What's going on here? The NY post is reporting this morning that Governor Paterson believes that Mayor Mike is simply losing it, and his trues personality colors are starting to show. The stark observation came as negotiations over the fate of OTB were concluded last week: "Mayor Bloomberg is a nasty, untrustworthy, tantrum-prone liar who "has little use" for average New Yorkers - like the 1,500 workers who would have lost their jobs had OTB closed, a furious Gov. Paterson has said privately."
Which, if true, means that Bloomberg has been amazingly deft at disguising himself;, pr perhaps it's Paterson who's a little off here: ""He appears to be self-destructing," the governor said..."He has the same kind of anger that reminds you of Spitzer," Paterson said. "I think he's starting to be concerned that he can't get anything done." The governor charged that Bloomberg has repeatedly misrepresented the facts to the point that "you can't trust him."
Usually the truth lies somewhere in between, but we're going to guess that the gov's observations might be closer to the mark, particularly when he characterizes Bloomberg's frustrations: "The source quoted Paterson as saying of Bloomberg, "There's some kind of destabilization over there." "His presidential thing didn't work out, term limits is looming to force him out, he's waiting and waiting to be asked to be vice president, congestion pricing didn't happen, he lost teacher tenure, the Jets stadium, and OTB isn't going the way he wants it."
This could continue to get interesting as the Bloomberg tenure winds down. Because, as it does, he'll be less able to get things done, and more frustration will inevitably challenge his public projection of calm. Will the Mike Bloomberg of private sector legend then emerge in full bloom?
Monday, June 16, 2008
Lobbyists and the "Special Interests"
We've been commenting for a while about the false dichotomy between special interests and the so-called public good. Generally, the special interests are demonized while the idea of a public good is reified. The reality, as Michael Barone underscored yesterday in a prescient piece for Real Politics, is starkly different: "Behind this stigmatization of lobbyists is the notion that the failure to produce legislation in the public interest stems from the existence of lobbyists. Which is obviously nonsense."
This basic understanding of how government works is being caricatured by both Barack Obama and John McCain in their efforts to appear to be above these nefarious special interests. The one person who really got it was Hillary Clinton, and she had the forthrightness to make the case right in front of the Daily Kossacks convention. As Barone points out: "While Obama and John Edwards were lambasting lobbyists, Clinton said: "You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses. They represent, you know, social workers. They represent ... yes, they represent corporations. They employ a lot of people."
Of course, this won't stop all of the misrepresentation by pols who want to appear that they represent the greater good, the concept that somehow transcends the tawdry interplay of interests. And Barone properly lauds Clinton's stand: "That's why I was pleased to see Clinton defend lobbying not only for those whom her Democratic audience considers good interests (nurses, social workers) but those they don't (corporations). Implicitly, she's rejecting the distinction made by the head of the Humane Society of the United States, who recently contrasted "special interest lobbyists" (presumably those working for profit-making interests) with "socially responsible lobbyists" (those working for nonprofits). But even lobbyists for nonprofits have a monetary motive: to keep their (often six-figure) salaries flowing in."
And we would add to this the fact that just because a group arrogates to itself the mantle of some public good-whether it be the environment, consumers, or the interests of low income folks-doesn't mean that its agenda is good for the larger polity-or even for the cause that they claim to advocate for; which goes equally as well for those groups with "public interest" in their name.
The whole idea of a "socially responsible" lobbyist is absurd, and this comes from someone who has often represented the interests of the less well-connected in major real estate battles over the past twenty five years. We're all representing legitimate interests, and the idea is to, hopefully, create a balance so that one interest doesn't dominate: competition is good, and without it, there will often be abuses that hurt the less organized segment of the population.
As Barone points out, the legislative agendas being advanced by both candidates this fall will have profound ramifications on us all; and it behooves all of the groups potentially impacted to offer an organized response. As Barone says: "More important, both candidates are proposing healthcare, carbon emission and tax changes -- legislation that will, and should, face heavy lobbying. Which is fine: Such laws will have enormous ramifications, and everyone who wants to should chime in. Even -- if I can use that dreaded word again -- lobbyists."
This basic understanding of how government works is being caricatured by both Barack Obama and John McCain in their efforts to appear to be above these nefarious special interests. The one person who really got it was Hillary Clinton, and she had the forthrightness to make the case right in front of the Daily Kossacks convention. As Barone points out: "While Obama and John Edwards were lambasting lobbyists, Clinton said: "You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses. They represent, you know, social workers. They represent ... yes, they represent corporations. They employ a lot of people."
Of course, this won't stop all of the misrepresentation by pols who want to appear that they represent the greater good, the concept that somehow transcends the tawdry interplay of interests. And Barone properly lauds Clinton's stand: "That's why I was pleased to see Clinton defend lobbying not only for those whom her Democratic audience considers good interests (nurses, social workers) but those they don't (corporations). Implicitly, she's rejecting the distinction made by the head of the Humane Society of the United States, who recently contrasted "special interest lobbyists" (presumably those working for profit-making interests) with "socially responsible lobbyists" (those working for nonprofits). But even lobbyists for nonprofits have a monetary motive: to keep their (often six-figure) salaries flowing in."
And we would add to this the fact that just because a group arrogates to itself the mantle of some public good-whether it be the environment, consumers, or the interests of low income folks-doesn't mean that its agenda is good for the larger polity-or even for the cause that they claim to advocate for; which goes equally as well for those groups with "public interest" in their name.
The whole idea of a "socially responsible" lobbyist is absurd, and this comes from someone who has often represented the interests of the less well-connected in major real estate battles over the past twenty five years. We're all representing legitimate interests, and the idea is to, hopefully, create a balance so that one interest doesn't dominate: competition is good, and without it, there will often be abuses that hurt the less organized segment of the population.
As Barone points out, the legislative agendas being advanced by both candidates this fall will have profound ramifications on us all; and it behooves all of the groups potentially impacted to offer an organized response. As Barone says: "More important, both candidates are proposing healthcare, carbon emission and tax changes -- legislation that will, and should, face heavy lobbying. Which is fine: Such laws will have enormous ramifications, and everyone who wants to should chime in. Even -- if I can use that dreaded word again -- lobbyists."
Chickens Coming Home to Tax Roost
Mike Bloomberg, aside from his great wealth, is one pretty lucky fellow when it comes to politics. In 2001 he comes out of nowhere on the heels of 9/11, and the endorsement of a then iconic mayor, to narrowly win the mayoral election. With the economic crisis that followed the terrorist attack, Mayor Mike was able to raise taxes without any real examination of methods that would have allowed for alternative strategies in the area of government reinvention-a term that was simply alien to Mike and the Koch retreads that he brought with him into government.
After the economic downturn, the city experienced a major uptick in revenues as Wall Street came roaring back. Through all of this Blomberg was able to articulate (and practice) a political philosophy that envisions government as a "consumer friendly" dispenser of services to the needy. In fact, his public health philosophy is emblematic of his entire approach to government (the opposite of the Reaganesque lampooning of the phrase, "We're from the government and we're here to help you.")
So it's no surprise that, faced with looming deficits, Bloomberg reverts back to what he knows best-revenue enhancements through the milking of the city's tax payers. As the NY Times reported on Saturday: "With the economy in the doldrums, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Friday that the city might scrap a popular tax cut for homeowners in 2009 — a step he previously said he would try to avoid."
It will not be easy, however, since so many of the City Council members are facing new political challenges in the upcoming election cycle. As Councilman Eric Gioia told the Times: “Middle-class families are under siege,” said Councilman Eric N. Gioia of Queens. “Raising their taxes now, at a time when they can least afford it, would be a mistake.”
And he's right, of course. As gas and food prices rise through the roof it's not the best of times to start taking more money out from the homeowners that the mayor and the council socked it to in 2002; especially when there's still a budget surplus: "Such a tax increase could prove especially unpopular given that the city is expected to end 2008 with a $4.6 billion budget surplus, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. But the mayor’s office said that those funds were already tied up in future budgets."
The use of words like "responsible" and "prudent" generally typify the "we have to raise revenue" crowd (like the Times editorialists and the tax gougers at the DMI). They all should take a look at all of the supermarket entrepreneurs who are leaving the city to invest their money in more tax-friendly environs.
There's a cost to all of this taxing and over regulating. The NY Post gets this in its editorial on Saturday: "What Mayor Mike taketh, Mayor Mike giveth back - and then later, it seems, taketh away again. That's the storyline of that huge 18 percent property-tax hike he slapped on New Yorkers, citing post-9/11 budget woes, in his very first year as mayor...Some perspective: City taxes were already way too high when Bloomberg took office in '02. Indeed, he campaigned for office arguing that, despite the post-9/11 downturn, New York can't tax its way out of a recession - that jacking up levies would only further harm the economy. Yet, there he was - less than a year later - imposing a stiff tax hike."
So his $80 2001 million campaign charade was just that; it camouflaged his true philosophy as he pained Mark Green as a flaming liberal. So the Post actually gets it wrong when it urges the mayor to reach back for the "old Mike."-"But Hizzoner was right the first time: Hiking taxes will hurt the economy. Not to mention, it's unfair. Outrageously so, in fact. Mayor Mike should channel the old Mike - and reject any notion of yet another tax hike. End of story."
The old Mike was a fiction, like so much else we've had to swallow over the past six and a half years from the man who really had no answers since, as far as government was concerned, he simply didn't even know what the questions were.
After the economic downturn, the city experienced a major uptick in revenues as Wall Street came roaring back. Through all of this Blomberg was able to articulate (and practice) a political philosophy that envisions government as a "consumer friendly" dispenser of services to the needy. In fact, his public health philosophy is emblematic of his entire approach to government (the opposite of the Reaganesque lampooning of the phrase, "We're from the government and we're here to help you.")
So it's no surprise that, faced with looming deficits, Bloomberg reverts back to what he knows best-revenue enhancements through the milking of the city's tax payers. As the NY Times reported on Saturday: "With the economy in the doldrums, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Friday that the city might scrap a popular tax cut for homeowners in 2009 — a step he previously said he would try to avoid."
It will not be easy, however, since so many of the City Council members are facing new political challenges in the upcoming election cycle. As Councilman Eric Gioia told the Times: “Middle-class families are under siege,” said Councilman Eric N. Gioia of Queens. “Raising their taxes now, at a time when they can least afford it, would be a mistake.”
And he's right, of course. As gas and food prices rise through the roof it's not the best of times to start taking more money out from the homeowners that the mayor and the council socked it to in 2002; especially when there's still a budget surplus: "Such a tax increase could prove especially unpopular given that the city is expected to end 2008 with a $4.6 billion budget surplus, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. But the mayor’s office said that those funds were already tied up in future budgets."
The use of words like "responsible" and "prudent" generally typify the "we have to raise revenue" crowd (like the Times editorialists and the tax gougers at the DMI). They all should take a look at all of the supermarket entrepreneurs who are leaving the city to invest their money in more tax-friendly environs.
There's a cost to all of this taxing and over regulating. The NY Post gets this in its editorial on Saturday: "What Mayor Mike taketh, Mayor Mike giveth back - and then later, it seems, taketh away again. That's the storyline of that huge 18 percent property-tax hike he slapped on New Yorkers, citing post-9/11 budget woes, in his very first year as mayor...Some perspective: City taxes were already way too high when Bloomberg took office in '02. Indeed, he campaigned for office arguing that, despite the post-9/11 downturn, New York can't tax its way out of a recession - that jacking up levies would only further harm the economy. Yet, there he was - less than a year later - imposing a stiff tax hike."
So his $80 2001 million campaign charade was just that; it camouflaged his true philosophy as he pained Mark Green as a flaming liberal. So the Post actually gets it wrong when it urges the mayor to reach back for the "old Mike."-"But Hizzoner was right the first time: Hiking taxes will hurt the economy. Not to mention, it's unfair. Outrageously so, in fact. Mayor Mike should channel the old Mike - and reject any notion of yet another tax hike. End of story."
The old Mike was a fiction, like so much else we've had to swallow over the past six and a half years from the man who really had no answers since, as far as government was concerned, he simply didn't even know what the questions were.
Tax and Spent
As Liz reported on Friday, the mayor (on his radio show) cast doubt about the ability of city government to pony up this year's tax cut: "And this is starting to get to the point where I’m not sure that we can maintain the 7% cut," Bloomberg said. "I’ve said in our current budget, which has a $2 (billion) or $3 billion deficit for 2010, we assume that property tax cut is coming back..."We may very well have to put it back right now for this year, because without that, we can’t balance this year’s budget, or we can balance this budget but we’d make next year so onerous that nobody wants to have that kind of precipitous tax raise. So a smaller one now, maybe."
Which is, as we have been saying, all a result of Mayor Mike's failure to tackle issues of government waste, inefficiency, and the need to innovate by reinventing the way in which the public sector operates. He has to be the most pro-government billionaire since Rocky ruled the state house in the 1960s.
Liz also relates the following funny: "Bloomberg said his first instinct is to cut expenses, but he has already done that. Unless the City Council agrees to go along with a tax increase (unlikely), the only other option is to cut programs, the mayor said." Mike Bloomberg is philosophically challenged, and his idea of cutting is so much on the margins that the entire exercise is inevitably de minimis?
So, because of his nonfeasance we're looking at a possible tax increase. As NY1 reported: "A small property tax increase this year, he says, may be needed to avoid what he believes would be serious cuts to city services next year. The mayor says a state arbitrator's decision to give officers higher raises than other city employees blew a billion-dollar hole into the city's budget."
Having failed to do what was needed in the first place, Bloomberg is forced to resort to the tired blame Albany rap: "He blamed Albany for failing to "help us," adding: "They’re starting this warfare between some schools and another, with giving us money but only for some schools. That’s not fair. We want every school to get funded exactly the same. That’s what we’re doing with our money, but they’re not doing it with theirs. And then I don’t know how you deal with them when they go home.” Just pathetic!
Which is, as we have been saying, all a result of Mayor Mike's failure to tackle issues of government waste, inefficiency, and the need to innovate by reinventing the way in which the public sector operates. He has to be the most pro-government billionaire since Rocky ruled the state house in the 1960s.
Liz also relates the following funny: "Bloomberg said his first instinct is to cut expenses, but he has already done that. Unless the City Council agrees to go along with a tax increase (unlikely), the only other option is to cut programs, the mayor said." Mike Bloomberg is philosophically challenged, and his idea of cutting is so much on the margins that the entire exercise is inevitably de minimis?
So, because of his nonfeasance we're looking at a possible tax increase. As NY1 reported: "A small property tax increase this year, he says, may be needed to avoid what he believes would be serious cuts to city services next year. The mayor says a state arbitrator's decision to give officers higher raises than other city employees blew a billion-dollar hole into the city's budget."
Having failed to do what was needed in the first place, Bloomberg is forced to resort to the tired blame Albany rap: "He blamed Albany for failing to "help us," adding: "They’re starting this warfare between some schools and another, with giving us money but only for some schools. That’s not fair. We want every school to get funded exactly the same. That’s what we’re doing with our money, but they’re not doing it with theirs. And then I don’t know how you deal with them when they go home.” Just pathetic!
Friday, June 13, 2008
Drug Dealing and Supermarkets
Yesterday Attorney General Andrew Coumo announced the results of his office's investigation into the state's drug chains, stores that are apparently flouting the laws on selling expired goods. As the NY Post reports this morning: "Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is going after CVS and Rite Aid - saying the drugstore chains sold expired milk, eggs, over-the-counter drugs and baby formula. Over the last four months, his investigators were able to buy more than 600 expired items at 142 CVS and 112 Rite Aid pharmacies in 41 counties in New York, Cuomo said yesterday."
This is more than just a simple problem for the city's neighborhood retailers, particularly bodegas and supermarkets that are being forced to compete against the drug chains for food sales and other goods that these markets have relied upon for their slim profit margins. What the Cuomo investigation reveals, however, is the extent to which the drug stores have been competing without the same regulatory oversight that food stores must endure.
Which says to us that the AG's investigation should just be the beginning of a serious evaluation of the proliferation of these drug dealers throughout the neighborhoods of NYC. As the Post tells us: "In the Big Apple, they found expired items at 28 - or 24 percent - of the city's 116 CVS stores and at 22 (13 percent) of the 175 Rite Aid stores." That's 391 drug stores, many of whom are occupying precious neighborhood selling space that used to be reserved for the local supermarket-and that's not including Walgreens, another proliferating druggie that's pushing out local retailers.
A lot of this came out in our discussions yesterday at a supermarket meeting with Brooklyn BP Marty Markowitz. As Marty said in response to the drug chain proliferation: "Are New Yorkers getting sicker? Why do we need a drug store on every block? Why indeed?
There is a pressing need for a full zoning review of chain drug stores; and a remedy whereby the number and locations of these stores is restricted may well be in order. In any event it's high time that the city and state begin to inspect these stores with the same vigor heretofore reserved for the supermarkets. If they're going to act as if they were food stores than they should be held to the same regulatory standards.
And the first place too start would be with the bottle law. It's bad enough that the CVSs of the world rip you off with high beer and soda prices, but show me one that actually redeems a can or bottle. Do the druggies reserve any of their precious selling space for redemption? It's time that the state and city cracked down and created a level competitive playing field-and if the chain drug stores don't comply they shouldn't be allowed to sell beverages.
Which brings us to the larger issue of supermarket disappearance. Our Markowitz meeting underscored one thing: the city and state need to stop using the stores as a tax and regulatory pinata. You can't, as one wholesaler at the meeting lamented, decry the loss of supermarkets, while at the same time devising any number of new regulatory schemes (plastic bag recycling and veggie peddling anyone?) that make it more costly for the markets to operate.
One idea thrown out yesterday that we particularly liked was the reclassification of supermarkets as "community facilities." This would create a zoning category that would allow developers and landlords to discount space for supermarkets and thereby reduce rental costs (the big expense that all of the retailers and their supplier mentioned as the main reason for the loss of the markets).
We'll have more on this at a later time, but we need to emphasize that every one's gotta realize that regulations that purportedly protect the consumer also threaten the health of the stores-in effect leading to a "throw the baby out with the bathwater phenomenon." The cost of doing business needs to be lowered if supermarkets are to thrive in NYC.
This is more than just a simple problem for the city's neighborhood retailers, particularly bodegas and supermarkets that are being forced to compete against the drug chains for food sales and other goods that these markets have relied upon for their slim profit margins. What the Cuomo investigation reveals, however, is the extent to which the drug stores have been competing without the same regulatory oversight that food stores must endure.
Which says to us that the AG's investigation should just be the beginning of a serious evaluation of the proliferation of these drug dealers throughout the neighborhoods of NYC. As the Post tells us: "In the Big Apple, they found expired items at 28 - or 24 percent - of the city's 116 CVS stores and at 22 (13 percent) of the 175 Rite Aid stores." That's 391 drug stores, many of whom are occupying precious neighborhood selling space that used to be reserved for the local supermarket-and that's not including Walgreens, another proliferating druggie that's pushing out local retailers.
A lot of this came out in our discussions yesterday at a supermarket meeting with Brooklyn BP Marty Markowitz. As Marty said in response to the drug chain proliferation: "Are New Yorkers getting sicker? Why do we need a drug store on every block? Why indeed?
There is a pressing need for a full zoning review of chain drug stores; and a remedy whereby the number and locations of these stores is restricted may well be in order. In any event it's high time that the city and state begin to inspect these stores with the same vigor heretofore reserved for the supermarkets. If they're going to act as if they were food stores than they should be held to the same regulatory standards.
And the first place too start would be with the bottle law. It's bad enough that the CVSs of the world rip you off with high beer and soda prices, but show me one that actually redeems a can or bottle. Do the druggies reserve any of their precious selling space for redemption? It's time that the state and city cracked down and created a level competitive playing field-and if the chain drug stores don't comply they shouldn't be allowed to sell beverages.
Which brings us to the larger issue of supermarket disappearance. Our Markowitz meeting underscored one thing: the city and state need to stop using the stores as a tax and regulatory pinata. You can't, as one wholesaler at the meeting lamented, decry the loss of supermarkets, while at the same time devising any number of new regulatory schemes (plastic bag recycling and veggie peddling anyone?) that make it more costly for the markets to operate.
One idea thrown out yesterday that we particularly liked was the reclassification of supermarkets as "community facilities." This would create a zoning category that would allow developers and landlords to discount space for supermarkets and thereby reduce rental costs (the big expense that all of the retailers and their supplier mentioned as the main reason for the loss of the markets).
We'll have more on this at a later time, but we need to emphasize that every one's gotta realize that regulations that purportedly protect the consumer also threaten the health of the stores-in effect leading to a "throw the baby out with the bathwater phenomenon." The cost of doing business needs to be lowered if supermarkets are to thrive in NYC.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Pointing Towards the Exit
It should come as no shock that the city commissioned study of Willets Point has found that the area is blighted. You do often get what you pay for. As the Daily News points out this morning: "Riddled with crime and defiled by pollution, Willets Point is a "burden on the health of the city's residents and economy," says a new report that could remake the future of the so-called Iron Triangle in Queens. The study of the gritty industrial zone - a draft copy of which was obtained by the Daily News - signals the city is preparing to use eminent domain to transform Willets Point into a glitzy mega development, experts said."
That the area has been run down is obvious to anyone who has ever set foot in the triangle property. That doesn't take away, however, from the fact that it is also a hub for a great deal of business activity-moreover firms that are mostly run by immigrant entrepreneurs.
And it dosn't take away from the fact that the blight is a result of the city's own neglect of the area for decades: "But Mark Gerrard, an attorney suing the city on behalf of several Willets Point businesses, argued the city is attempting to profit from a problem it caused by "its refusal over decades to provide the community with the basic services."
We have seen how city paid for studies get the results that the city itself has been looking for. We remember how the city-sponsored study on commercial waste determined that the waste transfer stations that were concentrated in certain low income neighborhoods did not contribute to the degrading of those local environments. And we vividly recall the study that purported to show that the eviction of the BTM merchants would be no economic loss to the city.
The current city study is just another put-up job; one that is designed to pave the way for the eviction of hundreds of businesses and thousands of minority workers. All for the greater good-of the real estate firm that is anointed to redevelop the area.
That the area has been run down is obvious to anyone who has ever set foot in the triangle property. That doesn't take away, however, from the fact that it is also a hub for a great deal of business activity-moreover firms that are mostly run by immigrant entrepreneurs.
And it dosn't take away from the fact that the blight is a result of the city's own neglect of the area for decades: "But Mark Gerrard, an attorney suing the city on behalf of several Willets Point businesses, argued the city is attempting to profit from a problem it caused by "its refusal over decades to provide the community with the basic services."
We have seen how city paid for studies get the results that the city itself has been looking for. We remember how the city-sponsored study on commercial waste determined that the waste transfer stations that were concentrated in certain low income neighborhoods did not contribute to the degrading of those local environments. And we vividly recall the study that purported to show that the eviction of the BTM merchants would be no economic loss to the city.
The current city study is just another put-up job; one that is designed to pave the way for the eviction of hundreds of businesses and thousands of minority workers. All for the greater good-of the real estate firm that is anointed to redevelop the area.
Planning for Food Security
There's an incisive article on food access by Tom Angotti, posted today on the Gotham Gazette web site. The piece examines the dangerous trend in supermarket disappearance and also the extent to which city planners can make a difference in providing access to healthy foods in city neighborhoods: "On retail strips all over the city, skyrocketing rents are forcing food retailers out. Instead of groceries, boutiques, banks and drug chains have set up shop. This alarming decline in supermarkets has reduced options for healthy nutritional choices, a recent New York Times article warned. In place of grocery stores, consumers often have to rely on fast food outlets that offer few healthy choices, or other retail outlets like chain-operated drug stores that sell a limited stock of packaged foods."
Angotti takes a look at the recently released City Planning report on supermarkets and is underwhelmed: "The study cites the public benefits that supermarkets bring to neighborhoods as well as barriers confronting food retailers... In light of the magnitude of the problem, the recommendations in the study appear a bit anemic, failing to take an in-depth look at the many ways land use planning can make a difference."
In particular, he points out that unilaterally removing the 10,000 sq. ft. limitation on supermarkets in industrial zones is unlikely to reverse the trend of supermarket loss: "For example, the report calls for removing the limit of 10,000 square feet for food retailers in light manufacturing districts. City Planning, though, proposed this in the 1990s only to see it defeated in the face of widespread concern that the measure would lead to a rush of big box stores and threaten the viability of industrial areas. After the department's recent spate of rezonings throughout the city, there is less industrially zoned land near residential neighborhoods than there was then, but still no guarantee that rezoning them would bring anything but big boxes and condominiums."
Since we were intimately involved in that particular zoning battle we would tend to agree with Angotti. That doesn't mean, however, that selective rezonings of targeted industrial sites won't be helpful in certain areas. We part company with Professor Angotti when he gets all romantic on us with his rhapsody on herb gardening and food co-ops. The key challenge is to provide space for new markets and to insure that the older stores can afford to remain.
As Angotti points out, and we agree: "Increasing the amount of land available for retail space and supermarkets is only a part of the solution. More - and larger -- retail space in no way guarantees that food will be more accessible to those who need it the most, especially if retail rents are so high that only gourmet stores will survive. While supermarkets may offer more choices, they too can become high-end boutiques. Unless the strategy of opening up more land is accompanied by one that increases the demand for and access to low-cost healthy food, all the stores in the universe won't solve the problem."
The need is to insure that the local supermarket can afford to stay as real estate values rise: "Any policy must also insure long-term access. Unless it can be sustained through periods of real estate peaks and troughs, we will not have community food security - an internationally recognized concept used to plan for food that, if incorporated into New York City's food and land use policies, would help overcome the epidemics of diabetes and obesity."
Supermarket operators must be given the opportunity to purchase their sites; leasing is only a short-term solution that has become problematic all over the city has old leases expire and landlords look to gain maximum value from their properties. Angotti, however, sees commercial rent regulation as the only possible solution: "There is one regulatory measure the city (and state) could use to stop the rising rate of decline in food retailing space in neighborhoods - commercial rent control. It is the perpetual bane of the city's powerful real estate industry, but is probably the only thing that will work to stem the loss of neighborhood retailers."
We're not convinced that rent control's the answer, but we do feel that the neighborhood retailers of all stripes are rapidly becoming extinct as the invasion of the chains squeezes the life and uniqueness out of all the city's local shopping areas. The next mayor will certainly have a difficult job ahead to meet the local supermarket deficit challenge. That is, if Mayor Mike doesn't find some solid short term solutions in the year and a half he has left..
Angotti takes a look at the recently released City Planning report on supermarkets and is underwhelmed: "The study cites the public benefits that supermarkets bring to neighborhoods as well as barriers confronting food retailers... In light of the magnitude of the problem, the recommendations in the study appear a bit anemic, failing to take an in-depth look at the many ways land use planning can make a difference."
In particular, he points out that unilaterally removing the 10,000 sq. ft. limitation on supermarkets in industrial zones is unlikely to reverse the trend of supermarket loss: "For example, the report calls for removing the limit of 10,000 square feet for food retailers in light manufacturing districts. City Planning, though, proposed this in the 1990s only to see it defeated in the face of widespread concern that the measure would lead to a rush of big box stores and threaten the viability of industrial areas. After the department's recent spate of rezonings throughout the city, there is less industrially zoned land near residential neighborhoods than there was then, but still no guarantee that rezoning them would bring anything but big boxes and condominiums."
Since we were intimately involved in that particular zoning battle we would tend to agree with Angotti. That doesn't mean, however, that selective rezonings of targeted industrial sites won't be helpful in certain areas. We part company with Professor Angotti when he gets all romantic on us with his rhapsody on herb gardening and food co-ops. The key challenge is to provide space for new markets and to insure that the older stores can afford to remain.
As Angotti points out, and we agree: "Increasing the amount of land available for retail space and supermarkets is only a part of the solution. More - and larger -- retail space in no way guarantees that food will be more accessible to those who need it the most, especially if retail rents are so high that only gourmet stores will survive. While supermarkets may offer more choices, they too can become high-end boutiques. Unless the strategy of opening up more land is accompanied by one that increases the demand for and access to low-cost healthy food, all the stores in the universe won't solve the problem."
The need is to insure that the local supermarket can afford to stay as real estate values rise: "Any policy must also insure long-term access. Unless it can be sustained through periods of real estate peaks and troughs, we will not have community food security - an internationally recognized concept used to plan for food that, if incorporated into New York City's food and land use policies, would help overcome the epidemics of diabetes and obesity."
Supermarket operators must be given the opportunity to purchase their sites; leasing is only a short-term solution that has become problematic all over the city has old leases expire and landlords look to gain maximum value from their properties. Angotti, however, sees commercial rent regulation as the only possible solution: "There is one regulatory measure the city (and state) could use to stop the rising rate of decline in food retailing space in neighborhoods - commercial rent control. It is the perpetual bane of the city's powerful real estate industry, but is probably the only thing that will work to stem the loss of neighborhood retailers."
We're not convinced that rent control's the answer, but we do feel that the neighborhood retailers of all stripes are rapidly becoming extinct as the invasion of the chains squeezes the life and uniqueness out of all the city's local shopping areas. The next mayor will certainly have a difficult job ahead to meet the local supermarket deficit challenge. That is, if Mayor Mike doesn't find some solid short term solutions in the year and a half he has left..
Sprayregen's Still Standing
In yesterday's NY Times, there's an article on the decision of West Harlem landowner Ann Whitman to make a deal with Columbia University: "A business owner who had pledged not to sell her property to make way for Columbia University’s expansion has reached a deal with the university, Columbia officials said on Tuesday.The agreement with the owner, Anne Z. Whitman, leaves only two property owners who have not settled with Columbia, which is embarking on a $7 billion expansion, the largest in its history."
Which, of course, leaves are client Nick Sprayregen standing almost by his lonesome: "Of the two remaining holdout owners, one is a family that operates a service station, and the other is Nicholas Sprayregen, the area’s largest landowner aside from Columbia. Mr. Sprayregen owns 300,000 square feet of space in five buildings, most of them used by his Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage business. On Tuesday, Mr. Sprayregen said that Ms. Whitman’s decision to reach a deal with Columbia would have no bearing on his position. “It makes it more disappointing, but it also makes my resolve to do the right thing even stronger,” he said."
And just what that "right thing" is, remains uncertain. It could mean a long drawn out eminent domain fight, one that would cost Columbia much time and money; or it could mean a land swap that would enable Sprayregen to stay, and with the added benefit of hundreds of units of affordable housing. Stay tuned for this one, it's gonna get even more interesting for sure.
Which, of course, leaves are client Nick Sprayregen standing almost by his lonesome: "Of the two remaining holdout owners, one is a family that operates a service station, and the other is Nicholas Sprayregen, the area’s largest landowner aside from Columbia. Mr. Sprayregen owns 300,000 square feet of space in five buildings, most of them used by his Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage business. On Tuesday, Mr. Sprayregen said that Ms. Whitman’s decision to reach a deal with Columbia would have no bearing on his position. “It makes it more disappointing, but it also makes my resolve to do the right thing even stronger,” he said."
And just what that "right thing" is, remains uncertain. It could mean a long drawn out eminent domain fight, one that would cost Columbia much time and money; or it could mean a land swap that would enable Sprayregen to stay, and with the added benefit of hundreds of units of affordable housing. Stay tuned for this one, it's gonna get even more interesting for sure.
Producing for Food Retailers
The NY Times follows up on yesterday's NY Post story about the possibility that the Hunts Point Produce Cooperative could relocate out of the city: "The market, a wholesale co-op, has been so successful that it has nearly outgrown its current home. So its directors have asked the city, which owns the property, to help them pay for an expansion that would cost more than $450 million. But according to the co-op, the city has balked at its request, and now the co-op is threatening to take its market out of the city — possibly as soon as its lease expires in 2011."
As we told the Times, this wouldn't be a good move for the city's food retailers: “We would be hopeful that this is no more than a bargaining position by the produce market,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small business owners in New York. “At the same time, I think the city has to take it seriously.” He added: “The current site is ideal. It’s convenient for a whole wide range of retailers and restaurateurs, and the city has to move quickly to ensure that the current location of the produce market is maintained.”
The current location also provides the most convenient and inexpensive access to fresh produce for neighborhood food retailers. Access to fruits and vegetables has been a key component of the mayor's public health policy agenda. But access for the folks in the neighborhoods is dependent to a great degree on the ability of local food retailers to have a convenient and inexpensive source of produce-something that Hunts Point provides. Any relocation that drives up the cost of goods would have an unfortunate impact on low income consumers who have been designated as most in need of greater access to the healthier fare.
This is brought home by an article on rising food costs in this morning's NY Sun: "The number of New York residents who report having difficulty affording essential food has increased 55% during the last five years, to 3.1 million, and now includes record numbers of middle-income families, according to a report released yesterday by the Food Bank for New York City. The report blames the increase on rising food costs." Rising food costs have been linked with the disappearance of many local supermarkets as a major reason why low income and working class neighborhoods are not consuming fresh fruits and vegetables as much as they should.
And the produce market also provides a great source of employment for entry level workers, something that is vital to the economic base of the Bronx. It's important that all involved get together to insure that the market stays at the current location for the foreseeable future. As the NY Daily News reports: "The market supplies 3.3 billion pounds of meat, fruits and vegetables a year that are worth more than $2 billion to more than 10 million consumers, vying with France's giant Rungis produce market just south of Paris for sheer size and volume of sales." Let's get busy EDC!
As we told the Times, this wouldn't be a good move for the city's food retailers: “We would be hopeful that this is no more than a bargaining position by the produce market,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small business owners in New York. “At the same time, I think the city has to take it seriously.” He added: “The current site is ideal. It’s convenient for a whole wide range of retailers and restaurateurs, and the city has to move quickly to ensure that the current location of the produce market is maintained.”
The current location also provides the most convenient and inexpensive access to fresh produce for neighborhood food retailers. Access to fruits and vegetables has been a key component of the mayor's public health policy agenda. But access for the folks in the neighborhoods is dependent to a great degree on the ability of local food retailers to have a convenient and inexpensive source of produce-something that Hunts Point provides. Any relocation that drives up the cost of goods would have an unfortunate impact on low income consumers who have been designated as most in need of greater access to the healthier fare.
This is brought home by an article on rising food costs in this morning's NY Sun: "The number of New York residents who report having difficulty affording essential food has increased 55% during the last five years, to 3.1 million, and now includes record numbers of middle-income families, according to a report released yesterday by the Food Bank for New York City. The report blames the increase on rising food costs." Rising food costs have been linked with the disappearance of many local supermarkets as a major reason why low income and working class neighborhoods are not consuming fresh fruits and vegetables as much as they should.
And the produce market also provides a great source of employment for entry level workers, something that is vital to the economic base of the Bronx. It's important that all involved get together to insure that the market stays at the current location for the foreseeable future. As the NY Daily News reports: "The market supplies 3.3 billion pounds of meat, fruits and vegetables a year that are worth more than $2 billion to more than 10 million consumers, vying with France's giant Rungis produce market just south of Paris for sheer size and volume of sales." Let's get busy EDC!
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Hunts Pointless?
According to the NY Post this morning, the Hunts Point Produce Cooperative is looking to leave the Bronx: "The Hunts Point produce market may soon bid farewell to the city.
The privately run wholesale fruit and vegetable cooperative is looking for a new home after the city refused to fork over $150 million to help build a new facility in the southeast Bronx, The Post has learned."
This would indeed be bad news for the entire Bronx, but it would be particularly bad for the city's small businesses: "If the produce market leaves the city, it would be more costly for small grocers and bodegas to travel to a location further away to purchase crates of fruits and vegetables - possibly driving up costs for the consumers across the five boroughs." It would also make the smaller stores less competitive with larger stores that are less dependent on local supply.
Hunts Point provides the kinds of employment that is vital to the city's less skilled workers. The retention of the Cooperative is crucial to the city's food businesses, but EDC seems to be caught unawares when asked about the potential relocation: "Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the Economic Development Corp., said the co-op "has not made us aware of any plans to relocate out of the city." Patterson added, "We value the market for its significant impact on the city of New York. We are in preliminary discussions with the cooperative to develop a viable for plan to develop a new facility to meet its growing needs."
Let's hope so. The loss of the market would be a devastating blow to the entire food distribution system in New York City.
The privately run wholesale fruit and vegetable cooperative is looking for a new home after the city refused to fork over $150 million to help build a new facility in the southeast Bronx, The Post has learned."
This would indeed be bad news for the entire Bronx, but it would be particularly bad for the city's small businesses: "If the produce market leaves the city, it would be more costly for small grocers and bodegas to travel to a location further away to purchase crates of fruits and vegetables - possibly driving up costs for the consumers across the five boroughs." It would also make the smaller stores less competitive with larger stores that are less dependent on local supply.
Hunts Point provides the kinds of employment that is vital to the city's less skilled workers. The retention of the Cooperative is crucial to the city's food businesses, but EDC seems to be caught unawares when asked about the potential relocation: "Janel Patterson, a spokeswoman for the Economic Development Corp., said the co-op "has not made us aware of any plans to relocate out of the city." Patterson added, "We value the market for its significant impact on the city of New York. We are in preliminary discussions with the cooperative to develop a viable for plan to develop a new facility to meet its growing needs."
Let's hope so. The loss of the market would be a devastating blow to the entire food distribution system in New York City.
Small Business Sham
In this week's Village Voice, the paper's Wayne Barrett devastates the Bloomberg record on women and minority-owned businesses, with a full evaluation of the shameful record of Commissioner Rob Walsh. The context of the article is the record percentages of voters Bloomberg achieved among Blacks and Hispanics, and the meager results of programs touted by Bloomberg during his 2005 campaign: "These signature programs—touted in the campaign's radio and television ads—have since disappeared from both the public's consciousness and the mayor's agenda. Bloomberg issued a "Campaign Accountability Report" last year, claiming success in 96 of the 100 promises he'd made in 2005. That list of campaign pledges did not include the MWBE or construction- apprenticeship initiatives."
This shouldn't really surprise anyone, since Walsh's agency has never done a damn thing for small and minority business and, on the contrary, has been the active catalyst for their demise-witness the SBS role in the eviction of the merchants from the Bronx Terminal Market, and his midwifing of IKEA to the detriment of the retailers in Sunset Park. And as far as Bloomberg is concerned, Black and Hispanic businesses are expendable, just ask all of those firms at Willets Point that the mayor's looking to give the heave-ho to.
Of course, as we have commented, all of this has not really been scrutinized by a supine press. As Barrett points out quoting Freddy Ferrar: "Ferrer, who dropped out of politics and now works for a private public-relations firm, tells the Voice that these programs "are only successful in the eyes of the initiator." The former Bronx borough president insists that "if it were anyone else, there would be much more accountability on these promises," and he also decries the media "quiescence" that has selectively protected the Bloomberg administration. "I have never seen it so still," he says, contrasting the media's lack of penetrating questions about Bloomberg's second-term record with the coverage of his three immediate predecessors: Giuliani, David Dinkins, and Ed Koch."
Our problem with this transcends the contracting charade and Walsh's evident obsession with his soft ball team. The tone and tenor of the Bloomberg administration was set in 2002 when the Fernandez brothers were by-passed by Dan Doctoroff on the Bradhurst project in Harlem for his friend Steve Ross, Since then, the Related Company and Vornado Realty have been living large, with no attempt to reach out to qualified minority firms.
But why should Bloomberg when existing minority businesses are being trampled by the mayor's development policies? Here' the money quote: "Robert Walsh, who has run SBS since Bloomberg took office, conceded during a three-hour Voice interview that he hasn't had a single meeting with the mayor to discuss the MWBE program since the new law went into effect in late 2005. He also acknowledged that, from the beginning of the administration, his conversations with Bloomberg about aiding small businesses "had not been focused on gender or race." Asked if they'd ever had a conversation in which Bloomberg gave him "a sense of how important an MWBE program was to him," Walsh replied: "I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. I can't remember a conversation like that."
Hats off to Barrett. As we have said, the real hard looks at Bloomberg have started to come, and this Voice piece, coming as it does from one of the mayor's staunchest defenders, is truly devastating, Councilman James Sanders' commentary on Walsh's failures to achieve anything positive for minority contractors should serve as an epitaph for Bloomberg's appear to be good administration: "He contends that the failure of SBS "to enforce the rule of law and economic justice as far as MWBEs are concerned is at best a dereliction of duty, and at worst a failure of character."
This shouldn't really surprise anyone, since Walsh's agency has never done a damn thing for small and minority business and, on the contrary, has been the active catalyst for their demise-witness the SBS role in the eviction of the merchants from the Bronx Terminal Market, and his midwifing of IKEA to the detriment of the retailers in Sunset Park. And as far as Bloomberg is concerned, Black and Hispanic businesses are expendable, just ask all of those firms at Willets Point that the mayor's looking to give the heave-ho to.
Of course, as we have commented, all of this has not really been scrutinized by a supine press. As Barrett points out quoting Freddy Ferrar: "Ferrer, who dropped out of politics and now works for a private public-relations firm, tells the Voice that these programs "are only successful in the eyes of the initiator." The former Bronx borough president insists that "if it were anyone else, there would be much more accountability on these promises," and he also decries the media "quiescence" that has selectively protected the Bloomberg administration. "I have never seen it so still," he says, contrasting the media's lack of penetrating questions about Bloomberg's second-term record with the coverage of his three immediate predecessors: Giuliani, David Dinkins, and Ed Koch."
Our problem with this transcends the contracting charade and Walsh's evident obsession with his soft ball team. The tone and tenor of the Bloomberg administration was set in 2002 when the Fernandez brothers were by-passed by Dan Doctoroff on the Bradhurst project in Harlem for his friend Steve Ross, Since then, the Related Company and Vornado Realty have been living large, with no attempt to reach out to qualified minority firms.
But why should Bloomberg when existing minority businesses are being trampled by the mayor's development policies? Here' the money quote: "Robert Walsh, who has run SBS since Bloomberg took office, conceded during a three-hour Voice interview that he hasn't had a single meeting with the mayor to discuss the MWBE program since the new law went into effect in late 2005. He also acknowledged that, from the beginning of the administration, his conversations with Bloomberg about aiding small businesses "had not been focused on gender or race." Asked if they'd ever had a conversation in which Bloomberg gave him "a sense of how important an MWBE program was to him," Walsh replied: "I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. I can't remember a conversation like that."
Hats off to Barrett. As we have said, the real hard looks at Bloomberg have started to come, and this Voice piece, coming as it does from one of the mayor's staunchest defenders, is truly devastating, Councilman James Sanders' commentary on Walsh's failures to achieve anything positive for minority contractors should serve as an epitaph for Bloomberg's appear to be good administration: "He contends that the failure of SBS "to enforce the rule of law and economic justice as far as MWBEs are concerned is at best a dereliction of duty, and at worst a failure of character."
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Waterlogged
We've already pointed out just how inefficient the city's Department of Environmental Protection really is: the DEP's water bill estimates to business, for instance, would never pass any independent scrutiny-and when such scrutiny is available, significant reductions are soon proffered by the agency. We should know, our former client, The Water Group. continues to obtain sharp reductions from the hapless DEP.
So it's certainly no surprise to us that the DEP failed to collect $4.5 million from one delinquent customer. As the NY Post tells us this morning: "While city homeowners are about to get hit with a 14.5 percent increase in water bills next month, one deadbeat customer has managed to get away with stiffing the city out of $4.5 million in unpaid water bills. The delinquent consumer? The city itself. "
What a shock this is! And congrats to Comptroller Thompson for uncovering this scam: "Development Corp. failed to collect 22 years' worth of water and sewer bills from the approximately 70 tenants of the Brooklyn Army Terminal in Sunset Park, Comptroller William Thompson charged in an audit released yesterday. "What really troubles me is that while New Yorkers are paying astronomical rates for water these days . . . EDC wasn't paying anything at all," Thompson said. "While the city ignores the water and sewer fees owed to it by its own subsidiaries and their tenants, it is charging, or some would say gouging, taxpayers more than ever for the exact same services."
Lew Fidler, a frequent critic of the DEP's waterboarding of New Yorkers, told the Post: ""We were trying to tell the Water Board that before they come and soak the taxpayers, they ought to make sure that they collect everything that we've given them the power to collect, and this would be just a glaring example in that regard." And he's right. Thompson's comments to the NY Daily News are really on point: "Hard-pressed New Yorkers have to pay their bills," he said. "The city has to pay its bills. It's merely simple as that."
And the NY Times also weighs in on this fiasco: "After The New York Times reported in December 2006 that the city had failed to collect millions of dollars in overdue water bills, in large part because of poor bookkeeping, the city hired a consultant to find ways to get tough with deadbeat property owners. City water officials have made some progress in reforming the collection process. Mr. Thompson said that he was concerned that many other city agencies were also delinquent in their water bills, and that he had called on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to conduct a citywide review."
Another example of the inattention of the Bloombergistas to the basic inefficiencies of government agencies, inefficiencies that inevitably cost the tax payers million. And when a proposal is raised to save businesses tens of million of dollars in disposal costs through the use of food waste disposers, the DEP shrieks that it will cost the city billions to retrofit. The same agency that can't properly estimate water bills, and doesn't know who's paid and who hasn't?
It's time for a change. We need a chief executive who that understands that an over-bloated and inefficient government, one that also over taxes and over regulates citizens and businesses, needs to be made more responsive and more efficient. The current mayor, as Jackie Mason would point out, would simply say; "That's not my field."
So it's certainly no surprise to us that the DEP failed to collect $4.5 million from one delinquent customer. As the NY Post tells us this morning: "While city homeowners are about to get hit with a 14.5 percent increase in water bills next month, one deadbeat customer has managed to get away with stiffing the city out of $4.5 million in unpaid water bills. The delinquent consumer? The city itself. "
What a shock this is! And congrats to Comptroller Thompson for uncovering this scam: "Development Corp. failed to collect 22 years' worth of water and sewer bills from the approximately 70 tenants of the Brooklyn Army Terminal in Sunset Park, Comptroller William Thompson charged in an audit released yesterday. "What really troubles me is that while New Yorkers are paying astronomical rates for water these days . . . EDC wasn't paying anything at all," Thompson said. "While the city ignores the water and sewer fees owed to it by its own subsidiaries and their tenants, it is charging, or some would say gouging, taxpayers more than ever for the exact same services."
Lew Fidler, a frequent critic of the DEP's waterboarding of New Yorkers, told the Post: ""We were trying to tell the Water Board that before they come and soak the taxpayers, they ought to make sure that they collect everything that we've given them the power to collect, and this would be just a glaring example in that regard." And he's right. Thompson's comments to the NY Daily News are really on point: "Hard-pressed New Yorkers have to pay their bills," he said. "The city has to pay its bills. It's merely simple as that."
And the NY Times also weighs in on this fiasco: "After The New York Times reported in December 2006 that the city had failed to collect millions of dollars in overdue water bills, in large part because of poor bookkeeping, the city hired a consultant to find ways to get tough with deadbeat property owners. City water officials have made some progress in reforming the collection process. Mr. Thompson said that he was concerned that many other city agencies were also delinquent in their water bills, and that he had called on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to conduct a citywide review."
Another example of the inattention of the Bloombergistas to the basic inefficiencies of government agencies, inefficiencies that inevitably cost the tax payers million. And when a proposal is raised to save businesses tens of million of dollars in disposal costs through the use of food waste disposers, the DEP shrieks that it will cost the city billions to retrofit. The same agency that can't properly estimate water bills, and doesn't know who's paid and who hasn't?
It's time for a change. We need a chief executive who that understands that an over-bloated and inefficient government, one that also over taxes and over regulates citizens and businesses, needs to be made more responsive and more efficient. The current mayor, as Jackie Mason would point out, would simply say; "That's not my field."
Monday, June 09, 2008
Times Right on Term Limits
We aren't always in agreement with the editorial wisdom of the NY Times, in fact the areas of agreement are few and far between. The paper's editorial today on a third term for the mayor is, however, on point for us: "We opposed term limits when New York City voters first approved them in 1993. (They were reaffirmed in 1996.) Term limits are undeniably seductive. They seem to promise relief from mediocre, self-perpetuating incumbents and from gridlocked legislatures in places like Albany. They also diminish democracy, arbitrarily deny choice, reduce accountability and squander experience."
At the same time, the Times agrees that changing the law for one man wouldn't be appropriate: "As good a mayor as Mr. Bloomberg has been, we are wary of changing the rules just to suit the ambition of a particular politician — in this country or any other. Mr. Bloomberg, should he want to continue his public service, would make an excellent prospect for other important offices."
We'll take issue with the Times' "good mayor" premise, but its point is clear: if we're going to change the term limits law it must be done on strong good government premises, not because of the need to perpetuate any one person in any one office. Or, as we have put it, the mayor should, "go in good health."
At the same time, the Times agrees that changing the law for one man wouldn't be appropriate: "As good a mayor as Mr. Bloomberg has been, we are wary of changing the rules just to suit the ambition of a particular politician — in this country or any other. Mr. Bloomberg, should he want to continue his public service, would make an excellent prospect for other important offices."
We'll take issue with the Times' "good mayor" premise, but its point is clear: if we're going to change the term limits law it must be done on strong good government premises, not because of the need to perpetuate any one person in any one office. Or, as we have put it, the mayor should, "go in good health."
Out at Third
The Mike Bloomberg third term boomlet apparently doesn't extend past a certain townhouse on 79th Street. As Michael Goodwin writes yesterday: "To seek that third term, Bloomberg would first have to find a way around the two-term limit voters approved twice. And he'll have a lot of explaining to do about flip-flopping on a law he has supported since he entered public life."
What we're hoping for is that Mayor Mike continues this little play act long enough so that others, besides Goodwin, really start to evaluate this mayor's tenure. There's nothing like a little dose of hypocrisy to get the press juices flowing. As Goodwin points out: "The sad thing is that Bloomberg, in his frequent support of term limits, made the most compelling arguments about why they are good for the public. To wit, nobody is indispensable, incumbents have too much of an advantage and new eyes bring new ideas."
The more folks look, the less indispensable Bloomberg will appear. Here's Mike in his own words: "The little you lose in experience you more than make up in terms of fresh ideas. I don't know of any company that would allow their people to stay doing the same thing for long periods of time."
The whole Bloomberg act is getting tiring in the extreme. Not only do we need fresh ideas, we need actual ideas-the mayor brought nothing new to the task seven years ago, and what we really need is someone who will tackle the necessary job of streamlining government, making it both less unwieldy and more effecient (DOB anyone?). And lowering the city's tax burden would be a corrolary of this effort; an idea that Bloomberg the taxer always saw as foreign.
What we're hoping for is that Mayor Mike continues this little play act long enough so that others, besides Goodwin, really start to evaluate this mayor's tenure. There's nothing like a little dose of hypocrisy to get the press juices flowing. As Goodwin points out: "The sad thing is that Bloomberg, in his frequent support of term limits, made the most compelling arguments about why they are good for the public. To wit, nobody is indispensable, incumbents have too much of an advantage and new eyes bring new ideas."
The more folks look, the less indispensable Bloomberg will appear. Here's Mike in his own words: "The little you lose in experience you more than make up in terms of fresh ideas. I don't know of any company that would allow their people to stay doing the same thing for long periods of time."
The whole Bloomberg act is getting tiring in the extreme. Not only do we need fresh ideas, we need actual ideas-the mayor brought nothing new to the task seven years ago, and what we really need is someone who will tackle the necessary job of streamlining government, making it both less unwieldy and more effecient (DOB anyone?). And lowering the city's tax burden would be a corrolary of this effort; an idea that Bloomberg the taxer always saw as foreign.
School Daze and Mayoral Excess
With the speculation increasing that Mayor Mike has not yet had his fill of public adulation, it is useful to take a look at Friday's educational column by the Sun's Andrew Wolf. It's usefulness is given added impetus by the fact that the authorization for mayoral control of the NYC schools ends on June 30th: "The issue of mayoral control of the schools is due to end at midnight on June 30, 2009. If the state legislature and governor fail to act, the current Department of Education will disappear and revert into the old Board of Education at 12:01 a.m...This is unlikely to happen, but what is likely is that there will be changes in the law that will rein in some of the mayor's powers over the schools. In getting to an improved governing structure for the schools, there is likely to be much debate. Both an honest debate and some real reform would be a good thing."
What's been missing for the past seven years, with the exception of the incisive work of Wolf and Sol Stern, is a thorough examination of just what this mayor has done with the control that was given to him, a control that he did very little to actually achieve since the process had been set in motion by his predecessor who did all the hard lifting and advocacy. So, like so much else in his improbable rise to the chief executive position in this city, Bloomberg found himself on third base believing he'd hit a triple.
And Wolf begins to lay out the terms of a more critical evaluation of the mayor's educational achievements. He does so by taking a look at the role of one Ron Beller: "Take the case of Ron Beller. If you have heard of Mr. Beller, it is likely to be in the context of his career as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs. Mr. Beller left that post with a hefty payout, making him a multi-millionaire in his thirties. This apparently was all the expertise needed to convince the mayor and Chancellor Klein that Mr. Beller was the man to lead the reorganization of the public schools in the period after the mayor was granted control."
Of course, this is exactly what Thorsten Veblen meant when he coined the phrase "trained incapacity." Neither Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein or Beller for that matter, came to the task with any educational background or knowledge; therefore the entire problem was viewed as a management issue-and the folks at Tweed brought in an army of MBAs to tackle the educational reorganization.
As Wolf points out, Beller was instrumental in spearheading the reorganization, and very few folks were even aware that he was around; secrecy and a lack of accountability has been the chief hallmark of the Tweed reign. Now, going forward, reform is badly needed: "The public interest here is creating a system designed to minimize damage to our school system and our children even if the worst possible person somehow sneaks into the mayor's chair. That kind of protection comes from complete transparency and a system of checks and balances that allows for the mayor to do his job while protecting the public from abuse."
Wolf underscores our point here: "When the legislature gave control of the schools to the mayor, it assigned broad and unchecked powers. This was done envisioning Mr. Bloomberg at the helm, a reflection of trust in his ability and integrity. Despite this, abuses have occurred. Secretly empowering an arguably unqualified businessman to take such a key role in this public enterprise would seem to constitute such an abuse."
Indeed it was an abuse, and when you add 25 new hires to the DOE public relations payroll you kinda get the feeling that the Tweedies would rather appear good, than actually be good. So much has been outsourced and done under the public radar that it is difficult to actually evaluate all that the kleinemen have done: "Some functions of the Department of Education have been assigned to private entities. Few disapprove of hiring outside companies that can do certain assignments more efficiently, but when government creates these entities to skirt the protections to the public built into government — things such as freedom of information, open competitive bidding, and requirements for public hearings — warning bells should ring."
So let the sunshine in here, and the legislature should set a process in motion that will insure public accountability; and a full and thorough review of all the accomplishments that the mayor and the chancellor claim they have achieved. And we agree with the NY Sun that the mayor should eschew any "finagling" of a third term; let's let his successor come in so that the age of the bamboozle can mercifully come to an end.
What's been missing for the past seven years, with the exception of the incisive work of Wolf and Sol Stern, is a thorough examination of just what this mayor has done with the control that was given to him, a control that he did very little to actually achieve since the process had been set in motion by his predecessor who did all the hard lifting and advocacy. So, like so much else in his improbable rise to the chief executive position in this city, Bloomberg found himself on third base believing he'd hit a triple.
And Wolf begins to lay out the terms of a more critical evaluation of the mayor's educational achievements. He does so by taking a look at the role of one Ron Beller: "Take the case of Ron Beller. If you have heard of Mr. Beller, it is likely to be in the context of his career as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs. Mr. Beller left that post with a hefty payout, making him a multi-millionaire in his thirties. This apparently was all the expertise needed to convince the mayor and Chancellor Klein that Mr. Beller was the man to lead the reorganization of the public schools in the period after the mayor was granted control."
Of course, this is exactly what Thorsten Veblen meant when he coined the phrase "trained incapacity." Neither Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein or Beller for that matter, came to the task with any educational background or knowledge; therefore the entire problem was viewed as a management issue-and the folks at Tweed brought in an army of MBAs to tackle the educational reorganization.
As Wolf points out, Beller was instrumental in spearheading the reorganization, and very few folks were even aware that he was around; secrecy and a lack of accountability has been the chief hallmark of the Tweed reign. Now, going forward, reform is badly needed: "The public interest here is creating a system designed to minimize damage to our school system and our children even if the worst possible person somehow sneaks into the mayor's chair. That kind of protection comes from complete transparency and a system of checks and balances that allows for the mayor to do his job while protecting the public from abuse."
Wolf underscores our point here: "When the legislature gave control of the schools to the mayor, it assigned broad and unchecked powers. This was done envisioning Mr. Bloomberg at the helm, a reflection of trust in his ability and integrity. Despite this, abuses have occurred. Secretly empowering an arguably unqualified businessman to take such a key role in this public enterprise would seem to constitute such an abuse."
Indeed it was an abuse, and when you add 25 new hires to the DOE public relations payroll you kinda get the feeling that the Tweedies would rather appear good, than actually be good. So much has been outsourced and done under the public radar that it is difficult to actually evaluate all that the kleinemen have done: "Some functions of the Department of Education have been assigned to private entities. Few disapprove of hiring outside companies that can do certain assignments more efficiently, but when government creates these entities to skirt the protections to the public built into government — things such as freedom of information, open competitive bidding, and requirements for public hearings — warning bells should ring."
So let the sunshine in here, and the legislature should set a process in motion that will insure public accountability; and a full and thorough review of all the accomplishments that the mayor and the chancellor claim they have achieved. And we agree with the NY Sun that the mayor should eschew any "finagling" of a third term; let's let his successor come in so that the age of the bamboozle can mercifully come to an end.
O'Keeffe's Kerfuffle
Michael O'Keeffe of the NY Daily News doesn't like Bruce Ratner, and yesterday in the paper he let that get in the way of his good judgment: "Bruce Ratner's Brooklyn Day was billed as a celebration, but Thursday's pep rally to whip up support for the Nets owner's controversial Atlantic Yards project seemed more like a goal-line stand than a party."
Oh, really? This sounds to us more like wishful thinking on his part than accurate analysis of where the project stands-and his thoughts on the large contingent of young hoopsters who were in attendance is a dead giveaway: "The quality of the crowd at Columbus Park was easier to gauge than the quantity; nobody, it seemed, had come to Brooklyn Day because they believed Atlantic Yards was crucial to New York's future. The youth basketball groups came because Ratner has sponsored their tournaments."
Of course, since he was unable to gainsay the numbers, all that was left was his own subjectivity; and the enthusiasm of the ballers was never in question, something that is directly related to the fact that FCRC sponsors their teams and games. The reality here is that our client Forest City and the Nets see the youngsters as their future stakeholders once the team comes to Brooklyn, as it will in two years in spite of O'Keeffe's willing disbelief.
There's nothing sinister in enlightened self-interest, whether it is expressed by FCRC, the Brownsville Rec Center, the Flatbush Youth Association, the Brooklyn Falcons, the Brooklyn Saints, or the CYO contingent-well represented by hundreds of happy young folks who appreciate the company's support and look forward to a continuing partnership once AY is opened and the team is finally playing in 2010.
And the same goes for the union folks and the community people represented by Build; it's a mistake to think that grass roots support can only be represented by enthusiasm devoid of self-interest. The project and the team are good for a wide range of constituents, something that will continue to be expressed right up until the first ball goes through a hoop in the new arena, and the first family gets its new apartment. Why should these folks be motivated only by the Idea of the Brooklyn Nets?
Instead we get the following from Mikey: "At least Hillary can still draw a crowd that's passionate and committed; even in defeat she shows more heart than Vince Carter ever has. Forest City Ratner spokesman Loren Riegelhaupt estimated Brooklyn Day drew up to 3,500 supporters, but that number seemed extremely optimistic, especially as the day wore on and the construction workers who are Ratner's most loyal constituency wandered back to their job sites." Talk about erroneous analysis and false comparisons.
O'Keeffe is in for a rude awakening, buoyed as he is by the delays that have been cause by the litigious-something that, according to the NY Sun, continues as the Institute for Justice, tilting at windmills once more, joins in the legal batlle In two years, when we're all drinking champagne, all he, the cluster of lawyers, and the DDDers will be left with will be sour grapes; the kind O'Keeffe ends his column with: "But if Bruce Ratner thinks Brooklyn Day was a celebration, one can only wonder how he defines affordable housing and good jobs." We'll see about this.
Oh, really? This sounds to us more like wishful thinking on his part than accurate analysis of where the project stands-and his thoughts on the large contingent of young hoopsters who were in attendance is a dead giveaway: "The quality of the crowd at Columbus Park was easier to gauge than the quantity; nobody, it seemed, had come to Brooklyn Day because they believed Atlantic Yards was crucial to New York's future. The youth basketball groups came because Ratner has sponsored their tournaments."
Of course, since he was unable to gainsay the numbers, all that was left was his own subjectivity; and the enthusiasm of the ballers was never in question, something that is directly related to the fact that FCRC sponsors their teams and games. The reality here is that our client Forest City and the Nets see the youngsters as their future stakeholders once the team comes to Brooklyn, as it will in two years in spite of O'Keeffe's willing disbelief.
There's nothing sinister in enlightened self-interest, whether it is expressed by FCRC, the Brownsville Rec Center, the Flatbush Youth Association, the Brooklyn Falcons, the Brooklyn Saints, or the CYO contingent-well represented by hundreds of happy young folks who appreciate the company's support and look forward to a continuing partnership once AY is opened and the team is finally playing in 2010.
And the same goes for the union folks and the community people represented by Build; it's a mistake to think that grass roots support can only be represented by enthusiasm devoid of self-interest. The project and the team are good for a wide range of constituents, something that will continue to be expressed right up until the first ball goes through a hoop in the new arena, and the first family gets its new apartment. Why should these folks be motivated only by the Idea of the Brooklyn Nets?
Instead we get the following from Mikey: "At least Hillary can still draw a crowd that's passionate and committed; even in defeat she shows more heart than Vince Carter ever has. Forest City Ratner spokesman Loren Riegelhaupt estimated Brooklyn Day drew up to 3,500 supporters, but that number seemed extremely optimistic, especially as the day wore on and the construction workers who are Ratner's most loyal constituency wandered back to their job sites." Talk about erroneous analysis and false comparisons.
O'Keeffe is in for a rude awakening, buoyed as he is by the delays that have been cause by the litigious-something that, according to the NY Sun, continues as the Institute for Justice, tilting at windmills once more, joins in the legal batlle In two years, when we're all drinking champagne, all he, the cluster of lawyers, and the DDDers will be left with will be sour grapes; the kind O'Keeffe ends his column with: "But if Bruce Ratner thinks Brooklyn Day was a celebration, one can only wonder how he defines affordable housing and good jobs." We'll see about this.
Friday, June 06, 2008
More Spilt Milk
In today's NY Daily News Daily Politics Blog, Liz Benjamin discusses the contretemps between Catsimatidis and Quinn over the City Council's milk report: "Supermarket mogul and likely GOP mayoral candidate John Catsimatidis did not appreciate the report released yesterday by his potential 2009 opponent, Council Speaker Christine Quinn, that alleged 86 percent of food stores in the city are gouging customers on the price of milk...."Ms. Quinn should take Economics 101. It's inexcusable that an official of the city of New York would just try to panic people."
Not to be out done, Catsimatidis campaign guru Rob Ryan also weighed in with a shot at the speaker: ""Perhaps Chris Quinn should spend more time being forthright about the slush funds in the City Council," Ryan said. "The real gougers are the professional politicians who have been gouging the taxpayers of New York for too long."
This, of course, initiated a response from Quinn spokesman, and former NBC producer Jamie McShane: "Mr. Catsimatidis understandably wants to change the subject," said Quinn spokesman Jamie McShane. "What NewYork families want to see change is the widespread overcharging for a gallon of milk."
Which begs the question whether the "report" actually demonstrates any gouging at all, something that we have pointed out previously. So McShane should be careful because he's walking on thin ice and, to mix metaphors, is operating from the proverbial glass house.
Not to be out done, Catsimatidis campaign guru Rob Ryan also weighed in with a shot at the speaker: ""Perhaps Chris Quinn should spend more time being forthright about the slush funds in the City Council," Ryan said. "The real gougers are the professional politicians who have been gouging the taxpayers of New York for too long."
This, of course, initiated a response from Quinn spokesman, and former NBC producer Jamie McShane: "Mr. Catsimatidis understandably wants to change the subject," said Quinn spokesman Jamie McShane. "What NewYork families want to see change is the widespread overcharging for a gallon of milk."
Which begs the question whether the "report" actually demonstrates any gouging at all, something that we have pointed out previously. So McShane should be careful because he's walking on thin ice and, to mix metaphors, is operating from the proverbial glass house.
State Explains "Gouging"
In a good piece in the SI Advance the paper helps to clarify the milk "gouging" issue: ""The price of milk is like a roller coaster, it goes up and down all the time," said Jessica Chittendon, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Agriculture. "The price-gouging law works best when the price goes down, because it prevents retailers from keeping those prices high." Not all prices above the threshold should be considered gouging, Ms. Chittendon added. In considering whether a retail price is "unconscionably excessive," the department considers mitigating factors, including changes in rent, wholesale pricing and the cost of marketing and handling."
"Mitigating factors!" Now that is a term of art in this city: "The Department of Agriculture uses a standard retail margin of 57 cents per gallon to gauge whether prices are excessive. But they only scrutinize the prices supermarkets set for gallons of milk, mostly because they don't have the resources to do anything else. That explains why some of the highest milk prices in both the City Hall study and the Advance survey were found in places that are never inspected -- local groceries, delis and bodegas -- and for smaller units of milk, like half-gallons and quarts."
In other words, the smaller convenience outlets where costs are even higher just to stay in business, and where the retailer is there, well, for the convenience of the local neighborhood. And think about the regulatory costs of inspecting 13,000 NYC bodegas: ""We do not have the means to enforce this in every store, in every instance," Ms. Chittendon said. "A little neighborhood bodega may charge 50 cents over the threshold, but they may just sell 20 gallons per week. But what is the taxpayer cost of addressing that one little bodega?"
And our guess is that if state Ag did the inspections they'd find that costs and margins made the gouging issue moot-not to mention the fact that there's a bodega-or two-on every corner, and competition is fierce, with milk often used as a loss leader.
"Mitigating factors!" Now that is a term of art in this city: "The Department of Agriculture uses a standard retail margin of 57 cents per gallon to gauge whether prices are excessive. But they only scrutinize the prices supermarkets set for gallons of milk, mostly because they don't have the resources to do anything else. That explains why some of the highest milk prices in both the City Hall study and the Advance survey were found in places that are never inspected -- local groceries, delis and bodegas -- and for smaller units of milk, like half-gallons and quarts."
In other words, the smaller convenience outlets where costs are even higher just to stay in business, and where the retailer is there, well, for the convenience of the local neighborhood. And think about the regulatory costs of inspecting 13,000 NYC bodegas: ""We do not have the means to enforce this in every store, in every instance," Ms. Chittendon said. "A little neighborhood bodega may charge 50 cents over the threshold, but they may just sell 20 gallons per week. But what is the taxpayer cost of addressing that one little bodega?"
And our guess is that if state Ag did the inspections they'd find that costs and margins made the gouging issue moot-not to mention the fact that there's a bodega-or two-on every corner, and competition is fierce, with milk often used as a loss leader.
More Cowing of Food Retailers
As we've already pointed out, the city council report on milk pricing released yesterday misstates the reality of the retail food environment, and gives the false impression that retailers are gouging. This is clearly indicated in some of the other press reports that emerged this morning.
The NY Post story's a case in point, with an unfair and misleading headline leading the way:
GOT BILK? GROCERS DO
MOST SELLERS BREAK MILK-PRICE LAW
The story itself is not much better: "New Yorkers are being milked for their hard-earned grocery dollars. A whopping 86 percent of supermarkets, delis and bodegas throughout the five boroughs are charging above the state-mandated price ceiling for milk, according to a City Council survey released yesterday."
And it goes on, without any real clarification of how the law itself works, to confront hapless consumers: "Shoppers cutting every corner to make ends meet - many of whom did not know there were legal price limits - were appalled to learn they were getting gouged.
"I have two children. We buy a lot of milk. If it's overpriced, it's unfair for mothers and their children," said Gloria Williams, 36, who was shopping in Murray Hill."
But is it really? As the Post points out in the small print of the story: "The complex state law does allow stores to make a case for above-the-limit prices before they are considered in violation. Most of the major supermarket chains have done so, but many smaller shops do not."
Not doing so, however, doesn't mean that the store's gouging-since arguing the case means that a store will be able to show how its costs mandate a higher retail price, and not arguing the case only means that a small retailer is not aware of the need to do so (not that the costs don't justify the higher price). All of which is left unexplained in the Post story.
In a similar AMNY piece we are at least given the other side: "The prices are adjusted monthly by the state department of agriculture, and are shaped by different factors such as global demand. The price is set to ensure that stores can make a profit, but stores that deem the prices too low can apply for exemptions." This is not a hard and fast price ceiling by any means.
And what do some of the retailers say? "Industry insiders bristled at the notion that stores were scamming their customers."Milk is a commodity no one tries to make money on," said Nelson A. Eusebio, the executive director of the National Supermarket Association. "It's the kind of item that drives people to the store, and you always want to be cheaper than the next guy."
John Catsimatidis, the owner of Gristedes Supermarkets, called out the council for its ignorance of supermarket economics, and for the failure to address the disappearance of the local food store: "John Catsimatidis, the chief executive of Gristedes (and a client of ours), said the council didn't understand the economics of running a grocery store in New York City."The supermarket business is a dying breed in the New York area," he said. "Fifty percent of the supermarkets in New York City have gone out of business in the last 6 or 7 years because they didn't charge enough."
So what is really happening? Costs in the city are escalating-and the government's role is not insubstantial. In 2002, the city raised the commercial real estate tax, raising store rents by 20%. In 2003, the city raised carting costs, lifting a rate cap and imposing added fees that have run into the tens of millions of dollars. At the same time, the city council refused to pass Intro 133, a bill that would have allowed food stores to use commercial food waste disposers-and thereby cut disposal rates by 80%.
This year, the city continues to advocate for expansion of the state's bottle law, one that has added considerable cost to space-cramped NYC food retailers; and has added to this burden, a plastics recycling law that retailers will have to pay for. And of course, there's also the cockamamie vegetable peddler bill that will inevitably place fruit and veggie carts right in front of neighborhood supermarkets; taking thousands of dollars away from the tax paying store owners.
When we add to all of this the millions of dollars of fines for a myriad of silly violations, and the rising cost of real estate itself, is it any wonder that food prices are rising and stores are closing?
So let's put our attention where it truly belongs-and place the responsibility at the foot of government and not at the feat of hard working food retailers. In doing just that, the city council report does both store owners as well as consumers a great disservice.
The NY Post story's a case in point, with an unfair and misleading headline leading the way:
GOT BILK? GROCERS DO
MOST SELLERS BREAK MILK-PRICE LAW
The story itself is not much better: "New Yorkers are being milked for their hard-earned grocery dollars. A whopping 86 percent of supermarkets, delis and bodegas throughout the five boroughs are charging above the state-mandated price ceiling for milk, according to a City Council survey released yesterday."
And it goes on, without any real clarification of how the law itself works, to confront hapless consumers: "Shoppers cutting every corner to make ends meet - many of whom did not know there were legal price limits - were appalled to learn they were getting gouged.
"I have two children. We buy a lot of milk. If it's overpriced, it's unfair for mothers and their children," said Gloria Williams, 36, who was shopping in Murray Hill."
But is it really? As the Post points out in the small print of the story: "The complex state law does allow stores to make a case for above-the-limit prices before they are considered in violation. Most of the major supermarket chains have done so, but many smaller shops do not."
Not doing so, however, doesn't mean that the store's gouging-since arguing the case means that a store will be able to show how its costs mandate a higher retail price, and not arguing the case only means that a small retailer is not aware of the need to do so (not that the costs don't justify the higher price). All of which is left unexplained in the Post story.
In a similar AMNY piece we are at least given the other side: "The prices are adjusted monthly by the state department of agriculture, and are shaped by different factors such as global demand. The price is set to ensure that stores can make a profit, but stores that deem the prices too low can apply for exemptions." This is not a hard and fast price ceiling by any means.
And what do some of the retailers say? "Industry insiders bristled at the notion that stores were scamming their customers."Milk is a commodity no one tries to make money on," said Nelson A. Eusebio, the executive director of the National Supermarket Association. "It's the kind of item that drives people to the store, and you always want to be cheaper than the next guy."
John Catsimatidis, the owner of Gristedes Supermarkets, called out the council for its ignorance of supermarket economics, and for the failure to address the disappearance of the local food store: "John Catsimatidis, the chief executive of Gristedes (and a client of ours), said the council didn't understand the economics of running a grocery store in New York City."The supermarket business is a dying breed in the New York area," he said. "Fifty percent of the supermarkets in New York City have gone out of business in the last 6 or 7 years because they didn't charge enough."
So what is really happening? Costs in the city are escalating-and the government's role is not insubstantial. In 2002, the city raised the commercial real estate tax, raising store rents by 20%. In 2003, the city raised carting costs, lifting a rate cap and imposing added fees that have run into the tens of millions of dollars. At the same time, the city council refused to pass Intro 133, a bill that would have allowed food stores to use commercial food waste disposers-and thereby cut disposal rates by 80%.
This year, the city continues to advocate for expansion of the state's bottle law, one that has added considerable cost to space-cramped NYC food retailers; and has added to this burden, a plastics recycling law that retailers will have to pay for. And of course, there's also the cockamamie vegetable peddler bill that will inevitably place fruit and veggie carts right in front of neighborhood supermarkets; taking thousands of dollars away from the tax paying store owners.
When we add to all of this the millions of dollars of fines for a myriad of silly violations, and the rising cost of real estate itself, is it any wonder that food prices are rising and stores are closing?
So let's put our attention where it truly belongs-and place the responsibility at the foot of government and not at the feat of hard working food retailers. In doing just that, the city council report does both store owners as well as consumers a great disservice.
Milking Consumers?
The NYC Council released a report yesterday alleging that New York retailers are over charging customers on milk, As the report states: "
Forty-three of the 50 stores surveyed (86%) charged a price that was higher than the
threshold for at least one unit of milk.
The 43 surveyed retailers that charged above the threshold for at least one unit of
milk charged an average of $0.40 per unit above the threshold.
Twelve (63.2%) of the 19 supermarkets surveyed charged above the threshold for at
least one unit of milk.
A total of 458 units of milk were surveyed,11 with 238 (51.9%) units priced above the
threshold.
Unfortunately, the council analysis is not only misleading, it is also camouflaging the real issue: the cost of doing business in the city that is pushing grocery prices skyward-on top of a world wide trend in this area, In fact, as a result of these operating costs, the city is losing neighborhood supermarkets-as a Crain's New York Business story underscored a couple of weeks ago.
Here's what Crain's pointed out: "In the past five years, about 100 grocery store owners have either left the city entirely or focused their expansion efforts outside the Big Apple. In response to recent reports detailing the situation, a special commission is now struggling to come up with recommendations that might help turn the tide. The experiences of many of the grocers leaving town show, however, that it won't be easy. "The cost of operating supermarkets in New York City was impossible," says Eligio Peña, who closed the last of his six Associated supermarkets here in 2000 after 30 years in business. Today he co-owns 26 Compare Foods markets in the Carolinas."
So instead of writing a report chastising local retailer, the council should be analysing how to reduce the cost of doing business; because, if the retailers were such good gougers they wouldn't be closing their doors, would they? As we told the NY Sun in its story this morning: "But a spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, took issue with her statement, saying the council's focus should be on reducing taxes and regulations, not adjusting price ceilings."If the retailers are doing such a good job gouging, they'd be going out of business?," he said. "The cost of doing business. that should be the final objective."
And ironically, the council does understand this to some degree. Yet it buried this understanding under the sensational "findings" in its report. On page 12 we find: "Finally, it must be recognized that rising rents, high operating costs and slim margins have made it difficult for supermarkets to thrive in New York City."
These high costs, the report finds, may mean that it should be necessary to reconfigure the formula that determines whether retailers are in fact gouging at all: "In discussions with a number of retailers and industry experts it was mentioned that the New York State Legislature should consider amending the MPGL in order to allow AGMKT to update its methodology for setting the threshold price in order better reflect all of the costs to retailers and decrease volatility in the market."
Well there you go. The high NYC operating costs may very well be creating what the doctors call a false positive. Once these new costs are factored in we are sure it will be found that retailers, struggling to survive in this harsh city business climate are not gouging at all. The first place the council should examine in all of this is the commercial real estate tax that the city raised by 20% in 2002, a raise that was an equivalent rent increase for all city store owners.
When the city's hemorrhaging supermarkets the last thing we need is a report that claims to demonstrate that these retailers are trying to bilk their customers. On reflection, what we see in the mirror, is the council's own countenance (along with the mayor's). Instead of pointing fingers, it should be looking to help NYC consumers by lowering retail operating costs.
Forty-three of the 50 stores surveyed (86%) charged a price that was higher than the
threshold for at least one unit of milk.
The 43 surveyed retailers that charged above the threshold for at least one unit of
milk charged an average of $0.40 per unit above the threshold.
Twelve (63.2%) of the 19 supermarkets surveyed charged above the threshold for at
least one unit of milk.
A total of 458 units of milk were surveyed,11 with 238 (51.9%) units priced above the
threshold.
Unfortunately, the council analysis is not only misleading, it is also camouflaging the real issue: the cost of doing business in the city that is pushing grocery prices skyward-on top of a world wide trend in this area, In fact, as a result of these operating costs, the city is losing neighborhood supermarkets-as a Crain's New York Business story underscored a couple of weeks ago.
Here's what Crain's pointed out: "In the past five years, about 100 grocery store owners have either left the city entirely or focused their expansion efforts outside the Big Apple. In response to recent reports detailing the situation, a special commission is now struggling to come up with recommendations that might help turn the tide. The experiences of many of the grocers leaving town show, however, that it won't be easy. "The cost of operating supermarkets in New York City was impossible," says Eligio Peña, who closed the last of his six Associated supermarkets here in 2000 after 30 years in business. Today he co-owns 26 Compare Foods markets in the Carolinas."
So instead of writing a report chastising local retailer, the council should be analysing how to reduce the cost of doing business; because, if the retailers were such good gougers they wouldn't be closing their doors, would they? As we told the NY Sun in its story this morning: "But a spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, took issue with her statement, saying the council's focus should be on reducing taxes and regulations, not adjusting price ceilings."If the retailers are doing such a good job gouging, they'd be going out of business?," he said. "The cost of doing business. that should be the final objective."
And ironically, the council does understand this to some degree. Yet it buried this understanding under the sensational "findings" in its report. On page 12 we find: "Finally, it must be recognized that rising rents, high operating costs and slim margins have made it difficult for supermarkets to thrive in New York City."
These high costs, the report finds, may mean that it should be necessary to reconfigure the formula that determines whether retailers are in fact gouging at all: "In discussions with a number of retailers and industry experts it was mentioned that the New York State Legislature should consider amending the MPGL in order to allow AGMKT to update its methodology for setting the threshold price in order better reflect all of the costs to retailers and decrease volatility in the market."
Well there you go. The high NYC operating costs may very well be creating what the doctors call a false positive. Once these new costs are factored in we are sure it will be found that retailers, struggling to survive in this harsh city business climate are not gouging at all. The first place the council should examine in all of this is the commercial real estate tax that the city raised by 20% in 2002, a raise that was an equivalent rent increase for all city store owners.
When the city's hemorrhaging supermarkets the last thing we need is a report that claims to demonstrate that these retailers are trying to bilk their customers. On reflection, what we see in the mirror, is the council's own countenance (along with the mayor's). Instead of pointing fingers, it should be looking to help NYC consumers by lowering retail operating costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
