In a disappointing legal decision, Judge Richard Holwell has given the green light to the Department of Health's menu labeling scheme. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Under the rules, which the city’s health department revised after Judge Holwell struck down an earlier version last fall, any chain with at least 15 outlets nationwide would have to display calorie counts on menu boards, menus or food tags. The rules would apply to roughly 2,000 restaurants, or about 10 percent of the 23,000 in the city, the health department said."
In what is most discouraging, considering the legal evidence presented (outlined last week in the NY Sun), Judge Holwell apparently believes that the regulation will help to reduce obesity; "In a 27-page opinion, Judge Holwell accepted one of the city’s main arguments for posting calorie counts — that doing so would help reduce obesity, which city officials say has reached epidemic levels. “It seems reasonable to expect that some consumers will use the information” on menu boards and menus “to select lower-calorie meals,” the judge wrote. He added that “these choices will lead to a lower incidence of obesity.”
Which is why the FDA, when it looks to implement labeling requirements, employs much more rigorous standards-and looks to use a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether a rule's expense in implementation is worth the alleged health impact. As we remarked last week: "The problem lies with the fact that the health department is trying to use its own study, one that we excoriated ourselves last year, to establish that calorie posting will help people make better eating choices."
Holwell, however, believes that as long as some consumers use the info than the rule is good to go-and the fact that there's no evidence that the rule will have any scientifically reliable efficacy passes right over the judge's head. And he doesn't address any of the cost factors for local business. The really pertinent question here is: How much will compliance cost locally-owned fast food franchisees? And the companion query: How many people will actually read and use these calorie postings for healthier decisions? The two questions need to be examined and analyzed together in order to decide whether the rule makes good sense.
The court's ruling, which is being appealed, means that the DOH policy may be legal but the sheer legality doesn't mean that it makes good public policy sense. Anecdotally, it appears to be a good idea and, as the NY Daily News points out this morning. many fast food customers, unaware of the rule's byzantine details, believe that it will be a healthy policy: "Carol Dawson, 58, of Flushing, Queens called the plan "an excellent idea." Too often, she said, she orders by "the picture and my appetite. But this will raise my awareness."
Wait till she tries to decipher the calories when Taco Bell puts up a range of 400-2000 calories for twenty different kinds of burritos (since space makes a full item by item breakdown unfeasible). Wait till she waits and waits in line while confused customers ask some young counterperson about the hard to figure out calorie information.
This is a bad idea propagated by folks who haven't eaten in a fast food restaurant in twenty years and would be happy to see them all (along with the jobs ) disappear; and be replaced by fruit and vegetable peddlers. We can't wait to see the self-serving study that will emerge from all of this. One thing's for certain, it won't pass any peer review unless the peer in question is the peerless Judge Holwell.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Can't Fight out of a Paper Bag
In yesterday's NY Post, Jeff Stier of the American Council on Science and Health, ridicules the push away from plastic bags to the old paper stand-by. In particular, he focuses on the faux environmentalism of the Whole Foods grocery chain: "Unfortunately, paper has its own drawbacks, such as: it's preferred by cockroaches - like those contributing to New York City's asthma epidemic. Like other Earth Day initiatives, this move by Whole Foods reeks of a phenomenon known as "greenwashing" - when companies make lofty claims in an effort to profit from "environmentally concerned" shoppers."
And, of course, what Whole Foods is doing is what the greeniacs at the city council advocated when they passed their plastic bag recycling bill: huing and crying about the supposed dangers of plastic to the environment. Tell that to the roaches, and the kids with asthma: "Entymologists, including Coby Schal of North Carolina State University, have observed that cockroaches prefer paper to plastic. "They really like to live in the creases found in paper bags," said Schal, the nation's top expert on cockroaches. Many cockroach species chew into paper bags to lay their eggs - something they don't do with plastic...If Whole Foods' "green" move starts a trend among food stores, it may contribute to New York's asthma epidemic "
How nice; and not to mention the fact that plastic bags get re-used in most households. As Steir points out: "The move flies in the face of the enviro mantra to "reduce, reuse and recycle" - in that order. Almost everyone keeps a stash of plastic bags. We reuse them to line garbage cans, bring lunch to work and clean up after the dog - try doing that with paper. Plastic bags are easier to reuse and more efficient to recycle than paper."
The problem here is that Whole Foods is trying to attract the upscale and the guilt-ridden, the same folks who worshipped Rachel Carson as an environmental goddess; and we know how well that worked out: "Blindly following environmental extremists might make you feel good, but there is a dark side. Recall the millions of unnecessary malaria deaths that have resulted from Rachel Carson's "green" effort to ban DDT."
There is, however, one saving grace. Customers of Whole Foods can feel good about themselves even while spending ridiculous sums for arugula and endive. And that, as Martha Stewart might say, "Is a good thing."
And, of course, what Whole Foods is doing is what the greeniacs at the city council advocated when they passed their plastic bag recycling bill: huing and crying about the supposed dangers of plastic to the environment. Tell that to the roaches, and the kids with asthma: "Entymologists, including Coby Schal of North Carolina State University, have observed that cockroaches prefer paper to plastic. "They really like to live in the creases found in paper bags," said Schal, the nation's top expert on cockroaches. Many cockroach species chew into paper bags to lay their eggs - something they don't do with plastic...If Whole Foods' "green" move starts a trend among food stores, it may contribute to New York's asthma epidemic "
How nice; and not to mention the fact that plastic bags get re-used in most households. As Steir points out: "The move flies in the face of the enviro mantra to "reduce, reuse and recycle" - in that order. Almost everyone keeps a stash of plastic bags. We reuse them to line garbage cans, bring lunch to work and clean up after the dog - try doing that with paper. Plastic bags are easier to reuse and more efficient to recycle than paper."
The problem here is that Whole Foods is trying to attract the upscale and the guilt-ridden, the same folks who worshipped Rachel Carson as an environmental goddess; and we know how well that worked out: "Blindly following environmental extremists might make you feel good, but there is a dark side. Recall the millions of unnecessary malaria deaths that have resulted from Rachel Carson's "green" effort to ban DDT."
There is, however, one saving grace. Customers of Whole Foods can feel good about themselves even while spending ridiculous sums for arugula and endive. And that, as Martha Stewart might say, "Is a good thing."
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Tax and Offend
It now appears as if the mayor believes that he had no choice in his sneak attax on NYC tax payers. According to the NY Post: "We have to pay the bills," Bloomberg said. "New York City must balance the budget on a cash basis by the end of the year, unlike Albany or Washington."
So what. That does not mean that you take a tax measure scheduled to sunset in June and sneak its extension through the state legislature. It doesn't mean that you don't examine the spending side of the ledger to see if you can do without some of the government programs and activities that may now be seen as too expensive given the revenue reductions ahead.
That kind of reasoning, however, would presuppose a mayor who actually believed that a leaner government apparatus was good for tax payers and the economy. Not Mayor Mike; clearly he doesn't spell relief as lower taxes, and views these levies as the price of all of the necessary services that good New Yorkers absolutely have to have. Give us a break from this form of rich man's burden.
So what. That does not mean that you take a tax measure scheduled to sunset in June and sneak its extension through the state legislature. It doesn't mean that you don't examine the spending side of the ledger to see if you can do without some of the government programs and activities that may now be seen as too expensive given the revenue reductions ahead.
That kind of reasoning, however, would presuppose a mayor who actually believed that a leaner government apparatus was good for tax payers and the economy. Not Mayor Mike; clearly he doesn't spell relief as lower taxes, and views these levies as the price of all of the necessary services that good New Yorkers absolutely have to have. Give us a break from this form of rich man's burden.
Food Fright
Grocery prices are skyrocketing. According to the NY Post: "Supermarkets are again raising prices to cope with the worst food inflation the nation has seen in 17 years." All of which means that affordable healthy food has become an even more compelling issue; and that supermarket preservation and development must be put into the forefront.
It also means that companies like Vornado Realty and Distrust are a threat to the public interest when they want to eliminate local supermarkets for the sheer enhancement of corporate profits. It also means that Mayor Mike needs to become proactive on the preservation front, and that the health commissioner, instead of coming up with schemes that cost local businesses more money, needs to step up here and join the Soundview community in its effort to save its supermarket,
It also means that companies like Vornado Realty and Distrust are a threat to the public interest when they want to eliminate local supermarkets for the sheer enhancement of corporate profits. It also means that Mayor Mike needs to become proactive on the preservation front, and that the health commissioner, instead of coming up with schemes that cost local businesses more money, needs to step up here and join the Soundview community in its effort to save its supermarket,
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Mayor's Shotgun Wedding with Wal-Mart
As Liz is reporting the UFCW's Local 1500 has taken umbrage at the gun deal that the mayor has struck with our favorite retailer. As the union's press release, posted on the blog, points out: "If the Mayor is able to exert this type of influence over Wal-mart on gun control, imagine his ability to get them to start doing the right thing on dozens of other issues that are affecting hundreds of thousands of their workers every day, as well as others affected by their irresponsible business practices...”
Frankly we're thrilled to see that the mayor's got his negotiating mojo back; and the deal that he struck is sure to mean that, in the future, the mayor will be less likely to shoot himself in the foot. We also are sure that the prospects of the Walmonster in NYC are as good as, well, the chances that the mayor will be able to rid the streets of illegal weapons.
Frankly we're thrilled to see that the mayor's got his negotiating mojo back; and the deal that he struck is sure to mean that, in the future, the mayor will be less likely to shoot himself in the foot. We also are sure that the prospects of the Walmonster in NYC are as good as, well, the chances that the mayor will be able to rid the streets of illegal weapons.
Water Torture
Water bills are going up-at a 14% rate. As the NY Post reported last week: "Homeowners expecting a modest water-rate hike this year are in for a shock today - the Water Board will propose a punishing 14.5 percent increase starting July 1, officials said." And the reason why the rate increase is so much larger than expected? "But sources said collections aren't meeting forecasts, leading to the request for the big jump."
What do you know? The DEP can't collect the money that it's owed. And why's that? Well, as the NY Daily News points out, "The city's crackdown on overdue water bills has run into a big problem - the most notorious deadbeats can't be forced to pay. Cash-strapped hospitals, apartment buildings and nursing homes collectively owe tens of millions of dollars, but they are immune to the threats that have persuaded smaller debtors to pay up. The Department of Environmental Protection can't threaten to shut off their water because so many innocent tenants and patients would suffer."
And not only that. As the Post follows up on this story, it now appears that homeowners are going to be soaked next year as well: "Property owners about to be slammed with a 14.5 percent water-rate hike got another pounding yesterday when city officials disclosed they may ask for a 14.5 percent increase next year as well."
This news, however, masks the bigger problem. These institutions can't pay what the city alleges they owe because the DEP is unable to justify the bills. We ran into this issue when the Water Group, a consulting firm dealing in helping institutions monitor the city's water billing procedures, was a client. The folks there were representing Columbia Presbyterian Hospital when the city was claiming that it owed millions in unpaid water bills.
The problem? No one could demonstrate that the bills were valid, and without justification, the hospital CFO was stuck-unable to allow payment for a bill that couldn't be backed up by the city because of the incompetency of the DEP's staff and procedures. What the Water Group did was conduct a professional audit that allowed the hospital to save big money, but at the same time helped the city to be paid.
What this shows us is that the entire DEP operation needs to be put into receivership; and outside auditors need to be brought in to straighten out the incompetency. No home owner should be held to account until the entire system is properly reconstituted.
What do you know? The DEP can't collect the money that it's owed. And why's that? Well, as the NY Daily News points out, "The city's crackdown on overdue water bills has run into a big problem - the most notorious deadbeats can't be forced to pay. Cash-strapped hospitals, apartment buildings and nursing homes collectively owe tens of millions of dollars, but they are immune to the threats that have persuaded smaller debtors to pay up. The Department of Environmental Protection can't threaten to shut off their water because so many innocent tenants and patients would suffer."
And not only that. As the Post follows up on this story, it now appears that homeowners are going to be soaked next year as well: "Property owners about to be slammed with a 14.5 percent water-rate hike got another pounding yesterday when city officials disclosed they may ask for a 14.5 percent increase next year as well."
This news, however, masks the bigger problem. These institutions can't pay what the city alleges they owe because the DEP is unable to justify the bills. We ran into this issue when the Water Group, a consulting firm dealing in helping institutions monitor the city's water billing procedures, was a client. The folks there were representing Columbia Presbyterian Hospital when the city was claiming that it owed millions in unpaid water bills.
The problem? No one could demonstrate that the bills were valid, and without justification, the hospital CFO was stuck-unable to allow payment for a bill that couldn't be backed up by the city because of the incompetency of the DEP's staff and procedures. What the Water Group did was conduct a professional audit that allowed the hospital to save big money, but at the same time helped the city to be paid.
What this shows us is that the entire DEP operation needs to be put into receivership; and outside auditors need to be brought in to straighten out the incompetency. No home owner should be held to account until the entire system is properly reconstituted.
Taxing Credulity
How does it happen that a $1.2 billion tax gets extended when it was set to sunset this June, and does so without any public debate? That's the question that former Finance Commissioner Joe Lhota asks this morning in the NY Post: "CAN you imagine a tax increase in New York City without a public debate? Not just any tax increase - but one that'll generate almost $1.2 billion annually? And it's a regressive tax paid by everyone - regardless of wealth or social status."
Yet that's exactly what happened when the Albany leadership slipped the sales tax extension through with absolutely no public discussion. Now we might have all been distracted by the hoo ha over the congestion tax. You know, the one that was going to give NYC $354 million in federal dollars. But an annual tax windfall that's more than double any of the projected revenues from the congestion tax scheme isn't even on the public radar.
Shame on the press, and on our elected officials-and the greatest shame on the hypocritical mayor who slammed Shelly Silver for not allowing public discussion and a vote on the Bloomberg congestion tax. And it was Mayor Mike who engineered this secret tax hike deal, when the sales tax that was enacted to retire Municipal Assistance Corporation bonds floated during the city's fiscal crisis in the 1970s was slated to sunset: "Well, the MAC debt ended; the 1 percent sales tax was to sunset on July 1, 2008. Mayor Bloomberg, however, asked Albany to halt the sunset and reimpose the sales tax so that it could be used for general city operating expenses."
How about a Knucklehead Award for the mayor? Here's the NY Post's 's editorial take on the tax heist: "Bloomberg, while bemoaning the loss of the congestion-pricing tax but not mentioning the sales-tax double-cross at all, called the budget agreement "good news for the city." Some good news. It's not just the $1.2 billion, by the way - though that's a lot of money. Equally important is the erosion of trust embodied in the stealth tax hike."
So what we have in all of this is a mayor who pretends to democratic transparency while he buys votes for his congestion tax just like he's at a public auction; while at the same time quietly socking tax payers without the benefit of any public notice. And just think, there are folks who are concerned about the $20 million that the council speaker doles out to local groups. Talk about misplaced priorities.
Yet that's exactly what happened when the Albany leadership slipped the sales tax extension through with absolutely no public discussion. Now we might have all been distracted by the hoo ha over the congestion tax. You know, the one that was going to give NYC $354 million in federal dollars. But an annual tax windfall that's more than double any of the projected revenues from the congestion tax scheme isn't even on the public radar.
Shame on the press, and on our elected officials-and the greatest shame on the hypocritical mayor who slammed Shelly Silver for not allowing public discussion and a vote on the Bloomberg congestion tax. And it was Mayor Mike who engineered this secret tax hike deal, when the sales tax that was enacted to retire Municipal Assistance Corporation bonds floated during the city's fiscal crisis in the 1970s was slated to sunset: "Well, the MAC debt ended; the 1 percent sales tax was to sunset on July 1, 2008. Mayor Bloomberg, however, asked Albany to halt the sunset and reimpose the sales tax so that it could be used for general city operating expenses."
How about a Knucklehead Award for the mayor? Here's the NY Post's 's editorial take on the tax heist: "Bloomberg, while bemoaning the loss of the congestion-pricing tax but not mentioning the sales-tax double-cross at all, called the budget agreement "good news for the city." Some good news. It's not just the $1.2 billion, by the way - though that's a lot of money. Equally important is the erosion of trust embodied in the stealth tax hike."
So what we have in all of this is a mayor who pretends to democratic transparency while he buys votes for his congestion tax just like he's at a public auction; while at the same time quietly socking tax payers without the benefit of any public notice. And just think, there are folks who are concerned about the $20 million that the council speaker doles out to local groups. Talk about misplaced priorities.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Development Dilemmas: Vornado and the Public Interest
In this morning's NY Times, the paper's Charles Bagli looks at the shaky planning initiatives over at the Far West Side: "For three years, it has been one of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s abiding ambitions: to transform the warehouses, factories, parking lots and railroad tracks between Pennsylvania Station and the Hudson River into a glimmering high-rise business district...Today, those plans are in disarray. Because of the economic downturn, logistical problems and, critics say, design flaws, the expansion of the Javits Center has died, the plan to rebuild Penn Station and the area around it is in jeopardy and there are deep questions about financing, public and private, to extend the subway or build over the railyards."
Just goes to show you, even when the best and the brightest are involved, it ain't easy planning things properly-and it sheds light on the less than stellar record of the "Bloomberg miracle." In fact, when political scientists go to examine the mayor's body of work, they're going to have to exhume it. When Mayor Mike goes for the gold, he just lacks the political skills to attain it.
Which brings us to our friends over at Vornado Realty and Distrust-the folks who we last saw looking to close one of the few modern supermarkets in the Soundview section of the Bronx. Vornado, and its partner in high end heisting, the Related Company, are looking to develop the Moynihan train station. They're going to need a lot of city help in doing so.
Here's Bagli's take: "The Penn Station plan, spearheaded by Stephen M. Ross of Related Companies and Steven Roth of Vornado Realty Trust, calls for rebuilding Pennsylvania Station and moving Madison Square Garden one block west to the nearly vacant Farley post office building, which would also serve as an annex to what would be called Moynihan Station. In return, the developers would get the rights to build a half-dozen office towers nearby."
The two companies, receiving favored nation status for the entire Bloomberg term (that's okay News and Post?), were designated by the Bloombergistas for this task by the former Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff-you know the fella who was also Steve Ross' friend and former business partner. Ross' company also got a no bid contract for the development of the Bronx Terminal Market (no "Knucklehead Award" for Dan here?).
The project, however, is going to need a lot of public support: "The Penn Station project is facing its own problems. The Garden is balking at the move, potentially killing the entire endeavor. If Vornado and Related Companies cannot lure the Garden back, they plan to revive an earlier plan to build a $900 million train station annex at the Farley building, an office tower across the street and improvements at Penn Station in return for more development rights. Vornado also plans to demolish the nearby Pennsylvania Hotel to make way for a large office project."
Could this be the same Vornado that wants to spit in the face of the health needs of South Bronx residents by evicting the Key Food on Bruckner Boulevard? It seems to us, that this would be an appropriate moment for all of the city's elected officials-from the mayor on down-to draw a line in the sand for these pork barrel billionaires. As the old saying goes; "No ticket, no laundry."
If Vornado wants the city to pony up for Moynihan, than a quid pro quo is needed for Bruckner. If Bruckner is private property, than the development rights around Moynihan are public property and belong to the city. It's that simple.
Just goes to show you, even when the best and the brightest are involved, it ain't easy planning things properly-and it sheds light on the less than stellar record of the "Bloomberg miracle." In fact, when political scientists go to examine the mayor's body of work, they're going to have to exhume it. When Mayor Mike goes for the gold, he just lacks the political skills to attain it.
Which brings us to our friends over at Vornado Realty and Distrust-the folks who we last saw looking to close one of the few modern supermarkets in the Soundview section of the Bronx. Vornado, and its partner in high end heisting, the Related Company, are looking to develop the Moynihan train station. They're going to need a lot of city help in doing so.
Here's Bagli's take: "The Penn Station plan, spearheaded by Stephen M. Ross of Related Companies and Steven Roth of Vornado Realty Trust, calls for rebuilding Pennsylvania Station and moving Madison Square Garden one block west to the nearly vacant Farley post office building, which would also serve as an annex to what would be called Moynihan Station. In return, the developers would get the rights to build a half-dozen office towers nearby."
The two companies, receiving favored nation status for the entire Bloomberg term (that's okay News and Post?), were designated by the Bloombergistas for this task by the former Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff-you know the fella who was also Steve Ross' friend and former business partner. Ross' company also got a no bid contract for the development of the Bronx Terminal Market (no "Knucklehead Award" for Dan here?).
The project, however, is going to need a lot of public support: "The Penn Station project is facing its own problems. The Garden is balking at the move, potentially killing the entire endeavor. If Vornado and Related Companies cannot lure the Garden back, they plan to revive an earlier plan to build a $900 million train station annex at the Farley building, an office tower across the street and improvements at Penn Station in return for more development rights. Vornado also plans to demolish the nearby Pennsylvania Hotel to make way for a large office project."
Could this be the same Vornado that wants to spit in the face of the health needs of South Bronx residents by evicting the Key Food on Bruckner Boulevard? It seems to us, that this would be an appropriate moment for all of the city's elected officials-from the mayor on down-to draw a line in the sand for these pork barrel billionaires. As the old saying goes; "No ticket, no laundry."
If Vornado wants the city to pony up for Moynihan, than a quid pro quo is needed for Bruckner. If Bruckner is private property, than the development rights around Moynihan are public property and belong to the city. It's that simple.
Nailing the Pig to the Post
The NY Post, following the News' piggish apoplexy on Saturday, has called for the elimination of all pork barrel discretionary spending: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn thinks she's found the right tweaks to fix the council's pork woes. Sorry, but pork is pork. And if ever there was a time to ban it - in Albany and at City Hall - this is it."
And just why must this be the logical progression from the council's latest phantom menace? Well because, according to the Post, "Why should millions of dollars be ladled out at the council's discretion? The grants are virtually always targeted to advance the personal and political interests of incumbents - while insurgents and outsiders need not apply."
So what? All political appropriations, no matter the methodology of disbursement, are targeted for the advancement of the interests of incumbents. And guess what? Incumbents are advantaged in any democratic system. The nuance here, lost in the editorial obsession with legislative misfeasance, is that all legislators are elected locally and are-and should be responsible to their districts.
Why should anyone be upset with the fact that spending is politicized? What's the alternative if it isn't? What system would replace it? Who would decide? Certainly we've seen the extent to which the wisdom of Mayor Mike's decision-making, unencumbered by the spoils system of political payback, has come to some disastrous endings. And we've seen how he's used political pork in the interests of some really questionable goals. But that's his right. He was elected and his discretion comes with the territory.
And so do legislative initiatives. That doesn't mean that the destination for some public funds shouldn't be criticized, but to question the wisdom of legislative initiatives per se, is to misread the essence of the system of checks and balances that keeps democracy vibrant.
So when the NY Post says, "Let's face it: The system reeks. If Quinn was a true reformer, she'd just abolish member items," it fails to do justice to the full scope of democratic practice in NYC politics. And by doing so, leaves the mayor in a much more powerful position than a mayoral-centric city charter already does.
And just why must this be the logical progression from the council's latest phantom menace? Well because, according to the Post, "Why should millions of dollars be ladled out at the council's discretion? The grants are virtually always targeted to advance the personal and political interests of incumbents - while insurgents and outsiders need not apply."
So what? All political appropriations, no matter the methodology of disbursement, are targeted for the advancement of the interests of incumbents. And guess what? Incumbents are advantaged in any democratic system. The nuance here, lost in the editorial obsession with legislative misfeasance, is that all legislators are elected locally and are-and should be responsible to their districts.
Why should anyone be upset with the fact that spending is politicized? What's the alternative if it isn't? What system would replace it? Who would decide? Certainly we've seen the extent to which the wisdom of Mayor Mike's decision-making, unencumbered by the spoils system of political payback, has come to some disastrous endings. And we've seen how he's used political pork in the interests of some really questionable goals. But that's his right. He was elected and his discretion comes with the territory.
And so do legislative initiatives. That doesn't mean that the destination for some public funds shouldn't be criticized, but to question the wisdom of legislative initiatives per se, is to misread the essence of the system of checks and balances that keeps democracy vibrant.
So when the NY Post says, "Let's face it: The system reeks. If Quinn was a true reformer, she'd just abolish member items," it fails to do justice to the full scope of democratic practice in NYC politics. And by doing so, leaves the mayor in a much more powerful position than a mayoral-centric city charter already does.
Pig-Headed Editorial
In an editorial on Saturday, The NY Daily News exhibited an ignorance about city governance as well as a wrong-headedness about what reform means in a democratic political system. Commenting on the speaker's decision to send about half of the council's discretionary money over to the mayor for vetting, the News opined: "Sure, there will be more openness, with all items in a database searchable by the public. And groups wanting money will have to provide fuller information, including disclosure of possible conflicts of interest. But the fact is there should be no member items. No more pork-barrel spending. No more oinking at the public trough."
Is the News serious? Does it really believe that issuing RFP's through city agencies will protect the funding process and remove favoritism? Won't the mayor-whoever that will be-make determinations based on his or her conceptions, friendships and political relationships? And will the local little league or senior center have the wherewith all to compete with well-funded not-for-profits for the outlays?
The News' argument is reminiscent of the fight by the progressives over patronage in the late 19th century, a fight that the historian Richard Hofstadter demonstrated to be a class-based and retrograde battle against empowering new immigrants; and something that was less than democratic. Let's state our position clearly: there's nothing wrong-certainly nothing anti-democratic-with patronage; and the dispensing of money for local projects, as long as properly monitored, allows local council members to take care of groups in their districts that have supported them. If there are other locals that get slighted there's term limits and democratic elections as a useful antidote for abuse.
The News' outrage is also selective when it comes to the abuse of power. For instance, when Deputy Mayor Doctoroff chose his friend Steve Ross' company to redevelop the Bronx Terminal Market without the benefit of a competitive bid, the paper was silent. This case of journalistic lockjaw was in the face of the fact that the sweetheart deal that was "negotiated," was so lucrative that it will reap the Related Company more in windfall profits than the entire council discretionary spending for scores of budget years.
In addition, as we have already commented on, the pork barrel vote trading that characterized the lead-up to the congestion tax vote at the City Council was hardly an exercise in the kind of transparent democratic practices that the Daily News wants us to believe is their bedrock principle. Perhaps the paper's silence in that episode was reflective of its totally unreflective and shameless cheer leading for another middle class tax. If that's true, than moral outrage is certainly a selective exercise at the paper's editorial office.
And the porking of the congestion tax vote is from a mayor who portrays himself as above the tawdry wheeling and dealing of the political process, someone for whom favoritism is as foreign as ethics is to an old Tammany ward healer. Mayor's wield great power in this city. It is important for the city council to retain as much of its power as necessary in order to counterbalance this mayoral muscle. The NY Daily News is one of the last places to find good advice for reforming NYC politics.
Is the News serious? Does it really believe that issuing RFP's through city agencies will protect the funding process and remove favoritism? Won't the mayor-whoever that will be-make determinations based on his or her conceptions, friendships and political relationships? And will the local little league or senior center have the wherewith all to compete with well-funded not-for-profits for the outlays?
The News' argument is reminiscent of the fight by the progressives over patronage in the late 19th century, a fight that the historian Richard Hofstadter demonstrated to be a class-based and retrograde battle against empowering new immigrants; and something that was less than democratic. Let's state our position clearly: there's nothing wrong-certainly nothing anti-democratic-with patronage; and the dispensing of money for local projects, as long as properly monitored, allows local council members to take care of groups in their districts that have supported them. If there are other locals that get slighted there's term limits and democratic elections as a useful antidote for abuse.
The News' outrage is also selective when it comes to the abuse of power. For instance, when Deputy Mayor Doctoroff chose his friend Steve Ross' company to redevelop the Bronx Terminal Market without the benefit of a competitive bid, the paper was silent. This case of journalistic lockjaw was in the face of the fact that the sweetheart deal that was "negotiated," was so lucrative that it will reap the Related Company more in windfall profits than the entire council discretionary spending for scores of budget years.
In addition, as we have already commented on, the pork barrel vote trading that characterized the lead-up to the congestion tax vote at the City Council was hardly an exercise in the kind of transparent democratic practices that the Daily News wants us to believe is their bedrock principle. Perhaps the paper's silence in that episode was reflective of its totally unreflective and shameless cheer leading for another middle class tax. If that's true, than moral outrage is certainly a selective exercise at the paper's editorial office.
And the porking of the congestion tax vote is from a mayor who portrays himself as above the tawdry wheeling and dealing of the political process, someone for whom favoritism is as foreign as ethics is to an old Tammany ward healer. Mayor's wield great power in this city. It is important for the city council to retain as much of its power as necessary in order to counterbalance this mayoral muscle. The NY Daily News is one of the last places to find good advice for reforming NYC politics.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Congestion Confusion
In a blog post today at the Daily Politics, Liz outlines a dispute-courtesy of the Downtown Express-between Councilman Alan Gerson and the Bloomberg administration over what was, or wasn't, promised in exchange for support for the failed congeation tax: "Gerson thought he had extracted a series of pledges from the Bloomberg administration in exchange for his support for congestion pricing and conditional on the plan passing Albany, but John Gallagher, a Bloomberg spokesperson said last week - when the proposal was still alive - that the city had made none of the promises for Lower Manhattan that Gerson claimed."
To us, this will be just the beginning, as disappointed elected officials start to publicly grouse over the reneging by the Bloombergistas. It will also start to shed light over the extent of the hose trading that went on before the vote. It certainly won't be a pretty picture for elected officials who claim to be above politics and good government aficionados.
Some glimpse of the wheeling and dealing can be seen from the following comments that Gerson gave to the paper: “I spoke directly to [police] commissioner Ray Kelly,” Gerson said. “I spoke directly to D.O.T. - commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. I spoke directly to the mayor at Gracie Mansion - although at that point we had not worked out the details of the commitments.”
It sounds to us a lot light a "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" scenario; with Gerson as the unrequited love object. How many others will fit into this category?
To us, this will be just the beginning, as disappointed elected officials start to publicly grouse over the reneging by the Bloombergistas. It will also start to shed light over the extent of the hose trading that went on before the vote. It certainly won't be a pretty picture for elected officials who claim to be above politics and good government aficionados.
Some glimpse of the wheeling and dealing can be seen from the following comments that Gerson gave to the paper: “I spoke directly to [police] commissioner Ray Kelly,” Gerson said. “I spoke directly to D.O.T. - commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. I spoke directly to the mayor at Gracie Mansion - although at that point we had not worked out the details of the commitments.”
It sounds to us a lot light a "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" scenario; with Gerson as the unrequited love object. How many others will fit into this category?
Sitt Does BJ's
In an article in the NY Post earlier this week it was announced that Joe Sitt, the Sitt of Coney Island fame, was planning to build a large shopping center off of the Belt parkway. The center is to be anchored by a BJ's Warehouse Club which brings to mind a Yiddish expression that Joe might know; "Man plans and God laughs."
As the Post describes it: "An internal document from Sitt's Thor Equities estimates "200,000 square feet of big-box retail use" at the shopping center, with project construction kicking off next year and ending in 2010. Sitt will need to go through the city's land use review process for a zoning change and esplanade approval. But the Bloomberg administration is more receptive to this plan than megaprojects that the developer is being blocked by the city from building in Coney Island and Red Hook."
The receptivity of the Bloombergistas may be a substantially less important than the reactions from area elected officials-particularly Councilman Recchia, and Senators Kruger, Savino and Assemblyman Colton. The non-union box store has run into considerable opposition elsewhere, and was roundly sent packing in the Bronx three years ago. There's no reason to believe that this particular development won't meet with the same level of opposition.
It's too bad that Sitt didn't consider the possibility of a full-service supermarket on the site instead of the limited selection BJ's. It just might be the case, however, that, after this project goes down in flames, a supermarket will look real good to everyone on both sides of the battle.
As the Post describes it: "An internal document from Sitt's Thor Equities estimates "200,000 square feet of big-box retail use" at the shopping center, with project construction kicking off next year and ending in 2010. Sitt will need to go through the city's land use review process for a zoning change and esplanade approval. But the Bloomberg administration is more receptive to this plan than megaprojects that the developer is being blocked by the city from building in Coney Island and Red Hook."
The receptivity of the Bloombergistas may be a substantially less important than the reactions from area elected officials-particularly Councilman Recchia, and Senators Kruger, Savino and Assemblyman Colton. The non-union box store has run into considerable opposition elsewhere, and was roundly sent packing in the Bronx three years ago. There's no reason to believe that this particular development won't meet with the same level of opposition.
It's too bad that Sitt didn't consider the possibility of a full-service supermarket on the site instead of the limited selection BJ's. It just might be the case, however, that, after this project goes down in flames, a supermarket will look real good to everyone on both sides of the battle.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Wither the Point
The lawsuit filed against the city by Willets Point property owners highlights another problem that the city faces-and this one is political. As Eliot Brown points out in the Observer's real estate blog: " The city was days away from starting that process in February when local council members, led by Hiram Monserrate, became vocal in opposition to the project as planned. The city then backed away from its late February start date and now it’s been almost two months since the council members spoke out, with no new date set to start the rezoning. Yesterday, even more council members climbed into the criticism camp. David Weprin, Diana Reyna, Eric Gioia, Leroy Comrie Jr. and James Sanders Jr. joined Mr. Monserrate and Tony Avella at a press conference yesterday to criticize the plan for its effects on the business and landowners, with many expressing outright opposition to any plan that included the use of eminent domain (Mayor Bloomberg has strongly supported the potential use of eminent domain in the project.)"
What this looks like to us is the fact that, due to recent political circumstances surrounding the mayor and the speaker, more council members are being emboldened to stake out a position on eminent domain issues. We've gone beyond the usual suspects (or perhaps the enlightened few) to what is beginning to look like a groundswell. Let the lame duckery begin!
What this looks like to us is the fact that, due to recent political circumstances surrounding the mayor and the speaker, more council members are being emboldened to stake out a position on eminent domain issues. We've gone beyond the usual suspects (or perhaps the enlightened few) to what is beginning to look like a groundswell. Let the lame duckery begin!
Point-Counterpoint
The business owners at Willets Point are suing the city for-well, theft of services sounds about right. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Business owners in Willets Point — the district near Shea Stadium known mostly for its auto repair shops and potholes — filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday accusing the city of depriving the neighborhood of services so property values would fall, easing the way for the land to be taken through eminent domain."
This situation is similar to the one up in West Harlem where Columbia University has bought properties and allowed them to deteriorate, as a ploy to get the state to label the expansion area as "blighted." The Willets situation is actually exponentially worse since it is the city itself that is culpable for the blighting-and now wants to penalize the businesses for its own misfeasance and neglect.
As the NY Daily News points out this morning: "The suit says the city has withheld services such as trash and snow removal and police surveillance; refused to maintain drainage, roadways and sanitary sewerage lines, and allowed curbs, gutters and fire hydrants to deteriorate beyond repair." There's an old anecdote about two Germans passing a Jewish ghetto in the late 1930s that's illustrative of this outrage. One of the Germans says to his companion; "Boy, don't those Jews smell." To which his companion replies; "That's not the Jews who smell, that's the stench of Nazism."
Sure the Iron Triangle is blighted, but in spite of the blight, and just as it was in West Harlem, businesses are thriving and employing lots of folks. In the Point the numbers are in the thousands. As Tom Angotti's study has underscored: "While the Economic Development Corporation claims there are 80 businesses in this 48-acre area, a recent survey I conducted through the Hunter College Center for Community Planning & Development instead found 225 businesses that provide an estimated 1,300 jobs. The business survey was part of a land use study, including maps prepared by the CUNY Mapping Service, commissioned by Council Member Hiram Monseratte, who has questioned the city’s plans to relocate area businesses from his district."
And what's the view of EDC on all of this? "Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the city Economic Development Corp., called Willets Point "a blighted and seriously contaminated site that has developed haphazardly into a hodgepodge of small businesses...It requires a comprehensive remediation and redevelopment plan to clean up the mess and provide infrastructure for future sustainable growth," added Patterson, who did not address the property owners' allegations of neglect."
So now the city is going to throw out the hundreds of businesses and the thousands of workers so that a few real estate companies can reap the benefits of the city's belated investment in infrastructure? This is seriously messed up, and cries out for a new approach to eminent domain that allows for greater scrutiny of blight claims-and yes my friends the undeveloped acreage around Atlantic Yards is different from the living, breathing businesses in West Harlem and on the Point.
This situation is similar to the one up in West Harlem where Columbia University has bought properties and allowed them to deteriorate, as a ploy to get the state to label the expansion area as "blighted." The Willets situation is actually exponentially worse since it is the city itself that is culpable for the blighting-and now wants to penalize the businesses for its own misfeasance and neglect.
As the NY Daily News points out this morning: "The suit says the city has withheld services such as trash and snow removal and police surveillance; refused to maintain drainage, roadways and sanitary sewerage lines, and allowed curbs, gutters and fire hydrants to deteriorate beyond repair." There's an old anecdote about two Germans passing a Jewish ghetto in the late 1930s that's illustrative of this outrage. One of the Germans says to his companion; "Boy, don't those Jews smell." To which his companion replies; "That's not the Jews who smell, that's the stench of Nazism."
Sure the Iron Triangle is blighted, but in spite of the blight, and just as it was in West Harlem, businesses are thriving and employing lots of folks. In the Point the numbers are in the thousands. As Tom Angotti's study has underscored: "While the Economic Development Corporation claims there are 80 businesses in this 48-acre area, a recent survey I conducted through the Hunter College Center for Community Planning & Development instead found 225 businesses that provide an estimated 1,300 jobs. The business survey was part of a land use study, including maps prepared by the CUNY Mapping Service, commissioned by Council Member Hiram Monseratte, who has questioned the city’s plans to relocate area businesses from his district."
And what's the view of EDC on all of this? "Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the city Economic Development Corp., called Willets Point "a blighted and seriously contaminated site that has developed haphazardly into a hodgepodge of small businesses...It requires a comprehensive remediation and redevelopment plan to clean up the mess and provide infrastructure for future sustainable growth," added Patterson, who did not address the property owners' allegations of neglect."
So now the city is going to throw out the hundreds of businesses and the thousands of workers so that a few real estate companies can reap the benefits of the city's belated investment in infrastructure? This is seriously messed up, and cries out for a new approach to eminent domain that allows for greater scrutiny of blight claims-and yes my friends the undeveloped acreage around Atlantic Yards is different from the living, breathing businesses in West Harlem and on the Point.
Albany's Smuggler Compact
The just concluded state budget has given the black marketeers a big reason to rejoice. As the NY Daily News reports this morning: "As part of the new state budget, the little cigars - which look just like cigarettes, except they are wrapped in brown paper that is partly made from tobacco - will be classified as cigarettes in New York starting June 3. That's the same day the state tax on a pack of cigarettes shoots up to $2.75, from $1.50 - making New York's levy on cigarettes the highest in the nation."
So now the incentives have escalated without any relief for the smuggling that has become endemic in New York-something that the former governor had promised to address but never did. The convenience stores that operate around or near the upstate Indian reservations-where untaxed smokes are sold with impunity-have been given a dagger to the heart of their businesses.
And downstate, where back-packed street corner salespeople proliferate in the city's poorer neighborhoods. the smuggling margins have been raised to windfall status. All of which leaves the anti-smoking advocates in a state of stupefied glee: "New York State is now the national public health leader in tobacco taxation," said Michael Seilback, policy director for the American Lung Association's state chapter."
Once again, those who say that they stand for the health of New Yorkers, fail to stand for the health of the neighborhood stores; businesses that provide for the sustenance of the people whose health would certainly be in jeopardy without real employment opportunities. Watch out for another spike in street violence as smugglers (really street vendors; maybe the mayor will license them?) fight for territory.
So now the incentives have escalated without any relief for the smuggling that has become endemic in New York-something that the former governor had promised to address but never did. The convenience stores that operate around or near the upstate Indian reservations-where untaxed smokes are sold with impunity-have been given a dagger to the heart of their businesses.
And downstate, where back-packed street corner salespeople proliferate in the city's poorer neighborhoods. the smuggling margins have been raised to windfall status. All of which leaves the anti-smoking advocates in a state of stupefied glee: "New York State is now the national public health leader in tobacco taxation," said Michael Seilback, policy director for the American Lung Association's state chapter."
Once again, those who say that they stand for the health of New Yorkers, fail to stand for the health of the neighborhood stores; businesses that provide for the sustenance of the people whose health would certainly be in jeopardy without real employment opportunities. Watch out for another spike in street violence as smugglers (really street vendors; maybe the mayor will license them?) fight for territory.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Scapegoating Shelly
There are two pieces in this morning's papers that go along way towards balancing the one-sided attack on Speaker Silver Silver for his failure to shepherd the mayor's traffic tax through the assembly. The first, an editorial headline in the NY Post makes this telling point: "BLAME MIKE, NOT SHELLY."
The Post goes on to point out that; "We're not shy about bashing Silver; his reputation for putting his own personal interests above those of average New Yorkers is surely well-earned...But in this case, Mayor Bloomberg couldn't sell a flawed plan. Lawmakers couldn't bear to be blamed for what many, particularly in the outer boroughs, saw (with good reason) as a new tax on the middle class. They regarded the fee as an elitist levy on the average Joe and Jane. They failed to trust Mike's vow that revenues would go to mass transit. And they disliked Hizzoner's heavy-handed ways."
Which is what we've been saying all along since we first were asked to lend a hand to the anti-congestion tax coalition-and the tax mantra, honed by McCaffrey and Bearak and hollered from the rooftops by Barrison, was a non-stop message until the final bell tolled on the mayor's scheme. Here's the NY Sun's take in its editorial from yesterday: "Someday a rising Ph.D. student is going to make a name for himself or herself by illuminating the Sheldon Silver story. The way in which he outmaneuvered the mayor on congestion pricing was just a classic. And we say that as an editorial page that was open to the idea when it first began to be mooted and came gradually to understand what the Assembly saw, which is that it was a tax, after all, and an impediment, a restriction on us."
So the theme here is simple: the idea was an elitist tax; and the salesman of the idea was a bumbling billionaire whose haughty demeanor and lack of political skills made him the perfect foil for the speaker. There's an old story told by Tom Lehrer that epitomizes this situation: "My dog was run over the other day, but the driver did it with such skill that the bystanders awarded him both ears and the tail."
The congestion tax was Bloomberg's dog. And the skillful driver was Shelly Silver, someone who should be lionized and not vilified. Which is just what Juan Gonzales does this morning in the NY Daily News: "Shelly Silver of Grand St. on the lower East Side is a New York hero.
If you listen to the ravings of Michael Bloomberg and his powerful friends, Assembly Speaker Silver trampled democracy, promoted pollution and crippled the future of our transit system by killing the mayor's congestion tax. Don't swallow such nonsense. Taxpayers should erect a statue to Silver for standing up - once again - to Bloomberg's relentless bullying and vote-buying."
And Gonzales goes further by pointing out how absurd some critics are for seeing the Silver scenario as somehow undemocratic: "Silver, on the other hand, actually practiced some real democracy. Even though he favored congestion pricing, the speaker carefully listened to each of his members in eight hours of emotional debate in the Assembly's Democratic caucus.
"Everyone had a shot to speak in the debate," said Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat of Washington Heights, a supporter of congestion pricing. "The votes just weren't there. The opposition was overwhelming. What can you do?" "Five weeks ago, I told the mayor's people that between last June and now there was no change - it was still 5 to 1 against," said Assemblyman James Brennan of Brooklyn, another backer of the mayor's plan."
Compare this, as Gonzales does, to the pork barrel horse trading that went on prior to the vote in the city council-an accounting that still needs to be done. And we haven't even seen the bill on the exercise of democracy that went into the purchase of all of the astro turf environmental groups. Here's Gonzales on the mayor: "This is a mayor, for those who have forgotten, who practically bought the state Republican Party's support for congestion pricing with a $500,000 donation earlier this year. He then turned City Hall into "Let's Make a Deal" in an effort to overcome the opposition of City Council members last week to his controversial, $8-per-day tax on cars coming into Manhattan."
Yet the mayor, still in the political fog that he can't seem to escape, sees all of this as unfair and undemocratic, As the Daily News points out elsewhere: "Bloomberg - backer of both the stadium and congestion pricing - was still steaming Tuesday. "I do not think that any one person should decide what is right," he said in Washington. "The results would have been there. It would have passed."
Which part of this statement is sillier? The belief that one man shouldn't be able to make unilateral decisions? Or the supposition that if Silver had brought this to a vote it would have passed? Either one by itself would be a sign of political dementia; but together they make out-of-touch seem like real intimacy.
Speaking of out-of-touch, the final silliness in all of this belongs to the recently escaped figure of Darren Dopp-the man who was last seen sneaking out of the executive mansion before the cave-in. Dopp now works for Pat Lynch and he reacts this morning in Crain's Insider to the idea that his new boss was a loser in all of this: "Lynch spokesman Darren Dopp says: “No one gave it a shot when it was first proposed last year. It got as far as it did because of Pat Lynch Associates.”
That statement's silliness speaks volumes for itself; Lynch wasn't responsible for the loss, everything else is pure spin.
The Post goes on to point out that; "We're not shy about bashing Silver; his reputation for putting his own personal interests above those of average New Yorkers is surely well-earned...But in this case, Mayor Bloomberg couldn't sell a flawed plan. Lawmakers couldn't bear to be blamed for what many, particularly in the outer boroughs, saw (with good reason) as a new tax on the middle class. They regarded the fee as an elitist levy on the average Joe and Jane. They failed to trust Mike's vow that revenues would go to mass transit. And they disliked Hizzoner's heavy-handed ways."
Which is what we've been saying all along since we first were asked to lend a hand to the anti-congestion tax coalition-and the tax mantra, honed by McCaffrey and Bearak and hollered from the rooftops by Barrison, was a non-stop message until the final bell tolled on the mayor's scheme. Here's the NY Sun's take in its editorial from yesterday: "Someday a rising Ph.D. student is going to make a name for himself or herself by illuminating the Sheldon Silver story. The way in which he outmaneuvered the mayor on congestion pricing was just a classic. And we say that as an editorial page that was open to the idea when it first began to be mooted and came gradually to understand what the Assembly saw, which is that it was a tax, after all, and an impediment, a restriction on us."
So the theme here is simple: the idea was an elitist tax; and the salesman of the idea was a bumbling billionaire whose haughty demeanor and lack of political skills made him the perfect foil for the speaker. There's an old story told by Tom Lehrer that epitomizes this situation: "My dog was run over the other day, but the driver did it with such skill that the bystanders awarded him both ears and the tail."
The congestion tax was Bloomberg's dog. And the skillful driver was Shelly Silver, someone who should be lionized and not vilified. Which is just what Juan Gonzales does this morning in the NY Daily News: "Shelly Silver of Grand St. on the lower East Side is a New York hero.
If you listen to the ravings of Michael Bloomberg and his powerful friends, Assembly Speaker Silver trampled democracy, promoted pollution and crippled the future of our transit system by killing the mayor's congestion tax. Don't swallow such nonsense. Taxpayers should erect a statue to Silver for standing up - once again - to Bloomberg's relentless bullying and vote-buying."
And Gonzales goes further by pointing out how absurd some critics are for seeing the Silver scenario as somehow undemocratic: "Silver, on the other hand, actually practiced some real democracy. Even though he favored congestion pricing, the speaker carefully listened to each of his members in eight hours of emotional debate in the Assembly's Democratic caucus.
"Everyone had a shot to speak in the debate," said Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat of Washington Heights, a supporter of congestion pricing. "The votes just weren't there. The opposition was overwhelming. What can you do?" "Five weeks ago, I told the mayor's people that between last June and now there was no change - it was still 5 to 1 against," said Assemblyman James Brennan of Brooklyn, another backer of the mayor's plan."
Compare this, as Gonzales does, to the pork barrel horse trading that went on prior to the vote in the city council-an accounting that still needs to be done. And we haven't even seen the bill on the exercise of democracy that went into the purchase of all of the astro turf environmental groups. Here's Gonzales on the mayor: "This is a mayor, for those who have forgotten, who practically bought the state Republican Party's support for congestion pricing with a $500,000 donation earlier this year. He then turned City Hall into "Let's Make a Deal" in an effort to overcome the opposition of City Council members last week to his controversial, $8-per-day tax on cars coming into Manhattan."
Yet the mayor, still in the political fog that he can't seem to escape, sees all of this as unfair and undemocratic, As the Daily News points out elsewhere: "Bloomberg - backer of both the stadium and congestion pricing - was still steaming Tuesday. "I do not think that any one person should decide what is right," he said in Washington. "The results would have been there. It would have passed."
Which part of this statement is sillier? The belief that one man shouldn't be able to make unilateral decisions? Or the supposition that if Silver had brought this to a vote it would have passed? Either one by itself would be a sign of political dementia; but together they make out-of-touch seem like real intimacy.
Speaking of out-of-touch, the final silliness in all of this belongs to the recently escaped figure of Darren Dopp-the man who was last seen sneaking out of the executive mansion before the cave-in. Dopp now works for Pat Lynch and he reacts this morning in Crain's Insider to the idea that his new boss was a loser in all of this: "Lynch spokesman Darren Dopp says: “No one gave it a shot when it was first proposed last year. It got as far as it did because of Pat Lynch Associates.”
That statement's silliness speaks volumes for itself; Lynch wasn't responsible for the loss, everything else is pure spin.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
"Wisdom" from Transportation Alternatives
Liz is posting on the rationale being put forward by congestion tax supporter Charles Komanoff of Transportation Alternatives and Streetsblog fame. Komanoff lays out ten reasons for the plan's failure but leaves out one really important one: the obnoxious arrogance of his own cohort in gratuitously and viciously (not to mention self-defeating) attacking legislators who disagreed with their self-righteousness. The lesson: Beware of lobbyists who are ideologues.
The much more insightful post mortem is in the NY Times this morning, and the paper's headline captures the essence of the reason for the plan's demise: "Bloomberg Tactics Were Highhanded on Traffic Plan, Lawmakers Say." Not, as Komanoff says, that the mayor was "not personally engaged enough," but that he was if anything-given his personality-much too engaged.
In the Times piece the focus is also on Sadik-Kahn, Parsons-Brinckerhoff's transportation commissioner: "In Albany, the commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, expressed the mayor’s sentiments, saying: “You are either for this historic change in New York or you’re against it. And if you’re against it, you’re going to have a lot of explaining to do.” Ms. Sadik-Khan’s remarks were widely noted by Albany lawmakers, with some viewing her tone as condescending. So when it was revealed that the state police had pulled her over for speeding and improperly using her lights and sirens on her way to the Capitol, it only underscored what the legislators saw as the Bloomberg administration’s imperious attitude."
Exactly so! And the Times story could have been simply a re-write of the stadium post mortem: "Given the New York City Council’s limited powers, and its habit of deferring to the mayor, Mr. Bloomberg has sometimes found himself at a loss for how to persuade a resistant State Legislature to embrace his plans." Once again, we say " "Once burnt, twice learnt." Not so apparently with the imperial mayoralty.
The much more insightful post mortem is in the NY Times this morning, and the paper's headline captures the essence of the reason for the plan's demise: "Bloomberg Tactics Were Highhanded on Traffic Plan, Lawmakers Say." Not, as Komanoff says, that the mayor was "not personally engaged enough," but that he was if anything-given his personality-much too engaged.
In the Times piece the focus is also on Sadik-Kahn, Parsons-Brinckerhoff's transportation commissioner: "In Albany, the commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, expressed the mayor’s sentiments, saying: “You are either for this historic change in New York or you’re against it. And if you’re against it, you’re going to have a lot of explaining to do.” Ms. Sadik-Khan’s remarks were widely noted by Albany lawmakers, with some viewing her tone as condescending. So when it was revealed that the state police had pulled her over for speeding and improperly using her lights and sirens on her way to the Capitol, it only underscored what the legislators saw as the Bloomberg administration’s imperious attitude."
Exactly so! And the Times story could have been simply a re-write of the stadium post mortem: "Given the New York City Council’s limited powers, and its habit of deferring to the mayor, Mr. Bloomberg has sometimes found himself at a loss for how to persuade a resistant State Legislature to embrace his plans." Once again, we say " "Once burnt, twice learnt." Not so apparently with the imperial mayoralty.
NY Times Boosts Silver on Congestion
The NY Times, always looking out for the interests of average New Yorkers, give an unwitting boost to Assembly Speaker Silver today in its editorial: "After weeks of dithering as a deadline for the federal grant neared and then expired, Mr. Silver has now ensured the uncertain future of an already strained mass transit system and the continued growing problems of gridlock and tailpipe emissions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."
Not content to end there, the Times then proceeds to show Silver the door: "The congestion-pricing plan was not perfect, but it improved over time. Mr. Silver did not seem to put any effort into addressing the concerns of its opponents or into moving his members to do the right thing.
He failed to put New Yorkers’ needs before his personal agenda. That makes him unworthy of his office."
If there's any one thing that can underscore the importance and public necessity of Shelly Silver's leadership, its condemnation from the paper that sees government as benign, and tax hikes on New Yorkers as salutary. The Times now forgets all of its condemnation of the MTA and the only thing it can think of is revenue enhancement.
As Metro points out today; "Yet yesterday’s real loser is the MTA, which stood to receive the toll revenue and will now likely face leaner times ahead. Even with congestion pricing, the MTA had a $9.5 billion hole in its five-year capital plan. Bonds backed by the fee would have provided $4.5 billion, while another $4 billion in bonds would be supported by new state funding and a local match." Or, as we would say, even with the latest fare hike the agency's profligate ways continue to lead to hemorrhaging money.
The congestion tax was a diversion from the real issue: MTA misfeasance; in fact, the tax would have postponed what should be the inevitable-a total reformulation of a public authority that doesn't understand the meaning of the word "public."
Not content to end there, the Times then proceeds to show Silver the door: "The congestion-pricing plan was not perfect, but it improved over time. Mr. Silver did not seem to put any effort into addressing the concerns of its opponents or into moving his members to do the right thing.
He failed to put New Yorkers’ needs before his personal agenda. That makes him unworthy of his office."
If there's any one thing that can underscore the importance and public necessity of Shelly Silver's leadership, its condemnation from the paper that sees government as benign, and tax hikes on New Yorkers as salutary. The Times now forgets all of its condemnation of the MTA and the only thing it can think of is revenue enhancement.
As Metro points out today; "Yet yesterday’s real loser is the MTA, which stood to receive the toll revenue and will now likely face leaner times ahead. Even with congestion pricing, the MTA had a $9.5 billion hole in its five-year capital plan. Bonds backed by the fee would have provided $4.5 billion, while another $4 billion in bonds would be supported by new state funding and a local match." Or, as we would say, even with the latest fare hike the agency's profligate ways continue to lead to hemorrhaging money.
The congestion tax was a diversion from the real issue: MTA misfeasance; in fact, the tax would have postponed what should be the inevitable-a total reformulation of a public authority that doesn't understand the meaning of the word "public."
Three Card Mayor
If, as the NY Daily News and the NY Post suggest, the defeat of the congestion tax was a Shel game, than it appears that Mayor Mike's lack of street smarts prevented him from seeing where the pea was hidden. And a frustrated mayor lashed out at what he saw as a rigged game. As the News points out: "Mayor Bloomberg's congestion-pricing dream died Monday without even a vote, and the mayor unleashed his white-hot fury at the man he blamed the most, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Bloomberg - said by aides to be too angry to be out in front of the cameras after the defeat - issued a statement that all but called Silver a coward."
Someone needs to take a chill pill, the fact remains that Mike Bloomberg didn't know how to play this game-and it's mayor culpa, mayor culpa, mayor maxima culpa. As the NY Post points out: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver delivered another painful civics lesson to Mayor Bloomberg yesterday, although this time - unlike Silver's humiliation of the mayor in the bitter West Side stadium battle three years ago - rejecting his congestion-pricing plan was anything but personal.
The lesson was that it is extremely dangerous for a legislative leader to - as they say in the Legislature - "get out ahead of his members" - a lesson Silver learned in 2000 when he was nearly ousted in a coup."
So our friend Bill Hammond gets it wrong this morning when he tells his readers: "Bloomberg and his team of experts took on some of the biggest challenges facing the city - paralyzing traffic, choking smog and overcrowded mass transit. They spent months developing a coherent plan based on solid reasoning and hard evidence. They amassed a huge coalition of civic groups. They held 14 public hearings and, responding to critics, made dozens of changes to their
proposal...Overall, they ran a campaign that belongs in political science textbooks, in the chapter called, "How to Do Things Right."
Sorry Bill, that's just plain wrong. The mayor set up what amounts to the biggest faux grass roots effort this city has ever seen-a coalition of the greedy looking for development payoffs, elitist bicycle brigades who held the city's car commuters in contempt, and the Daily News itself-a one man amen chorus. It didn't, however, have any of the folks who told survey after survey that they thought the idea stunk.
Bloomberg also unleashed a stealth payoff program that enticed environmental groups to abandon their long held beliefs in the sanctity of environmental review. The "coherent plan" was never properly vetted for its environmental impact, and critics like ourselves were ignored when we pointed this hypocrisy out. Hammond's final take? "Bloomberg, though defeated, has no reason to be ashamed. He took the high road. He argued his case on the merits. Short of ordering spine transplants for the entire Legislature, there wasn't anything more Hizzoner could have done."
What exactly was meritorious about the about the vote changing in the City Council when it came time to count heads? What about the $500,000 check to the senate majority? What about the threats to lawmakers from the League of Conservation Voters, or whatever this "grass roots" group is called?
The reality here is that, as the NY Times points out, no support for the plan existed in the assembly: "Democratic members of the State Assembly held one final meeting to debate the merits of Mr. Bloomberg’s plan and found overwhelming and persistent opposition." So the News' Michael Daley is flat out wrong when he says: "So much for democracy.One guy says "no" to the West Side stadium and the project is dead. The same guy says "no" to congestion pricing and that's dead, too. Without a vote. Without a single public hearing. Without even a moment's open debate. Just this one guy with the demeanor of an undertaker saying one word.
"No." However you stand on congestion pricing, whatever you felt about the stadium, you should be outraged. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has once again ignored the principles we are all supposed to believe in."
This was more democratic than the suborned city council process, and a public vote that so many disappointed supporters are making a big deal over wouldn't have made any difference. As the Time puts it: "“The congestion pricing bill did not have anywhere near a majority of the Democratic conference, and will not be on the floor of the Assembly,” Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, said after the meeting."
All of which is a giant blow to the mayor's legacy, particularly his recently garnered environmental consciousness. As we told the NY Sun: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, a coalition of small businesses, said the mayor may have made a tactical error by focusing his energy on "the most contentious item" in his environmental plan, congestion pricing, and suggested that the approach would make it harder to push through the rest of his sustainability agenda."He's got a difficult job ahead in the next 18 months to generate the enthusiasm for the sustainability that winning this fight would have given him," he said. "It will be a real challenge for the mayor to do that. I'm not sure he'll be able to achieve it."
Someone needs to take a chill pill, the fact remains that Mike Bloomberg didn't know how to play this game-and it's mayor culpa, mayor culpa, mayor maxima culpa. As the NY Post points out: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver delivered another painful civics lesson to Mayor Bloomberg yesterday, although this time - unlike Silver's humiliation of the mayor in the bitter West Side stadium battle three years ago - rejecting his congestion-pricing plan was anything but personal.
The lesson was that it is extremely dangerous for a legislative leader to - as they say in the Legislature - "get out ahead of his members" - a lesson Silver learned in 2000 when he was nearly ousted in a coup."
So our friend Bill Hammond gets it wrong this morning when he tells his readers: "Bloomberg and his team of experts took on some of the biggest challenges facing the city - paralyzing traffic, choking smog and overcrowded mass transit. They spent months developing a coherent plan based on solid reasoning and hard evidence. They amassed a huge coalition of civic groups. They held 14 public hearings and, responding to critics, made dozens of changes to their
proposal...Overall, they ran a campaign that belongs in political science textbooks, in the chapter called, "How to Do Things Right."
Sorry Bill, that's just plain wrong. The mayor set up what amounts to the biggest faux grass roots effort this city has ever seen-a coalition of the greedy looking for development payoffs, elitist bicycle brigades who held the city's car commuters in contempt, and the Daily News itself-a one man amen chorus. It didn't, however, have any of the folks who told survey after survey that they thought the idea stunk.
Bloomberg also unleashed a stealth payoff program that enticed environmental groups to abandon their long held beliefs in the sanctity of environmental review. The "coherent plan" was never properly vetted for its environmental impact, and critics like ourselves were ignored when we pointed this hypocrisy out. Hammond's final take? "Bloomberg, though defeated, has no reason to be ashamed. He took the high road. He argued his case on the merits. Short of ordering spine transplants for the entire Legislature, there wasn't anything more Hizzoner could have done."
What exactly was meritorious about the about the vote changing in the City Council when it came time to count heads? What about the $500,000 check to the senate majority? What about the threats to lawmakers from the League of Conservation Voters, or whatever this "grass roots" group is called?
The reality here is that, as the NY Times points out, no support for the plan existed in the assembly: "Democratic members of the State Assembly held one final meeting to debate the merits of Mr. Bloomberg’s plan and found overwhelming and persistent opposition." So the News' Michael Daley is flat out wrong when he says: "So much for democracy.One guy says "no" to the West Side stadium and the project is dead. The same guy says "no" to congestion pricing and that's dead, too. Without a vote. Without a single public hearing. Without even a moment's open debate. Just this one guy with the demeanor of an undertaker saying one word.
"No." However you stand on congestion pricing, whatever you felt about the stadium, you should be outraged. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has once again ignored the principles we are all supposed to believe in."
This was more democratic than the suborned city council process, and a public vote that so many disappointed supporters are making a big deal over wouldn't have made any difference. As the Time puts it: "“The congestion pricing bill did not have anywhere near a majority of the Democratic conference, and will not be on the floor of the Assembly,” Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, said after the meeting."
All of which is a giant blow to the mayor's legacy, particularly his recently garnered environmental consciousness. As we told the NY Sun: "Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, a coalition of small businesses, said the mayor may have made a tactical error by focusing his energy on "the most contentious item" in his environmental plan, congestion pricing, and suggested that the approach would make it harder to push through the rest of his sustainability agenda."He's got a difficult job ahead in the next 18 months to generate the enthusiasm for the sustainability that winning this fight would have given him," he said. "It will be a real challenge for the mayor to do that. I'm not sure he'll be able to achieve it."
DOH's Research Firm: Dewey, Cheatum and Howe
As the NY Sun is reporting, the city's attempt to overcome a legal challenge to its calorie posting rule may be running afoul of the total lack of scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of the rule in reducing obesity. The problem lies with the fact that the health department is trying to use its own study, one that we excoriated ourselves last year, to establish that calorie posting will help people make better eating choices.
Here's what we said about the DOH survey last spring: "First of all, the department didn't do any research-certainly none that would survive peer review. It did some self-serving questionnaires that failed to demonstrate much last summer, and the commissioners prescience about how the industry will respond to his cockamamie rules beggars credulity. If left to their own devices the team of Frieden and Bloomberg would be dictating everything that New Yorkers put into their mouths."
Now it turns out that we weren't alone in our skepticism. As the Sun tells us: "City health officials ran into difficulties at the end of last year when they tried to get the report published. The editor at the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, published by the CDC, wrote in an e-mail message to Dr. Frieden that the “conclusions being drawn by the study, are of course, problematic.”
Now why was that? Well. because, "One problem identified by the editor, Frederic Shaw, was the focus on Subway, which uses an ad campaign about weight loss and may attract a more calorie-conscious clientele, according to an e-mail sent by Dr. Shaw to Dr. Frieden. More broadly, Dr. Shaw suggested that there was “a lurking probability that people who look at caloric information are much different from everybody else.” In other words, many people may not change their eating habits despite being confronted with data."
As we pointed out last year, "The answer is in a survey that, as far as we know, no one has seen and almost certainly was not scientifically designed and peer-reviewed. According to this survey, the customers at Subways are being informed about calorie counts and because they are, better nutritional choices are being made." Subway? The typical fast food joint? Once again, the department is trying to mark its own test.
Not only was all of this scientifically shabby-shouldn't we go back and review the telephony survey that DOH did for its green cart initiative?-but the lead department author of the study tried to rig the review process: "The lawyer, Kent Yalowitz of the firm Arnold & Porter, also suggested that Dr. Bassett, the deputy commissioner, should have disclosed “her personal involvement in recruiting peer reviewers to review the study of which she was the lead author.”
Mr. Yalowitz never explicitly accuses Dr. Bassett of a conflict of interest, but does suggest that the city was in a rush to get the study published so that it could cite it in the current litigation."
The whole thing is a charade-one that the NY Times bought hook, line and sinker: "The big chains fighting the city might take a cue from Subway. The sandwich maker is using calorie counts as a marketing tool and a way to build on its reputation as a more healthful fast-food alternative. It has voluntarily posted calories where customers can easily see them, usually on the menu board." So, the Times' answer is for all fast food outlets become health food restaurants.
All of this will hopefully lead to the court's rejection of this stupidity-and the scientific sleight-of-hand by folks who don't mind fudging things in the name of self-righteousness. All eyes are on Judge Holwell.
Here's what we said about the DOH survey last spring: "First of all, the department didn't do any research-certainly none that would survive peer review. It did some self-serving questionnaires that failed to demonstrate much last summer, and the commissioners prescience about how the industry will respond to his cockamamie rules beggars credulity. If left to their own devices the team of Frieden and Bloomberg would be dictating everything that New Yorkers put into their mouths."
Now it turns out that we weren't alone in our skepticism. As the Sun tells us: "City health officials ran into difficulties at the end of last year when they tried to get the report published. The editor at the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, published by the CDC, wrote in an e-mail message to Dr. Frieden that the “conclusions being drawn by the study, are of course, problematic.”
Now why was that? Well. because, "One problem identified by the editor, Frederic Shaw, was the focus on Subway, which uses an ad campaign about weight loss and may attract a more calorie-conscious clientele, according to an e-mail sent by Dr. Shaw to Dr. Frieden. More broadly, Dr. Shaw suggested that there was “a lurking probability that people who look at caloric information are much different from everybody else.” In other words, many people may not change their eating habits despite being confronted with data."
As we pointed out last year, "The answer is in a survey that, as far as we know, no one has seen and almost certainly was not scientifically designed and peer-reviewed. According to this survey, the customers at Subways are being informed about calorie counts and because they are, better nutritional choices are being made." Subway? The typical fast food joint? Once again, the department is trying to mark its own test.
Not only was all of this scientifically shabby-shouldn't we go back and review the telephony survey that DOH did for its green cart initiative?-but the lead department author of the study tried to rig the review process: "The lawyer, Kent Yalowitz of the firm Arnold & Porter, also suggested that Dr. Bassett, the deputy commissioner, should have disclosed “her personal involvement in recruiting peer reviewers to review the study of which she was the lead author.”
Mr. Yalowitz never explicitly accuses Dr. Bassett of a conflict of interest, but does suggest that the city was in a rush to get the study published so that it could cite it in the current litigation."
The whole thing is a charade-one that the NY Times bought hook, line and sinker: "The big chains fighting the city might take a cue from Subway. The sandwich maker is using calorie counts as a marketing tool and a way to build on its reputation as a more healthful fast-food alternative. It has voluntarily posted calories where customers can easily see them, usually on the menu board." So, the Times' answer is for all fast food outlets become health food restaurants.
All of this will hopefully lead to the court's rejection of this stupidity-and the scientific sleight-of-hand by folks who don't mind fudging things in the name of self-righteousness. All eyes are on Judge Holwell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
