We really got a big kick out of the Observer's ranking of Richard Lipsky as one of the 100 most influential people in NYC real estate. Here's the blurb:
80
Richard Lipsky
Lobbyist, Richard Lipsky Associates
To many large developers, particularly those who build big-box retail, Mr. Lipsky is a pain in the ass. He organizes public opposition and pitches to the media a constant David vs. Goliath story line, usually with small retailers, threatened by the Vornados and the Related Companies of the world, playing the David role.
In over twenty five years of lobbying work on behalf of small businesses, communities and labor, we have stooped over twenty separate big box and shopping center developments-the only consistent force operating successfully in this capacity; which makes the ranking of Norman Oder ahead of us as something of a mystery. What has Norman actually stopped in his vendetta against Atlantic Yards, and has he ever done anything else to create a body of work?
In any event, thanks to the Observer for putting us-along with our limited real estate portfolio-in with the Rosses, the Trumps, and the Roths of the world. For at least one day we get to feel somewhat like a mogul
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
More Vanishing Supermarkets
In today's Queens section of the NY Daily News, the paper focuses in on the plight of the disappearing supermarket in that borough: "All over the city, especially in poorer neighborhoods such as southern Queens, smaller supermarkets are disappearing, forcing people to trek to larger stores or buy their groceries at local bodegas or even drug stores...A new City Planning Department report - "Going to Market: New York City's Neighborhood Grocery Store and Supermarket Shortage" - documents a dearth of local supermarkets in all five boroughs. Parts of southeast Queens and Far Rockaway have been hit the hardest."
The News quotes Councilman Leroy Comrie about how the supermarket deficit affects his mostly low and moderate income community: "It's all too familiar for City Councilman Leroy Comrie Jr., who has watched four supermarkets close in his southeast Queens district in recent years. Not everyone can drive to the large discount stores just over the border in Nassau County, the councilman said. "People would still prefer to shop locally and save gas and time if they could find products and quality they like," Comrie said. "And not everyone has the shelf space to store bulk items."
While the supermarkets keep on closing, the city is slowly looking to respond to the problem-convening a supermarket task force in order to devise a set of policy recommendations. In our view, something more immediate and proactive needs to be done here. As we told the News: "If supermarkets are the linchpin of healthy food access as the Department of Health and the Department of Planning has said, then they have to aggressively work at subsidies or tax abatements or zoning changes," said Richard Lipsky, a spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance."
And, given the drastic nature of the decline, the city should be identifying spots where markets can be located in the neighborhoods that are most impacted. And if that means utilizing the right of eminent domain to clear space, then so be it. If ED can be used to aggrandize the wealthy, then it can also to used to insure that poor neighborhoods have access to health foods.
The Daily News also prints this useful supermarket fact sheet:
SUPERMARKET FACTS
Three million New Yorkers live in neighborhoods without grocery stores.
Those areas in Queens include Corona, Jamaica and Far Rockaway.
Consumption of fruits and vegetables is lowest in parts of southeast Queens, where rates of obesity and diabetes are high.
None of the community board areas in Queens meets the city Planning Department standard, which is 30,000 square feet of supermarket space per 10,000 people.
The News quotes Councilman Leroy Comrie about how the supermarket deficit affects his mostly low and moderate income community: "It's all too familiar for City Councilman Leroy Comrie Jr., who has watched four supermarkets close in his southeast Queens district in recent years. Not everyone can drive to the large discount stores just over the border in Nassau County, the councilman said. "People would still prefer to shop locally and save gas and time if they could find products and quality they like," Comrie said. "And not everyone has the shelf space to store bulk items."
While the supermarkets keep on closing, the city is slowly looking to respond to the problem-convening a supermarket task force in order to devise a set of policy recommendations. In our view, something more immediate and proactive needs to be done here. As we told the News: "If supermarkets are the linchpin of healthy food access as the Department of Health and the Department of Planning has said, then they have to aggressively work at subsidies or tax abatements or zoning changes," said Richard Lipsky, a spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance."
And, given the drastic nature of the decline, the city should be identifying spots where markets can be located in the neighborhoods that are most impacted. And if that means utilizing the right of eminent domain to clear space, then so be it. If ED can be used to aggrandize the wealthy, then it can also to used to insure that poor neighborhoods have access to health foods.
The Daily News also prints this useful supermarket fact sheet:
SUPERMARKET FACTS
Three million New Yorkers live in neighborhoods without grocery stores.
Those areas in Queens include Corona, Jamaica and Far Rockaway.
Consumption of fruits and vegetables is lowest in parts of southeast Queens, where rates of obesity and diabetes are high.
None of the community board areas in Queens meets the city Planning Department standard, which is 30,000 square feet of supermarket space per 10,000 people.
Mayor Culpa?
As Liz reported yesterday, Mayor Mike's looking to clean up some of the discretionary funding that emanates from his side of City Hall. Here's the exact quote that Liz provides from Hizzoner:
"I can’t tell you that I ever read the list of the smaller member items and from what I can see there was some abuses that - or, I think in all fairness, probably not abuses. They were just practices that evolved over the years and in retrospect they should have been caught and changed.
"I’ve asked Deputy Mayor Skyler to take a careful look at all of the practices that the administration has because remember we have to, in the end, cut checks and vet things and I want to make sure that we are doing exactly what is right in terms of disclosure and complying with the law."
All well and good, as far as it goes-but it definitely doesn't go that far because all of this kind of spending is really quite minimal. The real pot of gold lies elsewhere-in contracts that are let and capital projects that are sited and built-or not in some cases.
What we want to see, and what the press should be demanding to see (along with all of the faux good government groups), is the laundry list of promises that the mayor's folks made in order to cultivate support for his congestion tax. Here's the real pay-to-play-all in the service of the very best kind of special interest, the mayor's self-interest cloaked in the name of the public good.
What all of the bleating over the city council's nickel and diming of the tax payers comes to, is a myopic understanding of how government works on all levels. Every decision-and non-decision-that is made is done so in the advancement of an interest; and all of these interests, no matter how lofty the stated goals are, also advance some rather less lofty goals at the very same time. The fact that the mayor is wealthy beyond most of our understanding doesn't change the equation, except for the fact that his decisions aren't being made on behalf of some greedy relation.
But that's not the only kind of selfish policy making; and the logrolling and pork barrel politics still remains as a central feature of the decision making process. Which doesn't mean, however, that the mayor is totally above aggrandizing his friends and "class" mates-in a process that we've labeled patricianage.
It's just that his great wealth has seemingly anesthetized great swaths of the media to some of his untoward actions. Hopefully, this will all soon change as Bloomberg prepares to grace us with his departure.
"I can’t tell you that I ever read the list of the smaller member items and from what I can see there was some abuses that - or, I think in all fairness, probably not abuses. They were just practices that evolved over the years and in retrospect they should have been caught and changed.
"I’ve asked Deputy Mayor Skyler to take a careful look at all of the practices that the administration has because remember we have to, in the end, cut checks and vet things and I want to make sure that we are doing exactly what is right in terms of disclosure and complying with the law."
All well and good, as far as it goes-but it definitely doesn't go that far because all of this kind of spending is really quite minimal. The real pot of gold lies elsewhere-in contracts that are let and capital projects that are sited and built-or not in some cases.
What we want to see, and what the press should be demanding to see (along with all of the faux good government groups), is the laundry list of promises that the mayor's folks made in order to cultivate support for his congestion tax. Here's the real pay-to-play-all in the service of the very best kind of special interest, the mayor's self-interest cloaked in the name of the public good.
What all of the bleating over the city council's nickel and diming of the tax payers comes to, is a myopic understanding of how government works on all levels. Every decision-and non-decision-that is made is done so in the advancement of an interest; and all of these interests, no matter how lofty the stated goals are, also advance some rather less lofty goals at the very same time. The fact that the mayor is wealthy beyond most of our understanding doesn't change the equation, except for the fact that his decisions aren't being made on behalf of some greedy relation.
But that's not the only kind of selfish policy making; and the logrolling and pork barrel politics still remains as a central feature of the decision making process. Which doesn't mean, however, that the mayor is totally above aggrandizing his friends and "class" mates-in a process that we've labeled patricianage.
It's just that his great wealth has seemingly anesthetized great swaths of the media to some of his untoward actions. Hopefully, this will all soon change as Bloomberg prepares to grace us with his departure.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Times Cleans up the Slush
In a continuation of its excellent reporting on the City Council's purported slush scandal, the NY Times on Sunday uses the incisive work of Diane Cardwell to make some significant points about how all of this fits into the question of NYC governance: "But veterans of New York City politics say that many of the practices now being revealed are far from novel or rare. Indeed, they say, they are woven into the very fabric of city government, tough threads spun from the mayor’s near lock on power, which leaves lawmakers with few ways to wield influence, affect life in their communities or make a name for themselves."
Exactly so. The problem here devolves from the mayoral-centric concentration of power-a concentration that attenuates the necessary checks and balances needed in a democratic system: "The change, in a mayor-centric system, did not give the Council a lot of new power. But it gave members the ability to dole out the discretionary funds that the mayor, seeking to smooth the passage of his spending plan, granted them. Those funds represent just a tiny portion of the budget — less than six-tenths of a percent in the fiscal year ending in June. But they are critically important to the members as a way to curry favor with supporters and constituents."
And what the current controversy does, is to deflect attention away from the mayoral exercise of power, and in Bloomberg's case, its misuse-for the remaining 99% of the funds that the city disperse every year. And, as Cardwell points out, the council practice was an attempt to reserve to itself at least some modicum of power: "Before its expansion and its assumption of power over the city budget, the City Council had long been considered the weak arm of city government, relegated to the role of puppet as the powerful Board of Estimate pulled the strings. But after charter reform, former city officials say, the Council, full of a sense of new found authority and a desire to be an equal partner with the mayor, tried to create flexibility in the budget by putting aside money for the speaker to control."
No, it's not the greatest way to do it, but the answer here doesn't lie with the elimination of member items, but with the appropriate expansion of legislative budgetary functions. In this way, all of the sleight-of-hand can be dispensed with: "Some former officials said putting aside money was meant to help correct mistakes, like forgetting to finance an important program, without having to formally seek approval for additional spending from the mayor. Council leaders once tried to create a general reserve fund for such contingencies, but the concept never took hold, so council officials set out to devise their own response to the problem. "
Now that Bloomberg's looking to do some charter reform in the fall, it would behoove him to include the appropriate expansion of the city council's role in the budgetary process in the reform package. In this way, all of the hand wringing and false outrage can be put aside.
Exactly so. The problem here devolves from the mayoral-centric concentration of power-a concentration that attenuates the necessary checks and balances needed in a democratic system: "The change, in a mayor-centric system, did not give the Council a lot of new power. But it gave members the ability to dole out the discretionary funds that the mayor, seeking to smooth the passage of his spending plan, granted them. Those funds represent just a tiny portion of the budget — less than six-tenths of a percent in the fiscal year ending in June. But they are critically important to the members as a way to curry favor with supporters and constituents."
And what the current controversy does, is to deflect attention away from the mayoral exercise of power, and in Bloomberg's case, its misuse-for the remaining 99% of the funds that the city disperse every year. And, as Cardwell points out, the council practice was an attempt to reserve to itself at least some modicum of power: "Before its expansion and its assumption of power over the city budget, the City Council had long been considered the weak arm of city government, relegated to the role of puppet as the powerful Board of Estimate pulled the strings. But after charter reform, former city officials say, the Council, full of a sense of new found authority and a desire to be an equal partner with the mayor, tried to create flexibility in the budget by putting aside money for the speaker to control."
No, it's not the greatest way to do it, but the answer here doesn't lie with the elimination of member items, but with the appropriate expansion of legislative budgetary functions. In this way, all of the sleight-of-hand can be dispensed with: "Some former officials said putting aside money was meant to help correct mistakes, like forgetting to finance an important program, without having to formally seek approval for additional spending from the mayor. Council leaders once tried to create a general reserve fund for such contingencies, but the concept never took hold, so council officials set out to devise their own response to the problem. "
Now that Bloomberg's looking to do some charter reform in the fall, it would behoove him to include the appropriate expansion of the city council's role in the budgetary process in the reform package. In this way, all of the hand wringing and false outrage can be put aside.
NYU and Vornado: Imperfect Together
We need to add NYU to our pantheon of heroes when it comes to an insensitivity to the health of New Yorkers-and this is the university where Marion Nestle hectors the world about the need for healthier food and better nutrition. NYU is looking to evict the last remaining affordable supermarket in its East Village neighborhood.
If you don't believe us, just check out her what to eat blog. Here's what Nestle says about supermarkets and healthy eating: "Obesity is more common in low-income areas. Why? It may seem intuitively obvious that lack of adequate income, transportation, cooking facilities, supermarkets, and opportunities for physical activity would make it difficult for people to eat healthfully and be active, but intuition is one thing and evidence is another. My NYU colleagues Jennifer Black and James Macinko now provide the evidence in a most useful review paper. Want to improve the “built environment”? This is a great starting place."
And here's what the two professors tell us about the importance of neighborhood supermarkets: "Access to stores that sell healthy food, especially large supermarkets, may also contribute to between neighborhood dietary differences. Four cross-sectional studies have demonstrated a positive association between access to food stores and improved dietary choices.18,73–75In Detroit, Michigan, women who primarily purchased food at supermarkets, consumed more fruits and vegetables than those who relied on independent grocery stores.73 Whereas, participants in the US Food Stamp Program who lived over five miles away from their principalfood store, consumed significantly less fruit than those living within one mile of stores." NYU's own tell the story. Why does the university ignore the research of its own?
So, once again, a university harbors all sorts of progressive sentiments while at the same time, as a corporate business, it acts in ways that threatens the public good. Shame on NYU! As the Villager has pointed out, the neighborhood's not reacting well to this insensitivity to its needs: "For more than a decade, East and West Villagers have seen New York University snatch up land and existing buildings for new dorms and facilities. But, when the school tried to jack up a beloved supermarket’s rent in a building it owns on Second Ave., residents rebelled."
And as one neighborhood resident tells the paper: "“If Met Food is pushed out of here, I’m going to have to get on two buses to go to the stores on 14th St.,” said Gertrude Freeman, 84, who lives at the Evelyn and Louis Green Residence, a senior home on E. Fifth St. “And as you can see,” she added, “I’m in a walker.”
The entire community's up in arms, much like Soundview is over the possible loss of its Key Food: "Residents’ displeasure was evident during a raucous public meeting late last month, when a roomful of 60 East Villagers aimed barbed comments at Hurley and Parker over the school’s reported offer of a two- or three-year lease at triple the rent. Though neither side will disclose the current rent, Rel Lavizzo, a broker for Tungsten Property, said the going monthly rate in the area is $100 per square foot. Met Food occupies 3,700 square feet."
So now we have too large real estate entities, Vornado and NYU, spitting in the face of the public interest, unconcerned about the health of New Yorkers; yet at the same time both of these behemoths are constantly lapping up public benefits. Oh, and one other thing about NYU. The building that it owns where the supermarket's located, it was donated to the university and cost the good folks at Washington Square not one farthing. Nice, no?
If you don't believe us, just check out her what to eat blog. Here's what Nestle says about supermarkets and healthy eating: "Obesity is more common in low-income areas. Why? It may seem intuitively obvious that lack of adequate income, transportation, cooking facilities, supermarkets, and opportunities for physical activity would make it difficult for people to eat healthfully and be active, but intuition is one thing and evidence is another. My NYU colleagues Jennifer Black and James Macinko now provide the evidence in a most useful review paper. Want to improve the “built environment”? This is a great starting place."
And here's what the two professors tell us about the importance of neighborhood supermarkets: "Access to stores that sell healthy food, especially large supermarkets, may also contribute to between neighborhood dietary differences. Four cross-sectional studies have demonstrated a positive association between access to food stores and improved dietary choices.18,73–75In Detroit, Michigan, women who primarily purchased food at supermarkets, consumed more fruits and vegetables than those who relied on independent grocery stores.73 Whereas, participants in the US Food Stamp Program who lived over five miles away from their principalfood store, consumed significantly less fruit than those living within one mile of stores." NYU's own tell the story. Why does the university ignore the research of its own?
So, once again, a university harbors all sorts of progressive sentiments while at the same time, as a corporate business, it acts in ways that threatens the public good. Shame on NYU! As the Villager has pointed out, the neighborhood's not reacting well to this insensitivity to its needs: "For more than a decade, East and West Villagers have seen New York University snatch up land and existing buildings for new dorms and facilities. But, when the school tried to jack up a beloved supermarket’s rent in a building it owns on Second Ave., residents rebelled."
And as one neighborhood resident tells the paper: "“If Met Food is pushed out of here, I’m going to have to get on two buses to go to the stores on 14th St.,” said Gertrude Freeman, 84, who lives at the Evelyn and Louis Green Residence, a senior home on E. Fifth St. “And as you can see,” she added, “I’m in a walker.”
The entire community's up in arms, much like Soundview is over the possible loss of its Key Food: "Residents’ displeasure was evident during a raucous public meeting late last month, when a roomful of 60 East Villagers aimed barbed comments at Hurley and Parker over the school’s reported offer of a two- or three-year lease at triple the rent. Though neither side will disclose the current rent, Rel Lavizzo, a broker for Tungsten Property, said the going monthly rate in the area is $100 per square foot. Met Food occupies 3,700 square feet."
So now we have too large real estate entities, Vornado and NYU, spitting in the face of the public interest, unconcerned about the health of New Yorkers; yet at the same time both of these behemoths are constantly lapping up public benefits. Oh, and one other thing about NYU. The building that it owns where the supermarket's located, it was donated to the university and cost the good folks at Washington Square not one farthing. Nice, no?
Friday, May 09, 2008
Water on the Brain
The Gotham Gazette has a very interesting post on the water rate hike tempest. It seems that Mayor Mike, as usual, is mischaracterizing the hike criticism, and by doing so is once again camouflaging his sheer inability to come to grips with the bureaucratic inefficiencies that are endemic to his government. Here's a money quote: "Although construction costs and needs have risen significantly, detractors say that the water system is insular and not subject to appropriate oversight. Noting that the system was not subject to recent budget cuts, a report by the Citizen’s Housing and Planning Council pointed out that, “The efficiencies and innovation that can actually come from budget cutting exercises are largely absent from this process.”
And as we've noted, the DEP has never been given the proper oversight, even after the scandals of over billing all throughout the nineties. As the folks at Water Watch point out: "The DEP’s spending is spiraling out of control. As long as they think that they can continue to raise rates without any oversight, they have no incentive to start limiting their costs."
And when the mayor claims that the cost inherent in the entire water infrastructure system are reasonable he's probably forgetting the escalating fees up at the filtration plant in the Bronx: "Referring to comments by the mayor that the Department of Environmental Protection spends its money efficiently, Gregory Lobo Jost opined in the West Bronx Blog that, “The mayor probably wasn’t thinking about the filtration plant where costs have skyrocketed when he made his ‘reasonably efficiently’ comment.”
What the mayor elides in all of this is, of course, the way in which a fee hike is nothing but a tax hike, and tax hikes are Bloomberg's life blood; part of the philosophical substructure of his governing practice. The fact that the hikes hit lower income New Yorkers hardest makes little dent on the haughty mayor: "Housing advocates also point out that the system of funding water needs through usage rates paid by homeowners is unfair, and that the burden falls disproportionately on low income neighborhoods. “Households in low-income parts of the city not only pay more to support the water system, but pay a much higher percent of their income to do so,” a report by the University Neighborhood Housing Program points out."
Which is why we applaud those electeds who are fighting the DEP disgrace; and why we have nothing but disdain for the hypocrite who criticizes election-based critiques after spending $180 million to flim flam gullible New Yorkers in his successful mayoral runs. As Tony Avella pointed out: "This has to stop," City Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside) told members of the Water Board at a hearing in Corona. "It is absolutely unfair for the city to impose yet another huge rate increase on the backs of hard-working, middle-class, moderate- and low-income families," Avella said."
Councilman Gennaro hits the Bloomberg nail on the head: "But Councilman James Gennaro (D-Fresh Meadows) estimated the board would need just a 6% hike if the city gave all water and sewer bill funds to the Water Board, instead of funneling some of the cash to other agencies.
"All we really need is somebody, this [Water Board] body, to tell the Bloomberg administration, 'Get your hand out of the water and sewer till,'" Gennaro said as he pounded his fist on a podium. Repeatedly calling Mayor Bloomberg a "king" who is "beyond shame," Gennaro challenged the board to stop raising rates on "people who can least afford to pay." "There's nothing more I can do to tell the king to stop this from happening," Gennaro said. "That doesn't mean you can't call it what it is. It's robbery."
The clock's ticking on this poseur; and his carbon foot print expanding jet fleet is waiting to take him away from the government he had no clue about when he came, and from which he leaves with little acquired knowledge and appreciation of. His arrogance and class-based decision making will not be missed.
And as we've noted, the DEP has never been given the proper oversight, even after the scandals of over billing all throughout the nineties. As the folks at Water Watch point out: "The DEP’s spending is spiraling out of control. As long as they think that they can continue to raise rates without any oversight, they have no incentive to start limiting their costs."
And when the mayor claims that the cost inherent in the entire water infrastructure system are reasonable he's probably forgetting the escalating fees up at the filtration plant in the Bronx: "Referring to comments by the mayor that the Department of Environmental Protection spends its money efficiently, Gregory Lobo Jost opined in the West Bronx Blog that, “The mayor probably wasn’t thinking about the filtration plant where costs have skyrocketed when he made his ‘reasonably efficiently’ comment.”
What the mayor elides in all of this is, of course, the way in which a fee hike is nothing but a tax hike, and tax hikes are Bloomberg's life blood; part of the philosophical substructure of his governing practice. The fact that the hikes hit lower income New Yorkers hardest makes little dent on the haughty mayor: "Housing advocates also point out that the system of funding water needs through usage rates paid by homeowners is unfair, and that the burden falls disproportionately on low income neighborhoods. “Households in low-income parts of the city not only pay more to support the water system, but pay a much higher percent of their income to do so,” a report by the University Neighborhood Housing Program points out."
Which is why we applaud those electeds who are fighting the DEP disgrace; and why we have nothing but disdain for the hypocrite who criticizes election-based critiques after spending $180 million to flim flam gullible New Yorkers in his successful mayoral runs. As Tony Avella pointed out: "This has to stop," City Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside) told members of the Water Board at a hearing in Corona. "It is absolutely unfair for the city to impose yet another huge rate increase on the backs of hard-working, middle-class, moderate- and low-income families," Avella said."
Councilman Gennaro hits the Bloomberg nail on the head: "But Councilman James Gennaro (D-Fresh Meadows) estimated the board would need just a 6% hike if the city gave all water and sewer bill funds to the Water Board, instead of funneling some of the cash to other agencies.
"All we really need is somebody, this [Water Board] body, to tell the Bloomberg administration, 'Get your hand out of the water and sewer till,'" Gennaro said as he pounded his fist on a podium. Repeatedly calling Mayor Bloomberg a "king" who is "beyond shame," Gennaro challenged the board to stop raising rates on "people who can least afford to pay." "There's nothing more I can do to tell the king to stop this from happening," Gennaro said. "That doesn't mean you can't call it what it is. It's robbery."
The clock's ticking on this poseur; and his carbon foot print expanding jet fleet is waiting to take him away from the government he had no clue about when he came, and from which he leaves with little acquired knowledge and appreciation of. His arrogance and class-based decision making will not be missed.
West Side Collapse: Vornado on Deck?
All of this morning's papers are covering the collapse of the Tishman-Speyer deal to develop the West Side rail yards. Here's Charles Bagli's take over at the NY Times: "Six weeks after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority selected Tishman Speyer Properties to build a vast complex of office towers, apartment buildings and parks over the railyards on the West Side of Manhattan, the deal has fallen apart."
The deal's demise, attributable to economic and zoning factors, could pave the way for one of our favorite real estate companies to re-enter the picture; the team of Durst and Vornado was widely perceived to be the second place bidder when Tishman Speyer won six weeks ago: “It would be a real tragedy for the city if the project did not proceed now,” said Douglas Durst, who had bid for the property in partnership with Steven Roth, chairman of Vornado Realty Trust. “The M.T.A. must find a way to keep the momentum going.”
And I'll bet that Doug E. Fresh has just the right folks to get this all jump started. If he does, however, we'd suggest that he find himself a new partner, because after we finish the Tar Babying of Steve Roth there will be little chance for the developer to be part of any deal where zoning will play an important role.
That is, unless the Distrusters at Vornado quickly begin to see the light about the eviction of the Key Food at Bruckner Plaza. You simply can't go around this city pretending to be a good corporate citizen-expecting public benefits as well-if you think so little of the health of low income New Yorkers. Your move Vornado!
Update
Eliot Brown at the Observer weighs in on the possible Durst/Vornado replacement: "Unclear is what the next step is from here. The M.T.A. could conceivably go back to the other bidders—a team of the Durst Organization and Vornado Realty Trust had a bid within about $40 million of Tishman’s—though presumably the bids would be lowered should Tishman’s $1 billion bid be out of the picture."
The deal's demise, attributable to economic and zoning factors, could pave the way for one of our favorite real estate companies to re-enter the picture; the team of Durst and Vornado was widely perceived to be the second place bidder when Tishman Speyer won six weeks ago: “It would be a real tragedy for the city if the project did not proceed now,” said Douglas Durst, who had bid for the property in partnership with Steven Roth, chairman of Vornado Realty Trust. “The M.T.A. must find a way to keep the momentum going.”
And I'll bet that Doug E. Fresh has just the right folks to get this all jump started. If he does, however, we'd suggest that he find himself a new partner, because after we finish the Tar Babying of Steve Roth there will be little chance for the developer to be part of any deal where zoning will play an important role.
That is, unless the Distrusters at Vornado quickly begin to see the light about the eviction of the Key Food at Bruckner Plaza. You simply can't go around this city pretending to be a good corporate citizen-expecting public benefits as well-if you think so little of the health of low income New Yorkers. Your move Vornado!
Update
Eliot Brown at the Observer weighs in on the possible Durst/Vornado replacement: "Unclear is what the next step is from here. The M.T.A. could conceivably go back to the other bidders—a team of the Durst Organization and Vornado Realty Trust had a bid within about $40 million of Tishman’s—though presumably the bids would be lowered should Tishman’s $1 billion bid be out of the picture."
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Crain's Keys on Supermarket
In this weeks Crain's New York Business magazine there's a nice focus on the plight of the Key Food supermarket in Soundview: "A fight is brewing in the South Bronx over the future of the Soundview neighborhood's largest supermarket, Key Food. Situated on Bruckner Boulevard at White Plains Road, the 30,000-square-foot grocery store may be forced to close when its lease expires at the end of the year. Vornado Realty acquired the Bruckner Plaza shopping center, where Key Food is one of the anchors, for $165 million last year. Last month, the developer said it plans to quintuple rents to about $50 per square foot."
And the fight has only just begun-or as Jimmy Durante might have said; "They ain't seen nothing yet." Next week at IS 131 there will be a combined Town Hall and Community Board meeting to address the community concerns with the possible eviction of Key Food. As we say in our advisory:
"A community town hall meeting will be held next Wednesday to inform the community about the potential eviction of the Key Food Supermarket in the Bruckner Boulevard shopping center in Soundview. The reason for the possible eviction is because the landlord, Vornado Realty and Trust, is seeking to charge the store $50 per square foot in rent. This kind of rent would make it impossible for Key Food, or any supermarket in this income community, to be
able to offer the neighborhood good healthy food at affordable prices."
The community and its CB is already up in arms, especially after Vornado secretly met with City Planning to discuss its shopping center expansion plans after Key Food was sent packing. As we say in the Bronx, "That's not happening." Especially not since the expansion would require a full land use review and City Council approval.
Something's gonna have to give because no supermarket can afford to pay that much for rent in the South Bronx. As we told Crain's: “No supermarket can pay that kind of money, certainly not in that neighborhood,” says Richard Lipsky, head of the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, a group fighting to keep supermarkets in New York City's outer boroughs."
This situation presents a real challenge to area elected officials. The picture is painted well by the chair of the local board: “People rely on that store to be there,” says Enrique Vega, chairman of the Community Board. “We've heard they [Vornado] want to knock down the grocery store and put in another big-box store.” The shopping center currently houses a Staples and a Kmart. “The community doesn't want another big-box store; they want a supermarket,” Mr. Vega adds."
As we've been discussing, the situation can be seen as part of an overall city wide public health problem with disappearing supermarkets: "The next-closest supermarket is a Pathmark, which lies more than 10 blocks away, a distance that will prove difficult for seniors and young families to navigate with groceries. Just last week, the Department of City Planning released a report on the accessibility of supermarkets and fresh produce to city residents. The report ranked the South Bronx below the median in terms of grocery store accessibility."
Clearly, if Vornado doesn't budge, something will have to be done to impress upon the billion dollar baby that this stuff doesn't play here, especially not when the company's living large off of the public sector. The heat is gonna definitely rise in the Vornado kitchen in the next few weeks.
And the fight has only just begun-or as Jimmy Durante might have said; "They ain't seen nothing yet." Next week at IS 131 there will be a combined Town Hall and Community Board meeting to address the community concerns with the possible eviction of Key Food. As we say in our advisory:
"A community town hall meeting will be held next Wednesday to inform the community about the potential eviction of the Key Food Supermarket in the Bruckner Boulevard shopping center in Soundview. The reason for the possible eviction is because the landlord, Vornado Realty and Trust, is seeking to charge the store $50 per square foot in rent. This kind of rent would make it impossible for Key Food, or any supermarket in this income community, to be
able to offer the neighborhood good healthy food at affordable prices."
The community and its CB is already up in arms, especially after Vornado secretly met with City Planning to discuss its shopping center expansion plans after Key Food was sent packing. As we say in the Bronx, "That's not happening." Especially not since the expansion would require a full land use review and City Council approval.
Something's gonna have to give because no supermarket can afford to pay that much for rent in the South Bronx. As we told Crain's: “No supermarket can pay that kind of money, certainly not in that neighborhood,” says Richard Lipsky, head of the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, a group fighting to keep supermarkets in New York City's outer boroughs."
This situation presents a real challenge to area elected officials. The picture is painted well by the chair of the local board: “People rely on that store to be there,” says Enrique Vega, chairman of the Community Board. “We've heard they [Vornado] want to knock down the grocery store and put in another big-box store.” The shopping center currently houses a Staples and a Kmart. “The community doesn't want another big-box store; they want a supermarket,” Mr. Vega adds."
As we've been discussing, the situation can be seen as part of an overall city wide public health problem with disappearing supermarkets: "The next-closest supermarket is a Pathmark, which lies more than 10 blocks away, a distance that will prove difficult for seniors and young families to navigate with groceries. Just last week, the Department of City Planning released a report on the accessibility of supermarkets and fresh produce to city residents. The report ranked the South Bronx below the median in terms of grocery store accessibility."
Clearly, if Vornado doesn't budge, something will have to be done to impress upon the billion dollar baby that this stuff doesn't play here, especially not when the company's living large off of the public sector. The heat is gonna definitely rise in the Vornado kitchen in the next few weeks.
Behind the Political Times
In today's NY Times, the paper critiques in its editorial the new discretionary funds procedures proposed by Speaker Quinn: "Still, these are small fixes to a big problem. The best reform would be to simply get rid of these “member items” and other fiscal bonbons that city politicians like to parcel out in their neighborhoods. All city money should go through the regular budgeting process, with its checks and balances."
But why should it? Don't the current expenditures have to be vetted and processed through various mayoral agencies? And why doesn't the paper even mention the failure of mayoral due diligence? This kind of legislative animus is unbecoming to a paper that prides itself on its commitment to democratic practices-and never misses an opportunity to excoriate the executive on the national level (could this be simply partisan double standards?).
The fact is, that the NY Times has been slavishly fawning all over that mayor for the past six years; sitting quietly aside while the billionaire awards city property to his billionaire real estate friends without the benefit of public bidding; not to mention the millions of contracts that have been awarded without proper oversight.
And even where a bidding process has been in place-as with the Moynihan Station-isn't it fascinating, the Marxists would say, "No accident,"-how the winning bidders just happened to be Dan Doctoroff's favorite Bobsey Twins-Steve Ross of Related and Steve Roth of Vornado? This practice, one that we've labeled patricianage, has gone unexamined by the toadies over at the paper of wreckage.
So please spare us all of the reform messages here. and by the way, has anyone yet examined all of the Bloomberg philanthropy prior to his election and beyond? The Times should remain quite in all of this, After all, after making campaign finance reform its signature issue, the paper went ahead and endorse Mayor Mike after he spent over $160 million in making a mockery of the finance law that the Times pretended to see as sacrosanct.
But why should it? Don't the current expenditures have to be vetted and processed through various mayoral agencies? And why doesn't the paper even mention the failure of mayoral due diligence? This kind of legislative animus is unbecoming to a paper that prides itself on its commitment to democratic practices-and never misses an opportunity to excoriate the executive on the national level (could this be simply partisan double standards?).
The fact is, that the NY Times has been slavishly fawning all over that mayor for the past six years; sitting quietly aside while the billionaire awards city property to his billionaire real estate friends without the benefit of public bidding; not to mention the millions of contracts that have been awarded without proper oversight.
And even where a bidding process has been in place-as with the Moynihan Station-isn't it fascinating, the Marxists would say, "No accident,"-how the winning bidders just happened to be Dan Doctoroff's favorite Bobsey Twins-Steve Ross of Related and Steve Roth of Vornado? This practice, one that we've labeled patricianage, has gone unexamined by the toadies over at the paper of wreckage.
So please spare us all of the reform messages here. and by the way, has anyone yet examined all of the Bloomberg philanthropy prior to his election and beyond? The Times should remain quite in all of this, After all, after making campaign finance reform its signature issue, the paper went ahead and endorse Mayor Mike after he spent over $160 million in making a mockery of the finance law that the Times pretended to see as sacrosanct.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
High Caloric Confusion
In a post on line at Crain's, the magazine examines the early returns on the silly DOH menu labeling scheme. And, as we predicted, confusion reigns because of the menu offering ranges that the law can't easily accommodate: "At Chipotle, for example, a burrito is listed as having somewhere between 420 and 918 calories, while a salad weighs in at anywhere from 155 to 823 calories. “It's such a wide range,” says Kelli Garcia, a Chipotle customer. “It seems silly to put it there.” The restaurants say that because their meals are made to order and come in varying sizes, calorie counts can't be boiled down to a single number. Serious calorie-counters, like Ms. Garcia, say that they will have to continue to rely on nutrition-related Web sites to calculate the caloric content of restaurant meals."
We had pointed this all out from the very beginning. As we said in January: "First of all, the burrito posting will not, because of the myriad combinations of possible burrito selections, be on each item. Even the clueless fast food haters at DOH couldn't require fast food outlets to post calories on every conceivable menu items-the menu board would be out the door and down the block.Instead the chains of 15 outlets or more will be allowed to post a range for certain items like burritos. So Taco Bell or Chipotle will post the following: Burrito (400-1500 calories). A burrito consumer will simply have no idea what her burrito combo contains; which is precisely why the industry opposes the regulation."
And check out the calorie range for just a salad-an item that all of us intuitively believe should be healthier than a taco; except when you add all of the possible dressings and toppings, items that don't have to be listed separately. All of which leads to total confusion for even the most nutritionally savvy consumer.
And one customer that Crain's talked to really gets it: "“It's such a wide range,” says Kelli Garcia, a Chipotle customer. “It seems silly to put it there.” The restaurants say that because their meals are made to order and come in varying sizes, calorie counts can't be boiled down to a single number. Serious calorie-counters, like Ms. Garcia, say that they will have to continue to rely on nutrition-related Web sites to calculate the caloric content of restaurant meals."
Exactly so. The whole scheme reeks of a social science experiment gone amok-and let's make sure that the folks at Dewey, Cheetum and Howe don't do the review of all of this silliness. The experiment, aside from being silly, is also expensive-around $2,000 per fast food outlet. Which puts the overall compliance cost city wide at around $5 million!
So by all means let's put this scheme to a rigorous evaluation; but just not by the folks at DOH with an ax to grind. If an independent review is done, we'd be able to see just how ineffective the whole idea is, not to mention unnecessarily intrusive on the lives and freedom of New Yorkers and New York businesses.
We had pointed this all out from the very beginning. As we said in January: "First of all, the burrito posting will not, because of the myriad combinations of possible burrito selections, be on each item. Even the clueless fast food haters at DOH couldn't require fast food outlets to post calories on every conceivable menu items-the menu board would be out the door and down the block.Instead the chains of 15 outlets or more will be allowed to post a range for certain items like burritos. So Taco Bell or Chipotle will post the following: Burrito (400-1500 calories). A burrito consumer will simply have no idea what her burrito combo contains; which is precisely why the industry opposes the regulation."
And check out the calorie range for just a salad-an item that all of us intuitively believe should be healthier than a taco; except when you add all of the possible dressings and toppings, items that don't have to be listed separately. All of which leads to total confusion for even the most nutritionally savvy consumer.
And one customer that Crain's talked to really gets it: "“It's such a wide range,” says Kelli Garcia, a Chipotle customer. “It seems silly to put it there.” The restaurants say that because their meals are made to order and come in varying sizes, calorie counts can't be boiled down to a single number. Serious calorie-counters, like Ms. Garcia, say that they will have to continue to rely on nutrition-related Web sites to calculate the caloric content of restaurant meals."
Exactly so. The whole scheme reeks of a social science experiment gone amok-and let's make sure that the folks at Dewey, Cheetum and Howe don't do the review of all of this silliness. The experiment, aside from being silly, is also expensive-around $2,000 per fast food outlet. Which puts the overall compliance cost city wide at around $5 million!
So by all means let's put this scheme to a rigorous evaluation; but just not by the folks at DOH with an ax to grind. If an independent review is done, we'd be able to see just how ineffective the whole idea is, not to mention unnecessarily intrusive on the lives and freedom of New Yorkers and New York businesses.
Daily News on Point
In yesterday's Brooklyn edition of the NY Daily News, the paper editorializes in favor of developing a city policy to preserve local supermarkets: "The city, which gives tax breaks to enterprises it deems important, should help. Good, inexpensive, nutritious food, such as supermarkets sell, is important to our neighborhoods."
And the News puts its finger on the problem: "Now, supermarkets seem to be following mom and pop into history, mainly because of high rent and real estate costs. A City Planning Commission study has found that few neighborhoods have enough supermarkets to meet local needs." Targeted planning needs to be done to insure that good food at reasonable prices can be available to all New Yorkers; and while in the old days there were people who would, "Walk a mile for a Camel"-the cigarette, that is-there should be no need for elderly New Yorkers to be put in that position just to get their groceries.
So the city needs to act fast before its too late. If it doesn't, then in the words of the News editorialists: "If you are content with your local supermarket, count yourself lucky. Pretty soon, you may have to count yourself lucky to have a local supermarket at all - content or not."
And the News puts its finger on the problem: "Now, supermarkets seem to be following mom and pop into history, mainly because of high rent and real estate costs. A City Planning Commission study has found that few neighborhoods have enough supermarkets to meet local needs." Targeted planning needs to be done to insure that good food at reasonable prices can be available to all New Yorkers; and while in the old days there were people who would, "Walk a mile for a Camel"-the cigarette, that is-there should be no need for elderly New Yorkers to be put in that position just to get their groceries.
So the city needs to act fast before its too late. If it doesn't, then in the words of the News editorialists: "If you are content with your local supermarket, count yourself lucky. Pretty soon, you may have to count yourself lucky to have a local supermarket at all - content or not."
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Bloomberg's Waterboarding
As Azi points out yesterday, the mayor is waterboarding the council critics of the proposed rate hikes on water use: "Bloomberg told reporters at a press conference in Brooklyn that "you’re going to pay for the city services whether you pay them in fees or whether you pay them in taxes. D.E.P. [Department of Environmental Protection, which operates the water and sewer systems] uses city services; traditionally we have billed them for that and they pay [for] that. And if they didn’t buy it from us, the city, they’d have to buy it from the private sector and, presumably, it would even cost more.”
Same old, same old, from Mr. Big Government enabler. Bloomberg, of course, elides the very real issue of DEP incompetence; and since the mayor has never bothered with the need to make government more efficient he hasn't even given a glance at an agency that simply can't estimate any one's water bill with even a simulacrum of accuracy.
If he did, old Emily Lloyd would have followed Commissioner Lancaster out the door and her imitation of Harold Lloyd would have been put mercifully to an end. Instead, the majestic mayor takes umbrage at the criticism and, what else, lashes out at the critics: "He added, “This seems to be a brouhaha about nothing from a couple of people who want to run for higher office who probably shouldn't’t even be considered.”
No it isn't Mike, and might we add that absent $180 million no one would have considered you; a nice thought to have when considering the degree of over-ratedness that hangs like a miasma around the mayor's mien. A quote from a Jim Gennaro aide-one of those nettlesome critics-is worth citing: “I wouldn’t call a regressive backdoor tax burdening working class New Yorkers a quote, ‘brouhaha' over nothing. The mayor should use his power to fix this problem instead of politicizing a real cost-of-living issue.”
But then again, this would mean that Big Mike would have to care about the average tax payer; something there's scant evidence of over the past six and a half years. The countdown clock's ticking on this rich dilettante, and we're quite happy to anticipate the celebration of his exit.
Same old, same old, from Mr. Big Government enabler. Bloomberg, of course, elides the very real issue of DEP incompetence; and since the mayor has never bothered with the need to make government more efficient he hasn't even given a glance at an agency that simply can't estimate any one's water bill with even a simulacrum of accuracy.
If he did, old Emily Lloyd would have followed Commissioner Lancaster out the door and her imitation of Harold Lloyd would have been put mercifully to an end. Instead, the majestic mayor takes umbrage at the criticism and, what else, lashes out at the critics: "He added, “This seems to be a brouhaha about nothing from a couple of people who want to run for higher office who probably shouldn't’t even be considered.”
No it isn't Mike, and might we add that absent $180 million no one would have considered you; a nice thought to have when considering the degree of over-ratedness that hangs like a miasma around the mayor's mien. A quote from a Jim Gennaro aide-one of those nettlesome critics-is worth citing: “I wouldn’t call a regressive backdoor tax burdening working class New Yorkers a quote, ‘brouhaha' over nothing. The mayor should use his power to fix this problem instead of politicizing a real cost-of-living issue.”
But then again, this would mean that Big Mike would have to care about the average tax payer; something there's scant evidence of over the past six and a half years. The countdown clock's ticking on this rich dilettante, and we're quite happy to anticipate the celebration of his exit.
Sun Spots Times Grocery "Errors"
The NY Sun can always be counted on for a contrarian view; orthodox perspectives are not its usual metier. So we weren't surprised this morning to read the paper's editorial taking issue with the NY Times article on supermarkets by David Gonzales. Unfortunately, the editorialists were limited to, well, a very limited perspective when offering its critique.
The Sun took issue with the description of the supermarket problems being faced by the folks at the Ingersoll Houses, problems exacerbated by the closing of the Associated directly across the street from the housing. In doing so, they proceeded to make light of a city wide problem which they clearly have no depth of understanding of.
Here's the paper's take: "Well, there may in fact be a shortage of fresh fruits and vegetables at some parts of New York City, but reporting finds there is not one in the Ingersoll Houses. What happened in Fort Greene is that the city and state and federal governments lavished subsidies on a nearby Target and Pathmark that put an un-subsidized supermarket nearby out of business, while the above-cited raft of government programs failed to solve the fruit and vegetable crisis. So the city is preparing to abridge the rights of property owners to lease their property to the highest bidder and instead to mandate leasing to supermarkets. Are Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Burden themselves to ride through the city deciding the sites of supermarkets by fiat?"
Can anyone figure what the heck they're talking about? Mandating leasing to supermarkets? Where's that coming from? Oh yes, there is a mention in the Times piece about the anger of a community board official in the Bronx about the Vornado Distrusters eviction of the local Key Food. But can't someone at the Sun read?
Here's the relevant passage: "Another city political figure is quoted in the story as threatening to bar a private property owner from leasing to anything but a supermarket." First of all, to call a community board member a city official is quite a stretch-and what power does a community board possess? But that's not what the article said.
Here's the Times perspective: "Whatever plans the company has for the site are bound to face opposition from the local community board, whose members expect to meet with Vornado executives this week. Enrique Vega, the chairman of Community Board 9 in the Bronx, said the board would not allow anything but a supermarket on the site.“They are in deep trouble if they think they are going to put another type of store there,” Mr. Vega said. “They’ll need a variance or an agreement with the community board, and they are not going to get it. We want a supermarket.”
What Mr. Vega's saying here, is that if Vornado wants to knock down and/or expand the existing structure it's going to need a variance; and the last time we looked a variance was a discretionary city action. If the local community would rather see its four decade old supermarket remain, and Vornado has different ideas, then the real estate company can replace the Key Food with a different use in its existing building. Otherwise, as soon as it gets into a zoning change situation, it proceeds at its own peril. Unless the Sun also sees zoning as an unfair abridgement of property rights.
Likewise, if city electeds feel that the eviction of the supermarket by a company that has lived large feeding at the public trough is an act against the public good, then these officials can decide to begin to treat Vornado as person non grata when it comes to the bennies that the company has become accustomed to.
Taking this a step further. If the city feels that a supermarket in the Bruckner shopping center is in the public interest-because of the health issues that the Sun likes to ridicule-than it has every right to exercise the right of eminent domain to take the center from Vronado and insure that Soundview has access to healthy foods. And wouldn't that be a kick? The rich evicter getting evicted in turn. We'd pay to see that happen.
Now we're as free market as anyone, but we also no that zoning can be an important tool to direct the flow of free market activities. We also know that the obesity crisis is not caused by the paucity of supermarkets, but their disappearance is no good for the physical and economic health of New York City.
As supermarket after supermarket closes, the Sun's take on all of this-"Rather than invent a crisis of obesity caused by a lack of supermarkets, Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Burden could benefit by walking around the city. Somehow people have a way of finding what to eat without a whole lot of meddling by the politicians"-is just way too cavalier.
The Sun took issue with the description of the supermarket problems being faced by the folks at the Ingersoll Houses, problems exacerbated by the closing of the Associated directly across the street from the housing. In doing so, they proceeded to make light of a city wide problem which they clearly have no depth of understanding of.
Here's the paper's take: "Well, there may in fact be a shortage of fresh fruits and vegetables at some parts of New York City, but reporting finds there is not one in the Ingersoll Houses. What happened in Fort Greene is that the city and state and federal governments lavished subsidies on a nearby Target and Pathmark that put an un-subsidized supermarket nearby out of business, while the above-cited raft of government programs failed to solve the fruit and vegetable crisis. So the city is preparing to abridge the rights of property owners to lease their property to the highest bidder and instead to mandate leasing to supermarkets. Are Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Burden themselves to ride through the city deciding the sites of supermarkets by fiat?"
Can anyone figure what the heck they're talking about? Mandating leasing to supermarkets? Where's that coming from? Oh yes, there is a mention in the Times piece about the anger of a community board official in the Bronx about the Vornado Distrusters eviction of the local Key Food. But can't someone at the Sun read?
Here's the relevant passage: "Another city political figure is quoted in the story as threatening to bar a private property owner from leasing to anything but a supermarket." First of all, to call a community board member a city official is quite a stretch-and what power does a community board possess? But that's not what the article said.
Here's the Times perspective: "Whatever plans the company has for the site are bound to face opposition from the local community board, whose members expect to meet with Vornado executives this week. Enrique Vega, the chairman of Community Board 9 in the Bronx, said the board would not allow anything but a supermarket on the site.“They are in deep trouble if they think they are going to put another type of store there,” Mr. Vega said. “They’ll need a variance or an agreement with the community board, and they are not going to get it. We want a supermarket.”
What Mr. Vega's saying here, is that if Vornado wants to knock down and/or expand the existing structure it's going to need a variance; and the last time we looked a variance was a discretionary city action. If the local community would rather see its four decade old supermarket remain, and Vornado has different ideas, then the real estate company can replace the Key Food with a different use in its existing building. Otherwise, as soon as it gets into a zoning change situation, it proceeds at its own peril. Unless the Sun also sees zoning as an unfair abridgement of property rights.
Likewise, if city electeds feel that the eviction of the supermarket by a company that has lived large feeding at the public trough is an act against the public good, then these officials can decide to begin to treat Vornado as person non grata when it comes to the bennies that the company has become accustomed to.
Taking this a step further. If the city feels that a supermarket in the Bruckner shopping center is in the public interest-because of the health issues that the Sun likes to ridicule-than it has every right to exercise the right of eminent domain to take the center from Vronado and insure that Soundview has access to healthy foods. And wouldn't that be a kick? The rich evicter getting evicted in turn. We'd pay to see that happen.
Now we're as free market as anyone, but we also no that zoning can be an important tool to direct the flow of free market activities. We also know that the obesity crisis is not caused by the paucity of supermarkets, but their disappearance is no good for the physical and economic health of New York City.
As supermarket after supermarket closes, the Sun's take on all of this-"Rather than invent a crisis of obesity caused by a lack of supermarkets, Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Burden could benefit by walking around the city. Somehow people have a way of finding what to eat without a whole lot of meddling by the politicians"-is just way too cavalier.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Carts Before Horse
In the NY post today, the paper writes about the DOH effort to put veggie carts in targeted neighborhoods. It's all related of course to the overall city effort to combat the health issues that emanate from New York's obesity crisis. As the Post tells us: "Some 10,000 New Yorkers were asked: "How many servings of fruits and vegetables did you eat yesterday?" In nine of 12 Bronx neighborhoods, more than 15 percent answered, "None...." Cathy Nonas, Health Department director of physical activity and nutrition, isn't surprised. "If you don't get exposure to these foods, you grow up not eating them," she said. "Every time there's been fruits and vegetables introduced [in a poor neighborhood], it's been successful."
Now we understand that the city sees this cartology as part of a multi-faceted approach to the health crisis. From our vantage point, however, it's misguided because it fails to address the primary issue: the disappearing supermarkets. In fact, as we've pointed out elsewhere, one targeted area for produce peddlers is Soundview, a community very much in danger of losing a major supermarket that sells over $2 million worth of fresh produce every year.
The city needs to move very fast on this issue, and not look to proliferating peddlers as anything but a distraction at best. At worst, it is a direct threat to those very same markets that the city sees in a dangerous state of hemorrhaging.
Now we understand that the city sees this cartology as part of a multi-faceted approach to the health crisis. From our vantage point, however, it's misguided because it fails to address the primary issue: the disappearing supermarkets. In fact, as we've pointed out elsewhere, one targeted area for produce peddlers is Soundview, a community very much in danger of losing a major supermarket that sells over $2 million worth of fresh produce every year.
The city needs to move very fast on this issue, and not look to proliferating peddlers as anything but a distraction at best. At worst, it is a direct threat to those very same markets that the city sees in a dangerous state of hemorrhaging.
Times on Top of Supermarket Loss
In this morning's NY Times, David Gonzales does a masterful job at highlighting just how serious an issue the loss of NYC supermarkets really is. As he points out, citing the DCP study we've already commented on: "A continuing decline in the number of neighborhood supermarkets has made it harder for millions of New Yorkers to find fresh and affordable food within walking distance of their homes, according to a recent city study. The dearth of nearby supermarkets is most severe in minority and poor neighborhoods already beset by obesity, diabetes and heart disease."
Gonzales puts his finger on the real estate causes of the problem, and underscores just what a hardship this is to low income New Yorkers: "The supermarket closings — not confined to poor neighborhoods — result from rising rents and slim profit margins, among other causes. They have forced residents to take buses or cabs to the closest supermarkets in some areas. Those with cars can drive, but the price of gasoline is making some think twice about that option. In many places, residents said the lack of competition has led to rising prices in the remaining stores."
As we've commented, this loss of markets is amounting to a serious health crisis, one that the DCP planners have shed considerable light on: "Many people in low-income neighborhoods are spending their food budget at discount stores or pharmacies where there is no fresh produce,” said Amanda Burden, the city’s planning director. “In our study, a significant percentage of them reported that in the day before our survey, they had not eaten fresh fruit or vegetables. Not one. That really is a health crisis in the city.”
And Burden also points out that preserving supermarkets and building new ones should be an essential goal of public policy: "We have to determine why the stores are closing and what the barriers are,” Ms. Burden said. “Stimulating the investment of supermarket owners in these communities is essential to the future of the city.”
When the local market closes it poses an especially difficult problem for an area's elderly, often forced to walk many blocks to find their daily food staples. Gonzales finds two good examples of this: " In St. Albans, Queens, several empty supermarkets line the streets. Every day, Desiree Gaylord walks past a shuttered Associated store on Farmers Boulevard and on to her elderly mother’s house. “Before I go to work, I call to see what she needs,” Ms. Gaylord said. “I’ll buy it somewhere else and bring it to her. I don’t know why they closed that store. It was an asset, especially for the elderly. Now I see them on the bus with the shopping carts.”
And in Brooklyn, the closing of another Associated market has also caused havoc: "The residents of the Ingersoll Houses in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, have been without their local supermarket since last year, when it was razed along with a strip of stores and restaurants to make room for new housing and retail developments. What used to be a quick jaunt across the street for Della Dorsett is now a tricky trek, as she maneuvers her electric wheelchair several blocks uphill along Myrtle Avenue, returning home with plastic bags dangling from handles and nestled between her feet."
The Times focus closes with a close look at the foreboding future being faced by the Soundview shoppers worried about the closing of their local Key Food: "The residents who live in the high-rises and private homes that ring Bruckner Plaza in the Bronx can relate to that. Their local supermarket, a Key Food on White Plains Road and the Bruckner Expressway, is the only one south of the expressway, tucked into a corner of the outdoor shopping center that also features a Kmart and assorted smaller stores."
The potential store closing is a direct stab in the back to the 100 union workers who make the Key Food such a successful fixture along Bruckner Boulevard: "At stake at the Bronx store are more than 100 jobs, many of them filled by local residents, including teenagers and single mothers. Some of the employees more or less grew up in the business, starting as teenagers with part-time, unionized jobs. The pay and benefits have helped them support their families, and even prosper." This is also one of the main economic development points of the DCP study.
All of this isn't sitting well with the local community board-or the rest of the residents in the Soundview area: "Whatever plans the company has for the site are bound to face opposition from the local community board, whose members expect to meet with Vornado executives this week. Enrique Vega, the chairman of Community Board 9 in the Bronx, said the board would not allow anything but a supermarket on the site. “They are in deep trouble if they think they are going to put another type of store there,” Mr. Vega said. “They’ll need a variance or an agreement with the community board, and they are not going to get it. We want a supermarket.”
And the fight here will certainly be joined by the UFCW and all of its local unions: "Local 1500 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represents the store’s workers, have made this Key Food in the Bronx the poster child for a citywide campaign to preserve local supermarkets. “We’re at a point where landlords do not feel any concern that they are taking supermarkets out of communities,” said Pat Purcell, the union’s director of special projects. “They just want to maximize their profit. I get that, up to a point. But food is different. It affects your health.”
But this isn't Soundview's fight alone. As Gonzales' piece makes abundantly clear, this is a city wide issue of mounting concern for all elected officials. And the Alliance will be joining with many of these officials, and scores of local community groups, on May 28th at City Hall. Landlords like Vornado better watch their assets.
Gonzales puts his finger on the real estate causes of the problem, and underscores just what a hardship this is to low income New Yorkers: "The supermarket closings — not confined to poor neighborhoods — result from rising rents and slim profit margins, among other causes. They have forced residents to take buses or cabs to the closest supermarkets in some areas. Those with cars can drive, but the price of gasoline is making some think twice about that option. In many places, residents said the lack of competition has led to rising prices in the remaining stores."
As we've commented, this loss of markets is amounting to a serious health crisis, one that the DCP planners have shed considerable light on: "Many people in low-income neighborhoods are spending their food budget at discount stores or pharmacies where there is no fresh produce,” said Amanda Burden, the city’s planning director. “In our study, a significant percentage of them reported that in the day before our survey, they had not eaten fresh fruit or vegetables. Not one. That really is a health crisis in the city.”
And Burden also points out that preserving supermarkets and building new ones should be an essential goal of public policy: "We have to determine why the stores are closing and what the barriers are,” Ms. Burden said. “Stimulating the investment of supermarket owners in these communities is essential to the future of the city.”
When the local market closes it poses an especially difficult problem for an area's elderly, often forced to walk many blocks to find their daily food staples. Gonzales finds two good examples of this: " In St. Albans, Queens, several empty supermarkets line the streets. Every day, Desiree Gaylord walks past a shuttered Associated store on Farmers Boulevard and on to her elderly mother’s house. “Before I go to work, I call to see what she needs,” Ms. Gaylord said. “I’ll buy it somewhere else and bring it to her. I don’t know why they closed that store. It was an asset, especially for the elderly. Now I see them on the bus with the shopping carts.”
And in Brooklyn, the closing of another Associated market has also caused havoc: "The residents of the Ingersoll Houses in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, have been without their local supermarket since last year, when it was razed along with a strip of stores and restaurants to make room for new housing and retail developments. What used to be a quick jaunt across the street for Della Dorsett is now a tricky trek, as she maneuvers her electric wheelchair several blocks uphill along Myrtle Avenue, returning home with plastic bags dangling from handles and nestled between her feet."
The Times focus closes with a close look at the foreboding future being faced by the Soundview shoppers worried about the closing of their local Key Food: "The residents who live in the high-rises and private homes that ring Bruckner Plaza in the Bronx can relate to that. Their local supermarket, a Key Food on White Plains Road and the Bruckner Expressway, is the only one south of the expressway, tucked into a corner of the outdoor shopping center that also features a Kmart and assorted smaller stores."
The potential store closing is a direct stab in the back to the 100 union workers who make the Key Food such a successful fixture along Bruckner Boulevard: "At stake at the Bronx store are more than 100 jobs, many of them filled by local residents, including teenagers and single mothers. Some of the employees more or less grew up in the business, starting as teenagers with part-time, unionized jobs. The pay and benefits have helped them support their families, and even prosper." This is also one of the main economic development points of the DCP study.
All of this isn't sitting well with the local community board-or the rest of the residents in the Soundview area: "Whatever plans the company has for the site are bound to face opposition from the local community board, whose members expect to meet with Vornado executives this week. Enrique Vega, the chairman of Community Board 9 in the Bronx, said the board would not allow anything but a supermarket on the site. “They are in deep trouble if they think they are going to put another type of store there,” Mr. Vega said. “They’ll need a variance or an agreement with the community board, and they are not going to get it. We want a supermarket.”
And the fight here will certainly be joined by the UFCW and all of its local unions: "Local 1500 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represents the store’s workers, have made this Key Food in the Bronx the poster child for a citywide campaign to preserve local supermarkets. “We’re at a point where landlords do not feel any concern that they are taking supermarkets out of communities,” said Pat Purcell, the union’s director of special projects. “They just want to maximize their profit. I get that, up to a point. But food is different. It affects your health.”
But this isn't Soundview's fight alone. As Gonzales' piece makes abundantly clear, this is a city wide issue of mounting concern for all elected officials. And the Alliance will be joining with many of these officials, and scores of local community groups, on May 28th at City Hall. Landlords like Vornado better watch their assets.
Red Ken Decongested
Well it looks as if the London air will be a heck of a lot cleaner now that Red Ken Livingstone has gone down to defeat in that city's recently concluded mayoral election. As CNN reported: " Conservative lawmaker with a knack for offensive remarks ousted the left-wing mayor of London in an upset that capped the ruling Labour Party's worst local election showing in four decades."
Now New Yorkers are familiar with Red Ken, a man who got his moniker from a long association with noxious radical political groups, for his championing of congestion taxing. His deputy was even brought to NYC to give an international flavor to the mayor's huckstering on this silly tax scheme. Not content with an ever congestion fee, Livingston recently proposed taxing SUVs fifty pounds to enter London's CBD.
While we don't think that the congestion tax alone was responsible for the mayor's defeat, it useful to note the following from the London Daily Mail: "A massive turn-out in London's outer boroughs was said to be behind a victory that capped an already remarkable Tory success in the rest of the country." Sound familiar?
It is of course all of the outer borough voters, whether in London or New York, who have to pay the congestion tax for the right to go to work. It's too bad that Bloomberg didn't put this all to a referendum so all the carping about Shelly Silver could have been put to rest. The NY Sun's editorial on Friday captures the essence of this: "If the voters throw out Kenneth “Red Ken” Livingstone, it will be a repudiation of Mr. Livingstone’s congestion pricing scheme, which is similar to the one that Mayor Bloomberg tried to impose on New York City."
That being said, Livingston's defeat marks the departure of yet another anti-American European from the political stage. A defeat made that much more sweet because of the way all of the Islamic enemies of democracy tried to use the democratic process to proper Livingston back into office. As one conservative commentator put it: "This result isn’t just a wonderful victory for Boris and the termination of Livingstone. It’s also a defeat for the campaign – an exceptionally dirty one, at that - waged against Boris by a small band of separatists claiming to act in the name of all London’s Muslims...This campaign’s aim was to attack Boris as an Islamophobe; swing Muslim voters unanimously behind Livingstone; deliver the election for him; emerge, thereby, as a leading force in British Islam, and thus send an uncompromising message to the main political parties – follow our line, or there’ll be electoral consequences.
So in one fell swoop, congestion tax promoting and radical Islam loving got s*it canned by the voters of London. As Martha would say; "That's a good thing."
Now New Yorkers are familiar with Red Ken, a man who got his moniker from a long association with noxious radical political groups, for his championing of congestion taxing. His deputy was even brought to NYC to give an international flavor to the mayor's huckstering on this silly tax scheme. Not content with an ever congestion fee, Livingston recently proposed taxing SUVs fifty pounds to enter London's CBD.
While we don't think that the congestion tax alone was responsible for the mayor's defeat, it useful to note the following from the London Daily Mail: "A massive turn-out in London's outer boroughs was said to be behind a victory that capped an already remarkable Tory success in the rest of the country." Sound familiar?
It is of course all of the outer borough voters, whether in London or New York, who have to pay the congestion tax for the right to go to work. It's too bad that Bloomberg didn't put this all to a referendum so all the carping about Shelly Silver could have been put to rest. The NY Sun's editorial on Friday captures the essence of this: "If the voters throw out Kenneth “Red Ken” Livingstone, it will be a repudiation of Mr. Livingstone’s congestion pricing scheme, which is similar to the one that Mayor Bloomberg tried to impose on New York City."
That being said, Livingston's defeat marks the departure of yet another anti-American European from the political stage. A defeat made that much more sweet because of the way all of the Islamic enemies of democracy tried to use the democratic process to proper Livingston back into office. As one conservative commentator put it: "This result isn’t just a wonderful victory for Boris and the termination of Livingstone. It’s also a defeat for the campaign – an exceptionally dirty one, at that - waged against Boris by a small band of separatists claiming to act in the name of all London’s Muslims...This campaign’s aim was to attack Boris as an Islamophobe; swing Muslim voters unanimously behind Livingstone; deliver the election for him; emerge, thereby, as a leading force in British Islam, and thus send an uncompromising message to the main political parties – follow our line, or there’ll be electoral consequences.
So in one fell swoop, congestion tax promoting and radical Islam loving got s*it canned by the voters of London. As Martha would say; "That's a good thing."
Going to Market with DCP
The Department of City Planning has just come out with a very important study on supermarkets in New York City-and the picture painted isn't pretty. The study, titled "Going to Market," tells this stark tale: "A widespread shortage of neighborhood grocery stores and supermarkets exists in New York City. High need for fresh food purveyors affects approximately three million New Yorkers. Low-income neighborhoods have the highest need."
And not only that. It's also apparent that the bulk of supermarket closings are occuring in the very same high need neighborhoods, those where, "high rates of diet-related diseases" are prevalent. So what we are experiencing in this city is what looks like a perfect storm: rising obersity-related disease rates, along with declining numbers of supermarkets that could provide communities in need with the fresh produce that could help alleviate the health crisis.
In the DCP study, the department also develops a "Supermarket Need Index," a guide to those areas with the highest levels of diet-related diseases and that also have, "limited opportunities to purchase fresh foods." In doing so the planners have nicely underscored the way in which the supermarket crisis is a public health issue.
The department also found in its need index that the Bronx was the borough with the lowest consumption of produce. The survey also highlights the way in which the city is sorely underserved by adequate numbers of supermarkets; "Approximately three million New Yorkers live in high need neighborhoods." And over 750,000 folks in those neighborhoods live more than five blocks from a supermarket.
The department analysis also goes on to nicely indicate the importance for supermarkets in economic development and community quality of life. As it points out: "...residents benefit from lower prices, less travel time and greater merchandise selection," when a supermarket locates In the neighborhood. In addition, the new supermarket means good jobs and added vitality to the neighborhood shopping strip: "Increased foot traffic creates walkable neighborhoods and reduces crime," much as we pointed out when we remarked how Bloomberg's sustainable city plan (as well as his congestion taxing plan) ignored the importance of neighborhood walk-to-shopping.
As good as the study is, it has a number of important land use suggestions, it does fall short in one key area: the disappearance of supermarkets from numerous commercial strips. It does point out that many of the areas in need of more stores are actually losing them, but offers no solution to stem the exodus.
"Going to Market" points out that many of these markets are being replaced by banks and drug stores, but fails to underscore that the escalation of real estate values is the underlying cause; and the need to find a way to make the local markets able to withstand the gentrification tsunami. Which brings us to the eviction of the Key Food in Soundview.
Soundview is identified as one of the Bronx neighborhoods that is in need of more supermarkets; and the DOH has targeted it for an influx of veggie peddlers. Yet the Vornado company is moving a vital food access from this neighborhood in need. In our view this makes the Vornado Distrusters a public enemy-and the company should be made persona non grata in any land use or city land disposition.
In fact, since the mayor's such a big fan of eminent domain, he should make the Vornado-owned shopping center a target for being taken for a greater public use. Preserving a vital food source is definitely a public purpose. After all, what's more important than insuring the health of folks in a neighborhood where there are high rates of diet-related diseases?
And not only that. It's also apparent that the bulk of supermarket closings are occuring in the very same high need neighborhoods, those where, "high rates of diet-related diseases" are prevalent. So what we are experiencing in this city is what looks like a perfect storm: rising obersity-related disease rates, along with declining numbers of supermarkets that could provide communities in need with the fresh produce that could help alleviate the health crisis.
In the DCP study, the department also develops a "Supermarket Need Index," a guide to those areas with the highest levels of diet-related diseases and that also have, "limited opportunities to purchase fresh foods." In doing so the planners have nicely underscored the way in which the supermarket crisis is a public health issue.
The department also found in its need index that the Bronx was the borough with the lowest consumption of produce. The survey also highlights the way in which the city is sorely underserved by adequate numbers of supermarkets; "Approximately three million New Yorkers live in high need neighborhoods." And over 750,000 folks in those neighborhoods live more than five blocks from a supermarket.
The department analysis also goes on to nicely indicate the importance for supermarkets in economic development and community quality of life. As it points out: "...residents benefit from lower prices, less travel time and greater merchandise selection," when a supermarket locates In the neighborhood. In addition, the new supermarket means good jobs and added vitality to the neighborhood shopping strip: "Increased foot traffic creates walkable neighborhoods and reduces crime," much as we pointed out when we remarked how Bloomberg's sustainable city plan (as well as his congestion taxing plan) ignored the importance of neighborhood walk-to-shopping.
As good as the study is, it has a number of important land use suggestions, it does fall short in one key area: the disappearance of supermarkets from numerous commercial strips. It does point out that many of the areas in need of more stores are actually losing them, but offers no solution to stem the exodus.
"Going to Market" points out that many of these markets are being replaced by banks and drug stores, but fails to underscore that the escalation of real estate values is the underlying cause; and the need to find a way to make the local markets able to withstand the gentrification tsunami. Which brings us to the eviction of the Key Food in Soundview.
Soundview is identified as one of the Bronx neighborhoods that is in need of more supermarkets; and the DOH has targeted it for an influx of veggie peddlers. Yet the Vornado company is moving a vital food access from this neighborhood in need. In our view this makes the Vornado Distrusters a public enemy-and the company should be made persona non grata in any land use or city land disposition.
In fact, since the mayor's such a big fan of eminent domain, he should make the Vornado-owned shopping center a target for being taken for a greater public use. Preserving a vital food source is definitely a public purpose. After all, what's more important than insuring the health of folks in a neighborhood where there are high rates of diet-related diseases?
Friday, May 02, 2008
Tax Evader Convicted
As the NY Times is reporting, one of the biggest evaders of cigarette taxes has been convicted in federal court: "The owner of a smoke shop on the Poospatuck Indian Reservation that prosecutors claim is a major supplier of black-market cigarettes was convicted of racketeering conspiracy on Thursday..." And it's about time. This one evader is probably responsible for more black market sales into NYC than any other single business; all the time claiming that, as an Indian, he's exempt from New York State law.
This claim was thrown out: "Prosecutors argued that Mr. Morrison sold huge quantities of cigarettes, which were not taxed, off tribal land to be resold in violation of federal law.
Technically, state law requires reservation smoke shops to collect taxes on cigarettes sold to people who are not members of a tribe, or who do not intend to smoke them on the reservation, but the law has never been enforced. Tribal leaders say that as citizens of the Unkechaug Nation, a 55-acre sovereign nation, they cannot be forced to collect state taxes."
Of course, Morrison's not even an Indian, but married a member of the tribe so he could proceed with his multi-million bilking of the state's tax payers: "His shop, Peace Pipe, supplemented sales from its small storefront by taking orders over the Internet and by telephone, the authorities said. The handful of smoke shops on the reservation sold at least 104 million packs of cigarettes last year, according to state records, making it one the state’s largest suppliers of tobacco."
All of those "sales" came at the expense of small store owners on Long Island and in NYC. Morrison has millions stashed away, and the Feds are going after his assets. Not so lucky are all of those store owners who've seen their profits go up in smoke.
This claim was thrown out: "Prosecutors argued that Mr. Morrison sold huge quantities of cigarettes, which were not taxed, off tribal land to be resold in violation of federal law.
Technically, state law requires reservation smoke shops to collect taxes on cigarettes sold to people who are not members of a tribe, or who do not intend to smoke them on the reservation, but the law has never been enforced. Tribal leaders say that as citizens of the Unkechaug Nation, a 55-acre sovereign nation, they cannot be forced to collect state taxes."
Of course, Morrison's not even an Indian, but married a member of the tribe so he could proceed with his multi-million bilking of the state's tax payers: "His shop, Peace Pipe, supplemented sales from its small storefront by taking orders over the Internet and by telephone, the authorities said. The handful of smoke shops on the reservation sold at least 104 million packs of cigarettes last year, according to state records, making it one the state’s largest suppliers of tobacco."
All of those "sales" came at the expense of small store owners on Long Island and in NYC. Morrison has millions stashed away, and the Feds are going after his assets. Not so lucky are all of those store owners who've seen their profits go up in smoke.
An Alternative Alliance
During the prolonged policy debate over congestion pricing, we really got into it with the folks over at Transportation Alternatives. So it may come as some surprise that we finally may have hit on an issue where the Alliance and TA can find common ground. The Issue? Parking ticket deals for truck fleets.
The other day there was a debate over Intro 637. Here's how the NY Sun describes it: "The bill would make permanent an existing voluntary program that allows businesses to waive the right to contest parking tickets in exchange for having some fines reduced or eliminated. Proponents of the bill say the reductions are based on the percentage of tickets that businesses on average successfully get dismissed, meaning that the city collects the same amount of revenue as it would have anyway but with less strain on the traffic court and on businesses."
Transportation Alternatives take issue with this view, and we agree. Here's how TA describes the legislation on the Streetsblog web site: "The DOF Stipulated Fine Program, started in 2004, includes a secret fine schedule for participants which eliminates fines for many parking violations, including double parking and parking at expired meters. (In other words, truckers in the program can park forever at an expired meter.) It also reduces fines for dangerous parking activity like blocking a fire hydrant, parking in a traffic lane, parking on the sidewalk, blocking a crosswalk, and parking in a bike lane."
Sounds a bit different when described in this way; and one commenter is even harsher in his assessment of the program's utility: "This program is "evil." You don't solve a problem by creating another problem. DOF's "Stipulated Fine" reduces fines to zero for truckers who double park, overstay expired meters, park in taxi stands, park in blue zones and park during street cleaning. That is a big deal. Yes trucks should have priority for curb space. Yes, meter rates and regs should be designed to give trucks curb access. But it is wrong, short-sighted and weak willed for the city to "legalize" dangerous double parking and other parking violations while it does nothing about the fundamental problem, which is grossly underpriced curb space."
What's funny to us is that it appears that there's real dissension between various mayoral agencies over this policy, another example of the one hand doesn't know what the other hand's doing among the Bloombergistas. It also shows just how much the vaunted congestion pricing debate may be seen as a fad for the mayor-underscoring that he's less than serious about a comprehensive traffic reduction plan for the city.
Still, the hearing on Wednesday raised some very serious reservations about the DOF scheme. As the Sun points out: "At a hearing yesterday, Glen Bolofsky, the president of ParkingTicket.com, a company that charges members to contest parking tickets on their behalf, testified that the proposal would increase traffic by encouraging more parking violations and confer an unfair advantage on businesses."
And many council members are in apparent agreement, so the Intro was laid over and its fate is very much in doubt. Legislators are concerned that ticket agents are being forced to waste precious time and money for ticketing that will never be acknowledged in revenue producing ways. Stay tuned on this one-and watch how this could come back to hurt David Yassky, the bill's sponsor, next year. No one who's seen as a defender of traffic ticketing methodologies will be seen as a popular favorite in a city wide election.
The other day there was a debate over Intro 637. Here's how the NY Sun describes it: "The bill would make permanent an existing voluntary program that allows businesses to waive the right to contest parking tickets in exchange for having some fines reduced or eliminated. Proponents of the bill say the reductions are based on the percentage of tickets that businesses on average successfully get dismissed, meaning that the city collects the same amount of revenue as it would have anyway but with less strain on the traffic court and on businesses."
Transportation Alternatives take issue with this view, and we agree. Here's how TA describes the legislation on the Streetsblog web site: "The DOF Stipulated Fine Program, started in 2004, includes a secret fine schedule for participants which eliminates fines for many parking violations, including double parking and parking at expired meters. (In other words, truckers in the program can park forever at an expired meter.) It also reduces fines for dangerous parking activity like blocking a fire hydrant, parking in a traffic lane, parking on the sidewalk, blocking a crosswalk, and parking in a bike lane."
Sounds a bit different when described in this way; and one commenter is even harsher in his assessment of the program's utility: "This program is "evil." You don't solve a problem by creating another problem. DOF's "Stipulated Fine" reduces fines to zero for truckers who double park, overstay expired meters, park in taxi stands, park in blue zones and park during street cleaning. That is a big deal. Yes trucks should have priority for curb space. Yes, meter rates and regs should be designed to give trucks curb access. But it is wrong, short-sighted and weak willed for the city to "legalize" dangerous double parking and other parking violations while it does nothing about the fundamental problem, which is grossly underpriced curb space."
What's funny to us is that it appears that there's real dissension between various mayoral agencies over this policy, another example of the one hand doesn't know what the other hand's doing among the Bloombergistas. It also shows just how much the vaunted congestion pricing debate may be seen as a fad for the mayor-underscoring that he's less than serious about a comprehensive traffic reduction plan for the city.
Still, the hearing on Wednesday raised some very serious reservations about the DOF scheme. As the Sun points out: "At a hearing yesterday, Glen Bolofsky, the president of ParkingTicket.com, a company that charges members to contest parking tickets on their behalf, testified that the proposal would increase traffic by encouraging more parking violations and confer an unfair advantage on businesses."
And many council members are in apparent agreement, so the Intro was laid over and its fate is very much in doubt. Legislators are concerned that ticket agents are being forced to waste precious time and money for ticketing that will never be acknowledged in revenue producing ways. Stay tuned on this one-and watch how this could come back to hurt David Yassky, the bill's sponsor, next year. No one who's seen as a defender of traffic ticketing methodologies will be seen as a popular favorite in a city wide election.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Confusing Calorie Counting
The NY Times' City Room blog has an excellent take on the city's successful defense of its calorie posting regulation. From the post, it's clear that pretty soon confusion will reign since the complexity of this kind of posting is obviously lost on Commissar Frieden. As the City Room points out: "In theory, the calorie listings are supposed to be listed with the same prominence as prices."
But when you go to the various web sites you quickly begin to realize just how difficult this task will be-and just how confusing it will be to even the most knowledgeable consumers: "To compare an area where there are not given standards to post nutritional information, City Room did a brief survey of the company Web sites. We found found 1) horrifying calorie numbers for items (750 calories for a venti strawberries & crème frappuccino blended crème from Starbucks, 1310 calories for a large prime rib ranchero with cheese and dressing)."
The fact of the matter, however, is that this web level depth of info will not be possible for the menu boards at Starbucks or McDonald's; since the multiple possible combinations can't all fit in the space that most outlets have (if you examine the Starbucks nutritional pamphlet, it runs for pages and reads like an introductory chemistry text).
Which means that all of the postings will have to be truncated and, therefore, confusing to the customer. The twenty different kinds of tacos will have to be listed as a range (400-2000 calories?), as will the numerous possible frappaccino selections at Starbucks.
Interestingly enough, the best nutritional web info was found at the sites of those fast food stores that Frieden has been most scornful of. The Times found, "that some of the companies that have been most resistant about the posting have the most easily accessible nutritional information: McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC."
But leave it to the Commissar to put the most demonic anti-business spin on all of this: "In a statement, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, said, “McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts and the other big chains that haven’t yet listed calories as required by the Health Code have run out of stalling tactics. Some chains have worked hard to deny customers information they need to make healthy food choices — but this decision starts to clear the way for people to have ready access to calorie information when they order their food.”
Not! It clears the way for total confusion, and we just can't wait for the DOH "study" that finds that the folks, enlightened and newly motivated, are changing their eating patterns in the name of good health.
But when you go to the various web sites you quickly begin to realize just how difficult this task will be-and just how confusing it will be to even the most knowledgeable consumers: "To compare an area where there are not given standards to post nutritional information, City Room did a brief survey of the company Web sites. We found found 1) horrifying calorie numbers for items (750 calories for a venti strawberries & crème frappuccino blended crème from Starbucks, 1310 calories for a large prime rib ranchero with cheese and dressing)."
The fact of the matter, however, is that this web level depth of info will not be possible for the menu boards at Starbucks or McDonald's; since the multiple possible combinations can't all fit in the space that most outlets have (if you examine the Starbucks nutritional pamphlet, it runs for pages and reads like an introductory chemistry text).
Which means that all of the postings will have to be truncated and, therefore, confusing to the customer. The twenty different kinds of tacos will have to be listed as a range (400-2000 calories?), as will the numerous possible frappaccino selections at Starbucks.
Interestingly enough, the best nutritional web info was found at the sites of those fast food stores that Frieden has been most scornful of. The Times found, "that some of the companies that have been most resistant about the posting have the most easily accessible nutritional information: McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC."
But leave it to the Commissar to put the most demonic anti-business spin on all of this: "In a statement, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, said, “McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts and the other big chains that haven’t yet listed calories as required by the Health Code have run out of stalling tactics. Some chains have worked hard to deny customers information they need to make healthy food choices — but this decision starts to clear the way for people to have ready access to calorie information when they order their food.”
Not! It clears the way for total confusion, and we just can't wait for the DOH "study" that finds that the folks, enlightened and newly motivated, are changing their eating patterns in the name of good health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
