYC health department re-wrote and then passed a similar measure."
And it goes on to point out; “The NYC Board of Health has overstepped its boundaries once again by imposing an unconstitutional regulation on a select group of restaurants to promote its own political agenda,” said Rick Sampson, NYSRA President and CEO. “We are disappointed taxpayer money is being used to discriminate against companies with 15 or more units, most of whom already provide nutrition information to their customers through point of sale materials, tray liners, posters, electronic kiosks and on their websites.”
As we have underscored in our previous post on green carts, the DOH is out of touch with the workings of neighborhood business, and as a result continues to offer legislation and regulations that not only retard business health, but also have a limited utility, if any, in improving the health of New Yorkers. Let's hope that the courts deal this revised reg another body blow.
And it goes on to point out; “The NYC Board of Health has overstepped its boundaries once again by imposing an unconstitutional regulation on a select group of restaurants to promote its own political agenda,” said Rick Sampson, NYSRA President and CEO. “We are disappointed taxpayer money is being used to discriminate against companies with 15 or more units, most of whom already provide nutrition information to their customers through point of sale materials, tray liners, posters, electronic kiosks and on their websites.”
As we have underscored in our previous post on green carts, the DOH is out of touch with the workings of neighborhood business, and as a result continues to offer legislation and regulations that not only retard business health, but also have a limited utility, if any, in improving the health of New Yorkers. Let's hope that the courts deal this revised reg another body blow.
Sliced and Diced
In yesterday's City Council hearing on Intro 665 a strange thing happened. For one of the first times in a very long while we really didn't feel that we needed to testify-certainly not after council members sliced and diced Health Commissioner Frieden. As the NY Daily News reports today (strangely no link): "Cynics Jam Wheels of 'Green Carts' Proposal."
Skepticism over the city proposal dominated the questioning of the commissioner. The strongest reservation surrounded the perceived lack of due diligence behind the bill, with Council members Liu, Martinez and Felder expressing concern over the commissioner's lack of awareness of where the stores selling fresh produce are located.
Here the sentiment in favor of supporting local businesses that sell produce was very strong. "'It's going to cause harm,' said Councilman Miguel Marinez..." Liu, perhaps the strongest skeptic, "questioned whether 'this green cart legislation actually makes sense.'"
What struck us was the failure of the commissioner to reference the city's 1400 green grocers in his two hours of testimony. This failure reflected a lack of knowledge of the neighborhood food business. Council members honed in on this, and questioned the wisdom of broadly targeting police precincts for carts.
In addition, Liu in particular questioned the bill's rationale in regard to the exising demand for produce. He referenced our inability to be "food police," and said that he didn't think that simply adding more outlets would increase the demand for fresh fruits and veggies. Rather, he felt that it would be a zero-sum game with the peddlers cannibalizing current food sales. Felder strongly reiterated this point.
There was also extreme sketicism surrounding the enforcement issue. The commissioiner vowed strict enforcement, but Council member Monserrate pointed out that enforcement is weak or non-existent for the current complement of vendors-particularly in Manhattan where supermarket owners have been complaining for years about vendors stealing sales while operating against the supposed regulations-a point that was echoed by Avi Kaner of MortonWilliams Associated stores.
Perhaps the strongest criticsm was directed at both Frieden and Food Policy Coordinator Ben Thomasses, when the two men suggested that the opposition was being driven by, "a fear of competition." Martinez ridiculed the idea by pointing out that giving someone a $50 permit to compete with a store paying high rents taxes and utilities was not fair competition at all.
So it looks as if there is a great deal of work that the administration needs to do before this bill becomes law. Location and enforcement remain two key issues, but we agree with Sung Soo Kim who was eloquent on behalf of his green grocers: there is a need for a moratorium here. A mapping of store locations, along with identifying areas of access deficiency, and the convening of the planned Food Policy Task Force/Supermarket Initiative, needs to be done before embarking on the peddler parade.
Skepticism over the city proposal dominated the questioning of the commissioner. The strongest reservation surrounded the perceived lack of due diligence behind the bill, with Council members Liu, Martinez and Felder expressing concern over the commissioner's lack of awareness of where the stores selling fresh produce are located.
Here the sentiment in favor of supporting local businesses that sell produce was very strong. "'It's going to cause harm,' said Councilman Miguel Marinez..." Liu, perhaps the strongest skeptic, "questioned whether 'this green cart legislation actually makes sense.'"
What struck us was the failure of the commissioner to reference the city's 1400 green grocers in his two hours of testimony. This failure reflected a lack of knowledge of the neighborhood food business. Council members honed in on this, and questioned the wisdom of broadly targeting police precincts for carts.
In addition, Liu in particular questioned the bill's rationale in regard to the exising demand for produce. He referenced our inability to be "food police," and said that he didn't think that simply adding more outlets would increase the demand for fresh fruits and veggies. Rather, he felt that it would be a zero-sum game with the peddlers cannibalizing current food sales. Felder strongly reiterated this point.
There was also extreme sketicism surrounding the enforcement issue. The commissioiner vowed strict enforcement, but Council member Monserrate pointed out that enforcement is weak or non-existent for the current complement of vendors-particularly in Manhattan where supermarket owners have been complaining for years about vendors stealing sales while operating against the supposed regulations-a point that was echoed by Avi Kaner of MortonWilliams Associated stores.
Perhaps the strongest criticsm was directed at both Frieden and Food Policy Coordinator Ben Thomasses, when the two men suggested that the opposition was being driven by, "a fear of competition." Martinez ridiculed the idea by pointing out that giving someone a $50 permit to compete with a store paying high rents taxes and utilities was not fair competition at all.
So it looks as if there is a great deal of work that the administration needs to do before this bill becomes law. Location and enforcement remain two key issues, but we agree with Sung Soo Kim who was eloquent on behalf of his green grocers: there is a need for a moratorium here. A mapping of store locations, along with identifying areas of access deficiency, and the convening of the planned Food Policy Task Force/Supermarket Initiative, needs to be done before embarking on the peddler parade.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Cart Hearing to be Contentious
The City Council's Consumer Affairs Committee will hold its first hearing on Intro 665 today, and the meeting will undoubtably be contentious since the city has been mobilizing its health advocacy armies to come out in support of the measure. It always seems that advocates have a great deal more free time to come out than do the hard working store owners who find it really difficult to leave their shops.
That being said, however, there does appear to be room for modifications to the original proposal. As the NY Sun reports this morning: "Unions and small business groups have expressed concerns that the added competition could hurt supermarkets. Council Member Leroy Comrie, a sponsor of the proposal, said yesterday he expects the council to modify the bill to address some of these issues, but that the bill's core goal of providing greater access to healthy food should remain. "I think all of this is something that clearly is workable," he said."
Supermarkets are concerned, but the real vulnerable businesses are the thousands of green grocers and bodegas that sell produce. Green grocers in particular have no other product lines to fall back on if their sales are cannibalized by street peddlers. And why does the city have such obvious contempt for its smallest and most vulnerable businesses?
If Leroy Comrie is correct, and we believe that he is, about the desirability of "providing greater access" to healthy food, than why isn't the city developing a food policy plan that would incentivize the tax paying store owners to expand their sales of fresh produce? How about the reduction or sheer elimination of the licensing fees-levies that can run around $500 a year? How about reducing the fines and violations that have made fruit stands-among other small stores-cash cows for city regulators-to the tune if thousands of dollars per store, per year? How about eliminating the commercial real estate taxes for landlords who rent to supermarkets and green grocers?
Instead we are given the peddler legions, push carts without any location reestrictions that will inevitably set up shop in front of the neighborhood food outlets. Yet the city claims that it is powerless to restrict peddler locations because of the 1943 Good Humor ruling. Here's a brief excerpt from one legal opinion we'ver received on this:
"I think that the overall the best argument is that the city already limits the number of vendors out of a concern for traffic and safety and that this bill’s expansion of the number of vendors is only occurring because of a competing public health concern. Therefore, if there are areas where there is produce and therefore the health rationale doesn’t exist it’s reasonable that the city would not increase permits in that area. An allowable and restricted produce vending area then would be substantially different and not, as is prohibited by Good Humor, solely the result of a desire to protect a class of businesses. Moreover, the stated purpose of the restriction should be to promote the legitimate government interest of balancing street traffic with the need for more produce. Courts are generally loath to dig into actual, as opposed to stated, purposes especially when the class potentially discriminated against (vendors) aren’t constitutionally protected (delineations that are protected include race, gender, disabilities, etc…)"
That being said, however, there does appear to be room for modifications to the original proposal. As the NY Sun reports this morning: "Unions and small business groups have expressed concerns that the added competition could hurt supermarkets. Council Member Leroy Comrie, a sponsor of the proposal, said yesterday he expects the council to modify the bill to address some of these issues, but that the bill's core goal of providing greater access to healthy food should remain. "I think all of this is something that clearly is workable," he said."
Supermarkets are concerned, but the real vulnerable businesses are the thousands of green grocers and bodegas that sell produce. Green grocers in particular have no other product lines to fall back on if their sales are cannibalized by street peddlers. And why does the city have such obvious contempt for its smallest and most vulnerable businesses?
If Leroy Comrie is correct, and we believe that he is, about the desirability of "providing greater access" to healthy food, than why isn't the city developing a food policy plan that would incentivize the tax paying store owners to expand their sales of fresh produce? How about the reduction or sheer elimination of the licensing fees-levies that can run around $500 a year? How about reducing the fines and violations that have made fruit stands-among other small stores-cash cows for city regulators-to the tune if thousands of dollars per store, per year? How about eliminating the commercial real estate taxes for landlords who rent to supermarkets and green grocers?
Instead we are given the peddler legions, push carts without any location reestrictions that will inevitably set up shop in front of the neighborhood food outlets. Yet the city claims that it is powerless to restrict peddler locations because of the 1943 Good Humor ruling. Here's a brief excerpt from one legal opinion we'ver received on this:
"I think that the overall the best argument is that the city already limits the number of vendors out of a concern for traffic and safety and that this bill’s expansion of the number of vendors is only occurring because of a competing public health concern. Therefore, if there are areas where there is produce and therefore the health rationale doesn’t exist it’s reasonable that the city would not increase permits in that area. An allowable and restricted produce vending area then would be substantially different and not, as is prohibited by Good Humor, solely the result of a desire to protect a class of businesses. Moreover, the stated purpose of the restriction should be to promote the legitimate government interest of balancing street traffic with the need for more produce. Courts are generally loath to dig into actual, as opposed to stated, purposes especially when the class potentially discriminated against (vendors) aren’t constitutionally protected (delineations that are protected include race, gender, disabilities, etc…)"
Location is, of course, only one problem with the bill. The other significant problem is enforcement-something that is almost completely lacking throughout the city. In a thoughtful letter we received from Council Member Gale Brewer, a supporter of the bill. she makes the following sound point:"In addition, I am acutely aware that problems develop between small grocers and vendors around the question of fair practice, as well the inevitable "turf wars" that arise when street vendors attract customers who have traditionally patronized the local store. In my immediate neighborhood, I have moderated disputes, for example, wherein proprietors of small grocery stores have complained to NYPD about vendor violations of the city code, and caused them to be ticketed on a frequent basis. One such practice involves street vendors who park a truck stocked with fruit next to their cart and use it to illegally replenish their display stock all day long.
According to the NYC Department of Health, it is illegal for the vendors to replenish their stock from the truck throughout the day. It is this kind of sharp practice, along with vendor "saturation" strategies and price undercutting, that makes street/store merchant conflict seemingly inevitable. It also suggests the difficulty of striking a fair and workable balance in law among the contending forces."
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Desert Foxes
Not since Field Marshal Rommel have we seen such fierce desert warriors as those who have been conscripted to fight us on the mayor's green cart legislation. Responding to the Crain's piece yesterday, a battalion of food advocates is circulating a petition to counteract our work. Here's how they see it: "To all those supporting the GreenCart legislation - It is critical that calls to Council members, e-action letters (coming to you today), and citywide letter attached have broad support. The hearing is the Thursday @ 10am Council Chambers - please attend if you can. The Crains insider journal reports strong opposition to the bill from the food retail industry - in response our voices need to be load and clear - underscoring the simple fact that bringing healthy affordable produce to food deserts is in the best interest of New York City children and families."
Well, besides the fact that our opponents here could use remedial spelling and grammar lessons, it is clear that the urban myths will continue to be propagated. "Food deserts?" Isn't there anyone willing to do the preliminary due diligence prior to drafting legislation? These folks are so imbued with their own narrative that it seems that it will be impervious to any empirical refutation.
Please get a grip folks! We're certainly not opposing bringing healthier foods to certain areas of the city; although the food desert description of these neighborhoods is quite far fetched. The fact remains that our opposition to the bill is based on its broad brush approach that will end up parking peddlers directly in front of the stores that are selling fresh produce; a fact that doesn't disturb all of our anti-capitalist opposition.
What puzzles us, however, is the failure of the real capitalists that we know are in this administration to take a stand in defense of the local economy. Mayor Mike risks becoming like Bill Gates, a friend of free enterprise only when it benefits him.
The reality here is that the city continues to disingenuously rely on a 65 year old court ruling in its defense of its unwillingness to restrict vendor locations. The real story, as we have already outlined in our previous post, is that Intro 665 reflects the pervasive anti-small business bias that the administration has exhibited over the past six years.
Update
We missed Crain's Insiders post on the counterattack. They did quote the "retail desert" remark of an opponent of ours, but as far as being, "...dealt a blow when a council lawyer told them that the city can’t seek to limit competition by forbidding vendors from operating near supermarkets..," we don't see it that way. The obstacle is not the 65 year old ruling, but the city's unwillingness to re-examine an archaic judicial decision in the interest of protecting its neighborhood food businesses.
Well, besides the fact that our opponents here could use remedial spelling and grammar lessons, it is clear that the urban myths will continue to be propagated. "Food deserts?" Isn't there anyone willing to do the preliminary due diligence prior to drafting legislation? These folks are so imbued with their own narrative that it seems that it will be impervious to any empirical refutation.
Please get a grip folks! We're certainly not opposing bringing healthier foods to certain areas of the city; although the food desert description of these neighborhoods is quite far fetched. The fact remains that our opposition to the bill is based on its broad brush approach that will end up parking peddlers directly in front of the stores that are selling fresh produce; a fact that doesn't disturb all of our anti-capitalist opposition.
What puzzles us, however, is the failure of the real capitalists that we know are in this administration to take a stand in defense of the local economy. Mayor Mike risks becoming like Bill Gates, a friend of free enterprise only when it benefits him.
The reality here is that the city continues to disingenuously rely on a 65 year old court ruling in its defense of its unwillingness to restrict vendor locations. The real story, as we have already outlined in our previous post, is that Intro 665 reflects the pervasive anti-small business bias that the administration has exhibited over the past six years.
Update
We missed Crain's Insiders post on the counterattack. They did quote the "retail desert" remark of an opponent of ours, but as far as being, "...dealt a blow when a council lawyer told them that the city can’t seek to limit competition by forbidding vendors from operating near supermarkets..," we don't see it that way. The obstacle is not the 65 year old ruling, but the city's unwillingness to re-examine an archaic judicial decision in the interest of protecting its neighborhood food businesses.
Harlem on Our Mind
The controversy over the re-zoning of 125th Street underscores the callous disregard that the city has for small and minority owned businesses. As the Spectator reported last week; "Community Boards 9, 10, and 11 and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer have estimated that the plan would result in the displacement of 71 local businesses and a rise in the area’s average rent."
The city planners, however, aren't content to simple plan for the demise of these businesses. They consistently find the need to first disparage them, a nasty prelude to their physical displacement. As Juan Gonzales points out today in a trenchant analysis of the entire sordid affair: "According to the city's impact statement, the 71 businesses that will be displaced by the rezoning do have "substantial economic value to the City or region ... and do not, individually or collectively, contribute substantially to neighborhood character."
This is the legacy of New York's Burden, a socialite and dilettante who's been given carte blanche to trash and bash the city's smaller, vulnerable businesses. As Gonzales goes on to say: "Imagine working years to build up your tiny business only to have some bureaucrat from downtown declare you have "no substantial economic value to the City or region." You must make way in this Brave New World for the "substantial economic value" of a luxury condo."
We're certainly not surprised at all of this, not after we witnessed the debacle over the displacement of the minority merchants at the Bronx Terminal Market. In this episode, our old consultant friends AKRF, mirroring EDC's disdain for those merchants, claimed that the unique African and Hispanic products would not be missed because, "a similar line of market products could be found with New Jersey wholesalers." This from a New York City economic development agency.
So the beat goes on, and this time it's luxury housing that is the linchpin of the assault on the existing community: "The city's plan would permit the construction of 2,600 new units of housing along the commercial strip. Only 20% of those new units would be affordable to families earning below $56,000 a year. With average family income in Harlem only $37,000, community leaders want a greater mix of moderate income housing in any plan. Amazingly, the city's environmental impact study for the rezoning claims only 500 residents in the project area "could be vulnerable to second displacement if rents rise."
That's because so many have already been evicted through the gentrification process. But no mention is made of the combined displacement that will occur when this plan and the Columbia expansion plan go into full gear together. We hope that the current crop of African-American elected officials get their satisfaction while they can, because changing demographics and subsequent gentrification will certainly create an inevitable political displacement as well.
The city planners, however, aren't content to simple plan for the demise of these businesses. They consistently find the need to first disparage them, a nasty prelude to their physical displacement. As Juan Gonzales points out today in a trenchant analysis of the entire sordid affair: "According to the city's impact statement, the 71 businesses that will be displaced by the rezoning do have "substantial economic value to the City or region ... and do not, individually or collectively, contribute substantially to neighborhood character."
This is the legacy of New York's Burden, a socialite and dilettante who's been given carte blanche to trash and bash the city's smaller, vulnerable businesses. As Gonzales goes on to say: "Imagine working years to build up your tiny business only to have some bureaucrat from downtown declare you have "no substantial economic value to the City or region." You must make way in this Brave New World for the "substantial economic value" of a luxury condo."
We're certainly not surprised at all of this, not after we witnessed the debacle over the displacement of the minority merchants at the Bronx Terminal Market. In this episode, our old consultant friends AKRF, mirroring EDC's disdain for those merchants, claimed that the unique African and Hispanic products would not be missed because, "a similar line of market products could be found with New Jersey wholesalers." This from a New York City economic development agency.
So the beat goes on, and this time it's luxury housing that is the linchpin of the assault on the existing community: "The city's plan would permit the construction of 2,600 new units of housing along the commercial strip. Only 20% of those new units would be affordable to families earning below $56,000 a year. With average family income in Harlem only $37,000, community leaders want a greater mix of moderate income housing in any plan. Amazingly, the city's environmental impact study for the rezoning claims only 500 residents in the project area "could be vulnerable to second displacement if rents rise."
That's because so many have already been evicted through the gentrification process. But no mention is made of the combined displacement that will occur when this plan and the Columbia expansion plan go into full gear together. We hope that the current crop of African-American elected officials get their satisfaction while they can, because changing demographics and subsequent gentrification will certainly create an inevitable political displacement as well.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
City Food Policy
As a segue to our previous post it looks as if the city, under the direction of Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs and Food Czar Ben Thomasses, is about to create a task force on food policy. The first order of business should be to begin to reconcile the city's developing food policy with its health-based efforts.
As we have been saying, the health-based policy has been contrapuntal to the health of the local food businesses. There needs to be a greater awareness of the business challenges, and an understanding that enhancing the strength of neighborhood food stores and restaurants, and of their distributors, needs to be melded to the goal of a healthier citizenry.
This cannot be done, however, if the city remains ignorant or uncaring about the businesses and their needs. One salient example; if the city wants to promote a "Healthy Bodega" program, a policy to encourage grocery stores to carry more fresh produce, then it can't simultaneously flood these bodega neighborhoods with produce peddlers. It's counter productive.
The primary goal, it seems to us, is to collaborate as much as possible with the key food industry stakeholders, and develop a food/health policy that is both good for health and good for the health of the city's neighborhood economies.
As we have been saying, the health-based policy has been contrapuntal to the health of the local food businesses. There needs to be a greater awareness of the business challenges, and an understanding that enhancing the strength of neighborhood food stores and restaurants, and of their distributors, needs to be melded to the goal of a healthier citizenry.
This cannot be done, however, if the city remains ignorant or uncaring about the businesses and their needs. One salient example; if the city wants to promote a "Healthy Bodega" program, a policy to encourage grocery stores to carry more fresh produce, then it can't simultaneously flood these bodega neighborhoods with produce peddlers. It's counter productive.
The primary goal, it seems to us, is to collaborate as much as possible with the key food industry stakeholders, and develop a food/health policy that is both good for health and good for the health of the city's neighborhood economies.
Vendor Bill: Bad Idea Based on a False Premise
This morning's Crain's Insider is reporting on our press conference on Intro 665 scheduled for Thursday at 12:30. As we told the newsletter the struggle won't be easy: “The mayor and speaker have jumped on board, and [the press conference]becomes a difficult sell, even for the
people who feel the bill doesn’t make sense,” Lipsky says." The difficulties, notwithstanding, the bill doesn't make much sense even from the perspective of its most fervent proponents.
If the bill's purpose is to provide access to fresh produce for communities that lack availability, then the city needed to first conduct a comprehensive survey of the communities in question in order to identify where the outlets for fresh produce were located. Instead, using survey data from the Department of Health that found that residents of certain neighborhoods consume less produce than is optimal, the bill's drafters-assuming without proof that the low consumption was the independent variable in determining this low consumption-broadly targeted 43 police precincts for 1500 newly licensed peddlers to flood.
Here are the targeted precincts: Bronx: Police Precincts 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52;
(ii) Brooklyn: Police Precincts 63, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 90, 94;
(iii) Manhattan: Police Precincts 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34;
(iv) Queens: Police Precincts 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 113; and
(v) Staten Island: Police Precinct 120."
Well it turns out that in many, if not most of these precincts, there are scores of fresh produce outlets operating on busy commercial streets. On Fifth Avenue in Sunset Park, to take one example, there are nine outlets. Here's the breakdown: 1) 4 major supermarkets with fresh fruit & vegetable depts located on 5th Avenue-Key Food, C-Town, Associated and Met Food.
2. 2 fruit & vegetable stands - 49th Street & 5th Ave, 60th Street & 5th Avenue
3. 3 new smaller fruit stores - one in the 60's and 2 in the 40's, on 5th Avenue.
Ironically, the city also located a large greenmarket in the Sunset Park area, a market that was relocated after the community objected to its original location right on the Fifth Avenue corridor. As the NY Times reported the story: "Greenmarket, the organization that operates the city's 27 markets, has proposed one for a part of Fifth Avenue between 42nd and 43rd Streets. Community Board 7, which covers Sunset Park, rejected the proposal at its May 16 meeting, saying that the area was already too congested with grocery stores and other businesses."
The Greenmarket folks, just like the DOH experts, have no idea about what's happening in the neighborhoods-relying instead on cooked up data that masks certain ideological assumptions about the local food business. It is much easier to attack the deficiencies of local stores, than it is to tackle the root causes of the health problems that the advocates are striving to solve.
The reality here is that there are thousands of produce outlets within Intro 665 targeted areas. Peddlers with their new $50 a year licenses will not be heading to the hills, so to speak, but will make right for the busy commercial streets; and just like in Manhattan, will set up shop right in front of existing supermarkets and produce stores.
So the access issue will remain unaddressed, if in fact it has any validity in the first place. What the city needs to do, if it believes its own assumptions about access, is to identify specific locations and grant peddling permits for these specific locations. Our suspicion, however, is that the city is in an Emperor's No Clothes position, and is unwilling to empirically test the proposition that underlies Intro 665; fearing that the access assumption is overblown and/or meaningless.
If, as we suspect, the access issue is a false premise than the plan to flood these 43 police precincts is a bad idea. We don't believe, however, that the DOH survey is totally bogus. People aren't eating as healthy as they should. But once we remove access from the equation we are left with needing to determine what underlies the poor dietary choices people are making.
people who feel the bill doesn’t make sense,” Lipsky says." The difficulties, notwithstanding, the bill doesn't make much sense even from the perspective of its most fervent proponents.
If the bill's purpose is to provide access to fresh produce for communities that lack availability, then the city needed to first conduct a comprehensive survey of the communities in question in order to identify where the outlets for fresh produce were located. Instead, using survey data from the Department of Health that found that residents of certain neighborhoods consume less produce than is optimal, the bill's drafters-assuming without proof that the low consumption was the independent variable in determining this low consumption-broadly targeted 43 police precincts for 1500 newly licensed peddlers to flood.
Here are the targeted precincts: Bronx: Police Precincts 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52;
(ii) Brooklyn: Police Precincts 63, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 90, 94;
(iii) Manhattan: Police Precincts 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34;
(iv) Queens: Police Precincts 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 113; and
(v) Staten Island: Police Precinct 120."
Well it turns out that in many, if not most of these precincts, there are scores of fresh produce outlets operating on busy commercial streets. On Fifth Avenue in Sunset Park, to take one example, there are nine outlets. Here's the breakdown: 1) 4 major supermarkets with fresh fruit & vegetable depts located on 5th Avenue-Key Food, C-Town, Associated and Met Food.
2. 2 fruit & vegetable stands - 49th Street & 5th Ave, 60th Street & 5th Avenue
3. 3 new smaller fruit stores - one in the 60's and 2 in the 40's, on 5th Avenue.
Ironically, the city also located a large greenmarket in the Sunset Park area, a market that was relocated after the community objected to its original location right on the Fifth Avenue corridor. As the NY Times reported the story: "Greenmarket, the organization that operates the city's 27 markets, has proposed one for a part of Fifth Avenue between 42nd and 43rd Streets. Community Board 7, which covers Sunset Park, rejected the proposal at its May 16 meeting, saying that the area was already too congested with grocery stores and other businesses."
The Greenmarket folks, just like the DOH experts, have no idea about what's happening in the neighborhoods-relying instead on cooked up data that masks certain ideological assumptions about the local food business. It is much easier to attack the deficiencies of local stores, than it is to tackle the root causes of the health problems that the advocates are striving to solve.
The reality here is that there are thousands of produce outlets within Intro 665 targeted areas. Peddlers with their new $50 a year licenses will not be heading to the hills, so to speak, but will make right for the busy commercial streets; and just like in Manhattan, will set up shop right in front of existing supermarkets and produce stores.
So the access issue will remain unaddressed, if in fact it has any validity in the first place. What the city needs to do, if it believes its own assumptions about access, is to identify specific locations and grant peddling permits for these specific locations. Our suspicion, however, is that the city is in an Emperor's No Clothes position, and is unwilling to empirically test the proposition that underlies Intro 665; fearing that the access assumption is overblown and/or meaningless.
If, as we suspect, the access issue is a false premise than the plan to flood these 43 police precincts is a bad idea. We don't believe, however, that the DOH survey is totally bogus. People aren't eating as healthy as they should. But once we remove access from the equation we are left with needing to determine what underlies the poor dietary choices people are making.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Spitzer and Butthead
In today's NY Post, the inimitable Arthur Katz lashes out at Governor Spitzer for his failure to live up to his promise to enforce the law against Indians selling non-taxed cigarettes. The governor's failure here, and we met with him three years ago when he promised to enforce the law as soon as he was elected, is costing the state big bucks at a time when New York is fiscally challenged.
As Katz points out: "For all his concern over the state's tight budget outlook, Gov. Spitzer is squandering nearly $1 billion a year in lost revenues by letting Indian reservation retailers avoid cigarette excise and sales taxes, in violation of state law." Once again, an elected official exhibits little or no concern for the state's tax paying retailers.
It gets worse, however, when you consider the fact that untaxed smokes increase the likelihood that minors will get their hands on them: "Cigarette taxes discourage smoking, especially by teens. City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden put it this way: "Increasing tobacco taxes is the single most effective way to reduce tobacco consumption, particularly for kids."
NYC retailers are losing $250 million a year to black market sales. Mayor Mike has called this a "minor economic issue." Now the governor joins the uncaring chorus and retailers can stuff it.
As Katz points out: "For all his concern over the state's tight budget outlook, Gov. Spitzer is squandering nearly $1 billion a year in lost revenues by letting Indian reservation retailers avoid cigarette excise and sales taxes, in violation of state law." Once again, an elected official exhibits little or no concern for the state's tax paying retailers.
It gets worse, however, when you consider the fact that untaxed smokes increase the likelihood that minors will get their hands on them: "Cigarette taxes discourage smoking, especially by teens. City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden put it this way: "Increasing tobacco taxes is the single most effective way to reduce tobacco consumption, particularly for kids."
NYC retailers are losing $250 million a year to black market sales. Mayor Mike has called this a "minor economic issue." Now the governor joins the uncaring chorus and retailers can stuff it.
Posted Calorie Confusion
In yesterday's NY Post, the paper reviewed the anticipated calorie posting regulation that the Board of Health passed last week. Unfortunately, the paper is as confused about all of this as fast food customers will be if the regulation survives an anticipated legal challenge. Here's the Post's take: "-- Holy guacamole! Is it any wonder that the restaurant industry opposed New York City's new calorie-labeling law? Would you broadcast to diners that a vegetarian burrito at Chipotle can reach 900 calories or that the Signature salad at Cosi with shallot dressing and bread nears 1,000 calories?"
Talk about swallowing the unhealthy DOH propaganda! First of all, the burrito posting will not, because of the myriad combinations of possible burrito selections, be on each item. Even the clueless fast food haters at DOH couldn't require fast food outlets to post calories on every conceivable menu items-the menu board would be out the door and down the block.
Instead the chains of 15 outlets or more will be allowed to post a range for certain items like burritos. So Taco Bell or Chipotle will post the following: Burrito (400-1500 calories). A burrito consumer will simply have no idea what her burrito combo contains; which is precisely why the industry opposes the regulation.
But it gets even better. The Post has a chart that lists some kind of Starbucks Mocha drink at 630. If you check the Starbucks nutrition pamphlet, however, you'll find that the coffee chain has thousands of possible combinations; something that makes the following Post observation absurd: "Some chains make nutrition information available on their Web sites or on eye-straining charts posted in restaurant corners."
When there are hundreds or even thousands of possible offerings, you can't help the small print-unless the city requires that every customer should be mandated to receive a nutrition textbook along with their meal. In addition, the Post misleads further when it starts to add dressing and condiment information to its own chart. The calorie posting will not require this, so a customer ordering a salad will be totally misinformed if he adds a calorie-laden dressing.
The sheer impossibility of practically complying with the posting regulation in a way that will actually aid customers is what animates the industry opposition-along with the cost of compliance. And our friend Lynn Silver's comments to the paper only exacerbates the situation: "Dr. Lynn Silver, assistant commissioner at the city Health Department, said the industry apparently does not want diners to count calories. "We would ask, 'What are they so ashamed of?' " Silver said."
Clearly, Dr. Silver's remarks underscore the basic anti-business animus that underlies these kinds of regulatory forays. Unmentioned by either the Post or the good doctor is the fact that the department of health never conducted any efficacy studies to determine whether calorie posting would actually be used to guide customer choice. In fact, there none-and the current obesity epidemic is almost coterminous with the FDA's requirement that food manufacturers list nutritional information on food packaging.
Folks aren't getting the message, but the fast food haters (hey Lynn when did you last have a Big Mac?) won't stop in their jihad because they have no concern what the unintended costs of their regulations might do to the industry that is the most successful incubator of minority entrepreneurship in the country. They should be ashamed of violating all of their public health methodology guidelines in their ideological pursuit of a health dictatorship.
Talk about swallowing the unhealthy DOH propaganda! First of all, the burrito posting will not, because of the myriad combinations of possible burrito selections, be on each item. Even the clueless fast food haters at DOH couldn't require fast food outlets to post calories on every conceivable menu items-the menu board would be out the door and down the block.
Instead the chains of 15 outlets or more will be allowed to post a range for certain items like burritos. So Taco Bell or Chipotle will post the following: Burrito (400-1500 calories). A burrito consumer will simply have no idea what her burrito combo contains; which is precisely why the industry opposes the regulation.
But it gets even better. The Post has a chart that lists some kind of Starbucks Mocha drink at 630. If you check the Starbucks nutrition pamphlet, however, you'll find that the coffee chain has thousands of possible combinations; something that makes the following Post observation absurd: "Some chains make nutrition information available on their Web sites or on eye-straining charts posted in restaurant corners."
When there are hundreds or even thousands of possible offerings, you can't help the small print-unless the city requires that every customer should be mandated to receive a nutrition textbook along with their meal. In addition, the Post misleads further when it starts to add dressing and condiment information to its own chart. The calorie posting will not require this, so a customer ordering a salad will be totally misinformed if he adds a calorie-laden dressing.
The sheer impossibility of practically complying with the posting regulation in a way that will actually aid customers is what animates the industry opposition-along with the cost of compliance. And our friend Lynn Silver's comments to the paper only exacerbates the situation: "Dr. Lynn Silver, assistant commissioner at the city Health Department, said the industry apparently does not want diners to count calories. "We would ask, 'What are they so ashamed of?' " Silver said."
Clearly, Dr. Silver's remarks underscore the basic anti-business animus that underlies these kinds of regulatory forays. Unmentioned by either the Post or the good doctor is the fact that the department of health never conducted any efficacy studies to determine whether calorie posting would actually be used to guide customer choice. In fact, there none-and the current obesity epidemic is almost coterminous with the FDA's requirement that food manufacturers list nutritional information on food packaging.
Folks aren't getting the message, but the fast food haters (hey Lynn when did you last have a Big Mac?) won't stop in their jihad because they have no concern what the unintended costs of their regulations might do to the industry that is the most successful incubator of minority entrepreneurship in the country. They should be ashamed of violating all of their public health methodology guidelines in their ideological pursuit of a health dictatorship.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Gallagher Nifonged?
A state supreme court judge, using the strongest language, threw out the rape indictment of Councilman Denis Gallagher. As the NY Sun reported: "The prosecutor created an unfair inference that in evaluating the defendant's testimony and his credibility, the Grand Jury should apply a more stringent standard than the law actually imposes," the decision states."
What the Grand Jury proceedings remind us of is the railroading of the Duke lacrosse kids by the infamous Mike Nifong; and if DA Brown decides to re-convene another Grand Jury then he better have a damn good reason beyond the simple allegation of the alleged victim. Otherwise the whole thing will look like a politically motivated witch hunt.
What the Grand Jury proceedings remind us of is the railroading of the Duke lacrosse kids by the infamous Mike Nifong; and if DA Brown decides to re-convene another Grand Jury then he better have a damn good reason beyond the simple allegation of the alleged victim. Otherwise the whole thing will look like a politically motivated witch hunt.
We're From the Government-and Our Numbers are Growing
In yesterday's NY Daily News, the paper points out how city government keeps expanding in the face of fiscal challenges. The so-called hiring freeze is described by E. J. McMahon as a "slushy freeze." All of which underscores our observation that Mayor Mike is a big fan of big government, and sees no reason to apply any of his business acumen to either down-sizing or re-inventing.
As we have said before, Bloomberg is John Lindsay with a great deal more money and a great deal less empathy. He's really attempted little that's innovative, and the little he's done in the realm of education has been very Lindsay like in its lack of productivity. We're eagerly awaiting the re-evaluations; but they won't be coming from the liberal salons who excoriated Rudy while reaping the benefits of his Augean Stables cleansing.
As we have said before, Bloomberg is John Lindsay with a great deal more money and a great deal less empathy. He's really attempted little that's innovative, and the little he's done in the realm of education has been very Lindsay like in its lack of productivity. We're eagerly awaiting the re-evaluations; but they won't be coming from the liberal salons who excoriated Rudy while reaping the benefits of his Augean Stables cleansing.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Labor Watchdogs
Crain's Insider is reporting that the CLC is monitoring certain key development projects in order to determine the huge benefits being reaped by favored developers-benefits that aren't trickling down to the workers: "CLC Executive Director Ed Ott would not confirm the developers study, but he says “the CLC has made no secret of our concerns with the inequities and lack of labor standards with recent economic development agreements by City Hall. At this time, we continue to maintain an open dialogue to resolve some issues.”
Hey ED, just start with the Gateway Mall on the gravesite of the old Bronx Terminal Market. Related Companies got the goldmine-everyone else got the shaft. It's even being anchored by a non-union box store.
Hey ED, just start with the Gateway Mall on the gravesite of the old Bronx Terminal Market. Related Companies got the goldmine-everyone else got the shaft. It's even being anchored by a non-union box store.
Misplaced City Priorities
AS the NY Sun reports this morning the mayor signed the plastic bag recycling bill into law yesterday. We've commented extensively on the foolishness here, but it's worth repeating that the law is yet another example of the way in which this administration, aided and abetted by the city council, disdains local business.
Regulatory costs and higher taxes keep piling up over the last six years, with no concomitant policies for the growing of the local neighborhood economies. This is particularly egregious when we look at supermarkets in the city.
Manhattan is hemorrhaging supermarkets, as rising rents force out local food stores to make way for drug stores and banks. Now we're finding that other areas of the city are experiencing the same phenomenon. Councilman Comrie tells us that his district in Southeast Queens has lost four supermarkets, Clearly, this is becoming a big problem.
Instead of over-regulating supermarkets and other food stores, the city should be devising a policy to stimulate their increase. Providing healthy food items is a key service that the city feels it must encourage-to wit, the silly green cart and green market efforts-yet the city fails to address the loss of the outlets that do provide neighborhoods, especially those where health issues are most severe, with healthy food options.
So instead of new supermarkets in underserved neighborhood, we get green carts that will cannibalize the business that their already doing-since overhead isn't comparable. Supermarkets and green grocers should be identified as the essential city services that they are. Tax and regulatory relief, grants and construction loans, all should be part of a NYC stimulus package that addresses the health crisis in the correct way: through the building of new markets that provide communities with healthy food.
Regulatory costs and higher taxes keep piling up over the last six years, with no concomitant policies for the growing of the local neighborhood economies. This is particularly egregious when we look at supermarkets in the city.
Manhattan is hemorrhaging supermarkets, as rising rents force out local food stores to make way for drug stores and banks. Now we're finding that other areas of the city are experiencing the same phenomenon. Councilman Comrie tells us that his district in Southeast Queens has lost four supermarkets, Clearly, this is becoming a big problem.
Instead of over-regulating supermarkets and other food stores, the city should be devising a policy to stimulate their increase. Providing healthy food items is a key service that the city feels it must encourage-to wit, the silly green cart and green market efforts-yet the city fails to address the loss of the outlets that do provide neighborhoods, especially those where health issues are most severe, with healthy food options.
So instead of new supermarkets in underserved neighborhood, we get green carts that will cannibalize the business that their already doing-since overhead isn't comparable. Supermarkets and green grocers should be identified as the essential city services that they are. Tax and regulatory relief, grants and construction loans, all should be part of a NYC stimulus package that addresses the health crisis in the correct way: through the building of new markets that provide communities with healthy food.
DEP Oversight
The NY Daily News reports this morning that the DEP has decided to appoint an ombudsman to handle water bill complaints: "The appointment comes on the heels of a massive change to water bills: The City Council voted last month to put liens on properties when owners fail to pay their bills."
That's great news, considering that the agency is clueless, and often simply has no idea who owes what, or if the bills that were sent out to any given resident or business is legitimate. Now, however, in order to really right the ship here, we need for the city to put the entire agency under receivership-its years of malfeasance and nonfeasance should be addressed by a complete housecleaning and overhaul.
That's great news, considering that the agency is clueless, and often simply has no idea who owes what, or if the bills that were sent out to any given resident or business is legitimate. Now, however, in order to really right the ship here, we need for the city to put the entire agency under receivership-its years of malfeasance and nonfeasance should be addressed by a complete housecleaning and overhaul.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Whalen on Frieden
As I have been posting, the city has once again tried to enact calorie posting rules for the approximately 2300 fast food restaurants that have helped to revitalize the city's neighborhood economies. Their proliferation in New York is a dramatic example of the success of minority entrepreneurship; and the health commissioner's failure to recognize this goes to the heart of what's wrong with this misguided policy.
The problem is clearly underscored in a trenchant critique from Dr. Elizabeth Whalen in this morning's NY Post. As Whalen correctly points out: "Though the department claims the rules will promote public health, they're really nothing but a spiteful attack on fast-food restaurants."
The reason lies with the incomprehensibility of the plan to the average fast food customer: "There's no evidence the calorie info is of much use to real consumers. Surveys regularly tell us that most people don't have a clue how many calories a day are appropriate for them. So how does a menu-board warning that a cheeseburger supplies 300 calories help them avoid obesity?" The short answer? It doesn't.
As we've said before, something that Whalen reiterates, this is nothing but an expensive experiment that has no useful benefit-and there's absolutely no epidemiological studies that even hint at the policy's potential efficacy. Whalen's to the point: "The Health Department is ordering restaurants to change how they market food and to bear the burden of the expense and confusion this entails - all without any evidence that the move advances public health. The rules simply represent a penalty on the restaurants."
Doc Frieden, however, really doesn't care in his jihad against local entrepreneurs. He has no clue about the kind of business model at work here and believes, just as the mayor does, that he can compel changes in public behavior through enacting expensive and confusing regulations. Here' his naivete on display in this morning's NY Times: "Dr. Frieden said his department’s research showed that consumers often make faulty assumptions about the calorie counts of items on a menu. But when they have the information, he said, they tend to choose food with fewer calories.
As a result of the regulations, set to go into effect on March 31, Dr. Frieden predicted that some restaurants will eliminate some of their offerings, like appetizers that top 2,000 calories."
First of all, the department didn't do any research-certainly none that would survive peer review. It did some self-serving questionnaires that failed to demonstrate much last summer, and the commissioners prescience about how the industry will respond to his cockamamie rules beggars credulity. If left to their own devices the team of Frieden and Bloomberg would be dictating everything that New Yorkers put into their mouths.
So we now have a health policy that is so anti-business that it mirrors the anti-capitalist ideologues at the CSPI in Washington. Here's what their spokesperson told the NY Post this morning: "It's going to get a lot easier to make informed choices at New York City's chain restaurants this spring," said Margo Wootan, nutrition policy director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest."
No it won't, but the health ideologues don't really care. There effort is designed to force folks to be healthy; and if they kill local business in the process? Well. as Lenin said, in order to make an omelet you have to crack a few eggs.
The problem is clearly underscored in a trenchant critique from Dr. Elizabeth Whalen in this morning's NY Post. As Whalen correctly points out: "Though the department claims the rules will promote public health, they're really nothing but a spiteful attack on fast-food restaurants."
The reason lies with the incomprehensibility of the plan to the average fast food customer: "There's no evidence the calorie info is of much use to real consumers. Surveys regularly tell us that most people don't have a clue how many calories a day are appropriate for them. So how does a menu-board warning that a cheeseburger supplies 300 calories help them avoid obesity?" The short answer? It doesn't.
As we've said before, something that Whalen reiterates, this is nothing but an expensive experiment that has no useful benefit-and there's absolutely no epidemiological studies that even hint at the policy's potential efficacy. Whalen's to the point: "The Health Department is ordering restaurants to change how they market food and to bear the burden of the expense and confusion this entails - all without any evidence that the move advances public health. The rules simply represent a penalty on the restaurants."
Doc Frieden, however, really doesn't care in his jihad against local entrepreneurs. He has no clue about the kind of business model at work here and believes, just as the mayor does, that he can compel changes in public behavior through enacting expensive and confusing regulations. Here' his naivete on display in this morning's NY Times: "Dr. Frieden said his department’s research showed that consumers often make faulty assumptions about the calorie counts of items on a menu. But when they have the information, he said, they tend to choose food with fewer calories.
As a result of the regulations, set to go into effect on March 31, Dr. Frieden predicted that some restaurants will eliminate some of their offerings, like appetizers that top 2,000 calories."
First of all, the department didn't do any research-certainly none that would survive peer review. It did some self-serving questionnaires that failed to demonstrate much last summer, and the commissioners prescience about how the industry will respond to his cockamamie rules beggars credulity. If left to their own devices the team of Frieden and Bloomberg would be dictating everything that New Yorkers put into their mouths.
So we now have a health policy that is so anti-business that it mirrors the anti-capitalist ideologues at the CSPI in Washington. Here's what their spokesperson told the NY Post this morning: "It's going to get a lot easier to make informed choices at New York City's chain restaurants this spring," said Margo Wootan, nutrition policy director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest."
No it won't, but the health ideologues don't really care. There effort is designed to force folks to be healthy; and if they kill local business in the process? Well. as Lenin said, in order to make an omelet you have to crack a few eggs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
