In Saturday's Rockland Journal News, the paper puts the final nail in the Monsey Wal-Mart coffin: "The plans for a Wal-Mart Supercenter at a closed drive-in theater in Monsey have been withdrawn by the prospective developer. The National Realty and Development Corp. of Purchase faced concerns of the town and the public over the ability of existing roads and sewer lines to handle the demands of the 215,000-square-foot big-box store.' The developer's letter says it all: "We believe the project would have been a great success and huge improvement over the existing conditions," Jerrold Bermingham, executive vice president of the company, said in a Thursday letter to the town. It had become apparent, though, that "the concerns of the township cannot be met and the project will not be approved," Bermingham wrote."
The reason, of course, that the Town's terms could not be met owes more to the organizing effort of the Alliance and its allies than the sheer technical compliance difficulties. If a political will exists for a development there's usually a great deal of leeway given to traffic and other concerns. Bermingham's observation here is correct, but somewhat limited in scope: "He said in an interview yesterday that "the traffic generated by the retail store would have gone on what is already a busy road, and there were also concerns about sewer capacity. I think those (issues) were really it." The environmental data is necessary, but not sufficient absent the political will.
Ultimately the project's fate rested with the Orthodox community in Monsey, and its organized rabbinical leadership simply didn't want this kind of dangerous intrusion in the middle of their neighborhood; and aside from language, religious and cultural differences, Monsey was no different than the other communities where we have successfully rallied local opposition against the Walmonster and other box stores.
Finally, in cases like these, the elected officials play an important role. In Ramapo, the supervisor, Chris St. Lawrence, acted judiciously by waiting to gauge the community's pulse. Once he understood where the Monsey folks stood, and once he was able to take a hard look at the Ketcham-generated traffic analysis we provided the Town, he acted swiftly to mobilize against the project; even going so far as to make it a pillar of his re-election platform. As he told the paper: "This is a regional store," St. Lawrence said yesterday, "and you need to have a regional solution to traffic. Route 59 is a two-lane highway." Planners were concerned that traffic would back up on Route 59 and on Saddle River Road, leading to congestion on the side streets.
The St. Lawrence opposition, when added to that of newly elected assemblywoman Ellen Jaffee, Spring Valley Mayor Darden and Legislator David Fried, meant that there was no political support for the project. And our Yiddish ads continued to bolster the Monsey community with the idea that its united opposition would bear fruit.
The Journal News gives us a shout out as well: "Where there is defeat there is also victory, and in this case it's in the eyes of Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance.
"We are really pleased that the developer saw the handwriting on the wall," said Lipsky, whose group represented Monsey-area shop owners since the plan was unveiled more than two years ago. "I think it demonstrated that the site was not a good site for a development of that size," Lipsky said."
Indeed it was not. And now the Town is examining alternative development plans for the site: "St. Lawrence said he would like to see a mixed zone for residential and light retail, in what he thought could be "a village square" atmosphere." We hope that whatever goes into the site adds to the quality of life of Monsey and its surrounding communities-we know that Wal-Mart wouldn't, and as Monsey folks might say (in Yiddish, of course); "Go in good health."
Monday, March 10, 2008
Friday, March 07, 2008
George McGovern Schools the Nannies
Acquiring new wisdom in his dotage, George McGovern writes the following in the WSJ: "Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society. Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life. The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else."
Calling Mike Bloomberg and Thomas Frieden. McGovern's last line is particularly precious: people have the right to make bad choices-and we shouldn't impinge on the rights of others in the name of helping those who can't behave in the way we'd like them to. It almost makes me glad that I voted for the man-almost.
Calling Mike Bloomberg and Thomas Frieden. McGovern's last line is particularly precious: people have the right to make bad choices-and we shouldn't impinge on the rights of others in the name of helping those who can't behave in the way we'd like them to. It almost makes me glad that I voted for the man-almost.
Monsey Davids Slay Wal-Mart Goliath
We were seeing the handwriting on the wall when National Realty, the developer of the proposed Wal-Mart super center in Monsey began to drag its feet with responding to the Town of Ramapo's request for additional traffic data-something about trying to square a circle. Now it is finally definitive-with a letter sent to the Town from NR saying essentially "No Mas." The community message to the Alliance: "Mazel Tov."
In the letter, the developer told Ramapo; "...it has become apparent to National Realty and Development Corp. that the concerns of the Township cannot be met and the project will not be approved." As a result NR has officially pulled the plug, and the united community/labor and business effort to defeat the project is a rousing success.
Once again, the Walmonster meets legitimate community opposition and it folds its tent; with Monsey added to the Alliance honor role in the region along with Rego Park, Queens and Tottenville on Staten Island-and as much as all of these communities differ, they are united in the belief that the super center model is not good for their neighborhood quality of life.
Shout outs here go to the elected officials like Ramapo Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence, Assemblywoman Ellen Jaffee, Spring Valley Mayor Darden and his town attorney Bruce Levine, and former legislator David Fried. All joined with us in insuring that the development would not go forward. And it goes without saying that UFCW Local 1262 and the UFCW regional office (with the vivacious Kate Keller) played a key role in aiding and abetting the Orthodox community's efforts to defeat the Walmonster.
Needless to say, all of this success rested on the tireless work of scores of local Monsey businessmen and community leaders. Numerous rabbis lent a hand and voiced their opposition, to the point that the local critical mass pushed a united political front that ended in success. Hats off to all!
In the letter, the developer told Ramapo; "...it has become apparent to National Realty and Development Corp. that the concerns of the Township cannot be met and the project will not be approved." As a result NR has officially pulled the plug, and the united community/labor and business effort to defeat the project is a rousing success.
Once again, the Walmonster meets legitimate community opposition and it folds its tent; with Monsey added to the Alliance honor role in the region along with Rego Park, Queens and Tottenville on Staten Island-and as much as all of these communities differ, they are united in the belief that the super center model is not good for their neighborhood quality of life.
Shout outs here go to the elected officials like Ramapo Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence, Assemblywoman Ellen Jaffee, Spring Valley Mayor Darden and his town attorney Bruce Levine, and former legislator David Fried. All joined with us in insuring that the development would not go forward. And it goes without saying that UFCW Local 1262 and the UFCW regional office (with the vivacious Kate Keller) played a key role in aiding and abetting the Orthodox community's efforts to defeat the Walmonster.
Needless to say, all of this success rested on the tireless work of scores of local Monsey businessmen and community leaders. Numerous rabbis lent a hand and voiced their opposition, to the point that the local critical mass pushed a united political front that ended in success. Hats off to all!
Fat Not Fit: The Need for a Better Public Health Policy
In today's NY Sun, James Knickman, the CEO of the NYS Health Foundation writes about the epidemic of diabetes in NYC: " In the last decade alone the number of people with diabetes in New York State has more than doubled. Right now, 1.5 million New Yorkers — roughly 7% of the state's population — suffer from some form of the disease. Diabetes now stands as the fifth leading cause of death among adults between 45 and 64 years of age. More disturbing is the fact that diabetes is the only chronic disease that continues to grow in prevalence, and at a faster pace than both heart disease and cancer."
What's clear from all of the research is that the diabetes prevalence is a direct result of increasing rates of obesity-and in both cases there are remedies available that involve prevention and social intervention strategies: "Type 2 diabetes is preventable and brought about by poor nutrition, lifestyle choices, and environmental factors that can be controlled. Most experts believe Type 2 diabetes is becoming more prevalent because our lifestyles are becoming ever-more sedentary and our diets are evermore dominated by high-calorie, high-fat, and convenient food choices."
But while we know that lifestyle is a key variable, we're not sure to what extent some of the various intervention strategies suggested make sense; that's where good public policy analysis is needed. For instance, Mr. Knickman suggests that, "We can no longer deny the effects of junk food and fast food that are the sad staples of the American diet — especially in low-income communities. Yet, the battle to curb the obesity and diabetes epidemic cannot be fought solely at the dinner table."
In response, Health Commissioner Frieden has devised a number of public health interventions that we find to be questionable-falling apart as soon as a decent immanent critique is offered. Certainly, the proposed use of calorie postings at fast food restaurants is a case in point; it sounds like a good idea until it is revealed that the methodology makes no sense and the efficacy of posting calories has no backing from any public health research.
That doesn't stop the Friedens of the world from plowing ahead, utilizing the real seriousness of the public health issues to bogart any reasonable gainsaying. Case in point was the resignation of Dr, Allison from the presidency of the Obesity Society when he had the gall to suggest that the emperor had no clothes-and there's no evidence in support of the efficacy of calorie posting. Supporting public health orthodoxy is more important than actually devising effective public policy.
Which brings us to another initiative-the promotion of fruit and vegetable peddlers. As Mr. Knickman points out; "True prevention requires much more than good lifestyle choices. It involves the social will to create environmental conditions that support healthy living. Our governments and employers can be more health-friendly by creating places to safely exercise — walking paths and bike paths — and by ensuring that healthy food choices such as fruits, vegetables, and low-fat foods are available in our schools and neighborhood groceries."
Putting peddlers in the street is simply no substitute for insuring that the city's neighborhoods have a plentiful supply of good food retailers-and in fact it can be seen as a real impediment, since no overhead peddlers compete with small produce stores and bodegas and diminish their profitability. The real solution in this area is the development of a policy that promotes the profitability of supermarkets and produce retailers in all of the city's neighborhoods.
This is a matter of public health and it deserves to be made a centerpiece of the mayor's final 18 months in office. With rents forcing out existing neighborhood markets, and development policies ignoring the central role of supermarkets in providing access to healthy foods, the city is facing a crisis.
We need to have public hearings on this, and the Central Labor Council, active on accountable development issues, needs to elevate supermarket siting to a central place in its development platform. But we can't stop there. We're at the crossroads of the "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink," dilemma.
Providing access to healthier foods and exercise venues doesn't mean that folks are going to change their behaviors. We need an aggressive social marketing campaign that goes right after the hearts and minds-something that has been started by Dr. Oz's HealthCorps, a Peace Corps variant that is currently in 28 city high schools.
Public policy must be supplemented by good grass roots awareness efforts-and everyone needs to be enlisted in a campaign to generate healthier lifestyles in the city. Policy edicts that aren't accompanied by social marketing campaigns will not have the desired impact. Public health professionals need to collaborate with food businesses and community leaders in a campaign that addresses the city's serious health issues. It's about time that we all rowed together.
What's clear from all of the research is that the diabetes prevalence is a direct result of increasing rates of obesity-and in both cases there are remedies available that involve prevention and social intervention strategies: "Type 2 diabetes is preventable and brought about by poor nutrition, lifestyle choices, and environmental factors that can be controlled. Most experts believe Type 2 diabetes is becoming more prevalent because our lifestyles are becoming ever-more sedentary and our diets are evermore dominated by high-calorie, high-fat, and convenient food choices."
But while we know that lifestyle is a key variable, we're not sure to what extent some of the various intervention strategies suggested make sense; that's where good public policy analysis is needed. For instance, Mr. Knickman suggests that, "We can no longer deny the effects of junk food and fast food that are the sad staples of the American diet — especially in low-income communities. Yet, the battle to curb the obesity and diabetes epidemic cannot be fought solely at the dinner table."
In response, Health Commissioner Frieden has devised a number of public health interventions that we find to be questionable-falling apart as soon as a decent immanent critique is offered. Certainly, the proposed use of calorie postings at fast food restaurants is a case in point; it sounds like a good idea until it is revealed that the methodology makes no sense and the efficacy of posting calories has no backing from any public health research.
That doesn't stop the Friedens of the world from plowing ahead, utilizing the real seriousness of the public health issues to bogart any reasonable gainsaying. Case in point was the resignation of Dr, Allison from the presidency of the Obesity Society when he had the gall to suggest that the emperor had no clothes-and there's no evidence in support of the efficacy of calorie posting. Supporting public health orthodoxy is more important than actually devising effective public policy.
Which brings us to another initiative-the promotion of fruit and vegetable peddlers. As Mr. Knickman points out; "True prevention requires much more than good lifestyle choices. It involves the social will to create environmental conditions that support healthy living. Our governments and employers can be more health-friendly by creating places to safely exercise — walking paths and bike paths — and by ensuring that healthy food choices such as fruits, vegetables, and low-fat foods are available in our schools and neighborhood groceries."
Putting peddlers in the street is simply no substitute for insuring that the city's neighborhoods have a plentiful supply of good food retailers-and in fact it can be seen as a real impediment, since no overhead peddlers compete with small produce stores and bodegas and diminish their profitability. The real solution in this area is the development of a policy that promotes the profitability of supermarkets and produce retailers in all of the city's neighborhoods.
This is a matter of public health and it deserves to be made a centerpiece of the mayor's final 18 months in office. With rents forcing out existing neighborhood markets, and development policies ignoring the central role of supermarkets in providing access to healthy foods, the city is facing a crisis.
We need to have public hearings on this, and the Central Labor Council, active on accountable development issues, needs to elevate supermarket siting to a central place in its development platform. But we can't stop there. We're at the crossroads of the "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink," dilemma.
Providing access to healthier foods and exercise venues doesn't mean that folks are going to change their behaviors. We need an aggressive social marketing campaign that goes right after the hearts and minds-something that has been started by Dr. Oz's HealthCorps, a Peace Corps variant that is currently in 28 city high schools.
Public policy must be supplemented by good grass roots awareness efforts-and everyone needs to be enlisted in a campaign to generate healthier lifestyles in the city. Policy edicts that aren't accompanied by social marketing campaigns will not have the desired impact. Public health professionals need to collaborate with food businesses and community leaders in a campaign that addresses the city's serious health issues. It's about time that we all rowed together.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Bell Tolling for Monsey Wal-Mart?
After months of no communication it now appears that the Town of Ramapo has lost patience with the developer of a proposed Wal-Mart on Route 50 in Monsey. As the Journal News reports: " The town was notifying the developers of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter yesterday that its plans for a Monsey store were considered to be abandoned.
That was the tack of Alan Simon, director of planning and zoning administration, who said the developer owed Ramapo about $25,000 for municipal fees. "I just sent them a letter today," Simon said. "If they want to continue the plan, they have to pay the $25,000."
The Town had requested more environmental and traffic data after the Alliance had its engineer, Brian Ketcham, thoroughly slice and dice the original submissions. Now after almost a year of hibernation it looks as if National Reality is in a "No Mas" mode. "Richard Lipsky, spokesman for Neighborhood Retail Alliance, viewed the company's lack of action as a potential victory for local businesses."
As we told the paper: "It's certainly unusual for a developer not to respond expeditiously to a request by a planning board," Lipsky said. "The time that has elapsed seems to indicate that the developer can't figure out how to meet the town's needs, or has lost interest." The inability of the developer to respond properly can be directly attributed to the fact that the Rout 59 site is not appropriate for such a large super center.
In addition, the reluctance of the developer to respond can also be attributed to the fact that the Alliance, with the support of Local 1262 of the UFCW and the overwhelming opposition of the Orthodox community in Monsey, made political support for the project problematic-a fact that was underscored by the public opposition to the project by Ramapo Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence in last November's election campaign; a campaign that St. Lawrence won due in large part to the monolithic support from Monsey's Jewish community. After all, when was the last time anti Walmonster ads were put out in Yiddish?
So now its put up or shut up for the Walmonster, and if it doesn't move ahead as we hope and expect, than another blow for small business and labor has been effectively struck by the Alliance and its allies: "Monsey area shop owners sought the alliance's representation more than two years ago when the plan was unveiled for the site of a former drive-in theater off Route 59.
The alliance has lobbied for small businesses in New York City for more than 20 years. It successfully fought against a Wal-Mart proposed in Staten Island in 2005."
If things work out, this should be a great day for small business and labor in Rockland County and the entire Metropolitan region. Let's stay tuned here, but still we need to give shout outs to all involved for the great effort so far.
That was the tack of Alan Simon, director of planning and zoning administration, who said the developer owed Ramapo about $25,000 for municipal fees. "I just sent them a letter today," Simon said. "If they want to continue the plan, they have to pay the $25,000."
The Town had requested more environmental and traffic data after the Alliance had its engineer, Brian Ketcham, thoroughly slice and dice the original submissions. Now after almost a year of hibernation it looks as if National Reality is in a "No Mas" mode. "Richard Lipsky, spokesman for Neighborhood Retail Alliance, viewed the company's lack of action as a potential victory for local businesses."
As we told the paper: "It's certainly unusual for a developer not to respond expeditiously to a request by a planning board," Lipsky said. "The time that has elapsed seems to indicate that the developer can't figure out how to meet the town's needs, or has lost interest." The inability of the developer to respond properly can be directly attributed to the fact that the Rout 59 site is not appropriate for such a large super center.
In addition, the reluctance of the developer to respond can also be attributed to the fact that the Alliance, with the support of Local 1262 of the UFCW and the overwhelming opposition of the Orthodox community in Monsey, made political support for the project problematic-a fact that was underscored by the public opposition to the project by Ramapo Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence in last November's election campaign; a campaign that St. Lawrence won due in large part to the monolithic support from Monsey's Jewish community. After all, when was the last time anti Walmonster ads were put out in Yiddish?
So now its put up or shut up for the Walmonster, and if it doesn't move ahead as we hope and expect, than another blow for small business and labor has been effectively struck by the Alliance and its allies: "Monsey area shop owners sought the alliance's representation more than two years ago when the plan was unveiled for the site of a former drive-in theater off Route 59.
The alliance has lobbied for small businesses in New York City for more than 20 years. It successfully fought against a Wal-Mart proposed in Staten Island in 2005."
If things work out, this should be a great day for small business and labor in Rockland County and the entire Metropolitan region. Let's stay tuned here, but still we need to give shout outs to all involved for the great effort so far.
Bobbsey Twins Hit a Roadblock
In today's NY Times the intrepid Charles Bagli details the impasse that has been reached with the development of the new Moynihan Station: "Critics say the heart of the original plan — an elegant station — has become almost an afterthought. The developers, Stephen M. Ross of the Related Companies and Steven Roth of Vornado Realty Trust, have proposed building 1.1 million square feet of shops and department stores in the new Penn Station, more than eight times the amount of retail space at Grand Central Terminal."
Maybe since the projects prospects, according to the NY Post, look "slimmer" every day, we should get new developers; and not the two favored nations that have glommed on to almost all of the lucrative public projects in the city over the past six years. Isn't it amazing that Related and Vornado have been able to be so successful in a climate that has eliminated all evidence of special interest favoritism?
And what of the great public benefits that these two public spirited entities will bring forth if they are able to somehow resurrect Moynihan? As Professor Eliot Sclar puts it: “Public-private partnerships are now one-sided arrangements in which the public actors no longer plan public spaces in the public interest,” said Elliott Sclar, a professor of urban planning at Columbia University. “Instead they facilitate private-sector developments of these spaces in exchange for slight public amenities. In this case, the public gets the chance to catch a train in the basement of a vertical shopping mall.”
Maybe it's time for the Bloombergistas to start to do some actual planning rather than turn the city over to the two box store kings. That would require, however, a conception of the public good that is foreign to our philosopher king mayor, someone whose world view doesn't extend much past the private clubs that he is feted at as the fourth richest man in NYC.
Maybe since the projects prospects, according to the NY Post, look "slimmer" every day, we should get new developers; and not the two favored nations that have glommed on to almost all of the lucrative public projects in the city over the past six years. Isn't it amazing that Related and Vornado have been able to be so successful in a climate that has eliminated all evidence of special interest favoritism?
And what of the great public benefits that these two public spirited entities will bring forth if they are able to somehow resurrect Moynihan? As Professor Eliot Sclar puts it: “Public-private partnerships are now one-sided arrangements in which the public actors no longer plan public spaces in the public interest,” said Elliott Sclar, a professor of urban planning at Columbia University. “Instead they facilitate private-sector developments of these spaces in exchange for slight public amenities. In this case, the public gets the chance to catch a train in the basement of a vertical shopping mall.”
Maybe it's time for the Bloombergistas to start to do some actual planning rather than turn the city over to the two box store kings. That would require, however, a conception of the public good that is foreign to our philosopher king mayor, someone whose world view doesn't extend much past the private clubs that he is feted at as the fourth richest man in NYC.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Unaccountable Development and the Special Interests
In today's NY Daily News, Juan Gonzales goes after the Pfizer Company for failing to increase employment as a condition of a lavish tax break orchestrated by EDC: "This makes Pfizer the latest giant company to milk the city for lucrative tax breaks by promising to create jobs - only to turn around and cut its workforce. Four years ago, Pfizer signed an agreement for nearly $10 million in tax breaks with the Bloomberg administration. In return, the company promised to increase total employment at its Manhattan headquarters and its Brooklyn plant from 5,735 to 8,659."
Now the administration refuses to go after Pfizer to recoup the losses incurred by tax payers: "Last September, Pfizer quietly informed EDC it wouldn't be meeting its goal. The city then suspended the deal. By then, it was too late: Pfizer had received virtually all the tax breaks.
The Bloomberg administration, which has long promised to end such corporate welfare, says it has no intention of asking for the taxpayers' money back."
Of course it won't, it too busy whacking the ability of small businesses to remain competitive-and running out the merchants at the BTM to make way for a real estate sweetheart deal. Not to mention the attempt by EDC to close La Marqueta on Moore Street-putting more small merchants out in the street to pave the way for development.
Now Pfizer is looking to make a killing on the sale of its factory site, with a development deal that will be subject to a number of city approvals. It's time for the company to be made to pay back. The Pfizer site would be ideal for the building of a brand new supermarket-along with a number of other important city goals like affordable housing. If the city is serious about healthy food options and affordable housing, then Pfizer is a wonderful test case. It's time that this administration put its money where its mouth is.
Now the administration refuses to go after Pfizer to recoup the losses incurred by tax payers: "Last September, Pfizer quietly informed EDC it wouldn't be meeting its goal. The city then suspended the deal. By then, it was too late: Pfizer had received virtually all the tax breaks.
The Bloomberg administration, which has long promised to end such corporate welfare, says it has no intention of asking for the taxpayers' money back."
Of course it won't, it too busy whacking the ability of small businesses to remain competitive-and running out the merchants at the BTM to make way for a real estate sweetheart deal. Not to mention the attempt by EDC to close La Marqueta on Moore Street-putting more small merchants out in the street to pave the way for development.
Now Pfizer is looking to make a killing on the sale of its factory site, with a development deal that will be subject to a number of city approvals. It's time for the company to be made to pay back. The Pfizer site would be ideal for the building of a brand new supermarket-along with a number of other important city goals like affordable housing. If the city is serious about healthy food options and affordable housing, then Pfizer is a wonderful test case. It's time that this administration put its money where its mouth is.
“L’État, C’est Moi”
In yesterday's NY Times, the paper examines the fallout from the mayor's decision to write a $500,000 check to Senate Republicans. The Democrats, needless to say, are a bit peeved over the lavish funding of their political opponents, and believe that it will diminish Bloomberg's ability to get his congestion tax passed: "Some Democrats said that the mayor’s decision to take sides in the bitter battle over the Senate will diminish his ability to win legislative support for his congestion pricing plan, which already appeared in some doubt. In order to qualify for federal financing, the mayor needs approval by the City Council and the Legislature by March 31 for the proposal, which would impose a fee on those who drive into the busiest part of Manhattan during workdays."
In addition, Democrats were taken aback by the mayor's fulsome praise for how much the Republican leadership of Joe Bruno had helped the city: "In terms of making a donation to help the Republicans, they’ve been there for us,” Mr. Bloomberg said in Florida on Monday. “I’ve said repeatedly, I will help those who help us. They’ve come and stood up for the city a number of times when we needed to have a voice in Albany and didn’t have that voice from the Assembly or from the governor, whether it was the last governor or this governor,” the mayor added."
All of which got Assembly Speaker Silver hot under the collar-a fine political mess instigated by the lord of the manor himself. But when informed that his largess might have political impact, the mayor bristled: "When a reporter traveling with Mr. Bloomberg in Florida suggested to him that the contribution might hurt his legislation’s chances, the mayor bristled. “Think about what you’re saying,” he said. “You’re saying that those decisions are made based on politics rather than what’s right for the city. We certainly need congestion pricing, and it would be an outrage. Just for anybody to suggest that that’s the basis on which they’re going to make decisions, or that others would make a decision, I find reprehensible.”
So let's get this straight. The mayor establishes himself as the biggest donor of a party that the governor and the senate Democrats are trying to unseat from power, but takes umbrage over their outrage over his political Big Footism-and accuses them of placing politics above the city's interests. Can he be that self-absorbed?
The congestion tax is hotly contested on the merits-and how it will impact certain constituencies. The policy debate, however, takes place in a political context-as all such debates do. For example, the recently passed green carts bill wouldn't get more than ten voters in the city council if forced to stand alone without the speaker's support; yet it passed with a super majority. Why? It's simple. The council members were loath to cross a speaker who controls the upcoming budget process. We didn't hear any outrage over this from the mayor because he supports the measure. This is what's known as a solipsism, which is defined :
1.
Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
2.
extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.
Promoting the mayor's agenda is good government no matter what the underlying politics-and have we mentioned the public auction conducted by the Bloombergistas over their solicitation of support for the congestion tax? What does giving out goodies to council members have to do with good government?
So what we have here is what we have observed all along. The mayor sees "special interests" as those that thwart his own policies, and in the process he repeatedly conflates his own interests with the public good. Which is precisely why he gets whacked when forced to negotiate with political equals. As one legislator told the Times: "You don’t want to stick your thumb in the eye of people that you want to help you,” said Assemblyman Carl E. Heastie, a Bronx Democrat. “Any mayor of the City of New York needs the governor as an ally, I think, a little more than the governor needs the mayor, because there’s so much that the Legislature does to help the city.”
Which is why the mayor's congestion tax is deservedly on life supports-and why the West Side won't have a stadium. And don't think that the Bloomberg for governor talk won't lubricate the negotiations in Albany. The bottom line is that Mike Bloomberg-and the "good government" NYC Partnership-sees congestion taxing as good for the city; others disagree in a process we call political. And when you contribute $500,000 to political opponents don't react shocked when they pay you back in kind.
In addition, Democrats were taken aback by the mayor's fulsome praise for how much the Republican leadership of Joe Bruno had helped the city: "In terms of making a donation to help the Republicans, they’ve been there for us,” Mr. Bloomberg said in Florida on Monday. “I’ve said repeatedly, I will help those who help us. They’ve come and stood up for the city a number of times when we needed to have a voice in Albany and didn’t have that voice from the Assembly or from the governor, whether it was the last governor or this governor,” the mayor added."
All of which got Assembly Speaker Silver hot under the collar-a fine political mess instigated by the lord of the manor himself. But when informed that his largess might have political impact, the mayor bristled: "When a reporter traveling with Mr. Bloomberg in Florida suggested to him that the contribution might hurt his legislation’s chances, the mayor bristled. “Think about what you’re saying,” he said. “You’re saying that those decisions are made based on politics rather than what’s right for the city. We certainly need congestion pricing, and it would be an outrage. Just for anybody to suggest that that’s the basis on which they’re going to make decisions, or that others would make a decision, I find reprehensible.”
So let's get this straight. The mayor establishes himself as the biggest donor of a party that the governor and the senate Democrats are trying to unseat from power, but takes umbrage over their outrage over his political Big Footism-and accuses them of placing politics above the city's interests. Can he be that self-absorbed?
The congestion tax is hotly contested on the merits-and how it will impact certain constituencies. The policy debate, however, takes place in a political context-as all such debates do. For example, the recently passed green carts bill wouldn't get more than ten voters in the city council if forced to stand alone without the speaker's support; yet it passed with a super majority. Why? It's simple. The council members were loath to cross a speaker who controls the upcoming budget process. We didn't hear any outrage over this from the mayor because he supports the measure. This is what's known as a solipsism, which is defined :
1.
Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
2.
extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.
Promoting the mayor's agenda is good government no matter what the underlying politics-and have we mentioned the public auction conducted by the Bloombergistas over their solicitation of support for the congestion tax? What does giving out goodies to council members have to do with good government?
So what we have here is what we have observed all along. The mayor sees "special interests" as those that thwart his own policies, and in the process he repeatedly conflates his own interests with the public good. Which is precisely why he gets whacked when forced to negotiate with political equals. As one legislator told the Times: "You don’t want to stick your thumb in the eye of people that you want to help you,” said Assemblyman Carl E. Heastie, a Bronx Democrat. “Any mayor of the City of New York needs the governor as an ally, I think, a little more than the governor needs the mayor, because there’s so much that the Legislature does to help the city.”
Which is why the mayor's congestion tax is deservedly on life supports-and why the West Side won't have a stadium. And don't think that the Bloomberg for governor talk won't lubricate the negotiations in Albany. The bottom line is that Mike Bloomberg-and the "good government" NYC Partnership-sees congestion taxing as good for the city; others disagree in a process we call political. And when you contribute $500,000 to political opponents don't react shocked when they pay you back in kind.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Brother Can You Paradigm?
In today's NY Times there's a wonderful article on the resignation from the presidency of the Obesity Society by Dr. David Allison, a leading specialist on the subject. The piece underscores just how much the public health debate has become permeated by ideological presumptions that corrupt any effort at fair scientific inquiry: "Dr. Allison drew criticism from some members after he wrote an affidavit as a paid consultant on behalf of the restaurant industry, which is trying to block new rules in New York City that at the end of March will require fast-food and other restaurant chains to list the calories of menu items."
Now, as we understand them, the rules for scientific inquiry demand that all research be peer reviewed and, where possible replicable by others using similar data. In truth, it really shouldn't matter from any scientific vantage point, who's paying for the research. If one suspects that the research results are being driven by a pay check than the door is open to demonstrate that the conclusions are not supported by the facts.
That is no longer the case with public health-where certain shibboleths are sacrosanct and cannot be challenged if one wants to remain in good standing with the bien pensants of the profession: "Because the position of Dr. Allison ran counter to the conventional thinking in his field, some critics contended that it illustrated the way industry money influences scientific and medical debate." (watch out for the "some critics" usage at the Times; it portends bias).
The reality here, one that the Times steers clear of, is that researchers in public health are aware of what avenues of inquiry that should be avoided-because contrary data would be the real inconvenient truth. Here's what Allison's research showed: "In the affidavit, Dr. Allison said that there was not sufficient evidence to show the effect of calorie labeling on people who eat in restaurants, and that while it was possible such labels on menus could be helpful, it was equally possible that they could have no effect — or that they might increase obesity, in part by casting high-calorie foods as forbidden fruit."
Which is exactly the truth because there is no evidence of efficacy-as we've pointed out in the past. There is also no evidence that the current labels on manufactured food products does any good; since that FDA requirement is more or less coterminous with the current obesity epidemic.
Which doesn't stop the ideologues from wanting to shut the Allisons of the world up: "Dr. Allison’s affidavit had ignited a flurry of e-mail messages among obesity experts who questioned both Dr. Allison’s position and his industry ties. It also led the Obesity Society to issue its own separate statement in supporting calorie labeling on menus. “The Obesity Society believes that more information on the caloric content of restaurant servings, not less, is in the interests of consumers,” said the statement by the group, which is based in Silver Spring, Md."
But belief doesn't equal scientific evidence; and it more often than not equates to faith-based reasoning that is inimical to science-and more research is driven by ax-to-grind advocates than by industry. This research is never challenged for the corruption it might represent because of its provenance-only the industry is tainted, which leaves us with a one-sided debate driven by the loudest political voices convinced of their own rectitude; in this case the righteous fight against the evil fast food empire.
Now, as we understand them, the rules for scientific inquiry demand that all research be peer reviewed and, where possible replicable by others using similar data. In truth, it really shouldn't matter from any scientific vantage point, who's paying for the research. If one suspects that the research results are being driven by a pay check than the door is open to demonstrate that the conclusions are not supported by the facts.
That is no longer the case with public health-where certain shibboleths are sacrosanct and cannot be challenged if one wants to remain in good standing with the bien pensants of the profession: "Because the position of Dr. Allison ran counter to the conventional thinking in his field, some critics contended that it illustrated the way industry money influences scientific and medical debate." (watch out for the "some critics" usage at the Times; it portends bias).
The reality here, one that the Times steers clear of, is that researchers in public health are aware of what avenues of inquiry that should be avoided-because contrary data would be the real inconvenient truth. Here's what Allison's research showed: "In the affidavit, Dr. Allison said that there was not sufficient evidence to show the effect of calorie labeling on people who eat in restaurants, and that while it was possible such labels on menus could be helpful, it was equally possible that they could have no effect — or that they might increase obesity, in part by casting high-calorie foods as forbidden fruit."
Which is exactly the truth because there is no evidence of efficacy-as we've pointed out in the past. There is also no evidence that the current labels on manufactured food products does any good; since that FDA requirement is more or less coterminous with the current obesity epidemic.
Which doesn't stop the ideologues from wanting to shut the Allisons of the world up: "Dr. Allison’s affidavit had ignited a flurry of e-mail messages among obesity experts who questioned both Dr. Allison’s position and his industry ties. It also led the Obesity Society to issue its own separate statement in supporting calorie labeling on menus. “The Obesity Society believes that more information on the caloric content of restaurant servings, not less, is in the interests of consumers,” said the statement by the group, which is based in Silver Spring, Md."
But belief doesn't equal scientific evidence; and it more often than not equates to faith-based reasoning that is inimical to science-and more research is driven by ax-to-grind advocates than by industry. This research is never challenged for the corruption it might represent because of its provenance-only the industry is tainted, which leaves us with a one-sided debate driven by the loudest political voices convinced of their own rectitude; in this case the righteous fight against the evil fast food empire.
Daily News in Vegetative State
Nothing could illustrate our point about the need to collect accurate data about the location of the city's supermarkets, green grocers and bodegas (at least those that do provide fresh produce), than the piece in this morning's Brooklyn section of the NY Daily News on the introduction of 350 produce peddlers into the borough after the passage of Intro 665.
The article, relying almost exclusively on unverified and tendentious anecdotal data reinforces the reporter's preconceptions rather than providing a fair analysis of the retail realities in Brooklyn: "Twice a month, Fort Greene resident Alvira Gorham makes an expensive, hours-long pilgrimage for a basic necessity — food. Gorham takes two buses to a Brownsville supermarket and then spends $20 of her Social Security disability check on a cab to shuttle the groceries back to her apartment in the Farragut Houses. "We have nothing fresh here," said Gorham, 54. "We need someplace where we could shop and eat decently."
Well, let's see, the Farragut Houses happen to be right across the street from the Myrtle Avenue Associated Supermarket that was closed when the shopping strip was demolished to make way for luxury housing. Many residents of the project are being bused to Pathmark at Atlantic Center in an effort sponsored by Furee, a local community group, and by Local 1500 of the UFCW. Possibly somewhat of an anomaly?
Which is what happens when you use anecdotal evidence and eschew the data collection process-something that, ironically, was done in much more comprehensive fashion by a blogger at BushwickBK.com. Jeremy, the Bushwick blogger posted a map of the neighborhood that pinpointed the existence of 17 supermarkets; in a community that has been singled out by the city as bereft of retail produce out lets. As Jeremy points out: "There already are stores selling fresh produce all over these neighborhoods. Within a few blocks of my house, I have a full-size grocery store selling tons of fresh fruit, a handful of proper storefront fruit stands, and tens of bodegas which, despite legends suggesting the contrary, have plenty of fresh produce for the veggie enthusiast who has no time to walk another two blocks to the fruit stand and needs her mango right this second."
Apparently, the Daily News couldn't find the likes of Jeremy anywhere, but that's not surprising when you begin to write a story with preconceived views and are afraid of confronting any cognitive dissonance. As we've mentioned before, the same story that Jeremy relates could have been found in Crown Heights along Utica Avenue and on Fifth Avenue or Graham Avenue in other Brooklyn nabes that are targeted by the fruit folks.
Instead the News gets this quote: "The food groups around here are fried chicken, Big Macs and chocolate shakes," said Michele Balborvi, 30, of Crown Heights. "Green carts would be a terrific idea." If the reporter had ventured over to Eastern Parkway and Utica, she would have discovered ample evidence that the woman's observations were, if not just completely wrong, at least contradicted by the sheer number of produce outlets. Another reality is that many folks are convinced that there communities are being victimized even when the evidence may prove contradictory.
The reporter does allow us to point out that the green carts bill fails to control where the peddlers will locate, a failure that almost guarantees that the precepts of the legislation won't be achieved: "But Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, which represents bodegas, supermarkets and green markets, said the bill doesn't control where the vendors will peddle their produce. "We're not arguing that there may be some neighborhoods that lack access," Lipsky said. "If you don't target specifically areas that lack access, the vendors will gravitate toward the most active areas that already have produce outlets," he said, expressing concern the vendors, who don't have to pay rent, will undersell the stores."
She does, however, juxtapose our remarks with the following: "Bedford-Stuyvesant resident Dan Brady, 30, said there's no one to undersell in his neighborhood. "Look around - do you see fruits and vegetables? There's no green in Bed-Stuy," he said." Well, if the News did the look around it would have at least discovered the recently renovated 30,000 sq. ft. Foodtown at Restoration Plaza on Fulton, and many more outlets as well in the neighborhood; but, hey, why ruin a good quote?
And our buddy Jeremy makes the demand point as well: "The other is that fruits and vegetables are not overflowing in abundance on every corner in Bushwick and, say, Bed-Stuy, because they are not as much in demand as in fancy-pants Manhattan or what I imagine is a vegetarian-heavy Jackson Heights."
So we're back with the main point that we've been emphasizing all along: if we're going to make food policy let's proceed with a modicum of real world data-and if we're going to use survey instruments please take them out of the hands of ideologues who are looking to confirm their own prejudices. So far, this approach has yet to begin.
The article, relying almost exclusively on unverified and tendentious anecdotal data reinforces the reporter's preconceptions rather than providing a fair analysis of the retail realities in Brooklyn: "Twice a month, Fort Greene resident Alvira Gorham makes an expensive, hours-long pilgrimage for a basic necessity — food. Gorham takes two buses to a Brownsville supermarket and then spends $20 of her Social Security disability check on a cab to shuttle the groceries back to her apartment in the Farragut Houses. "We have nothing fresh here," said Gorham, 54. "We need someplace where we could shop and eat decently."
Well, let's see, the Farragut Houses happen to be right across the street from the Myrtle Avenue Associated Supermarket that was closed when the shopping strip was demolished to make way for luxury housing. Many residents of the project are being bused to Pathmark at Atlantic Center in an effort sponsored by Furee, a local community group, and by Local 1500 of the UFCW. Possibly somewhat of an anomaly?
Which is what happens when you use anecdotal evidence and eschew the data collection process-something that, ironically, was done in much more comprehensive fashion by a blogger at BushwickBK.com. Jeremy, the Bushwick blogger posted a map of the neighborhood that pinpointed the existence of 17 supermarkets; in a community that has been singled out by the city as bereft of retail produce out lets. As Jeremy points out: "There already are stores selling fresh produce all over these neighborhoods. Within a few blocks of my house, I have a full-size grocery store selling tons of fresh fruit, a handful of proper storefront fruit stands, and tens of bodegas which, despite legends suggesting the contrary, have plenty of fresh produce for the veggie enthusiast who has no time to walk another two blocks to the fruit stand and needs her mango right this second."
Apparently, the Daily News couldn't find the likes of Jeremy anywhere, but that's not surprising when you begin to write a story with preconceived views and are afraid of confronting any cognitive dissonance. As we've mentioned before, the same story that Jeremy relates could have been found in Crown Heights along Utica Avenue and on Fifth Avenue or Graham Avenue in other Brooklyn nabes that are targeted by the fruit folks.
Instead the News gets this quote: "The food groups around here are fried chicken, Big Macs and chocolate shakes," said Michele Balborvi, 30, of Crown Heights. "Green carts would be a terrific idea." If the reporter had ventured over to Eastern Parkway and Utica, she would have discovered ample evidence that the woman's observations were, if not just completely wrong, at least contradicted by the sheer number of produce outlets. Another reality is that many folks are convinced that there communities are being victimized even when the evidence may prove contradictory.
The reporter does allow us to point out that the green carts bill fails to control where the peddlers will locate, a failure that almost guarantees that the precepts of the legislation won't be achieved: "But Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, which represents bodegas, supermarkets and green markets, said the bill doesn't control where the vendors will peddle their produce. "We're not arguing that there may be some neighborhoods that lack access," Lipsky said. "If you don't target specifically areas that lack access, the vendors will gravitate toward the most active areas that already have produce outlets," he said, expressing concern the vendors, who don't have to pay rent, will undersell the stores."
She does, however, juxtapose our remarks with the following: "Bedford-Stuyvesant resident Dan Brady, 30, said there's no one to undersell in his neighborhood. "Look around - do you see fruits and vegetables? There's no green in Bed-Stuy," he said." Well, if the News did the look around it would have at least discovered the recently renovated 30,000 sq. ft. Foodtown at Restoration Plaza on Fulton, and many more outlets as well in the neighborhood; but, hey, why ruin a good quote?
And our buddy Jeremy makes the demand point as well: "The other is that fruits and vegetables are not overflowing in abundance on every corner in Bushwick and, say, Bed-Stuy, because they are not as much in demand as in fancy-pants Manhattan or what I imagine is a vegetarian-heavy Jackson Heights."
So we're back with the main point that we've been emphasizing all along: if we're going to make food policy let's proceed with a modicum of real world data-and if we're going to use survey instruments please take them out of the hands of ideologues who are looking to confirm their own prejudices. So far, this approach has yet to begin.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Toward a Genuine Food Policy
The recently concluded fight over the green carts bill has produced at least one salutary repercussion: an acknowledgement by all of the participants on both sides of the battle that the city needs to craft a meaningful food policy-a policy that engages store owners and their suppliers and one that doesn't rely exclusively on the somewhat limited outlooks of health and food advocates. We're hopeful that the work on developing this policy can now begin in earnest because there are real challenging issues that face all of us who are concerned with both healthy eating as well as a healthy neighborhood business climate.
One of the major challenges here devolves from the issue of affordability-something that Errol Louis underscores in yesterday's NY Daily News: "Far too many of the 300,000 or so New Yorkers who pack up each year to relocate elsewhere in America are only going as far as the suburbs, many of them heartbroken that the city of their youth and dreams has become a place where housing costs too much, taxes and fees are too high, the schools don't work and there aren't enough good jobs to go around." And, of course, this applies to scores of neighborhoods throughout the city where the local independently owned retailers are being forced out by rising rents in favor of chain drug stores and banks.
For many of New York's supermarket owners, the city's neighborhoods are rapidly becoming unaffordable; with the resulting decline of good food at reasonable prices for our middle class neighborhoods-adding to the supermarket gap in low income areas that has been amply chronicled. A New York City food policy needs to treat the delivery of healthy food as an essential service; and to treat the viability of neighborhood food retailers as a government priority in achieving this policy objective.
In order to develop this in the right manner the city needs to accurately understand the challenges of food retailing in all of the city's diverse neighborhoods. The task should begin with a comprehensive city mapping of food stores, and a series of in-depth discussions with retailers and their food suppliers. For way too long an understanding of this issue, particularly in the media, has been delegated to folks who have a limited understanding of the realities of food distribution and retailing.
Some of this misconstruing of food realities is on display in a recent post in the Gotham Gazette, an outlet that has yet to post anything from someone who actually knows something about the topic. In this missive, Jennifer March-Joly dots the "I's" and crosses the "T's" of our point: "While some New Yorkers enjoy the "luxury" of a grocery store just down the block, many low-income families live far from any place to buy healthy, high-quality produce at affordable prices. Hundreds of thousands of New York City residents live in neighborhoods with no supermarket, no green grocer and no farmers market. Families must go to great lengths to purchase food outside their neighborhoods or make do with what corner bodegas supply -- largely canned and boxed goods."
The fact is that almost every city neighborhood has a supermarket, or in most cases a multiple of such markets. We need to go beyond rhetoric and ideology and begin to identify just where there aren't any markets-and devise ways to insure that the obstacles preventing their presence are overcome. At the same time, we need to insure that any policy that encourages the siting of new markets doesn't exclude independent neighborhood operators like the folks at Key Food who operate over 100 local supermarkets in the boroughs-or the largely Dominican-owned C-Towns, Pioneers, Bravos and Met Foods that have done so much to revitalize many local shopping districts.
In this we are in agreement with March-Joly: "Ideally, every neighborhood would have a grocery store or supermarket within walking distance of the majority of its residents. Supermarkets relieve a neighborhood's food deficit, anchor a community and provide good stable jobs." However, we need specific locations and not empty bloviating on this topic-with opportunities for existing retailers to take advantage of any incentives that government policy may offer.
We don't need to simply replace hard-working independents with large chain markets; an equitable policy needs to find the proper balance in all of this, recognizing that in certain neighborhoods immigrant store owners reflect the demographics of the community. And we need to transcend the simplistic depiction of certain consumption habits, a characterization that places blame on the existing stores or the lack of existing stores for the failure of certain folks to eat healthier food.
More in-depth evaluation needs to be done about why people choose to eat certain less healthy things. In another Gotham Gazette post we get the following instructive corrective in a discussion of the city's Healthy Bodega" program: "What is true, said some advocates, is participating has proved to be difficult for some owners. Some bodegas do not have adequate space for fresh produce, while others cannot afford to lose profits on a product whose shelf life is relatively short. "Lets say you stock up on watermelons for Memorial Day and it rains," said Joel Berg, the executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. "If you're a small bodega, you're out."
And, as one bodega owner remarks; "Eating healthy is expensive," said Ali Saleh, the owner's brother. "People come in here with $3, and they still owe us a quarter." Health department officials said they are exploring ways to help bodegas get loans so they can afford to either purchase fruits and vegetables or revamp their stores to make room for them. Those loans, though, will not necessarily make such food more affordable to their customers."
Which may mean that a great deal more grass roots education needs to be done-and the hopefulness from our friend Sabrina Baronberg at DOH may be just a tad optimistic: "We know there is focused demand in the community," said Baronberg. "It's not true that people in these communities are not interested." Of course, if demand was truly in place stores would be scurrying to fill it-just as they do when a neighborhood gentrifies. As Sung Soo Kim told the Gazette: "Built-in unhealthy diet patterns, the fundamental cause of the health problem, must be changed through a long-term, protracted educational campaign by the government, health food advocates, schools and shopkeepers in cooperation."
Ironically, the folks at Jetro Cash & Carry are training their customers to adapt to the changes that the city wants-providing information on how to handle fresh produce and sell other healthier items; no one from the DOH or EDC has ever had a discussion with Jetro even though the company supplies almost all of the 13,000 bodegas and sees around 5,000 store owners a week at its Hamilton Avenue warehouse alone (Jetro has five city outlets).
Any nascent food policy must involve the Jetros, the Key Foods, the National Supermarket Association, the green grocers and the unions that represent supermarket workers, if it is going to have a successful impact. We need to beyond ideology and collaborate with those folks who actually know what is going on in the streets of our city-and who understand the challenges of running a successful business in a city that is often hostile to neighborhood entrepreneurs.
One of the major challenges here devolves from the issue of affordability-something that Errol Louis underscores in yesterday's NY Daily News: "Far too many of the 300,000 or so New Yorkers who pack up each year to relocate elsewhere in America are only going as far as the suburbs, many of them heartbroken that the city of their youth and dreams has become a place where housing costs too much, taxes and fees are too high, the schools don't work and there aren't enough good jobs to go around." And, of course, this applies to scores of neighborhoods throughout the city where the local independently owned retailers are being forced out by rising rents in favor of chain drug stores and banks.
For many of New York's supermarket owners, the city's neighborhoods are rapidly becoming unaffordable; with the resulting decline of good food at reasonable prices for our middle class neighborhoods-adding to the supermarket gap in low income areas that has been amply chronicled. A New York City food policy needs to treat the delivery of healthy food as an essential service; and to treat the viability of neighborhood food retailers as a government priority in achieving this policy objective.
In order to develop this in the right manner the city needs to accurately understand the challenges of food retailing in all of the city's diverse neighborhoods. The task should begin with a comprehensive city mapping of food stores, and a series of in-depth discussions with retailers and their food suppliers. For way too long an understanding of this issue, particularly in the media, has been delegated to folks who have a limited understanding of the realities of food distribution and retailing.
Some of this misconstruing of food realities is on display in a recent post in the Gotham Gazette, an outlet that has yet to post anything from someone who actually knows something about the topic. In this missive, Jennifer March-Joly dots the "I's" and crosses the "T's" of our point: "While some New Yorkers enjoy the "luxury" of a grocery store just down the block, many low-income families live far from any place to buy healthy, high-quality produce at affordable prices. Hundreds of thousands of New York City residents live in neighborhoods with no supermarket, no green grocer and no farmers market. Families must go to great lengths to purchase food outside their neighborhoods or make do with what corner bodegas supply -- largely canned and boxed goods."
The fact is that almost every city neighborhood has a supermarket, or in most cases a multiple of such markets. We need to go beyond rhetoric and ideology and begin to identify just where there aren't any markets-and devise ways to insure that the obstacles preventing their presence are overcome. At the same time, we need to insure that any policy that encourages the siting of new markets doesn't exclude independent neighborhood operators like the folks at Key Food who operate over 100 local supermarkets in the boroughs-or the largely Dominican-owned C-Towns, Pioneers, Bravos and Met Foods that have done so much to revitalize many local shopping districts.
In this we are in agreement with March-Joly: "Ideally, every neighborhood would have a grocery store or supermarket within walking distance of the majority of its residents. Supermarkets relieve a neighborhood's food deficit, anchor a community and provide good stable jobs." However, we need specific locations and not empty bloviating on this topic-with opportunities for existing retailers to take advantage of any incentives that government policy may offer.
We don't need to simply replace hard-working independents with large chain markets; an equitable policy needs to find the proper balance in all of this, recognizing that in certain neighborhoods immigrant store owners reflect the demographics of the community. And we need to transcend the simplistic depiction of certain consumption habits, a characterization that places blame on the existing stores or the lack of existing stores for the failure of certain folks to eat healthier food.
More in-depth evaluation needs to be done about why people choose to eat certain less healthy things. In another Gotham Gazette post we get the following instructive corrective in a discussion of the city's Healthy Bodega" program: "What is true, said some advocates, is participating has proved to be difficult for some owners. Some bodegas do not have adequate space for fresh produce, while others cannot afford to lose profits on a product whose shelf life is relatively short. "Lets say you stock up on watermelons for Memorial Day and it rains," said Joel Berg, the executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. "If you're a small bodega, you're out."
And, as one bodega owner remarks; "Eating healthy is expensive," said Ali Saleh, the owner's brother. "People come in here with $3, and they still owe us a quarter." Health department officials said they are exploring ways to help bodegas get loans so they can afford to either purchase fruits and vegetables or revamp their stores to make room for them. Those loans, though, will not necessarily make such food more affordable to their customers."
Which may mean that a great deal more grass roots education needs to be done-and the hopefulness from our friend Sabrina Baronberg at DOH may be just a tad optimistic: "We know there is focused demand in the community," said Baronberg. "It's not true that people in these communities are not interested." Of course, if demand was truly in place stores would be scurrying to fill it-just as they do when a neighborhood gentrifies. As Sung Soo Kim told the Gazette: "Built-in unhealthy diet patterns, the fundamental cause of the health problem, must be changed through a long-term, protracted educational campaign by the government, health food advocates, schools and shopkeepers in cooperation."
Ironically, the folks at Jetro Cash & Carry are training their customers to adapt to the changes that the city wants-providing information on how to handle fresh produce and sell other healthier items; no one from the DOH or EDC has ever had a discussion with Jetro even though the company supplies almost all of the 13,000 bodegas and sees around 5,000 store owners a week at its Hamilton Avenue warehouse alone (Jetro has five city outlets).
Any nascent food policy must involve the Jetros, the Key Foods, the National Supermarket Association, the green grocers and the unions that represent supermarket workers, if it is going to have a successful impact. We need to beyond ideology and collaborate with those folks who actually know what is going on in the streets of our city-and who understand the challenges of running a successful business in a city that is often hostile to neighborhood entrepreneurs.
Fruity Logic Prevails Once Again at the Times
It is getting to be somewhat like a catechism with the Times. Take any issue that could impact on the health of neighborhood business and the paper can be guaranteed to support the position that is most antithetical to the interests of small and minority business. On Saturday the shameful tradition continued with the Times editorializing in favor of the green carts legislation.
When the Times sets out on this path two things generally happen: the first is to disparage local retailers; the second, because the editors simply have no clue about anything that's occurring outside of their insulated island, is the complete misrepresentation of the reality of the city's neighborhood shopping areas. To wit: "Health experts have taken to calling low-income neighborhoods “food deserts,” and it is easy to see why. Supermarkets are usually in short supply and specialty produce and health-food stores are even rarer. Residents are often forced to do their food shopping in small grocery stores that carry few fresh fruits and vegetables."
"Health experts?" Now there's an interesting turn of phrase. You see a health expert is in no way a retail food expert, and to conflate the two is to obfuscate neighborhood realities-in the interest of the patronizing elites who, like Lawrence of Arabia, want to see the natives bring a bloom to their deserts.
The neighborhood realities, however, are more complex-and the Times is replaying its phony-"Where Supermarkets are Never Super"-headlines that did so much to drive the megastore proposal in the Giuliani mayoralty that was eventually defeated by council members who knew a great deal more about what was going on in the city than the salons at the NY Times.
As we've been pointing out there are 900 local supermarkets in the city and over 2,000 green grocers (a fact that the paper reported but the editors must have missed); and many of these businesses are in the neighborhoods targeted by the green carts bill. Unfortunately, since their driven by an ideology untainted by data, the Times doesn't recognize this so it can't address the issue of unfair competition, or the faulty "retail desert" premise behind the legislation (a premise that was swallowed whole by the gullible folks down at the paper).
This is, after all, the paper that told us a couple of years ago that the bodega was a vanishing institution in the city's low income communities-something that the 13,000 minority entrepreneurs would have been surprised to find out if they had actually had the time or inclination to read this bit of sharp investigative journalism. The good folks over at Jetro Cash & Carry would have been surprised as well, since this rapidly expanding company, with five warehouses in New York City, has built a profitable business supplying bodegas and independent restaurants.
So we're left with the editorial blinders that have come to signify what the Times offers to its elite and dwindling Manhattan readership. Last Friday, as we drove down Utica Avenue in Crown Heights, we counted fifteen fruit and vegetable outlets. Fifth Avenue in Sunset Park has at least five along a mile stretch-along with four neighborhood supermarkets. Graham Avenue's the same in Williamsburg; and the city wants to close La Marqueta on Moore Street-a large purveyor of fresh produce that was built to take peddlers off of the street (talk about dissonance!).
Then we get to the demand side of the equation that the Times obliquely highlights in its confusion: "There are already about 4,000 so-called green carts, but they rarely venture far from the tonier — and healthier — neighborhoods. The new initiative will put green carts on the sidewalks of the poorest areas, which are home to a disproportionate share of roughly half of the city’s residents who are overweight."
What's stopping the 4,000 street peddlers from going into the food deserts? Perhaps Gail Collins or Eleanor Randolf or Brent Staples-Times editors all- will take up a cart and head out into Bushwick and East New York in order to supplement their meager incomes. Go ahead make our day and prove us wrong guys. The one caveat here, however, is that you have to set up your cart in an area where there are no existing produce outlet.
The Times does give a modest nod to the demand question: "The city could help even more by publicizing the green carts in their new neighborhoods, reminding residents of the benefits of a healthy diet, and handing out recipes for cooking with fresh produce." Of course, given the fact that the paper is clueless about the actual retail environment, it fails to exhort our good leaders to use this kind of social marketing to drive demand at the neighborhood stores that are in the business of supplying communities with produce; stores that are providing employment for thousands of immigrants and sustaining the quality of life in city neighborhoods.
So what we're left with out of all of this pernicious myopia is the failure to accurately understand what New York City's food policy needs actually are-especially as gentrification is driving away local supermarkets, and high taxes and over-regulation is making it difficult for the small green grocer to survive or possibly even thrive.
We're not totally disheartened here. There are folks in city government who apparently do get it. The development of a healthy food policy is going to need to have the input of the real experts-the retailers and their suppliers who actually know about the prevailing climate in the neighborhoods of the city. What's painfully clear, however, is that the NY Times editors will be of little help given the clueless state in which they operate.
When the Times sets out on this path two things generally happen: the first is to disparage local retailers; the second, because the editors simply have no clue about anything that's occurring outside of their insulated island, is the complete misrepresentation of the reality of the city's neighborhood shopping areas. To wit: "Health experts have taken to calling low-income neighborhoods “food deserts,” and it is easy to see why. Supermarkets are usually in short supply and specialty produce and health-food stores are even rarer. Residents are often forced to do their food shopping in small grocery stores that carry few fresh fruits and vegetables."
"Health experts?" Now there's an interesting turn of phrase. You see a health expert is in no way a retail food expert, and to conflate the two is to obfuscate neighborhood realities-in the interest of the patronizing elites who, like Lawrence of Arabia, want to see the natives bring a bloom to their deserts.
The neighborhood realities, however, are more complex-and the Times is replaying its phony-"Where Supermarkets are Never Super"-headlines that did so much to drive the megastore proposal in the Giuliani mayoralty that was eventually defeated by council members who knew a great deal more about what was going on in the city than the salons at the NY Times.
As we've been pointing out there are 900 local supermarkets in the city and over 2,000 green grocers (a fact that the paper reported but the editors must have missed); and many of these businesses are in the neighborhoods targeted by the green carts bill. Unfortunately, since their driven by an ideology untainted by data, the Times doesn't recognize this so it can't address the issue of unfair competition, or the faulty "retail desert" premise behind the legislation (a premise that was swallowed whole by the gullible folks down at the paper).
This is, after all, the paper that told us a couple of years ago that the bodega was a vanishing institution in the city's low income communities-something that the 13,000 minority entrepreneurs would have been surprised to find out if they had actually had the time or inclination to read this bit of sharp investigative journalism. The good folks over at Jetro Cash & Carry would have been surprised as well, since this rapidly expanding company, with five warehouses in New York City, has built a profitable business supplying bodegas and independent restaurants.
So we're left with the editorial blinders that have come to signify what the Times offers to its elite and dwindling Manhattan readership. Last Friday, as we drove down Utica Avenue in Crown Heights, we counted fifteen fruit and vegetable outlets. Fifth Avenue in Sunset Park has at least five along a mile stretch-along with four neighborhood supermarkets. Graham Avenue's the same in Williamsburg; and the city wants to close La Marqueta on Moore Street-a large purveyor of fresh produce that was built to take peddlers off of the street (talk about dissonance!).
Then we get to the demand side of the equation that the Times obliquely highlights in its confusion: "There are already about 4,000 so-called green carts, but they rarely venture far from the tonier — and healthier — neighborhoods. The new initiative will put green carts on the sidewalks of the poorest areas, which are home to a disproportionate share of roughly half of the city’s residents who are overweight."
What's stopping the 4,000 street peddlers from going into the food deserts? Perhaps Gail Collins or Eleanor Randolf or Brent Staples-Times editors all- will take up a cart and head out into Bushwick and East New York in order to supplement their meager incomes. Go ahead make our day and prove us wrong guys. The one caveat here, however, is that you have to set up your cart in an area where there are no existing produce outlet.
The Times does give a modest nod to the demand question: "The city could help even more by publicizing the green carts in their new neighborhoods, reminding residents of the benefits of a healthy diet, and handing out recipes for cooking with fresh produce." Of course, given the fact that the paper is clueless about the actual retail environment, it fails to exhort our good leaders to use this kind of social marketing to drive demand at the neighborhood stores that are in the business of supplying communities with produce; stores that are providing employment for thousands of immigrants and sustaining the quality of life in city neighborhoods.
So what we're left with out of all of this pernicious myopia is the failure to accurately understand what New York City's food policy needs actually are-especially as gentrification is driving away local supermarkets, and high taxes and over-regulation is making it difficult for the small green grocer to survive or possibly even thrive.
We're not totally disheartened here. There are folks in city government who apparently do get it. The development of a healthy food policy is going to need to have the input of the real experts-the retailers and their suppliers who actually know about the prevailing climate in the neighborhoods of the city. What's painfully clear, however, is that the NY Times editors will be of little help given the clueless state in which they operate.
Double Standards
In Saturday's NY Times the paper reports on the efforts of Mayor Bloomberg to prop up the sagging fortunes of the Republican-controlled state senate. So much for the faux non-partisanship that was animating the make believe ballroom campaign of the mayor. As Liz commented: "The implications of this are mind-boggling. Bloomberg, who has quit both the Democratic and Republican parties, is risking his already strained relationship with Gov. Eliot Spitzer, whom the Senate GOP has been encouraging the mayor to challenge in 2010 (so far to no avail), to help the struggling majority in their fight-to-the death against Spitzer and his fellow Democrats."
But why would he do this? Liz puts her finger on the reason: "Or is he merely doing this out of loyalty for Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and his GOP conference, who have carried the mayor's water on numerous occasions in Albany? (That list is too long to tally in full, but just remember who sided with Bloomberg during the congestion pricing battle). Fixed." Remember Malcom Smith abandoned Bloomberg on the congestion tax issue.
Which is basically what we've been arguing all along: the mayor uses his own money to promote that uniquely special interest-his own. Remember Juan Gonzales' famous line: "But, as Juan Gonzales pointed out a while ago: "Our mayor claims he is a leader who can't be bought. Of course not-he's the one doing the buying."
Say what you want about congestion pricing, the one thing about the issue that's incontravertible is that it's wildly unpopular-supported mainly by special interest environmental elitists; and of course the mayor who knows best. The bottom line here? The mayor wants to restrict the ability of candidates to fund campaigns, and he wants to limit the power of lobbyists, money, and special interests. The only thing that remains unlimited is Mike Bloomberg's ability to do whatever he wants and spend whatever he wants. Which reminds us of the Giuliani slogan, "One city, one standard," a slogan which lead to the rejoinder-yeah, "the double standard."
But why would he do this? Liz puts her finger on the reason: "Or is he merely doing this out of loyalty for Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and his GOP conference, who have carried the mayor's water on numerous occasions in Albany? (That list is too long to tally in full, but just remember who sided with Bloomberg during the congestion pricing battle). Fixed." Remember Malcom Smith abandoned Bloomberg on the congestion tax issue.
Which is basically what we've been arguing all along: the mayor uses his own money to promote that uniquely special interest-his own. Remember Juan Gonzales' famous line: "But, as Juan Gonzales pointed out a while ago: "Our mayor claims he is a leader who can't be bought. Of course not-he's the one doing the buying."
Say what you want about congestion pricing, the one thing about the issue that's incontravertible is that it's wildly unpopular-supported mainly by special interest environmental elitists; and of course the mayor who knows best. The bottom line here? The mayor wants to restrict the ability of candidates to fund campaigns, and he wants to limit the power of lobbyists, money, and special interests. The only thing that remains unlimited is Mike Bloomberg's ability to do whatever he wants and spend whatever he wants. Which reminds us of the Giuliani slogan, "One city, one standard," a slogan which lead to the rejoinder-yeah, "the double standard."
Friday, February 29, 2008
Scapegoating Lobbyists
In today's NY Daily News, Charles Krauthammer writes a column in defense of lobbying, and he makes a number of important points at a time when lobbyists are considered somewhere below child molesters on the human equation scale: "Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom - to lobby? Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington."
This is important precisely because of the expansion of government power on all levels-an expansion that, in our view, is often far from benign. As we touched on yesterday, the attack by Speaker Quinn's spokesperson on the lobbying opposition to the green carts legislation is a case in point. Government, with little care or precision, forwarded legislation that was as unfair as it was supposedly well-meaning-a routine tendency when we examine so much of what emanates from the halls of power.
So, in defense of neighborhood store owners, a lobbying effort was mounted to highlight the deficiencies of Intro 665-and the deficiencies were both manifest and numerous, a fact that many council members recognized. This is exactly what a good lobbyist does in petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, As Krauthammer points out: "Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right - necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government."
Only those who believe that George Bush, Eliot Spitzer, Mike Bloomberg and Christine Quinn are infused with infallibility would believe that all manner of folks don't need to be protected from the tentacle reaches of modern behemoth government. And it is generally the most well-meaning legislation that can prove to be the most dangerous; particularly when elected officials are claiming to be speaking on behalf of the voiceless and powerless.
Which gets us to the NY Times hit piece on Senator McCain. Leaving the salaciousness of the supposed affair aside, the article was designed to smear with guilt by association-McCain and the lobbyists-yikes: "But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece."
Maybe we should take Krauthammer's advice and change the lobbying moniker to "Redress Petitioners." Until then, however, we're left with the Herculean task of cleansing the lobbying image-something we're happy to do as we slog through the law-making sausage factory.
This is important precisely because of the expansion of government power on all levels-an expansion that, in our view, is often far from benign. As we touched on yesterday, the attack by Speaker Quinn's spokesperson on the lobbying opposition to the green carts legislation is a case in point. Government, with little care or precision, forwarded legislation that was as unfair as it was supposedly well-meaning-a routine tendency when we examine so much of what emanates from the halls of power.
So, in defense of neighborhood store owners, a lobbying effort was mounted to highlight the deficiencies of Intro 665-and the deficiencies were both manifest and numerous, a fact that many council members recognized. This is exactly what a good lobbyist does in petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, As Krauthammer points out: "Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right - necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government."
Only those who believe that George Bush, Eliot Spitzer, Mike Bloomberg and Christine Quinn are infused with infallibility would believe that all manner of folks don't need to be protected from the tentacle reaches of modern behemoth government. And it is generally the most well-meaning legislation that can prove to be the most dangerous; particularly when elected officials are claiming to be speaking on behalf of the voiceless and powerless.
Which gets us to the NY Times hit piece on Senator McCain. Leaving the salaciousness of the supposed affair aside, the article was designed to smear with guilt by association-McCain and the lobbyists-yikes: "But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece."
Maybe we should take Krauthammer's advice and change the lobbying moniker to "Redress Petitioners." Until then, however, we're left with the Herculean task of cleansing the lobbying image-something we're happy to do as we slog through the law-making sausage factory.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Cart Honor Role
From yesterday's Daily Politics blog here are the nine council members who resisted the pressure and voted in favor of neighborhood stores and neighborhood quality of life:
"The measure increasing the number of fruit-and-vegetable permits by 1,000 in 34 precincts (down from the originally proposed 43) passed the Council 37-9, with the following lawmakers voting in the negative: Avella, Gallagher, Garodnick, Gennaro, Katz, Liu, Martinez, Monserrate, Vacca."
"The measure increasing the number of fruit-and-vegetable permits by 1,000 in 34 precincts (down from the originally proposed 43) passed the Council 37-9, with the following lawmakers voting in the negative: Avella, Gallagher, Garodnick, Gennaro, Katz, Liu, Martinez, Monserrate, Vacca."
Times Cart Focus: Right on the Money
In this morning's NY Times the paper, in writing on the city council passage of Intro 665, rightly focuses on the bill's potential impact on neighbor hood stores with the headline blaring: "Council Vote for Good Health May Weaken Business at Groceries in Poor Neighborhoods." The Times goes on to describe how the changes in the bill reducing its possible harm to local economies emerged because of, "...intense lobbying from independent supermarkets, bodegas and greengrocers who said the bill would steal their customers without increasing demand for fresh produce."
The key point raised here, and the one that bill supporter Oliver Koppell underscored, is how the targeting of certain neighborhoods was done without examining the extent to which shopping areas in these communities where creating availability of fresh produce for neighborhood residents: "Mr. Koppell, one of the bill’s original sponsors, expressed the concerns of many council members when they learned that neighborhoods were targeted based on consumption rather than supply. Put simply, neighborhoods where more than 15 percent of residents said they had not eaten fruits or vegetables in the last 24 hours made the list, regardless of how many area stores offered fresh produce."
This was the key selling point that the opposition was able to raise that undermined the initial knee-jerk feel good support that the bill originally generated: "The measure had the backing of antihunger and child-advocacy groups, and when it was introduced it appeared to have strong support on the Council. But support began to waver amid heavy lobbying from the retail food industry, leading to a flurry of late changes and compromises."
This key flaw is described clearly by Sung Soo Kim who heads the Korean-American Small Business Service Center: “It’s the execution that’s wrong,” he said. He and other industry advocates said the city should identify neighborhoods where fresh fruits and vegetables were not available before deciding where to place vendors."
So the challenge now is to do the hard work of analyzing the neighborhood retail environment, something that Commissioner Frieden admits is harder to do: "Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, said that consumption data was used because it was reliable and available. Compiling reliable data on retailers that sell a proper variety of quality fruits and vegetables, at affordable prices, was much more complex, he said."
Much more complex? Perhaps so, but in any public policy measure the aim should be to craft legislation that properly correlates with its stated aims. By eschewing the hard work here, the city literally put the carts before the horse.
Which brings us to the lobbying issue raised by Quinn spokesman Jamie McShane in the Daily Politics blog yesterday: "...the special interests don't go that hard against you if you're not doing the right thing. Today we stood up for New Yorkers who are often forgotten and can't afford to hire a lobbyist to represent them." This is pure spin.
The fat of the matter here is that small stores impacted by Intro 665 are not some high powered, well-financed lobby, and the bill was drafted without their input and with no regard for their well-being. McShane-and the speaker- should realize that these stores contribute immensely to the city's economy and provide a significant bootstrap to new immigrants. To try to paint their opposition here as a frontal assault of the deadly "special interests" does the city council no favor as we go forward in trying to develop a good food policy.
The key point raised here, and the one that bill supporter Oliver Koppell underscored, is how the targeting of certain neighborhoods was done without examining the extent to which shopping areas in these communities where creating availability of fresh produce for neighborhood residents: "Mr. Koppell, one of the bill’s original sponsors, expressed the concerns of many council members when they learned that neighborhoods were targeted based on consumption rather than supply. Put simply, neighborhoods where more than 15 percent of residents said they had not eaten fruits or vegetables in the last 24 hours made the list, regardless of how many area stores offered fresh produce."
This was the key selling point that the opposition was able to raise that undermined the initial knee-jerk feel good support that the bill originally generated: "The measure had the backing of antihunger and child-advocacy groups, and when it was introduced it appeared to have strong support on the Council. But support began to waver amid heavy lobbying from the retail food industry, leading to a flurry of late changes and compromises."
This key flaw is described clearly by Sung Soo Kim who heads the Korean-American Small Business Service Center: “It’s the execution that’s wrong,” he said. He and other industry advocates said the city should identify neighborhoods where fresh fruits and vegetables were not available before deciding where to place vendors."
So the challenge now is to do the hard work of analyzing the neighborhood retail environment, something that Commissioner Frieden admits is harder to do: "Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, said that consumption data was used because it was reliable and available. Compiling reliable data on retailers that sell a proper variety of quality fruits and vegetables, at affordable prices, was much more complex, he said."
Much more complex? Perhaps so, but in any public policy measure the aim should be to craft legislation that properly correlates with its stated aims. By eschewing the hard work here, the city literally put the carts before the horse.
Which brings us to the lobbying issue raised by Quinn spokesman Jamie McShane in the Daily Politics blog yesterday: "...the special interests don't go that hard against you if you're not doing the right thing. Today we stood up for New Yorkers who are often forgotten and can't afford to hire a lobbyist to represent them." This is pure spin.
The fat of the matter here is that small stores impacted by Intro 665 are not some high powered, well-financed lobby, and the bill was drafted without their input and with no regard for their well-being. McShane-and the speaker- should realize that these stores contribute immensely to the city's economy and provide a significant bootstrap to new immigrants. To try to paint their opposition here as a frontal assault of the deadly "special interests" does the city council no favor as we go forward in trying to develop a good food policy.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Doing Cart Wheels
As of this posting the full council has yet to vote on Intro 665, but the Consumer Affairs Committee did narrowly pass the measure by a three to two vote earlier in the day-which is remarkable considering the legislation is being pushed by both the mayor and the speaker. The contretemps is indicative of the bill's flaws, as well as the failure of both sides of city hall to involve the impacted retailers in the crafting of the legislation.
The statements by the committee members explaining their votes was elucidating. John Liu in particular was trenchant in his dissection of the flaws in the legislation; dramatically questioning the rationale that increasing the supply of fresh produce would, at the same time, increase demand. He also questioned the setting up of the supermarket commission only after the carts were placed out onto the streets, and wondered why the administration wouldn't do a small pilot program to first test the efficacy of the concept.
Likewise, Councilman Gennaro worried about the impact that the peddler proliferation would have on the Korean green grocers-a worry that was echoed by Oliver Koppell who nevertheless voted in favor. Gennaro said-underscoring a point that we had previously advanced-that the city should map the produce outlets first before setting up targeted peddler areas.. He said that the bill's fallacy was that it based the peddler areas on consumption figures and not on the availability of retail outlets.
Koppell, even though he expressed a real concern for the viability of the green grocers, voted in favor of the measure when the speaker got his precinct area eliminated from the scope of the bill. f this hadn't been done, than the speaker would have been on the short end of the 3-2 vote.
The revised bill, aside from the reduction in vendors and in the number of precincts, also contains a provision for a review panel. The composition of the panel, and the methodology it uses to evaluate the plan, will go along way to determine the reliability of its conclusions. Under the bill's language, the panel will examine, "the consumption of fruits and vegetables, disaggregated by neighborhood." The sheer volume of peddler business, however, will fail to tell us if new demand has been created and met-since there is no provision here to examine the sales of contiguous produce retailers in an effort to see if the peddlers have cannibalized existing sales of fruits and vegetables. This measurement needs to be an integral part of any equitable evaluation process.
Finally, as we said this morning, the establishment of the supermarket commission-if it acts aggressively to devise a real policy of retention and promotion-is a good step forward; and the creation of "a new position a at the City's Economic Development Corporation that will work with the retail food industry to enable them to better serve our neighborhoods" (the speaker's memo), is exactly what we said this morning about changing the locus of policy making away from DOH.
And it goes without saying that the speaker's proposal to "expand the City's healthy Bodega initiative in ways that will help bodegas and green grocers sell fruits and vegetables in our communities," is exactly what we have been urging (here, here, here, and here )all along-the creation of a collaborative public private partnership that eschews the punitive regulatory mindset.
Now that the green carts are on the way it's incumbent on the city to live up to its promises-and not simply talk the talk. The willingness of this administration to act proactively to nurture and grow neighborhood business is no certainty-given its track record. We're willing to suspend our disbelief at least for a short while since we know that the sincerity of people like Ben Thomasses is unquestioned. The jury is out, however, on other decision makers down at city hall.
The statements by the committee members explaining their votes was elucidating. John Liu in particular was trenchant in his dissection of the flaws in the legislation; dramatically questioning the rationale that increasing the supply of fresh produce would, at the same time, increase demand. He also questioned the setting up of the supermarket commission only after the carts were placed out onto the streets, and wondered why the administration wouldn't do a small pilot program to first test the efficacy of the concept.
Likewise, Councilman Gennaro worried about the impact that the peddler proliferation would have on the Korean green grocers-a worry that was echoed by Oliver Koppell who nevertheless voted in favor. Gennaro said-underscoring a point that we had previously advanced-that the city should map the produce outlets first before setting up targeted peddler areas.. He said that the bill's fallacy was that it based the peddler areas on consumption figures and not on the availability of retail outlets.
Koppell, even though he expressed a real concern for the viability of the green grocers, voted in favor of the measure when the speaker got his precinct area eliminated from the scope of the bill. f this hadn't been done, than the speaker would have been on the short end of the 3-2 vote.
The revised bill, aside from the reduction in vendors and in the number of precincts, also contains a provision for a review panel. The composition of the panel, and the methodology it uses to evaluate the plan, will go along way to determine the reliability of its conclusions. Under the bill's language, the panel will examine, "the consumption of fruits and vegetables, disaggregated by neighborhood." The sheer volume of peddler business, however, will fail to tell us if new demand has been created and met-since there is no provision here to examine the sales of contiguous produce retailers in an effort to see if the peddlers have cannibalized existing sales of fruits and vegetables. This measurement needs to be an integral part of any equitable evaluation process.
Finally, as we said this morning, the establishment of the supermarket commission-if it acts aggressively to devise a real policy of retention and promotion-is a good step forward; and the creation of "a new position a at the City's Economic Development Corporation that will work with the retail food industry to enable them to better serve our neighborhoods" (the speaker's memo), is exactly what we said this morning about changing the locus of policy making away from DOH.
And it goes without saying that the speaker's proposal to "expand the City's healthy Bodega initiative in ways that will help bodegas and green grocers sell fruits and vegetables in our communities," is exactly what we have been urging (here, here, here, and here )all along-the creation of a collaborative public private partnership that eschews the punitive regulatory mindset.
Now that the green carts are on the way it's incumbent on the city to live up to its promises-and not simply talk the talk. The willingness of this administration to act proactively to nurture and grow neighborhood business is no certainty-given its track record. We're willing to suspend our disbelief at least for a short while since we know that the sincerity of people like Ben Thomasses is unquestioned. The jury is out, however, on other decision makers down at city hall.
Council Go Carts
At today's stated City Council meeting it appears more than likely that Intro 665 will be passed in its amended form. The passage comes after council leadership was forced to significantly reduce the number of vendors as well as delimit the areas in which they will be allowed to operate. In addition, at least two vocal opponents of the bill found their police precincts exempted in exchange for their support for the green carts measure.
It is also apparent that the establishment of a review panel to evaluate the efficacy of the vendor initiative comes about as a result of the level of initial opposition that was raised: but its imperative that the panel be of a diverse make-up-with industry and labor participating in order to insure that a fair review is conducted. The Department of health, with no knowledge or concern for the food retailers, shouldn't be allowed to essentially mark its own exam.
Which brings us to the key issue of providing access to healthy foods-and the flawed manner in which the city has approached addressing it. The policy perspective must begin with the food wholesalers and their customers at the retail level-the supermarkets, green grocers and bodegas. With this in mind, it is essential that the locus of policy making be shifted from the DOH to the office of the food policy coordinator and EDC,
Improving access means improving the viability of the industry to deliver the goods in a cost-effective manner. It means examining those variables that increase the cost of doing business and looking for ways to overcome them through direct government policy changes. Primary here are the city's tax, regulatory and land use policies.
In this regard, it is important that the city create the kind of food policy task force that brings together the right kinds of expertise so that the resultant policy changes can be as effective as possible. On the small store level, the involvement of Jetro Cash-and-Carry is essential since the wholesaler supplies, and has intimate knowledge of the business challenges of all of the city's 13,000 bodegas-as well as of the vast majority of the independent restaurants that they supply from their Restaurant depot outlets. Jetro has already, unbeknownst to city policy makers, embarked on an ambitious program to entice bodegas to start shifting their business into healthier product lines.
It is also imperative that the city involve the independent supermarket owners who operate the Key Foods, C-Towns, Foodtowns Pioneers and Associated supermarkets. These are the neighborhood markets that are directly linked to those communities that have been targeted as underserved-markets that are being driven out by high rents and city tax and regulatory policies.
Finally, the city government needs to coordinate all of its housing and development efforts with an eye towards retaining and promoting supermarkets and other food stores; as part of a recognition that this is part of nurturing an essential city health service. This would mean that the effort to close the Moore Street Marqueta in Williamsburg would not go forward once it is recognized that the market is a major source of fresh produce for that underserved community.
So Intro 665 is a blip in the radar if the city actually begins to move aggressively forward on the development of a food policy initiative. The caveat here? Well, in the sixties when all of the civil disorders were cropping up it became commonplace for government to set up a commission. So common was this practice, and so ineffective, that one policy analyst actually wrote an article titled: "Let Them Eat Commissions." We need to avoid this trap and do much better.
It is also apparent that the establishment of a review panel to evaluate the efficacy of the vendor initiative comes about as a result of the level of initial opposition that was raised: but its imperative that the panel be of a diverse make-up-with industry and labor participating in order to insure that a fair review is conducted. The Department of health, with no knowledge or concern for the food retailers, shouldn't be allowed to essentially mark its own exam.
Which brings us to the key issue of providing access to healthy foods-and the flawed manner in which the city has approached addressing it. The policy perspective must begin with the food wholesalers and their customers at the retail level-the supermarkets, green grocers and bodegas. With this in mind, it is essential that the locus of policy making be shifted from the DOH to the office of the food policy coordinator and EDC,
Improving access means improving the viability of the industry to deliver the goods in a cost-effective manner. It means examining those variables that increase the cost of doing business and looking for ways to overcome them through direct government policy changes. Primary here are the city's tax, regulatory and land use policies.
In this regard, it is important that the city create the kind of food policy task force that brings together the right kinds of expertise so that the resultant policy changes can be as effective as possible. On the small store level, the involvement of Jetro Cash-and-Carry is essential since the wholesaler supplies, and has intimate knowledge of the business challenges of all of the city's 13,000 bodegas-as well as of the vast majority of the independent restaurants that they supply from their Restaurant depot outlets. Jetro has already, unbeknownst to city policy makers, embarked on an ambitious program to entice bodegas to start shifting their business into healthier product lines.
It is also imperative that the city involve the independent supermarket owners who operate the Key Foods, C-Towns, Foodtowns Pioneers and Associated supermarkets. These are the neighborhood markets that are directly linked to those communities that have been targeted as underserved-markets that are being driven out by high rents and city tax and regulatory policies.
Finally, the city government needs to coordinate all of its housing and development efforts with an eye towards retaining and promoting supermarkets and other food stores; as part of a recognition that this is part of nurturing an essential city health service. This would mean that the effort to close the Moore Street Marqueta in Williamsburg would not go forward once it is recognized that the market is a major source of fresh produce for that underserved community.
So Intro 665 is a blip in the radar if the city actually begins to move aggressively forward on the development of a food policy initiative. The caveat here? Well, in the sixties when all of the civil disorders were cropping up it became commonplace for government to set up a commission. So common was this practice, and so ineffective, that one policy analyst actually wrote an article titled: "Let Them Eat Commissions." We need to avoid this trap and do much better.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Holy Batman Gotham!
The Gothamist has joined the know-nothing chorus in support of flooding the streets of the city with produce peddlers. The website begins with a quote from Intro 665 opponent John Liu: "The theory behind this bill is if you increase the supply, the demand will increase, and that's likely a faulty premise," Council Member John Liu of Queens said in an interview yesterday. "If there was demand, it's doubtful that the stores would simply refuse to address it." He called the legislation "wishful thinking," and warned it would eat into existing grocers' profits without providing its intended health benefits."
To which the Gothamist responds: "Actually, basic economics holds that increasing the supply of a product--even if demand is totally static--will increase the overall consumption of that product at a lower price. Who benefits from that growth in consumption and to what degree will depend on the price-sensitivity of consumers."
Such astute analysis! No discussion of what happens when outlets with considerable more overhead are forced to lower their costs to compete with street vendors. No discussion of the price elasticity of fresh produce. In fact, in Manhattan where peddlers have metastasized scores of green grocers were forced out of business. This, not increased consumption, is the more likely result of peddler proliferation.
Update
In today's Metro this point on the effects of unfair competition is brought home by Sung Soo Kim: "Sung Soo Kim of the Small Business Congress, said that small grocers have seen their profit margins shrink from 25 percent down to 3 percent. “This is a crushing threat to their survival,” Kim said. He called for a moratorium on the vote, which is scheduled to go before the Consumer Affairs Committee tomorrow."
To which the Gothamist responds: "Actually, basic economics holds that increasing the supply of a product--even if demand is totally static--will increase the overall consumption of that product at a lower price. Who benefits from that growth in consumption and to what degree will depend on the price-sensitivity of consumers."
Such astute analysis! No discussion of what happens when outlets with considerable more overhead are forced to lower their costs to compete with street vendors. No discussion of the price elasticity of fresh produce. In fact, in Manhattan where peddlers have metastasized scores of green grocers were forced out of business. This, not increased consumption, is the more likely result of peddler proliferation.
Update
In today's Metro this point on the effects of unfair competition is brought home by Sung Soo Kim: "Sung Soo Kim of the Small Business Congress, said that small grocers have seen their profit margins shrink from 25 percent down to 3 percent. “This is a crushing threat to their survival,” Kim said. He called for a moratorium on the vote, which is scheduled to go before the Consumer Affairs Committee tomorrow."
Ill-Gotten Fruits
In this morning's NY Daily News we learn exactly why it makes no sense to get all of your information from government sources. In an editorial supporting the green carts legislation, the paper relies exclusively on official government data to proclaim: "Across the city, there are neighborhoods where it is difficult - or virtually impossible - to buy fresh fruits and vegetables. Of good quality, too. Which is why the City Council is to vote tomorrow on an innovative plan to put produce in those areas."
But that's just the point that the News refuses to take an honest look at, so enamored as it is with spouting the official government line. The neighborhoods where access is limited are few and far between-and Intro 665 fails to distinguish the few "food deserts" from the vibrant shopping strips that the peddlers are certain to gravitate towards in search of the business traffic that's heading to the local supermarket and green grocer.
The sad fact is that the city failed to due the mapping that would have precisely targeted where peddlers could rationally be expected to provide access to produce where it was difficult to find it. Instead we get the old reliable "government survey:" "A Health Department study found that in poorer neighborhoods - like Bed-Stuy, Bushwick and Harlem - most of the food stores are bodegas that don't sell fresh fruit and veggies. As little as 20% to 40% of the bodegas in those three neighborhoods sold apples, oranges and bananas, and only 2% to 6% sold leafy green vegetables."
Put simply, this is pure bull crap; with independent supermarkets prevalent in all of the neighborhoods in question it's invidious, to say the least, to focus on bodegas that the department itself has found are trying to provide some produce as well. The News editorial board should try to get out more often into our city neighborhoods. And so should our health commissioner who didn't realize that the city had over 2,000 green grocers selling fresh produce in many of the communities that are targeted by the green cart bill; but if the editorialists did, they would have actual data of their own to make some reasoned judgments.
Which brings us to this editorial whopper: "To placate the opposition, Bloomberg and Quinn cut the number of permits from 1,500 to 1,000. They promise to strictly enforce compliance to make sure vendors don't steal customers by parking outside grocery shops." This last assertion is blatantly false and the News would have known better if it had simply paid attention and asked us; rather than listen with a perfunctory ear to our explanation yesterday.
The fact is that there will be no barriers in place to prevent the peddlers from operating directly in front of the produce outlets; the city's lawyers have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that the law forbids this-a fact that we have disputed. Why the News would dissemble here is hard to explain; although it's likely simple misinformation at work for a hastily written government press release.
Compounding the mistake about cart placement, the News concludes with the following: "Which shouldn't be a problem anyway, since the permits are for areas where few grocers sell produce." We can't wait for the News' expose after carts are sent out. The one sure thing here is that peddlers will stay close to shopping areas where the produce is being sold, and any "roaring success" that results will be business that is taken from the tax paying small businesses that the Daily News has never defended in the twenty five years we've been representing their interests.
But that's just the point that the News refuses to take an honest look at, so enamored as it is with spouting the official government line. The neighborhoods where access is limited are few and far between-and Intro 665 fails to distinguish the few "food deserts" from the vibrant shopping strips that the peddlers are certain to gravitate towards in search of the business traffic that's heading to the local supermarket and green grocer.
The sad fact is that the city failed to due the mapping that would have precisely targeted where peddlers could rationally be expected to provide access to produce where it was difficult to find it. Instead we get the old reliable "government survey:" "A Health Department study found that in poorer neighborhoods - like Bed-Stuy, Bushwick and Harlem - most of the food stores are bodegas that don't sell fresh fruit and veggies. As little as 20% to 40% of the bodegas in those three neighborhoods sold apples, oranges and bananas, and only 2% to 6% sold leafy green vegetables."
Put simply, this is pure bull crap; with independent supermarkets prevalent in all of the neighborhoods in question it's invidious, to say the least, to focus on bodegas that the department itself has found are trying to provide some produce as well. The News editorial board should try to get out more often into our city neighborhoods. And so should our health commissioner who didn't realize that the city had over 2,000 green grocers selling fresh produce in many of the communities that are targeted by the green cart bill; but if the editorialists did, they would have actual data of their own to make some reasoned judgments.
Which brings us to this editorial whopper: "To placate the opposition, Bloomberg and Quinn cut the number of permits from 1,500 to 1,000. They promise to strictly enforce compliance to make sure vendors don't steal customers by parking outside grocery shops." This last assertion is blatantly false and the News would have known better if it had simply paid attention and asked us; rather than listen with a perfunctory ear to our explanation yesterday.
The fact is that there will be no barriers in place to prevent the peddlers from operating directly in front of the produce outlets; the city's lawyers have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that the law forbids this-a fact that we have disputed. Why the News would dissemble here is hard to explain; although it's likely simple misinformation at work for a hastily written government press release.
Compounding the mistake about cart placement, the News concludes with the following: "Which shouldn't be a problem anyway, since the permits are for areas where few grocers sell produce." We can't wait for the News' expose after carts are sent out. The one sure thing here is that peddlers will stay close to shopping areas where the produce is being sold, and any "roaring success" that results will be business that is taken from the tax paying small businesses that the Daily News has never defended in the twenty five years we've been representing their interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
