The NY Times reports this morning on the declining financial position of the MTA: "The Metropolitan Transportation Authority will propose a substantial increase in transit fares and bridge and tunnel tolls next year to help close a widening budget gap of nearly $900 million, according to an official at the authority." What this means to us is that the so-called public authority, slated under the Bloomberg congestion tax program to receive more revenue, needs to be fully reviewed with an eye towards completely overhauling its governing structure.
Apparently something approaching this is in the works: "The budget plan, which the authority is required to produce in July, puts new focus on a state commission created by Gov. David A. Paterson to recommend long-term solutions for the authority’s chronic financial difficulties. The panel, which is headed by Richard Ravitch, a former authority chairman, is to make a report by November. The authority must pass a new budget for next year in December."
Hopefully, we'll get some real reforms. A public authority insulated from public accountability is an anachronism in a democratic system. And New Yorkers need to have a transit system that is properly funded in a fair an equitable manner so that it is both economical and enticing to use. The current opacity needs to end-along with this unwieldy patronage mill.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
"He Who Pays the Piper, Calls the Tune"
The sleight-of-hand consulting game that's going on with ESDC and Columbia U. gets more interesting all the time. As the Observer's Eliot Brown pointed out last week : "It seems the second blight study commissioned for Columbia University's planned West Harlem expansion did not come at extra cost to the state, as the Empire State Development Corporation's spokesman confirmed today that Columbia picked up the report's $217,000 tab."
How shocking! Nah, not really. This is getting so incestuous that we're going to need a good blood test for the latest blighted offspring. Can we get any more clear evidence that this is all a sophisticated, but not very subtle, game of collusion?
As Senator Bill Perkins said this is a "cooked process," with the results being half-baked. Will the courts be fooled by the bait and switch. As Brown highlighted: "The state's major development agency, ESDC, yesterday declared the 17-acre expansion footprint as blighted, a necessary step before using eminent domain. Prior to yesterday, it was unclear whether a blight study the state commissioned would have run into legal obstacles, as a state appellate court earlier in the week was critical of the state's use of contractor AKRF to complete the study." (emphasis added)
So this new gambit is designed to cover up the old collusion? With the same data base? Here's how Slick Schick views the switcheroo: "But yesterday, ESDC's president, Avi Schick, announced the agency had done a second blight study—an "audit," according to the press release—with a separate consultant, seemingly mooting the concerns regarding AKRF (though we haven't yet seen the second study)."
This is getting to be like the Augean Stables, with the clean-up becoming a Herculean task. Here's hoping that Perkins starts to focus on this charade; with an accompaniment perhaps from the intrepid Richard Brodsky.
How shocking! Nah, not really. This is getting so incestuous that we're going to need a good blood test for the latest blighted offspring. Can we get any more clear evidence that this is all a sophisticated, but not very subtle, game of collusion?
As Senator Bill Perkins said this is a "cooked process," with the results being half-baked. Will the courts be fooled by the bait and switch. As Brown highlighted: "The state's major development agency, ESDC, yesterday declared the 17-acre expansion footprint as blighted, a necessary step before using eminent domain. Prior to yesterday, it was unclear whether a blight study the state commissioned would have run into legal obstacles, as a state appellate court earlier in the week was critical of the state's use of contractor AKRF to complete the study." (emphasis added)
So this new gambit is designed to cover up the old collusion? With the same data base? Here's how Slick Schick views the switcheroo: "But yesterday, ESDC's president, Avi Schick, announced the agency had done a second blight study—an "audit," according to the press release—with a separate consultant, seemingly mooting the concerns regarding AKRF (though we haven't yet seen the second study)."
This is getting to be like the Augean Stables, with the clean-up becoming a Herculean task. Here's hoping that Perkins starts to focus on this charade; with an accompaniment perhaps from the intrepid Richard Brodsky.
This Land Ain't Your Land-Anymore!
In Sunday's NY Post, the paper reviews "Government Pirates" by Don Corace, an attack on the government's use of eminent domain to erode property rights: "June 23, 2005 was a very dark day in our nation's history," Don Corace writes at the beginning of his new jeremiad defending property rights against rapacious government buttinskis. That was the day the Supreme Court handed down its shocking 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, affirming local governments' rights to seize your home and flip it to another private owner if the new guy promises to bring in more tax revenue."
The book takes a hard look at the way in which courts and local governments have acted-unfairly in his view-to take people's property in the name of development. Corace examines the efforts to reform eminent domain laws around the country as well as the often incomprehensible and contradictory judicial rulings on the subject: "The public rightly shuddered with revulsion at the specter of their bedrock rights being subject to the whims of "redevelopment"-addicted local pols. Alarmed statehouses prepared scores of eminent domain-limiting bills, while city halls from coast to coast dug in their heels. The tension between those three - and the scattershot, logic-defying umpiring offered by the judiciary - forms the basic narrative conflict in Corace's "Government Pirates."
What is, of course, disturbing in all of this is the way in which local governments use the ED weapon, along with other land use sleights-of-hand to railroad local folks-usual those without resources: "For Corace, eminent domain is just the gateway into a world where local governments respect no man's castle. "Kelo has sparked a healthy dialogue, but eminent domain abuse is only the 'tip of the iceberg,' " he writes. "Through local zoning and the regulation of wetlands and endangered species, governments take property without compensating owners and also extort land and money in return for approvals."
This phenomenon is in need of some pretty fundamental reform; and as is the whole ULURP process in NYC which is too often the handmaiden of these tactics-a fact exposed by the ESDC/Columbia University collusion we wrote about last week. More transparency, and greater protections for small businesses, property owners and tenants, is badly needed.
The ED weapon is wielded as a bludgeon: "But Corace ably points out what many New Yorkers and other urbanites - particularly the poor - have long known: Eminent domain is like the Ring of Power in redevelopment schemes. Local officials insist they're reluctant to use such terrible power, but sometimes you just gotta break an egg or three to make an omelet."
What the Corace book apparently points out, is just how often locals get shafted by their own elected officials, something that Bronxites and the folks in West Harlem are familiar with: "Corace's on firmer ground detailing the collective incoherence of various court rulings, and the limitless reservoir of bad faith and money that local governments will tap into when they have a better idea for your property than you do."
It's time for NY State to address the inequities in its anachronistic eminent domain laws. As bad as the court rulings have been, and we're coming from a place that sees ED as a sometimes necessary tool-the real solution lies with the legislature; and pressuring those electeds who too often feed at the development trough.
The book takes a hard look at the way in which courts and local governments have acted-unfairly in his view-to take people's property in the name of development. Corace examines the efforts to reform eminent domain laws around the country as well as the often incomprehensible and contradictory judicial rulings on the subject: "The public rightly shuddered with revulsion at the specter of their bedrock rights being subject to the whims of "redevelopment"-addicted local pols. Alarmed statehouses prepared scores of eminent domain-limiting bills, while city halls from coast to coast dug in their heels. The tension between those three - and the scattershot, logic-defying umpiring offered by the judiciary - forms the basic narrative conflict in Corace's "Government Pirates."
What is, of course, disturbing in all of this is the way in which local governments use the ED weapon, along with other land use sleights-of-hand to railroad local folks-usual those without resources: "For Corace, eminent domain is just the gateway into a world where local governments respect no man's castle. "Kelo has sparked a healthy dialogue, but eminent domain abuse is only the 'tip of the iceberg,' " he writes. "Through local zoning and the regulation of wetlands and endangered species, governments take property without compensating owners and also extort land and money in return for approvals."
This phenomenon is in need of some pretty fundamental reform; and as is the whole ULURP process in NYC which is too often the handmaiden of these tactics-a fact exposed by the ESDC/Columbia University collusion we wrote about last week. More transparency, and greater protections for small businesses, property owners and tenants, is badly needed.
The ED weapon is wielded as a bludgeon: "But Corace ably points out what many New Yorkers and other urbanites - particularly the poor - have long known: Eminent domain is like the Ring of Power in redevelopment schemes. Local officials insist they're reluctant to use such terrible power, but sometimes you just gotta break an egg or three to make an omelet."
What the Corace book apparently points out, is just how often locals get shafted by their own elected officials, something that Bronxites and the folks in West Harlem are familiar with: "Corace's on firmer ground detailing the collective incoherence of various court rulings, and the limitless reservoir of bad faith and money that local governments will tap into when they have a better idea for your property than you do."
It's time for NY State to address the inequities in its anachronistic eminent domain laws. As bad as the court rulings have been, and we're coming from a place that sees ED as a sometimes necessary tool-the real solution lies with the legislature; and pressuring those electeds who too often feed at the development trough.
Imposters
Calorie posting went in effect for real last week, with little hope that the information will do more than make Commissioner Frieden and his health elves feel good about themselves. In our view, the folks who will really use this info are those who are already conscious of what they're eating.
As the NY Post reported Saturday: "Knowing a Big Mac has 540 calories, some of Mickey D's customers say, does not make the two all-beef patties any less tasty. McDonald's had been one of the few holdouts in complying with a city requirement - enforceable as of today - that all chains post calorie counts on their menus. "I saw the calories, and I was, like, 'Oh, my God, I should walk out,' " said Jannika Hantso, 34, of Brooklyn, at the McDonald's on Sixth Avenue and 14th Street. Instead, she ordered her usual Big Mac, medium fries (380 calories) and medium Diet Coke (0).
We're wondering what will happen once the novelty is off. In all likelihood, the folks will soon ignore the fact that the calorie information is even there. And as one more health-conscious patron pointed out: "Rather than the Crispy Chicken Classic (530), Sasha Deneze went for the Grilled Chicken Classic (420). "Just because you eat at McDonald's," she said, "doesn't mean you have to stuff yourself."
Indeed you don't, but that means you have both the understanding and the will to implement it. The exchange caught by the NY Times at a local Burger King is instructive: “Scary, as I stand here holding, like, 3,200 calories,” said Nick Perna, a marketing specialist who had just bought a Whopper with cheese, French fries and a soft drink. A colleague, Derek Cummings, took a closer look at the sign and said the total was only 1,720 calories. According to the sign, that was the maximum for a Whopper meal. The minimum was 1,260. The range covered extras a customer could order, like extra fries and extra cheese. “I went sans cheese,” Mr. Cummings said, holding his own Whopper, “so I saved something.”
Pretty soon, as the novelty wears off, and when the urge strikes, Cummings will be back to cheese. Here's what one prescient New Yorker observed, and it underscores our feelings on all of this as well: "Some customers said the calorie counts might change people’s menu choices. But Tina Nguyen, an astrologer who was on a break from a class she was taking for a real estate license when she stopped at the Starbucks at 1372 Broadway, did not like the idea that the city had required the figures to be posted. “This is starting to feel Big Brotherish,” she said. “If they want to change our eating behavior, the city could offer courses instead of picking on these restaurants.”
As the NY Post reported Saturday: "Knowing a Big Mac has 540 calories, some of Mickey D's customers say, does not make the two all-beef patties any less tasty. McDonald's had been one of the few holdouts in complying with a city requirement - enforceable as of today - that all chains post calorie counts on their menus. "I saw the calories, and I was, like, 'Oh, my God, I should walk out,' " said Jannika Hantso, 34, of Brooklyn, at the McDonald's on Sixth Avenue and 14th Street. Instead, she ordered her usual Big Mac, medium fries (380 calories) and medium Diet Coke (0).
We're wondering what will happen once the novelty is off. In all likelihood, the folks will soon ignore the fact that the calorie information is even there. And as one more health-conscious patron pointed out: "Rather than the Crispy Chicken Classic (530), Sasha Deneze went for the Grilled Chicken Classic (420). "Just because you eat at McDonald's," she said, "doesn't mean you have to stuff yourself."
Indeed you don't, but that means you have both the understanding and the will to implement it. The exchange caught by the NY Times at a local Burger King is instructive: “Scary, as I stand here holding, like, 3,200 calories,” said Nick Perna, a marketing specialist who had just bought a Whopper with cheese, French fries and a soft drink. A colleague, Derek Cummings, took a closer look at the sign and said the total was only 1,720 calories. According to the sign, that was the maximum for a Whopper meal. The minimum was 1,260. The range covered extras a customer could order, like extra fries and extra cheese. “I went sans cheese,” Mr. Cummings said, holding his own Whopper, “so I saved something.”
Pretty soon, as the novelty wears off, and when the urge strikes, Cummings will be back to cheese. Here's what one prescient New Yorker observed, and it underscores our feelings on all of this as well: "Some customers said the calorie counts might change people’s menu choices. But Tina Nguyen, an astrologer who was on a break from a class she was taking for a real estate license when she stopped at the Starbucks at 1372 Broadway, did not like the idea that the city had required the figures to be posted. “This is starting to feel Big Brotherish,” she said. “If they want to change our eating behavior, the city could offer courses instead of picking on these restaurants.”
Friday, July 18, 2008
"Cooked Process"
An article in today's NY Daily News contains an apt quote from State Senator Bill Perkins. Referring to the fact that the state used Columbia's own consultant, AKRF, to determine that the land that the university wants the state to condemn is blighted, Perkins said the following: "This was a cooked process," he said."
And, of course, it is just that. But we shouldn't be so shocked by this, since it is something that animates all of the ULURP applications that the city entertains. The developer chooses an environmental consultant who then "finds" just what the developer would wish found. A nice cozy, and not very transparent arrangement that creates a sham review process, since few lawmakers have either the skill or the time to fully evaluate the findings that are put before them.
We're reminded of a time long ago-and not much has changed since-when the developer of a Pathmark supermarket on the Lower East Side submitted a required traffic and parking analysis; an analysis that was subsequently vetted by the city planners and given the green light. When we did our own review, however, we found that the study was a complete replication of one that had been done for a Pathmark store in Gowanus. No one had even bothered to look!
The larger point here is that the entire ULURP process has to be changed, and the consultants need to be hired by an independent review agency; after all, how could a minimizing traffic study for the Gateway Mall be accepted on asthma alley in the Bronx? The fact that AKRF describes itself as one of the, "top firms in its field," is, in this context, more of an indictment than an approbation.
So it's not really the fact that AKRF has a blatant conflict that is disturbing in the ESDC case. Rather, it is the fact that the entire process is thoroughly imbued with conflicts and had AKRF not been Columbia's hired lap dog, it still would have come up with the same well-paid for advice on blight-it's what they're in the business of doing, and damn the public interest. Independent environmental analysis is almost impossible to come by since firms that want to be successful understand just where their bread will be buttered.
Extra Benefits
One other point from yesterday's NY Daily News: "Columbia University will pump an additional $21 million into neighborhood services as it pushes to get its controversial $7 billion expansion plan approved, the Daily News has learned. The school will also offer 40 undergraduate scholarships a year to students near its west Harlem campus, as well as two free classes a year for 50 area seniors, said Avi Schick, downstate president of the Empire State Development Corporation. "We went back and we said, how do we really integrate Columbia and the community?" Schick said. "When we vote to approve the plan, these are included."
That's not even a close shave from Shick. These extras are simply window dressing, and as we've said before the Columbia plan, unlike those of Harvard and Yale, walls itself off from the community; something that a few schollies will not change one iota. What would, "integrate Columbia and the community," is a housing plan that would address residential displacement. After all, when CU is finished expanding, the "community" won't even be there for the supposed integration.
And, of course, it is just that. But we shouldn't be so shocked by this, since it is something that animates all of the ULURP applications that the city entertains. The developer chooses an environmental consultant who then "finds" just what the developer would wish found. A nice cozy, and not very transparent arrangement that creates a sham review process, since few lawmakers have either the skill or the time to fully evaluate the findings that are put before them.
We're reminded of a time long ago-and not much has changed since-when the developer of a Pathmark supermarket on the Lower East Side submitted a required traffic and parking analysis; an analysis that was subsequently vetted by the city planners and given the green light. When we did our own review, however, we found that the study was a complete replication of one that had been done for a Pathmark store in Gowanus. No one had even bothered to look!
The larger point here is that the entire ULURP process has to be changed, and the consultants need to be hired by an independent review agency; after all, how could a minimizing traffic study for the Gateway Mall be accepted on asthma alley in the Bronx? The fact that AKRF describes itself as one of the, "top firms in its field," is, in this context, more of an indictment than an approbation.
So it's not really the fact that AKRF has a blatant conflict that is disturbing in the ESDC case. Rather, it is the fact that the entire process is thoroughly imbued with conflicts and had AKRF not been Columbia's hired lap dog, it still would have come up with the same well-paid for advice on blight-it's what they're in the business of doing, and damn the public interest. Independent environmental analysis is almost impossible to come by since firms that want to be successful understand just where their bread will be buttered.
Extra Benefits
One other point from yesterday's NY Daily News: "Columbia University will pump an additional $21 million into neighborhood services as it pushes to get its controversial $7 billion expansion plan approved, the Daily News has learned. The school will also offer 40 undergraduate scholarships a year to students near its west Harlem campus, as well as two free classes a year for 50 area seniors, said Avi Schick, downstate president of the Empire State Development Corporation. "We went back and we said, how do we really integrate Columbia and the community?" Schick said. "When we vote to approve the plan, these are included."
That's not even a close shave from Shick. These extras are simply window dressing, and as we've said before the Columbia plan, unlike those of Harvard and Yale, walls itself off from the community; something that a few schollies will not change one iota. What would, "integrate Columbia and the community," is a housing plan that would address residential displacement. After all, when CU is finished expanding, the "community" won't even be there for the supposed integration.
Out of Blight, Out of Mind
There's more this morning on the ESDC three card monte consulting game that ended with the determination that the area that Columbia wants to expand into is blighted. As the NY Sun reports: "Even as lawyers for private landowners are vowing to fight the state's anticipated use of eminent domain to seize property needed for Columbia University's proposed $6.28 billion expansion, the plan won approval from the Empire State Development Corp.'s board of directors yesterday."
And as the Sun further points out, the agency has brought in a second firm to "audit" the findings of the ESDC house organ, AKRF. The results, along the line of, "one lies, and the other swears to it," were predictable: "Those opposed to the project have also raised concerns about the ESDC's hiring of an environmental planning and engineering firm, AKRF, to conduct the blight study, because the firm has done work for Columbia. At yesterday's meeting, the board disclosed that it had employed a second environmental planning firm, Earth Tech Inc., to conduct another report, which mirrored AKRF's in its findings."
The NY Times weighs in on the consulting sham: "Opponents of the expansion, however, have said for months that the study’s findings were a foregone conclusion because the consulting firm that performed the blight analysis on behalf of the state — Allee King Rosen & Fleming Inc. — had previously conducted Columbia University’s environmental impact study for the expansion.
On Thursday, the state agency said that the consulting firm’s analysis had been audited by a second firm, Earth Tech Inc."
Ah, but who will audit the auditors here? What is remarkable to us, is how Bronx-like the whole affair is. With the exception of Senator Perkins, area electeds were in lock-step with the CU plan-and have a remarkable case of lockjaw when it comes to the displacement of thousands of residents: "But on Thursday, many city and state lawmakers were aligned against Mr. Sprayregen. Along with the press release announcing the development agency’s approval of the expansion plan were statements of approval from Gov. David A. Paterson, Representative Charles B. Rangel, Deputy Mayor Robert C. Lieber and state Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright."
Perhaps, when we read reports of some of these very same officials living in rent stabilized apartments, and the case of Mr. Rangel, multiple such units, it isn't so surprising to find a less than zealous defense of the housing needs of their constituents. When it comes to development, there's a toady on every block in Harlem.
We'll be interested to see just how helpful these very same cute cheerleaders will be should a viable housing plan be proffered in the near future. Columbia would best be served, along with the residents of West Harlem, is a viable affordable housing development were devised out of the chaos. CU may, in fact, be more receptive than its lackeys: "Columbia said on Thursday that it was willing to restart negotiations with the holdout businesses before eminent domain proceedings began."
Where's the leadership in Harlem? Apparently, with the exception of Bill Perkins, you just need to follow the money.
Thanks to Liz for the link!
And as the Sun further points out, the agency has brought in a second firm to "audit" the findings of the ESDC house organ, AKRF. The results, along the line of, "one lies, and the other swears to it," were predictable: "Those opposed to the project have also raised concerns about the ESDC's hiring of an environmental planning and engineering firm, AKRF, to conduct the blight study, because the firm has done work for Columbia. At yesterday's meeting, the board disclosed that it had employed a second environmental planning firm, Earth Tech Inc., to conduct another report, which mirrored AKRF's in its findings."
The NY Times weighs in on the consulting sham: "Opponents of the expansion, however, have said for months that the study’s findings were a foregone conclusion because the consulting firm that performed the blight analysis on behalf of the state — Allee King Rosen & Fleming Inc. — had previously conducted Columbia University’s environmental impact study for the expansion.
On Thursday, the state agency said that the consulting firm’s analysis had been audited by a second firm, Earth Tech Inc."
Ah, but who will audit the auditors here? What is remarkable to us, is how Bronx-like the whole affair is. With the exception of Senator Perkins, area electeds were in lock-step with the CU plan-and have a remarkable case of lockjaw when it comes to the displacement of thousands of residents: "But on Thursday, many city and state lawmakers were aligned against Mr. Sprayregen. Along with the press release announcing the development agency’s approval of the expansion plan were statements of approval from Gov. David A. Paterson, Representative Charles B. Rangel, Deputy Mayor Robert C. Lieber and state Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright."
Perhaps, when we read reports of some of these very same officials living in rent stabilized apartments, and the case of Mr. Rangel, multiple such units, it isn't so surprising to find a less than zealous defense of the housing needs of their constituents. When it comes to development, there's a toady on every block in Harlem.
We'll be interested to see just how helpful these very same cute cheerleaders will be should a viable housing plan be proffered in the near future. Columbia would best be served, along with the residents of West Harlem, is a viable affordable housing development were devised out of the chaos. CU may, in fact, be more receptive than its lackeys: "Columbia said on Thursday that it was willing to restart negotiations with the holdout businesses before eminent domain proceedings began."
Where's the leadership in Harlem? Apparently, with the exception of Bill Perkins, you just need to follow the money.
Thanks to Liz for the link!
Eminently Destructive
The board of the Empire State Development Corporation voted yesterday, after spirited testimony that was decidedly negative, to support going forward, using eminent domain, on behalf of Columbia University's expansion plan. As the New York Observer wrote: "The state's main development agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, kicked of the public process for eminent domain for Columbia University's 17-acre West Harlem expansion today, starting a final chapter in the approvals for the contentious $7 billion initiative."
There were, however, two new wrinkles added: "In announcing the process, ESDC President Avi Schick unveiled two unexpected nuggets of news surrounding the plan: yet another concession package from Columbia and a second blight study." Another consultant and blight study, you say? Why the need?
Well, as the NY Sun reported yesterday, the appellate court ruling raised a real conflict of interest problem for ESDC and Columbia; furthering the prospects that Nick Srayregen and his attorney Norman Siegel might prevail in de-railing the study and postponing any ED action: "Further complicating matters and possibly adding a legal foothold for Mr. Siegel was a ruling that came down on Tuesday from a state appellate court. The ruling upheld a June 2007 decision that said the ESDC's decision to hire AKRF, which had also worked for Columbia, represented a conflict of interest."
State Senator Bill Perkins chimed in for the Sun on this precise issue: "State Senator William Perkins said in an interview that in light of the ruling, the Columbia University development process should be immediately halted because, if nothing else, it fuels "the perception of collusion" between the state, Columbia, and AKRF. "It would seem to me that it would have been easy to get another consultant and avoid any stench of collusion, and it would seem to me very irresponsible to subject the agency and its credibility to such an easily avoidable accusation," he said."
Perkins, who is the ranking minority member on the senate's corporation committee (and potentially Richard Brodsky's partner in crime should the Dems take over), continued in this vein at yesterday's ESDC hearing. According to the Observer: "So everything's copacetic, right?
State Senator Bill Perkins, the main elected official critical of the expansion, was not too pleased that he wasn't informed about the second study (he told the Sun today that the state should do a second study). In his comments at the board meeting, he had a rather contentious back and forth with Mr. Schick, seemingly trying to push his buttons (at least in private, many in government say Mr. Schick has something of a short fuse), though the ESDC president kept his cool.
A sampling of the exchange:
Mr. Perkins: "Why was I not told that such a study was in the works?"
"Senator, I don't know, there are numerous—"
...
Mr. Perkins: "Do we have staff here that can go get the information that I am requesting so that before I leave I can know for sure what I'm talking about?"
"Senator before you leave today, we will endeavor to get the answer—
"Endeavor? That sounds like it's something that's difficult to do. It is either yes you will get it, or no you won't."
"Senator—Senator, with all respect, in the dozen meetings and conversations you and I have had—"
Perkins was simply underscoring the larger conflict of interest point-one that isn't resolved by last minute sleights of hand that pull a new consultant out of a hat. Perkins went on to ask: "Whose data is being used? (by the new guys); "When were the surveys done?" Clearly, Perkins knows a set-up when he sees it.
Here's how Sprayregen, in yesterday' Crain's Insider, described the court's verdict on the AKRF matter: "But the key is the court’s finding of “an inherent conflict in [Alee King] serving two masters,” Sprayregen says. “This puts a cloud over the blight study. It raises issues of bias. We intend to attack the validity of the blight study. Without that study, there is no eminent domain.” The substitution effect fools no one. As we told one reporter, when you put a new cover on an old study isn't that, by definition, a cover-up?
The hearing also brought the issue of housing to the fore, with Nellie Baily of the Harlem Tenants Council blasting the CU plan for its displacement-according to Columbia's own report-of 5,000 residents. Nothing in the new bennies reported addresses the housing question-a real big opening to the Sprayregen swap concept unveiled at the end of last year.
Which brings us to the blight designation itself. According to the Times CityRoom Blog yesterday: "Opponents of the $6 billion expansion plan said the results of the study that found the area to blighted were a foregone conclusion, because AKRF Inc., the firm hired by the state to conduct the report, known as a blight study, had also performed an environmental analysis of the same site for Columbia University. (Two courts have questioned whether it was appropriate for the state to have used the same consultant that Columbia did.) The report by AKRF found that the area mostly comprised “aging, poorly maintained and functionally obsolete industrial buildings with little indication of recent reinvestment to revive their generally deteriorated condition.”
So, which report's being used here? And what use is the new consultant? As Norman Siegel told the hearing, the idea that the area in question is blighted is directly challenged by the definition in the statute; and any deterioration in the neighborhood is a direct result of the planned destruction initiated by Columbia itself after it purchased the properties it currently owns. It should be one heck of a legal battle ahead.
There were, however, two new wrinkles added: "In announcing the process, ESDC President Avi Schick unveiled two unexpected nuggets of news surrounding the plan: yet another concession package from Columbia and a second blight study." Another consultant and blight study, you say? Why the need?
Well, as the NY Sun reported yesterday, the appellate court ruling raised a real conflict of interest problem for ESDC and Columbia; furthering the prospects that Nick Srayregen and his attorney Norman Siegel might prevail in de-railing the study and postponing any ED action: "Further complicating matters and possibly adding a legal foothold for Mr. Siegel was a ruling that came down on Tuesday from a state appellate court. The ruling upheld a June 2007 decision that said the ESDC's decision to hire AKRF, which had also worked for Columbia, represented a conflict of interest."
State Senator Bill Perkins chimed in for the Sun on this precise issue: "State Senator William Perkins said in an interview that in light of the ruling, the Columbia University development process should be immediately halted because, if nothing else, it fuels "the perception of collusion" between the state, Columbia, and AKRF. "It would seem to me that it would have been easy to get another consultant and avoid any stench of collusion, and it would seem to me very irresponsible to subject the agency and its credibility to such an easily avoidable accusation," he said."
Perkins, who is the ranking minority member on the senate's corporation committee (and potentially Richard Brodsky's partner in crime should the Dems take over), continued in this vein at yesterday's ESDC hearing. According to the Observer: "So everything's copacetic, right?
State Senator Bill Perkins, the main elected official critical of the expansion, was not too pleased that he wasn't informed about the second study (he told the Sun today that the state should do a second study). In his comments at the board meeting, he had a rather contentious back and forth with Mr. Schick, seemingly trying to push his buttons (at least in private, many in government say Mr. Schick has something of a short fuse), though the ESDC president kept his cool.
A sampling of the exchange:
Mr. Perkins: "Why was I not told that such a study was in the works?"
"Senator, I don't know, there are numerous—"
...
Mr. Perkins: "Do we have staff here that can go get the information that I am requesting so that before I leave I can know for sure what I'm talking about?"
"Senator before you leave today, we will endeavor to get the answer—
"Endeavor? That sounds like it's something that's difficult to do. It is either yes you will get it, or no you won't."
"Senator—Senator, with all respect, in the dozen meetings and conversations you and I have had—"
Perkins was simply underscoring the larger conflict of interest point-one that isn't resolved by last minute sleights of hand that pull a new consultant out of a hat. Perkins went on to ask: "Whose data is being used? (by the new guys); "When were the surveys done?" Clearly, Perkins knows a set-up when he sees it.
Here's how Sprayregen, in yesterday' Crain's Insider, described the court's verdict on the AKRF matter: "But the key is the court’s finding of “an inherent conflict in [Alee King] serving two masters,” Sprayregen says. “This puts a cloud over the blight study. It raises issues of bias. We intend to attack the validity of the blight study. Without that study, there is no eminent domain.” The substitution effect fools no one. As we told one reporter, when you put a new cover on an old study isn't that, by definition, a cover-up?
The hearing also brought the issue of housing to the fore, with Nellie Baily of the Harlem Tenants Council blasting the CU plan for its displacement-according to Columbia's own report-of 5,000 residents. Nothing in the new bennies reported addresses the housing question-a real big opening to the Sprayregen swap concept unveiled at the end of last year.
Which brings us to the blight designation itself. According to the Times CityRoom Blog yesterday: "Opponents of the $6 billion expansion plan said the results of the study that found the area to blighted were a foregone conclusion, because AKRF Inc., the firm hired by the state to conduct the report, known as a blight study, had also performed an environmental analysis of the same site for Columbia University. (Two courts have questioned whether it was appropriate for the state to have used the same consultant that Columbia did.) The report by AKRF found that the area mostly comprised “aging, poorly maintained and functionally obsolete industrial buildings with little indication of recent reinvestment to revive their generally deteriorated condition.”
So, which report's being used here? And what use is the new consultant? As Norman Siegel told the hearing, the idea that the area in question is blighted is directly challenged by the definition in the statute; and any deterioration in the neighborhood is a direct result of the planned destruction initiated by Columbia itself after it purchased the properties it currently owns. It should be one heck of a legal battle ahead.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Conflicted Loyalties
The relative lack of press coverage of the decision by the state appellate court to uphold the lower court's ruling on the freedom of information lawsuit brought by the West Harlem Business Group was disappointing. Clearly, the appellate court upheld, not only the supreme court's initial ruling, but the underlying premise of the ruling.
That underlying premise, captured well by the CityRoom blog of the NY Times (the one outlet other than the Observer that broke the story the other day) was that there was an unnatural intimacy between Columbia, ESDC, and the consultant AKRF: "Consultants dealing with state agencies may be exempt from public disclosure laws, but in this case the judges found that a conflict of interest nullified the exemption in certain areas. “Supreme Court clearly had reason to doubt A.K.R.F.’s independence, objectivity and sense of what good judgment calls for,” because of the consultant’s ties to Columbia, Judge James M. Catterson wrote in his majority opinion."
Powerful stuff, redolent it seems to us, of collusion at the highest level. If anyone thinks that this soon to be released blight study is anything more than "one lying and the other one swearing to it," than their naivete is robust indeed. As our client Nick Sprayregen told the Times: "Nick Sprayregen, a member for the group, said the court’s ruling affirmed his belief “that the whole process of Columbia's request for the state to condemn private property is tainted with conflicts of interest.”
ESDC, long with Columbia, will be really rolling the dice if it goes into court defending the work of AKRF; and the parties involved in all of these shenanigans would be better served to sit with Nick and negotiate a deal that would extricate the colluders from serious potential harm. What we've found over the years, however, is folks don't always understand where their own interests lie.
That underlying premise, captured well by the CityRoom blog of the NY Times (the one outlet other than the Observer that broke the story the other day) was that there was an unnatural intimacy between Columbia, ESDC, and the consultant AKRF: "Consultants dealing with state agencies may be exempt from public disclosure laws, but in this case the judges found that a conflict of interest nullified the exemption in certain areas. “Supreme Court clearly had reason to doubt A.K.R.F.’s independence, objectivity and sense of what good judgment calls for,” because of the consultant’s ties to Columbia, Judge James M. Catterson wrote in his majority opinion."
Powerful stuff, redolent it seems to us, of collusion at the highest level. If anyone thinks that this soon to be released blight study is anything more than "one lying and the other one swearing to it," than their naivete is robust indeed. As our client Nick Sprayregen told the Times: "Nick Sprayregen, a member for the group, said the court’s ruling affirmed his belief “that the whole process of Columbia's request for the state to condemn private property is tainted with conflicts of interest.”
ESDC, long with Columbia, will be really rolling the dice if it goes into court defending the work of AKRF; and the parties involved in all of these shenanigans would be better served to sit with Nick and negotiate a deal that would extricate the colluders from serious potential harm. What we've found over the years, however, is folks don't always understand where their own interests lie.
Blight is in the Mind of the Beholden
On Thursday, according to the intrepid Eliot Brown at the Observer, it appears that the long awaited ESDC blight study will be unveiled: "Just when news started to slow for the summer on the development front, New York's Empire State Development Corporation dropped this bombshell in the agenda for its monthly meeting [PDF]: Columbia University "Land Use Improvement Project and Civic Project Findings." Translation: the state will unveil the blight study, the first step in the use of eminent domain for Columbia's 17-acre West Harlem site."
Get ready for the fireworks on this front. Remember that the study has been done by Columbia's own in-house consultants AKRF-an abbreviation that stands for "Dewey, Cheatum and Howe!" Blight, in this case, is in the mind of the beholden.
This unnaturally close, almost incestuous, relationship between Columbia, AKRF and ESDC has been one of the subjects of a lawsuit brought by our client Tuck-it-Away, the self-storage company that is in the line of the Columbia bulldozer. As one commenter to the blog post points out: "Perhaps more important is a decision handed down just today that ruled in favor of Mr. Sprayregen. It upholds a lower court's decision to release documents that the state refused to hand over plus the court raises the real issue of conflict of interest between Columbia and the state in their hiring, at the same time, the same consultant. Stay tuned for more."
The line in the sand nature of what's ahead comes as a result of the university's lack of eagerness to pursue the land swap that Mr. Sprayregen put forward late last year. As Nick's attorney Norman Siegel points out: "Columbia had numerous opportunities to amicably resolve this, but ethey chose not to, and the battle lines are drawn," said Norman Siegal, Mr. Sprayregen's attorney. "This controversy has been brewing for at least five years."
In Brown's follow-up post on the successful Sprayregen lawsuit, the conflict of interest issue is brought to the fore: "The major landowner fighting Columbia University's expansion, Nick Sprayregen, today came out victorious over the state's Empire State Development Corporation today in an appellate court ruling on a case involving the Freedom of Information Law.
The case concerned the release of documents and correspondences between the state and its contractor AKRF, mostly surrounding the creation of a blight study (slated for release Thursday). Mr. Sprayregen, represented by attorney Norman Siegel, defeated the state at the first level last year, with the court offering criticism that the same contractor, AKRF, was used for both the blight study and the environmental review."
The question that remains in all of this, is how the courts will view the AKRF "findings." The bigger question perhaps should be, in the words of Clint Eastwood, be posed to Columbia: "Do you feel lucky, punk?"
Get ready for the fireworks on this front. Remember that the study has been done by Columbia's own in-house consultants AKRF-an abbreviation that stands for "Dewey, Cheatum and Howe!" Blight, in this case, is in the mind of the beholden.
This unnaturally close, almost incestuous, relationship between Columbia, AKRF and ESDC has been one of the subjects of a lawsuit brought by our client Tuck-it-Away, the self-storage company that is in the line of the Columbia bulldozer. As one commenter to the blog post points out: "Perhaps more important is a decision handed down just today that ruled in favor of Mr. Sprayregen. It upholds a lower court's decision to release documents that the state refused to hand over plus the court raises the real issue of conflict of interest between Columbia and the state in their hiring, at the same time, the same consultant. Stay tuned for more."
The line in the sand nature of what's ahead comes as a result of the university's lack of eagerness to pursue the land swap that Mr. Sprayregen put forward late last year. As Nick's attorney Norman Siegel points out: "Columbia had numerous opportunities to amicably resolve this, but ethey chose not to, and the battle lines are drawn," said Norman Siegal, Mr. Sprayregen's attorney. "This controversy has been brewing for at least five years."
In Brown's follow-up post on the successful Sprayregen lawsuit, the conflict of interest issue is brought to the fore: "The major landowner fighting Columbia University's expansion, Nick Sprayregen, today came out victorious over the state's Empire State Development Corporation today in an appellate court ruling on a case involving the Freedom of Information Law.
The case concerned the release of documents and correspondences between the state and its contractor AKRF, mostly surrounding the creation of a blight study (slated for release Thursday). Mr. Sprayregen, represented by attorney Norman Siegel, defeated the state at the first level last year, with the court offering criticism that the same contractor, AKRF, was used for both the blight study and the environmental review."
The question that remains in all of this, is how the courts will view the AKRF "findings." The bigger question perhaps should be, in the words of Clint Eastwood, be posed to Columbia: "Do you feel lucky, punk?"
Budweiser Goes Foreign
Now that the Anheuser Busch company is no longer an American company, perhaps some state lawmakers will be taking a very close look at the beer distribution system in New York. The system, set up after the repeal of prohibition, is designed to protect the interests of local businesses. This is certainly not the case in NYC where Anheuser-now InterBev-directly controls over 60% of the beer wholesaling for its flagship Bud brand.
What this means is that a foreign entity, with no ties with, or concerns for, local businesses sets the parameters for beer marketing-and this is being done at the expense of local independent wholesalers who are being discriminated against by the brewer/wholesaler. This is precisely why the independents are supporting legislation (A10216; and S6752) that would protect local wholesalers against price fixing and discrimination.
The sale of Anheuser is rightfully upsetting to New York's hard core beer drinkers. As the NY Times reported yesterday: "John Dooley sidled up to the bar at his favorite neighborhood pub on Monday afternoon and, like a cuckolded lover, vowed to remain true to his beloved despite the sudden betrayal he felt. “It’s the best beer in the world,” said Mr. Dooley, draining his second glass of Budweiser at Kennedy’s pub and restaurant in Breezy Point, Queens. “If you wanted to buy me a Heineken, I’d refuse. Nothing short of a nuclear war could make me stop.”
Mr Dooley's sentiments ring true to the independent, wholesalers that made Budweiser No.1 when it first came into the NYC market many years ago: "And so it was with bitterness, and resignation, that many Breezy Point locals met the news on Monday that Anheuser-Busch, the St. Louis-based maker of Budweiser, was to be sold to a Belgian company for $52 billion. “I don’t like it, I don’t like it a bit,” Mr. Dooley said. Then he raised his empty glass, which the bartender, Tom Coady, promptly refilled. "
Some of the legislative opponents of the bills based their misguided opposition to the legislation on the importance of preserving local business, and some kind of theoretical support for the "three tier system." When foreign-owned brewers are directly distributing, however, the distribution system is in a shambles; which makes the legislation proposed that much more compelling.
What this means is that a foreign entity, with no ties with, or concerns for, local businesses sets the parameters for beer marketing-and this is being done at the expense of local independent wholesalers who are being discriminated against by the brewer/wholesaler. This is precisely why the independents are supporting legislation (A10216; and S6752) that would protect local wholesalers against price fixing and discrimination.
The sale of Anheuser is rightfully upsetting to New York's hard core beer drinkers. As the NY Times reported yesterday: "John Dooley sidled up to the bar at his favorite neighborhood pub on Monday afternoon and, like a cuckolded lover, vowed to remain true to his beloved despite the sudden betrayal he felt. “It’s the best beer in the world,” said Mr. Dooley, draining his second glass of Budweiser at Kennedy’s pub and restaurant in Breezy Point, Queens. “If you wanted to buy me a Heineken, I’d refuse. Nothing short of a nuclear war could make me stop.”
Mr Dooley's sentiments ring true to the independent, wholesalers that made Budweiser No.1 when it first came into the NYC market many years ago: "And so it was with bitterness, and resignation, that many Breezy Point locals met the news on Monday that Anheuser-Busch, the St. Louis-based maker of Budweiser, was to be sold to a Belgian company for $52 billion. “I don’t like it, I don’t like it a bit,” Mr. Dooley said. Then he raised his empty glass, which the bartender, Tom Coady, promptly refilled. "
Some of the legislative opponents of the bills based their misguided opposition to the legislation on the importance of preserving local business, and some kind of theoretical support for the "three tier system." When foreign-owned brewers are directly distributing, however, the distribution system is in a shambles; which makes the legislation proposed that much more compelling.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Armored for Battle
According to this morning's NY Daily News, CB# 7 in the Bronx is beginning a discussion process for the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment plans: "As the vacant Kingsbridge Armory continues its long march toward redevelopment, the local community board is aiming to take command of the community approval process. Community Board 7 plans to convene a number of stakeholders meetings over the summer to make sure neighborhood residents' views are heard as the city finalizes plans for the 575,000-square-foot former National Guard armory."
All in all, this isn't a bad idea. The more the community is allowed in, the greater the opportunity there is to insure that the process reflects its views. That doesn't mean, however, that the end product will be community friendly-not with our friends at Related Companies in the driver's seat: "It's the beginning of a series of meetings to develop a good working relationship with the developer," said CB7 District Manager Fernando Tirado. Tirado plans for the meeting to break into smaller discussion groups to make a list of the topics for the community board to raise with the city and the developer before the next stakeholders meeting, which Tirado expects to hold next month."
Maybe the DM will midwife an epiphany here; with Related all of a sudden becoming imbued with real community concern. Nothing in its resume suggests that this is likely to happen any time soon. Which means to us that KARA, the real community coalition, has its work cut out for itself.
And the posture of Mr. Tirado appears to underscore this point: "Separate from CB7's process, the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, a coalition of community groups, unions and churches led by the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, is pressuring Related to sign a binding community benefits agreement. While not discounting the idea of a CBA, Tirado said he hopes to keep the conversation more cooperative than confrontational. "The armory is bigger than any of us," said Tirado, "and it will outlast all of us."
This might be setting up to be a fight between the community board, and its putative relationship to the community's welfare, and KARA, a genuine grass roots phenomenon. In the Bronx this makes for interesting theater but the real battle is for what's best for the Kingsbridge community. The danger lies that the fight between the locals will only benefit the bottom line of Related.
All in all, this isn't a bad idea. The more the community is allowed in, the greater the opportunity there is to insure that the process reflects its views. That doesn't mean, however, that the end product will be community friendly-not with our friends at Related Companies in the driver's seat: "It's the beginning of a series of meetings to develop a good working relationship with the developer," said CB7 District Manager Fernando Tirado. Tirado plans for the meeting to break into smaller discussion groups to make a list of the topics for the community board to raise with the city and the developer before the next stakeholders meeting, which Tirado expects to hold next month."
Maybe the DM will midwife an epiphany here; with Related all of a sudden becoming imbued with real community concern. Nothing in its resume suggests that this is likely to happen any time soon. Which means to us that KARA, the real community coalition, has its work cut out for itself.
And the posture of Mr. Tirado appears to underscore this point: "Separate from CB7's process, the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, a coalition of community groups, unions and churches led by the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, is pressuring Related to sign a binding community benefits agreement. While not discounting the idea of a CBA, Tirado said he hopes to keep the conversation more cooperative than confrontational. "The armory is bigger than any of us," said Tirado, "and it will outlast all of us."
This might be setting up to be a fight between the community board, and its putative relationship to the community's welfare, and KARA, a genuine grass roots phenomenon. In the Bronx this makes for interesting theater but the real battle is for what's best for the Kingsbridge community. The danger lies that the fight between the locals will only benefit the bottom line of Related.
No Computer Left Behind
The most serious indicator of how well the schools are doing is the graduation rate for high school seniors. So how well are the city's kids doing? Well, we just don't know because the state and city can't seen to calculate this complex data. As the NY Times reports this morning: "The Class of 2008 has already tossed aside caps and gowns for swimsuits and tank tops. The Class of 2009 has begun dreaming of proms, diplomas and exit strategies. But the public has yet to learn what percentage of New York State’s Class of 2007 actually graduated from high school."
It seems as if the DOEs of both the state and the city are running into computer programming problems that's making it difficult to determine who actually is graduating-a fine mess, isn't it? "Blame the state’s new data system, which is expected to cost $39.4 million over six years. Tom Dunn, a spokesman for the state’s Education Department, acknowledged that the system had been “not completely successful” in uploading and processing information from New York’s 695 school districts. He said the move to a single data repository had “caused a number of problems.”
And how about the city? It's hard to know since the 2006 rate wasn't announced until April 2007-and the move to a single data stream for both the state and the city hasn't been properly worked out: "Asking the public to be patient here is simply not an answer,” said Merryl H. Tisch, a member of the State Board of Regents, who described the delay as “frustrating and intolerable.” “I think the public should frankly demand more timely testing results and more timely graduation data,” she said, “because, after all, they’re being asked to invest an enormous amount of money in the system.”
The city's own computer system apparently has a few glitches, as Advocate Gotbaum told the Times: "Betsy Gotbaum, the New York City public advocate, noted that the city Department of Education’s own $80 million data system, developed by I.B.M. and called ARIS, has been criticized by principals and teachers as cumbersome and difficult to use, even as parents have questioned its hefty price tag. “We have already seen with ARIS here in the city how expensive and flashy computer systems are turning out to be clunky and flawed,” Ms. Gotbaum said in a statement. “The longer we have to wait for these data systems to produce results, the more skeptical people become.” Mr. Cantor said the city was improving ARIS. “While it did not come out of the box perfect,” he said, “we got an awful lot of information to a large number of people.”
This is all pretty funny, especially when we have a mayor whose billionaire fortune was built on computer technology. What it shows to us, and the NY Sun's article on testing underscores as well, is that we simply can't take anything that these DOE folks say for granted. It's time to educate the educators with an independent review of their so-called achievements.
It seems as if the DOEs of both the state and the city are running into computer programming problems that's making it difficult to determine who actually is graduating-a fine mess, isn't it? "Blame the state’s new data system, which is expected to cost $39.4 million over six years. Tom Dunn, a spokesman for the state’s Education Department, acknowledged that the system had been “not completely successful” in uploading and processing information from New York’s 695 school districts. He said the move to a single data repository had “caused a number of problems.”
And how about the city? It's hard to know since the 2006 rate wasn't announced until April 2007-and the move to a single data stream for both the state and the city hasn't been properly worked out: "Asking the public to be patient here is simply not an answer,” said Merryl H. Tisch, a member of the State Board of Regents, who described the delay as “frustrating and intolerable.” “I think the public should frankly demand more timely testing results and more timely graduation data,” she said, “because, after all, they’re being asked to invest an enormous amount of money in the system.”
The city's own computer system apparently has a few glitches, as Advocate Gotbaum told the Times: "Betsy Gotbaum, the New York City public advocate, noted that the city Department of Education’s own $80 million data system, developed by I.B.M. and called ARIS, has been criticized by principals and teachers as cumbersome and difficult to use, even as parents have questioned its hefty price tag. “We have already seen with ARIS here in the city how expensive and flashy computer systems are turning out to be clunky and flawed,” Ms. Gotbaum said in a statement. “The longer we have to wait for these data systems to produce results, the more skeptical people become.” Mr. Cantor said the city was improving ARIS. “While it did not come out of the box perfect,” he said, “we got an awful lot of information to a large number of people.”
This is all pretty funny, especially when we have a mayor whose billionaire fortune was built on computer technology. What it shows to us, and the NY Sun's article on testing underscores as well, is that we simply can't take anything that these DOE folks say for granted. It's time to educate the educators with an independent review of their so-called achievements.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Speaking of Measuring
Andrew Wolf just responded to our comments on Mayor Mike's poverty measuring, and he told us: " Meanwhile he can't measure kids reading and math grades right. Who is he to lecture on how to measure poverty?" Which brings us to Sol Stern's column on reading in today's NY Post.
Stern's piece is in response to the Obama flap over immigrants learning English-how the real problem is that Americans can't speak other languages. As Stern points out: "What should embarrass him is that, in the communities he claims to know so much about, schools are failing to teach black and Hispanic children how to read English - the prerequisite to all other learning. Two-thirds of black children in urban US school districts can't read at the minimally appropriate level by fourth grade - a failure that is at the heart of the "racial achievement gap."
And this serious problem is still endemic to our NYC schools, where the Kleineman botched the reading challenge by allowing the so-called progressive educators to hold sway: "Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Klein deserve credit for talking of ending the racial achievement gap - but they made the mistake of relying on the wrong "experts." In 2003, they entrusted most instructional decisions to educators who deem it a crime to teach children how to read through scripted phonics lessons."
And what are the results of this error? According to Stern (and Wolf for that matter): "Six years later, we're seeing the fruits of that tragic decision. On the federal NAEP tests, known as the "nation's report card," New York City showed no improvement from 2003 to 2007 in both fourth and eighth grade reading." But Bloomberg and Klein continue to crow about the results from watered down or doctored tests that fail to disguise, in our view, the failure of this version of a mayoral control experiment.
Stern's piece is in response to the Obama flap over immigrants learning English-how the real problem is that Americans can't speak other languages. As Stern points out: "What should embarrass him is that, in the communities he claims to know so much about, schools are failing to teach black and Hispanic children how to read English - the prerequisite to all other learning. Two-thirds of black children in urban US school districts can't read at the minimally appropriate level by fourth grade - a failure that is at the heart of the "racial achievement gap."
And this serious problem is still endemic to our NYC schools, where the Kleineman botched the reading challenge by allowing the so-called progressive educators to hold sway: "Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Klein deserve credit for talking of ending the racial achievement gap - but they made the mistake of relying on the wrong "experts." In 2003, they entrusted most instructional decisions to educators who deem it a crime to teach children how to read through scripted phonics lessons."
And what are the results of this error? According to Stern (and Wolf for that matter): "Six years later, we're seeing the fruits of that tragic decision. On the federal NAEP tests, known as the "nation's report card," New York City showed no improvement from 2003 to 2007 in both fourth and eighth grade reading." But Bloomberg and Klein continue to crow about the results from watered down or doctored tests that fail to disguise, in our view, the failure of this version of a mayoral control experiment.
"South Bronx, No Thonx"
In yesterday's NY Times the paper remarks on the theme that Juan Gonzalez has been trumpeting: the redlining of the folks in the South Bronx by the Yankees and MLB. As the Times points out: "Three weeks ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared that the All-Star Game, to be played Tuesday at Yankee Stadium, would put the revival of the South Bronx in the national spotlight. Major League Baseball seems not to have gotten the memo. Planners for the event overlooked the neighborhood where it will take place."
The real victims in all of this? The Little Leaguers who have been shut out: "There are some 1,000 youngsters in Little League in the South Bronx. They are overwhelmingly Hispanic — Puerto Rican, Dominican and, increasingly, Mexican. They represent the nation’s fastest-growing population, and none of them have a prayer of seeing their All-Star heroes. A few free seats, given by lottery, would have earned a lot of good will at little cost."
But why should MLB look after the kids in the South Bronx when the area's elected officials failed to do so when they teamed up to alienate community parks with absolutely no public debate? And the deal that was subsequently crafted around the building of a new stadium should have raised red flags in the editorial board room of the Times; but it didn't.
The paper supported the charade with the following: "The Yankees worked hard to win over Bronx officials with a community benefits agreement. Some of it is the stuff of bread and circuses: 15,000 free tickets for distribution every season (hopefully not just to the well-connected). And some of it is real, including $1 million for job training and hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual community grants.
The Yankees also promise to spend $8 million on improving local parks, which should partly compensate for the green space the stadium will take away. On the whole, the agreement is a good start toward restitution for the many years in which the team, the richest sports franchise in the land, largely ignored residents of the disadvantaged South Bronx."
Perhaps the Times would have been more skeptical in its observations if George Bush was the fellow spearheading the stadium deal. It's amazing how often the paper suspends its disbelief around real estate deals in NYC that disadvantage poor people and small business. Its so-called progressive stance is inversely proportional to the geographic distance an issue or event has from the paper's corporate headquarters.
The Times concludes with the following: "The South Bronx deserves another look, not the snub it got from baseball’s executive suite." It should apply this critique to its own editorialists, folks who apparently can't grasp corporate greed and political malfeasance when it takes place almost in front of their eyes.
The real victims in all of this? The Little Leaguers who have been shut out: "There are some 1,000 youngsters in Little League in the South Bronx. They are overwhelmingly Hispanic — Puerto Rican, Dominican and, increasingly, Mexican. They represent the nation’s fastest-growing population, and none of them have a prayer of seeing their All-Star heroes. A few free seats, given by lottery, would have earned a lot of good will at little cost."
But why should MLB look after the kids in the South Bronx when the area's elected officials failed to do so when they teamed up to alienate community parks with absolutely no public debate? And the deal that was subsequently crafted around the building of a new stadium should have raised red flags in the editorial board room of the Times; but it didn't.
The paper supported the charade with the following: "The Yankees worked hard to win over Bronx officials with a community benefits agreement. Some of it is the stuff of bread and circuses: 15,000 free tickets for distribution every season (hopefully not just to the well-connected). And some of it is real, including $1 million for job training and hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual community grants.
The Yankees also promise to spend $8 million on improving local parks, which should partly compensate for the green space the stadium will take away. On the whole, the agreement is a good start toward restitution for the many years in which the team, the richest sports franchise in the land, largely ignored residents of the disadvantaged South Bronx."
Perhaps the Times would have been more skeptical in its observations if George Bush was the fellow spearheading the stadium deal. It's amazing how often the paper suspends its disbelief around real estate deals in NYC that disadvantage poor people and small business. Its so-called progressive stance is inversely proportional to the geographic distance an issue or event has from the paper's corporate headquarters.
The Times concludes with the following: "The South Bronx deserves another look, not the snub it got from baseball’s executive suite." It should apply this critique to its own editorialists, folks who apparently can't grasp corporate greed and political malfeasance when it takes place almost in front of their eyes.
Poor Measures
Just what exactly is Mike Bloomnerg up to with his redefinition of poverty? As the NY Sun reports this morning: "Nearly one in four New Yorkers are living below the poverty line, according to Mayor Bloomberg, who says the federal government is underestimating the number of poor people in the city.The Bloomberg administration is adopting a new poverty measurement that raises the rate of poverty in the city to 23% from 18.9% by accounting for the cost of food, clothing, shelter, and utilities, as well as tax credits and government subsidies received."
Okay so we may. according to the redefinition, have more poor people than the Feds believe. So what? The purpose of these indicators is to give government parameters in the meting out of public benefits-it certainly doesn't change anyone's circumstances. According to the NY Times, Mayor Mike thinks this is helpful: "City officials hope that the new model will be adopted by other cities and states, and will also start a national re-examination about the way poverty is gauged...That model, while updated for inflation, has been criticized for being out of date, inaccurate and not taking into account how expenses like housing vary nationwide."
We're not sure what Bloomberg is up to with all of this, but we do know that his development policies have not resulted in a rising tide that lifts all boats-a fact that was drowned out by a $80 million chorus in the last election cycle. And it is instructive to point out that Hispanics as a group are rated the poorest New Yorkers since the mayor has done all he can to make it difficult for Hispanic entrepreneurs to thrive among the chain stores and mega-retailers he's been promoting.
The whole enterprise smacks of an attempt to codify a problem so that Big Brother can better address it; as if that was the best method for doing so in our economic system. The Sun captures this from the mayor: "In Washington, while there's a never-ending debate about how to confront poverty, there is hardly any clarity on who is actually poor. I spent most of my career in the private sector, and I'm a big believer in the saying, 'If you can't measure it, you can't manage it,'" Mr. Bloomberg was to have said, according to his prepared remarks."
There it is in a nutshell: poverty as a management problem. Are income supports, cash payments, far behind? The mayor has raised taxes, increased regulations, and ignored the small businesses that are the engine of neighborhood economic health. This is how poor communities rise out of their circumstances-led by their entrepreneurial class. You know what he can do with his measuring stick.
Okay so we may. according to the redefinition, have more poor people than the Feds believe. So what? The purpose of these indicators is to give government parameters in the meting out of public benefits-it certainly doesn't change anyone's circumstances. According to the NY Times, Mayor Mike thinks this is helpful: "City officials hope that the new model will be adopted by other cities and states, and will also start a national re-examination about the way poverty is gauged...That model, while updated for inflation, has been criticized for being out of date, inaccurate and not taking into account how expenses like housing vary nationwide."
We're not sure what Bloomberg is up to with all of this, but we do know that his development policies have not resulted in a rising tide that lifts all boats-a fact that was drowned out by a $80 million chorus in the last election cycle. And it is instructive to point out that Hispanics as a group are rated the poorest New Yorkers since the mayor has done all he can to make it difficult for Hispanic entrepreneurs to thrive among the chain stores and mega-retailers he's been promoting.
The whole enterprise smacks of an attempt to codify a problem so that Big Brother can better address it; as if that was the best method for doing so in our economic system. The Sun captures this from the mayor: "In Washington, while there's a never-ending debate about how to confront poverty, there is hardly any clarity on who is actually poor. I spent most of my career in the private sector, and I'm a big believer in the saying, 'If you can't measure it, you can't manage it,'" Mr. Bloomberg was to have said, according to his prepared remarks."
There it is in a nutshell: poverty as a management problem. Are income supports, cash payments, far behind? The mayor has raised taxes, increased regulations, and ignored the small businesses that are the engine of neighborhood economic health. This is how poor communities rise out of their circumstances-led by their entrepreneurial class. You know what he can do with his measuring stick.
Vornado Diminished
It looks as if our friends at Vornado will be cutting down the size of its new office building in Harlem. As the NY Times reported on Saturday: "A 21-story office building planned in East Harlem for Major League Baseball is shrinking...But, according to real estate executives and city officials, Vornado’s inability to finance the $435 million project, known as Harlem Park, has delayed construction and is doing what critics who had complained about the tower’s size could not: reduce its height by about a third."
The project does, however, make an important point that we've been emphasizing about the real estate chazza, it's success is often linked to the ability to get the tax payers to foot the bill for its grandiosity: "The city also provided Vornado with up to $17 million in mortgage-recording and sales tax breaks for the project and an additional $5 million in sales tax exemptions for Major League Baseball’s network, for creating 250 new jobs. Although the site is close to public transportation, the city and Vornado argued that it, unlike other stretches of 125th Street, was hardscrabble and difficult to develop."
As the late Mel Allen would have said, "How about that!" Does Vornado even need the public money? Not according to our friends at Good Jobs NY who testified against the hand outs: "
GJNY has two concerns with IDA’s claim that this development wouldn’t happen “but
for” the subsidies:
The cost/benefit analysis for Vornado clearly states an alternative plan that would include a department store and condominiums. It should be made clear why the city is subsidizing one type of development when the developer clearly had a plan for another. The explanation might be reasonable, but absent one the public won’t know.
Secondly, it’s not fair to assume the city needs to use tax breaks to lure MLB Enterprises considering the site has access to transportation facilities such as the subway and Metro North and easy access other business and residential locations and Yankee Stadium and Citi Field."
With the shrinkage of the building it's quite possible that the subsidies will likewise be reduced. Not to be outdone, Vornado's looking for alternative sources of public money. As the Times points out: "The city’s tax breaks would decline with a smaller building. But Vornado has applied to the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone Development Corporation for a $25 million loan and for tax-exempt financing, which the developer, not the city, is obligated to repay. The project would also qualify for a property tax abatement and income tax credits from both the city and the federal government."
This is the same Empowerment Zone that is systematically redlining Hispanic East Harlem, and is an organization whose president, Ken Knuckles (a planning commissioner, no less), once questioned us as to why we were, "against everything?" Someone should start to examine the activities of Mr. Knuckles and the UMEZDC, and find out why he is in favor of so many questionable things-and why, perhaps, he is such a toady to the powerful.
Clearly, as Keith Wright tells the Times, “It’s like chickens coming home to roost,” said Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright of Harlem. “What the political forces couldn’t do, economic reality has forced upon them. Nobody wanted towering office buildings on 125th Street. We wanted it to reflect Harlem architecture.” Still up in the air, literally, is the fate of the $1 million that Vornado pledged for community benefits.
Vornado is reaching the end of its rope, and the rest of the city is getting wise to its tricks. If it believes that it will get to develop 125th Street and Second Avenue, we think that it's in for a rude awakening And if it thinks it can act to threaten the public health of Bronxites in Soundview by evicting Key Food, well, the handwriting's on the wall for these public trough eate
Its days as a favored nation are about to end. Bettina Damiani of GJNY gets the last word on the MLB devlopment: "But critics have always questioned the level of subsidies for the project and the difficulty in determining the full extent of public assistance for Vornado and Major League Baseball. “It seemed like they were getting extra-special treatment,” said Bettina Damiani, director of an advocacy group, Good Jobs New York."
The project does, however, make an important point that we've been emphasizing about the real estate chazza, it's success is often linked to the ability to get the tax payers to foot the bill for its grandiosity: "The city also provided Vornado with up to $17 million in mortgage-recording and sales tax breaks for the project and an additional $5 million in sales tax exemptions for Major League Baseball’s network, for creating 250 new jobs. Although the site is close to public transportation, the city and Vornado argued that it, unlike other stretches of 125th Street, was hardscrabble and difficult to develop."
As the late Mel Allen would have said, "How about that!" Does Vornado even need the public money? Not according to our friends at Good Jobs NY who testified against the hand outs: "
GJNY has two concerns with IDA’s claim that this development wouldn’t happen “but
for” the subsidies:
The cost/benefit analysis for Vornado clearly states an alternative plan that would include a department store and condominiums. It should be made clear why the city is subsidizing one type of development when the developer clearly had a plan for another. The explanation might be reasonable, but absent one the public won’t know.
Secondly, it’s not fair to assume the city needs to use tax breaks to lure MLB Enterprises considering the site has access to transportation facilities such as the subway and Metro North and easy access other business and residential locations and Yankee Stadium and Citi Field."
With the shrinkage of the building it's quite possible that the subsidies will likewise be reduced. Not to be outdone, Vornado's looking for alternative sources of public money. As the Times points out: "The city’s tax breaks would decline with a smaller building. But Vornado has applied to the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone Development Corporation for a $25 million loan and for tax-exempt financing, which the developer, not the city, is obligated to repay. The project would also qualify for a property tax abatement and income tax credits from both the city and the federal government."
This is the same Empowerment Zone that is systematically redlining Hispanic East Harlem, and is an organization whose president, Ken Knuckles (a planning commissioner, no less), once questioned us as to why we were, "against everything?" Someone should start to examine the activities of Mr. Knuckles and the UMEZDC, and find out why he is in favor of so many questionable things-and why, perhaps, he is such a toady to the powerful.
Clearly, as Keith Wright tells the Times, “It’s like chickens coming home to roost,” said Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright of Harlem. “What the political forces couldn’t do, economic reality has forced upon them. Nobody wanted towering office buildings on 125th Street. We wanted it to reflect Harlem architecture.” Still up in the air, literally, is the fate of the $1 million that Vornado pledged for community benefits.
Vornado is reaching the end of its rope, and the rest of the city is getting wise to its tricks. If it believes that it will get to develop 125th Street and Second Avenue, we think that it's in for a rude awakening And if it thinks it can act to threaten the public health of Bronxites in Soundview by evicting Key Food, well, the handwriting's on the wall for these public trough eate
Its days as a favored nation are about to end. Bettina Damiani of GJNY gets the last word on the MLB devlopment: "But critics have always questioned the level of subsidies for the project and the difficulty in determining the full extent of public assistance for Vornado and Major League Baseball. “It seemed like they were getting extra-special treatment,” said Bettina Damiani, director of an advocacy group, Good Jobs New York."
Friday, July 11, 2008
Campaigning Double Standards
Once again the city's new campaign finance law is coming under fire. Already the subject of a lawsuit that challenges its constitutionality, the law is now being questioned by one of its sponsors. This case of buyer's remorse is detailed in today's NY Sun: "A City Council member who helped pass the city's new campaign finance rules is now trying to roll back a key component of the effort to crack down on political donations from lobbyists and business owners.
Council Member Peter Vallone Jr., a Democrat of Queens, said he is proposing to amend the campaign finance rules so that political candidates would no longer be required to ask contributors to disclose their relationship with the city when making a donation."
Of course, the real disparity here is the way in which business and labor are treated separately. As the Sun points out: "His amendment proposal is poised to become the latest attack on the rules, which have been called the toughest in the nation. Opponents of the legislation say it favors candidates who collect contributions from unions, which are exempt from the rules, and punish those who are supported by businesses and developers."
Which it certainly does. Our view is that there should be limits that apply equally to all, and since labor has a tremendous influence in city politics, it shouldn't be exempted from any campaign law that restricts others. In our view, all interests are special and none should be more special than others.
The NY Post editorializes on this issue morning, commenting on the attempt by Melinda Katz to find a loophole in the application of the current law: "Councilwoman Melinda Katz (D- Queens), a candidate for city comptroller next year, tried to skirt the city's selectively restrictive campaign-finance laws. She failed - but good for her, anyway...Because that tough new campaign-finance law - which is supposed to end pay-to-play in New York - doesn't apply at all to labor unions. Unlike business and industry, their donations weren't cut back in the slightest.
Never mind that they're the top organized contributors to city candidates. Or that they arguably do more business with the city than anyone else. This means that candidates who sell themselves to the unions are substantially better off than those who, like Katz, sell themselves to industry. True, when you've got a joke of a campaign-finance law, you've got to expect more than a little funny business. But fair's fair. Katz should sue."
The goal of campaign finance reform should be greater transparency-voters should know who's contributing so that they can better understand the interests that each candidate may be favoring. An unlevel playing field is, well, unfair, and the mayor and the speaker should insure that the rules apply equally to all the players in the system.
Council Member Peter Vallone Jr., a Democrat of Queens, said he is proposing to amend the campaign finance rules so that political candidates would no longer be required to ask contributors to disclose their relationship with the city when making a donation."
Of course, the real disparity here is the way in which business and labor are treated separately. As the Sun points out: "His amendment proposal is poised to become the latest attack on the rules, which have been called the toughest in the nation. Opponents of the legislation say it favors candidates who collect contributions from unions, which are exempt from the rules, and punish those who are supported by businesses and developers."
Which it certainly does. Our view is that there should be limits that apply equally to all, and since labor has a tremendous influence in city politics, it shouldn't be exempted from any campaign law that restricts others. In our view, all interests are special and none should be more special than others.
The NY Post editorializes on this issue morning, commenting on the attempt by Melinda Katz to find a loophole in the application of the current law: "Councilwoman Melinda Katz (D- Queens), a candidate for city comptroller next year, tried to skirt the city's selectively restrictive campaign-finance laws. She failed - but good for her, anyway...Because that tough new campaign-finance law - which is supposed to end pay-to-play in New York - doesn't apply at all to labor unions. Unlike business and industry, their donations weren't cut back in the slightest.
Never mind that they're the top organized contributors to city candidates. Or that they arguably do more business with the city than anyone else. This means that candidates who sell themselves to the unions are substantially better off than those who, like Katz, sell themselves to industry. True, when you've got a joke of a campaign-finance law, you've got to expect more than a little funny business. But fair's fair. Katz should sue."
The goal of campaign finance reform should be greater transparency-voters should know who's contributing so that they can better understand the interests that each candidate may be favoring. An unlevel playing field is, well, unfair, and the mayor and the speaker should insure that the rules apply equally to all the players in the system.
Parking Up the Wrong Tree
Juan Gonzalez continues today with his exposing of the shameful way in which the community around Yankee Stadium has been dealt a bad hand by both the Yankees and the Bronx electeds. This time, it's the Little Leaguers who've gotten shafted: "When they televise the All-Star Game from Yankee Stadium Tuesday, the cameras will show dazzling shots of the team's majestic replacement home rising across the street - the most expensive sports venue in America.
One thing you will not hear from the announcers is how hundreds of South Bronx youngsters have lost their parks and baseball fields so the Yankees can erect a new palace geared to the corporate elite."
Let's not forget that it's the same mayor who's threatening to become as green as Kermit the Frog who instigated all of this: "Then, in 2005, Mayor Bloomberg rushed a bill through the Legislature to give 22 acres of Macombs Dam Park and part of John Mullaly Park as sites for the new stadium and its parking garages. The city promised to replace the lost parkland, but all the new baseball fields won't be completed until 2010 at the earliest. When stadium construction started in August 2006, four different youth leagues at Macombs Park were forced to look for temporary fields."
So the sustainability nonsense is theoretical, while the loss of the parkland is all too real: ""Hundreds of millions to subsidize a new stadium, but still not enough ballfields for neighborhood kids. That picture you won't see at the All-Star Game." What Bloomberg should do is reach into his own pocket and insure that the parks are ready when his administration claimed they would be. That would, however, be an indication that he really gave a crap about this poor, asthma-challenged, neighborhood and its loss of green space-a stretch for sure!
One thing you will not hear from the announcers is how hundreds of South Bronx youngsters have lost their parks and baseball fields so the Yankees can erect a new palace geared to the corporate elite."
Let's not forget that it's the same mayor who's threatening to become as green as Kermit the Frog who instigated all of this: "Then, in 2005, Mayor Bloomberg rushed a bill through the Legislature to give 22 acres of Macombs Dam Park and part of John Mullaly Park as sites for the new stadium and its parking garages. The city promised to replace the lost parkland, but all the new baseball fields won't be completed until 2010 at the earliest. When stadium construction started in August 2006, four different youth leagues at Macombs Park were forced to look for temporary fields."
So the sustainability nonsense is theoretical, while the loss of the parkland is all too real: ""Hundreds of millions to subsidize a new stadium, but still not enough ballfields for neighborhood kids. That picture you won't see at the All-Star Game." What Bloomberg should do is reach into his own pocket and insure that the parks are ready when his administration claimed they would be. That would, however, be an indication that he really gave a crap about this poor, asthma-challenged, neighborhood and its loss of green space-a stretch for sure!
Pointing to Disaster?
In yesterday' Observer Real Estate Blog, Eliot Brown takes a look at the gathering storm that is Willets Point. He concludes that the jury is out whether the Bloombergistas can get this development to the ULURP finish line: "The road to approving a mega-project in New York City often follows a similar formula, with a months-long political dance carried out between the city or developer and local member/members of the City Council. Last-minute compromises and agreements are routine, and once a project starts the city's land-use approval process, defeats are almost without precedent. However, the dynamic surrounding the planned redevelopment of Willets Point is proving far less simple than the typical fare, as both observers and those involved seem genuinely unsure as to how the Council will ultimately vote on the project."
The sticking point? Why our good friend Hiram Monseratte, of course. Hiram type cast as a gadfly and an obstructionist has played himself into contention as a potential title holder; having amassed considerable support in the Council for a No vote. As Brown points out: "A majority of the Council, led by local Councilman Hiram Monserrate, publicly opposed the city's move to start the rezoning process three months ago. And while the Bloomberg administration has won some victories recently--the community board endorsed the plan; the city has reached acquisition deals with three property owners; and organized labor now supports the project--Mr. Monserrate and others still express clear opposition to the project as currently planned."
Brown also indicates that the Speaker may be weakened so that the normal bogarting role of the leader may not be as effective with this project. To which we would add that the "pig-in-a-poke" nature of the ULURP sans developer does directly challenge the institutional authority of the Council: "...an atypical approval structure whereby the city selects a developer post-rezoning..." This is something that may also come back to haunt the ULURP efforts in East Harlem that we've referred to in the past.
So Willets rezoning has along way to go, and if Hiram has his way the Council will get a deserved second bite at the apple-a thumbs up or down on the developer after the city makes its choice (something that should be emulated for the East Harlem and 127th Street site as well). Here's what Hiram told the Observer:
"Developer Approval--The plan currently calls for the city first to rezone the land with Council approval and then select a developer (the city believes it has to go this route to comply with eminent domain law). Mr. Monserrate and others, including the Land Use Committee's chairwoman, Melinda Katz, have expressed concerns with this structure. (The Council often wrests concessions from a developer, and without a second approval round, would be unable to have much say in the final plan.) "It has to come back to the Council," he said. "We are the check and balance system in city government."
That's a good standard to uphold, here and any where else. Once the land is re-zoned the council is sidelined with nothing else to say on a land use question; a bad precedent indeed.
The sticking point? Why our good friend Hiram Monseratte, of course. Hiram type cast as a gadfly and an obstructionist has played himself into contention as a potential title holder; having amassed considerable support in the Council for a No vote. As Brown points out: "A majority of the Council, led by local Councilman Hiram Monserrate, publicly opposed the city's move to start the rezoning process three months ago. And while the Bloomberg administration has won some victories recently--the community board endorsed the plan; the city has reached acquisition deals with three property owners; and organized labor now supports the project--Mr. Monserrate and others still express clear opposition to the project as currently planned."
Brown also indicates that the Speaker may be weakened so that the normal bogarting role of the leader may not be as effective with this project. To which we would add that the "pig-in-a-poke" nature of the ULURP sans developer does directly challenge the institutional authority of the Council: "...an atypical approval structure whereby the city selects a developer post-rezoning..." This is something that may also come back to haunt the ULURP efforts in East Harlem that we've referred to in the past.
So Willets rezoning has along way to go, and if Hiram has his way the Council will get a deserved second bite at the apple-a thumbs up or down on the developer after the city makes its choice (something that should be emulated for the East Harlem and 127th Street site as well). Here's what Hiram told the Observer:
"Developer Approval--The plan currently calls for the city first to rezone the land with Council approval and then select a developer (the city believes it has to go this route to comply with eminent domain law). Mr. Monserrate and others, including the Land Use Committee's chairwoman, Melinda Katz, have expressed concerns with this structure. (The Council often wrests concessions from a developer, and without a second approval round, would be unable to have much say in the final plan.) "It has to come back to the Council," he said. "We are the check and balance system in city government."
That's a good standard to uphold, here and any where else. Once the land is re-zoned the council is sidelined with nothing else to say on a land use question; a bad precedent indeed.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Unchartered Water
The NY Sun is reporting this morning that Mayor Mike is gearing up for some version of charter reform, and there appears to be some nervous rumblings: "Mayor Bloomberg's plan to permanently change the structure of local government is prompting anxiety among public officials and community leaders. There is talk in political circles that a commission to be appointed by the mayor to perform a top-to-bottom review of the city charter would seek to curtail the authority of borough presidents and the public advocate, or do away with their positions altogether. Officials say they also are hearing that the commission may attempt to restructure the charter to remove community boards from the often contentious approval process for development projects."
Well, count us among those who view the prospects of Bloomberg's tinkering with the structure of city government with some degree of trepidation. That's because, in our view, the mayor is no democrat, in the sense that he is a fan of the untidiness of the rough and tumble of democratic politics. Any reform from Bloomberg is likely to result in more top down control-and as far as the land use process is concerned, this would be a giant mistake.
That being said, Bloomberg has already been defeated on non partisan elections, and an effort to make ULURP less accountable to local communities would, we believe, suffer the same fate. The process does need reform, but the changes that we'd like to see would be to insure greater local accountability and not less. As we said once before: "Well, well. Just how do you think Mayor Mike would want to reform the land use review process? Make it more accountable, kinda of like mirroring the Brodsky proposal on accountable development? No, that's unlikely from someone who has no faith in the voice of any impacted community."
If reform of land use is on the upcoming charter revision agenda, then it will more likely take the "streamlined and efficiency" direction; an approach that will further enervate the ability of the people to be heard. The Manhattan Institute's critique of ULURP comes to mind here. Well, we welcome the mayor if he decides to enter into the land use waters; it will expose his Father Knows Best mentality and ultimately, just as with non-partisan elections, it will be rejected by the voters.
Well, count us among those who view the prospects of Bloomberg's tinkering with the structure of city government with some degree of trepidation. That's because, in our view, the mayor is no democrat, in the sense that he is a fan of the untidiness of the rough and tumble of democratic politics. Any reform from Bloomberg is likely to result in more top down control-and as far as the land use process is concerned, this would be a giant mistake.
That being said, Bloomberg has already been defeated on non partisan elections, and an effort to make ULURP less accountable to local communities would, we believe, suffer the same fate. The process does need reform, but the changes that we'd like to see would be to insure greater local accountability and not less. As we said once before: "Well, well. Just how do you think Mayor Mike would want to reform the land use review process? Make it more accountable, kinda of like mirroring the Brodsky proposal on accountable development? No, that's unlikely from someone who has no faith in the voice of any impacted community."
If reform of land use is on the upcoming charter revision agenda, then it will more likely take the "streamlined and efficiency" direction; an approach that will further enervate the ability of the people to be heard. The Manhattan Institute's critique of ULURP comes to mind here. Well, we welcome the mayor if he decides to enter into the land use waters; it will expose his Father Knows Best mentality and ultimately, just as with non-partisan elections, it will be rejected by the voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
