You know there's nothing quite as fascinating as watching someone of great wealth suddenly discover political principles, only to just as suddenly turn around and jettison these principles when an issue of class interest reasserts itself. So it goes with Mayor Mike; yup the same lovable character who morphed unexpectedly last year into the Jolly Green Mayor.
Now, however, these congestion concerns-concerns underscored in the announcement yesterday that certain New York Streets will be car-free in the summer-run smack up against the siren call of large scale real estate development. So the mayor, hocking everyone incessantly about the need to reduce traffic congestion, twists his principles, pretzel-like, and comes out four square for a Costco store that will absolutely gridlock the Far West Side if it were to be built on 11th Avenue between 59th and 61st Streets.
To us, real principles are those that you hold even when they are inconvenient to self-interest or class bias. The same holds true for the fact that the mayor has yet to say boo about the potential closing of a Key Food store in the Bronx, even though he and his health brigades have been hectoring one and all about the lack of access to fresh fruits and veggies in certain poorer city precincts. In the case of the Soundview Key Food-a neighborhood targeted for its lack of such access-the mayor and the health commissioner are simply silent.
Do you think the fact that the landlord of the Key Food shopping center, Vornado Realty and Distrust, is a favored nation of the Bloombergistas plays a role in the silence that envelops the administration on this issue? Once again, it appears to us, principle is sacrificed for principal. It's time for the focus to shift from the bad landlord to an administration that seems ready to modify that old Giuliani slogan: "One City, One Standard-The Double Standard!"
Friday, August 08, 2008
Boxed-In in Brooklyn
The NY Daily News focuses in on the potential siting of two BJs box stores in Brooklyn: "It's an all-out Brooklyn food fight. Two big-box BJ's wholesale stores are planned for Bensonhurst and in Canarsie, much to the dismay of a labor union and area food stores. Supermarket owners fear they'll be undersold by the giant stores. There also are gripes about the store's anti-union practices and the fact that BJ's doesn't take food stamps. "BJ's wants to put in two stores, but it doesn't answer the needs of the community - they need a supermarket," said Grocery Workers Union organizer Pat Purcell."
The box store will be in for a big fight on both sites since the land slated for development needs to be re-zoned: "At "both of those locations, a big-box stores would require a special permit, and we have not received an application for either," said Rachaele Raynoff, spokeswoman for the City Planning Department." Any application will require a full land use review and eventual approval from the city council.
BJs makes its case with the following: "BJ's proprietors argue that the new locations would only help the borough. "There's a service that we can give to the community: bringing jobs, brand names and low prices to the area," said BJ's spokeswoman Stephanie Lacroix. "There's a signed lease," she said, referring to the site of a former bus depot at 1824 Shore Parkway, property that is owned by Thor Equities near Ceasar's Bay shopping center." The Shore Parkway location's lease, however, is contingent on getting the requisite zoning approval.
As we have been saying for a while, box stores suck business out of the neighborhood, particularly from the supermarkets whose business they cannibalize. This is certainly not an appropriate time for more such stores when local markets are disappearing: "The buy-in-bulk stores, which require membership, will join the BJ's in Starrett City and a Costco Superstore in Sunset Park. Meanwhile, traditional supermarkets are rapidly closing throughout the city, leaving a void in some communities."
The upcoming battle will challenge the sincerity of the mayor's supermarket task force, whose claimed goal is to preserve and promote local supermarket growth. Allowing box store proliferation creates a zero-sum game that supermarkets, and local shopping strips, simply can't win.
The box store will be in for a big fight on both sites since the land slated for development needs to be re-zoned: "At "both of those locations, a big-box stores would require a special permit, and we have not received an application for either," said Rachaele Raynoff, spokeswoman for the City Planning Department." Any application will require a full land use review and eventual approval from the city council.
BJs makes its case with the following: "BJ's proprietors argue that the new locations would only help the borough. "There's a service that we can give to the community: bringing jobs, brand names and low prices to the area," said BJ's spokeswoman Stephanie Lacroix. "There's a signed lease," she said, referring to the site of a former bus depot at 1824 Shore Parkway, property that is owned by Thor Equities near Ceasar's Bay shopping center." The Shore Parkway location's lease, however, is contingent on getting the requisite zoning approval.
As we have been saying for a while, box stores suck business out of the neighborhood, particularly from the supermarkets whose business they cannibalize. This is certainly not an appropriate time for more such stores when local markets are disappearing: "The buy-in-bulk stores, which require membership, will join the BJ's in Starrett City and a Costco Superstore in Sunset Park. Meanwhile, traditional supermarkets are rapidly closing throughout the city, leaving a void in some communities."
The upcoming battle will challenge the sincerity of the mayor's supermarket task force, whose claimed goal is to preserve and promote local supermarket growth. Allowing box store proliferation creates a zero-sum game that supermarkets, and local shopping strips, simply can't win.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Taxing Restraint
In the latest Q Poll, a majority of New Yorkers would rather cut than tax. According to the NY Sun: "Fifty-six percent of voters surveyed said they would prefer cutting services, with 32% saying they would rather raise taxes. Eighty-two percent of Republicans surveyed said they would rather cut services than raise taxes. Thirty-eight percent of Democrats said they would prefer that route to balance the budget."
Let's start by going after the revenue that will spare the state this Hobson's choice-Indian cigarette tax monies that are going uncollected. Why not poll on this topic and see where New Yorkers would stand on the failure of our governors to enforce duly passed laws.
Update
The NY Sun also has this about Indian cigarette tax revenues: "Said a Republican senator of Brooklyn, Martin Golden: "Before you cut money from schools, you want to get the tax dollars from the Indian reservations, that's for sure." By law, New York can collect such taxes on cigarette sales to non-Indians, but the state has chosen not to enforce it." Golden is right on about this issue.
Let's start by going after the revenue that will spare the state this Hobson's choice-Indian cigarette tax monies that are going uncollected. Why not poll on this topic and see where New Yorkers would stand on the failure of our governors to enforce duly passed laws.
Update
The NY Sun also has this about Indian cigarette tax revenues: "Said a Republican senator of Brooklyn, Martin Golden: "Before you cut money from schools, you want to get the tax dollars from the Indian reservations, that's for sure." By law, New York can collect such taxes on cigarette sales to non-Indians, but the state has chosen not to enforce it." Golden is right on about this issue.
Show and Extell
In this week's Observer, there's a full length story on the proposed Extell development on 11th Avenue that's slated to include a 150,000 sq. ft. Costco: "Expect resistance. While Extell’s plans do not seem to be the hornet’s nest that marked Trump’s early proposals, the local community board is skeptical of a host of issues, and area politicians are cool to the idea of added density and a potential Costco that Extell has proposed. Extell has been meeting with the community on and off since acquiring the site in 2005, and now is hoping to kick off the project in the fall with a preliminary scoping hearing at the Department of City Planning. Some time later—likely, at least a few months—the proposal would start its journey through the city’s seven-month public approval process, which requires a thumbs up from both the City Planning Commission and the City Council."
Expect a full scale war on this; and we're looking forward to a full and open discussion of the blatant hypocrisy of the mayor's open support for this auto dependent box store-and the 6-7 thousand cars it will generate daily. The reason for the ULURP on this is the fact that Extell's Barnett has no interest in building the TV studios first stipulated in the early nineties: "Now, Extell has set its sights on the final three lots at the southern base of the development, known as lots L, M and N; and with no desire to build the 1.7 million square feet of predominantly television studio space that the 1992 agreement stipulates, the developer wants public approval to allow for a giant complex of residential buildings in its place."
And this development, aside from its inclusion of the Costco store, will be mammoth: "The scale being proposed is significantly greater than what was initially planned for the site. According to figures Extell presented to members of the community board, the complex would be about 3 million square feet in size, with perhaps 2,500 apartments, well above the approximately 2.4 million square feet that remains under the development rights allowed by the restrictive declaration. In addition, Extell wants about 280,000 square feet of below-ground retail space—roughly half of which would go to Costco, should Extell ultimately win the company as a tenant—accompanied by 2,300 parking spaces, up from about 780 in the restrictive declaration (below-grade space is not counted in the zoning measurements)."
So an additional space for 1520 cars! Very environmentally friendly, don't you think? Extell spokesman George Artz had this zinger for the Observer: "George Arzt, an Extell spokesman, said the additional density is desired in order to provide larger apartments, to build more affordable units, to create more varied retail and to allow for better architecture. Still, he noted that plans were far from final." (emphasis added)
Indeed, they are not-and Extell better start using a pencil for the plans for this monstrosity, given the already gathering storm of local opposition: “We’re talking about an absolute nightmare—an absolute nightmare,” said Batya Lewton, vice president of the Coalition for a Livable West Side, a community group formed in 1981 to oppose a large planned project that preceded Television City. “They’re asking for, unbelievably, 2,300 more parking spaces in an area that is just so overwhelmed with traffic.”
Council member Gail Brewer is looking to be a formidable opponent, particularly on the Costco store: "As was the case in the 1990s, the area’s politicians will play a major role, particularly the local council member. Until the end of 2009, that’s Gale Brewer, who is anti-Costco and pushing for a commitment to build a school on the site, among other issues." If the ULURP spills over into 2010 a new council will be in place-and Brewer is term limited out. It's hard, however, to see someone taking her place who would support the Costco proposal, given the community's sentiments.
Expect a full scale war on this; and we're looking forward to a full and open discussion of the blatant hypocrisy of the mayor's open support for this auto dependent box store-and the 6-7 thousand cars it will generate daily. The reason for the ULURP on this is the fact that Extell's Barnett has no interest in building the TV studios first stipulated in the early nineties: "Now, Extell has set its sights on the final three lots at the southern base of the development, known as lots L, M and N; and with no desire to build the 1.7 million square feet of predominantly television studio space that the 1992 agreement stipulates, the developer wants public approval to allow for a giant complex of residential buildings in its place."
And this development, aside from its inclusion of the Costco store, will be mammoth: "The scale being proposed is significantly greater than what was initially planned for the site. According to figures Extell presented to members of the community board, the complex would be about 3 million square feet in size, with perhaps 2,500 apartments, well above the approximately 2.4 million square feet that remains under the development rights allowed by the restrictive declaration. In addition, Extell wants about 280,000 square feet of below-ground retail space—roughly half of which would go to Costco, should Extell ultimately win the company as a tenant—accompanied by 2,300 parking spaces, up from about 780 in the restrictive declaration (below-grade space is not counted in the zoning measurements)."
So an additional space for 1520 cars! Very environmentally friendly, don't you think? Extell spokesman George Artz had this zinger for the Observer: "George Arzt, an Extell spokesman, said the additional density is desired in order to provide larger apartments, to build more affordable units, to create more varied retail and to allow for better architecture. Still, he noted that plans were far from final." (emphasis added)
Indeed, they are not-and Extell better start using a pencil for the plans for this monstrosity, given the already gathering storm of local opposition: “We’re talking about an absolute nightmare—an absolute nightmare,” said Batya Lewton, vice president of the Coalition for a Livable West Side, a community group formed in 1981 to oppose a large planned project that preceded Television City. “They’re asking for, unbelievably, 2,300 more parking spaces in an area that is just so overwhelmed with traffic.”
Council member Gail Brewer is looking to be a formidable opponent, particularly on the Costco store: "As was the case in the 1990s, the area’s politicians will play a major role, particularly the local council member. Until the end of 2009, that’s Gale Brewer, who is anti-Costco and pushing for a commitment to build a school on the site, among other issues." If the ULURP spills over into 2010 a new council will be in place-and Brewer is term limited out. It's hard, however, to see someone taking her place who would support the Costco proposal, given the community's sentiments.
"Great Minds..."
Picking up on our commentary about the Bloomberg term limits charade, Newsday's Dan Janison (via Azi) blogs the following: "The latest less-than-subtle mark of the increasingly-far-fetched keep-Bloomberg-relevant campaign -- brought to you by his highly-compensated spin butlers -- comes in today's New York Sun, where a story states "The city's leading champion of term limits is privately signaling a new openness to a third term for Mayor Bloomberg," which of course goes against the two-term-limit law that the mayor has repeatedly said should not be changed."
Of course, as we have said and Janison avers, there's nothing to this except what it reveals about the sycophancy of some of NYC's wealthiest toadies: "Similar stories elsewhere have already made Bloomberg the next president, the next New York governor, and the next vice-president. Hizzoner is many things, but he is none of those. And he is leaving office at the end of next year, and there will be an election -- no matter how uncomfortable it makes certain members of the municipal oligarchy."
We love it-"spin butlers," and "municipal oligarchy." It's one of the reasons we loved Dan down at City Hall; and let's not forget that he coined the term "patricianage," to portray the way the Bloombergistas deeded over much of the city to Roth and Ross of Vornado and Related.
Of course, as we have said and Janison avers, there's nothing to this except what it reveals about the sycophancy of some of NYC's wealthiest toadies: "Similar stories elsewhere have already made Bloomberg the next president, the next New York governor, and the next vice-president. Hizzoner is many things, but he is none of those. And he is leaving office at the end of next year, and there will be an election -- no matter how uncomfortable it makes certain members of the municipal oligarchy."
We love it-"spin butlers," and "municipal oligarchy." It's one of the reasons we loved Dan down at City Hall; and let's not forget that he coined the term "patricianage," to portray the way the Bloombergistas deeded over much of the city to Roth and Ross of Vornado and Related.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Boxed in on Congestion
The cries for a congestion tax continue unabated-with the governor telling the NY Daily News that he'd like to see the Ravitch Commission re-intro the plan: "Gov. Paterson has a straightforward attitude when it comes to reviving talk of congestion pricing: Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines. Paterson, a backer of the original - and defeated - plan to charge drivers to enter gridlocked areas of Manhattan, Tuesday said he welcomes "any voice that wants to reintroduce it."
This call, likely to once again fall on deaf ears, is being revived because of the dire conditions of our trains and buses-and the expected increase in the city's population in the coming years: "We're going to have an extra million people living in New York City in the next decade, and we've got to figure out ways to move people around, and also accommodate the people in lower Manhattan [and] some of our security issues," he said."
The News editorializes in this dead end direction: "Increased ridership, spurred lately by soaring gasoline prices, is pushing the subway beyond limits. Thus, Transit resorts to trying to stuff in 18% more riders by eliminating seats. Which is a short-term fix born of desperation because Transit's parent, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, doesn't have the money to upgrade the system to run more trains safely on the same tracks."
Which leads the editorialists to conclude: "Ravitch has let it be known that the items under consideration include congestion pricing, a concept the state Assembly dumped without so much as a vote - in the process losing a bonanza in federal funding. The MTA is in such a deep hole that congestion pricing would be only part of a solution. But members of the Assembly, led by Speaker Sheldon Silver, are already ruling it out. They would rather see New Yorkers stand and sweat."
Of course, the idea of pumping more money into a failed managerial enterprise makes little sense to us. But if you're inclined in this direction than why not collect the so far uncollected Indian cigarette tax revenues before smacking tax payers once again right in the gob-something that the News doesn't address.
But, getting back to the governor's concerns about more population density, doesn't this fact make the proposed new Costco on the west side-and the two BJs in Brooklyn-poor public policy choices? The CBD is certainly no place for such auto dependent shopping; but the boroughs could use less of it as well, since these stores suck the bisiness out of the neighborhood shopping strips.
The problem, as we see it, lies with the sad fact that Mayor Mike has never lived in a real NYC neighborhood-the Upper East Side hardly qualifies. And when do you think the last time Bloomberg went shopping for groceries? Forty years ago? How can he understand the importance of the neighborhood supermarket to the ecology of the city's neighborhood? It underscores what we've observed about the mayor's sustainability hustle: it lacked any deep appreciation of the things that make the city both interesting and unique.
This call, likely to once again fall on deaf ears, is being revived because of the dire conditions of our trains and buses-and the expected increase in the city's population in the coming years: "We're going to have an extra million people living in New York City in the next decade, and we've got to figure out ways to move people around, and also accommodate the people in lower Manhattan [and] some of our security issues," he said."
The News editorializes in this dead end direction: "Increased ridership, spurred lately by soaring gasoline prices, is pushing the subway beyond limits. Thus, Transit resorts to trying to stuff in 18% more riders by eliminating seats. Which is a short-term fix born of desperation because Transit's parent, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, doesn't have the money to upgrade the system to run more trains safely on the same tracks."
Which leads the editorialists to conclude: "Ravitch has let it be known that the items under consideration include congestion pricing, a concept the state Assembly dumped without so much as a vote - in the process losing a bonanza in federal funding. The MTA is in such a deep hole that congestion pricing would be only part of a solution. But members of the Assembly, led by Speaker Sheldon Silver, are already ruling it out. They would rather see New Yorkers stand and sweat."
Of course, the idea of pumping more money into a failed managerial enterprise makes little sense to us. But if you're inclined in this direction than why not collect the so far uncollected Indian cigarette tax revenues before smacking tax payers once again right in the gob-something that the News doesn't address.
But, getting back to the governor's concerns about more population density, doesn't this fact make the proposed new Costco on the west side-and the two BJs in Brooklyn-poor public policy choices? The CBD is certainly no place for such auto dependent shopping; but the boroughs could use less of it as well, since these stores suck the bisiness out of the neighborhood shopping strips.
The problem, as we see it, lies with the sad fact that Mayor Mike has never lived in a real NYC neighborhood-the Upper East Side hardly qualifies. And when do you think the last time Bloomberg went shopping for groceries? Forty years ago? How can he understand the importance of the neighborhood supermarket to the ecology of the city's neighborhood? It underscores what we've observed about the mayor's sustainability hustle: it lacked any deep appreciation of the things that make the city both interesting and unique.
Extension Accord
In today's NY Sum, the paper reports on the efforts of former speaker Pewter Vallone to extend term limits for the city council: "A former speaker of the City Council, Peter Vallone Sr., is trying to pull together New Yorkers in an organized effort to extend term limits in the council. Mr. Vallone, who represented Astoria, Queens, between 1974 and 2001, says term limits cripple the council's ability to counterbalance the mayor's wing of City Hall. He wants to see term limits abolished altogether, but said he would be open to an effort to extend term limits to three terms, up from two."
And Vallone is absolutely right, even though his timing is probably not the best, given the scandals that have rolied the city's legislature over the discretionary spending funds that have been misused by some members. The mayor does have too much power and the council's term limits have resulted in one term speakers who have found it difficult to balance the best interests of the legislature with the self interests of the body's leadership.
What we've seen is one speaker going over backwards to oppose Mayor Mike, while his successor has headed too much in the opposite direction-often allowing city agencies to make law through regulation rather than through the proper legislative channels. One of the prime examples of this was the allowance given to the city's DOH to pass calorie posting regulations; simultaneously transcending and subverting the council's legislative prerogatives. The current confusion over the regs is a direct the result of the lack of proper council oversight.
In 2005, the council swallowed its whistle when the city went ahead and evicted tenants in the Bronx Terminal Market-without any public hearings on the lease abrogations that would appear to be mandated by the city charter. As a result of this nonfeasance, minority food wholesalers were scattered to the four winds, and city land was deeded to the Related Company for a great deal less than it was worth. The fact that the Bronx delegation had lockjaw on the issue should have given leadership a strong incentive to intervene with strong oversight. Instead the opposite occur ed-with only the "meddling" of Hiram Monseratte giving some support to the lone wolf efforts of Helen Foster to save the market.
Vallone's attempt, while quixotic in our view, should be supported for the next wave of 36 new council members. Here is where city government needs to be fixed; not with the self-serving efforts to extend an imperial mayoralty already suffering from dangerous regal pretensions.
And Vallone is absolutely right, even though his timing is probably not the best, given the scandals that have rolied the city's legislature over the discretionary spending funds that have been misused by some members. The mayor does have too much power and the council's term limits have resulted in one term speakers who have found it difficult to balance the best interests of the legislature with the self interests of the body's leadership.
What we've seen is one speaker going over backwards to oppose Mayor Mike, while his successor has headed too much in the opposite direction-often allowing city agencies to make law through regulation rather than through the proper legislative channels. One of the prime examples of this was the allowance given to the city's DOH to pass calorie posting regulations; simultaneously transcending and subverting the council's legislative prerogatives. The current confusion over the regs is a direct the result of the lack of proper council oversight.
In 2005, the council swallowed its whistle when the city went ahead and evicted tenants in the Bronx Terminal Market-without any public hearings on the lease abrogations that would appear to be mandated by the city charter. As a result of this nonfeasance, minority food wholesalers were scattered to the four winds, and city land was deeded to the Related Company for a great deal less than it was worth. The fact that the Bronx delegation had lockjaw on the issue should have given leadership a strong incentive to intervene with strong oversight. Instead the opposite occur ed-with only the "meddling" of Hiram Monseratte giving some support to the lone wolf efforts of Helen Foster to save the market.
Vallone's attempt, while quixotic in our view, should be supported for the next wave of 36 new council members. Here is where city government needs to be fixed; not with the self-serving efforts to extend an imperial mayoralty already suffering from dangerous regal pretensions.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Repeat Offenders
You have to give Mayor Mike's enables credit for persistence; they keep plugging away at the term limits repeal so they can keep their boy in power. As the NY Sun reports this morning, some of the cheerleaders believe that Ron Lauder won't stand in the way of a third Bloomberg term: "The city's leading champion of term limits is privately signaling a new openness to a third term for Mayor Bloomberg. Several business leaders who have spoken with businessman and philanthropist Ronald Lauder have left with the impression that he would not challenge an effort to extend term limits by a referendum, a source with knowledge of the conversations said."
The trial balloon, however, was instantly burst by a Lauder spokesperson: "A spokesman for Mr. Lauder, Nelson Warfield, said anyone trying to tinker with term limits would face resistance from Mr. Lauder. "These un-named business leaders should leave impressions to comedians. They are totally off-base," Mr. Warfield wrote in an e-mail message yesterday. "Mr. Lauder will defend the voters' choice of a two-term limit for city politicians as-is. And the in-depth polling we have done shows voters won't tolerate any tinkering with the law. Do these people really think voters want to reward the distinguished public servants who gave us the City Council slush fund scandal with more time in office?"
The quote here is on the money, since any mayoral extension would have to include one for the council as well-something that would be likely an anathema to voters. Which leads us to the wisdom behind the push for more of Mayor Mike.
The NY Post gets it just right this morning when it underscores the mayor's lack of government efficiency: "But Mike says the city has acted differently, having saved and paid down debt during "the good times" and tightened its belt when "storm clouds" gathered. The truth? On his watch, City Hall's budget soared some 44 percent, from $43 billion in '02 to $62 billion this year - more than twice as fast as inflation. Per-capita debt through '07 alone grew 40 percent, from $5,083 to $7,096. And Bloomberg, by the way, knows very well where most of the federal non-defense spending goes: to the very social programs - entitlements in particular - he wants to expand."
It's quite clear that Bloomberg checked all of his considerable fiscal acumen at the door when he entered city hall in 2002. His view of government is expansive and paternalistic when it comes to social services; a liberal view that somehow masks the extent to which his economic development policies aggrandize all of those who are plotting for his retention. The bifurcated policy perspective is a synthesis of approaches that achieves nothing but composite error.
The Post captures this nicely: "Mike says nothing about DC's monster outlays for health, welfare, education, housing, etc. Indeed, he recently called for a new definition of poverty that would bloat the number of officially poor New Yorkers (those eligible for public aid) by more than 21 percent. True, most New York pols would have spent even more recklessly than Mike. (Those in Albany sure have.) But that's scant grounds for boasting. And the fact that Mike understands the harm in unchecked spending makes his own fiscal record all the more shameful."
The trial balloon, however, was instantly burst by a Lauder spokesperson: "A spokesman for Mr. Lauder, Nelson Warfield, said anyone trying to tinker with term limits would face resistance from Mr. Lauder. "These un-named business leaders should leave impressions to comedians. They are totally off-base," Mr. Warfield wrote in an e-mail message yesterday. "Mr. Lauder will defend the voters' choice of a two-term limit for city politicians as-is. And the in-depth polling we have done shows voters won't tolerate any tinkering with the law. Do these people really think voters want to reward the distinguished public servants who gave us the City Council slush fund scandal with more time in office?"
The quote here is on the money, since any mayoral extension would have to include one for the council as well-something that would be likely an anathema to voters. Which leads us to the wisdom behind the push for more of Mayor Mike.
The NY Post gets it just right this morning when it underscores the mayor's lack of government efficiency: "But Mike says the city has acted differently, having saved and paid down debt during "the good times" and tightened its belt when "storm clouds" gathered. The truth? On his watch, City Hall's budget soared some 44 percent, from $43 billion in '02 to $62 billion this year - more than twice as fast as inflation. Per-capita debt through '07 alone grew 40 percent, from $5,083 to $7,096. And Bloomberg, by the way, knows very well where most of the federal non-defense spending goes: to the very social programs - entitlements in particular - he wants to expand."
It's quite clear that Bloomberg checked all of his considerable fiscal acumen at the door when he entered city hall in 2002. His view of government is expansive and paternalistic when it comes to social services; a liberal view that somehow masks the extent to which his economic development policies aggrandize all of those who are plotting for his retention. The bifurcated policy perspective is a synthesis of approaches that achieves nothing but composite error.
The Post captures this nicely: "Mike says nothing about DC's monster outlays for health, welfare, education, housing, etc. Indeed, he recently called for a new definition of poverty that would bloat the number of officially poor New Yorkers (those eligible for public aid) by more than 21 percent. True, most New York pols would have spent even more recklessly than Mike. (Those in Albany sure have.) But that's scant grounds for boasting. And the fact that Mike understands the harm in unchecked spending makes his own fiscal record all the more shameful."
Point Unpleasant
While the Committee to Save Willets Point held a presser yesterday in front of Borough Hall to protest the failure of EDC to protect the interests of the businesses that rent over in the Iron Triangle, it was learned that the crack city agency had a deal that appears to be unravelling with one Point firm, According to Crain's: "The largest land acquisition agreement the city had reached so far in its attempt to remake Willets Point is in danger of falling apart. The Economic Development Corp. has run into problems with the site in College Point where it planned to relocate Sambucci Bros. Inc. Salvage, an auto parts business that sprawls across 52,000 square feet, according to one of the salvage yard’s owners."
How nice! Nothing like proper due diligence. What this means is that the fate of the Willets Point land use application remains problematic-with Council member Monseratte's opposition being supported by 29 signatories to a letter that refuses to support the development until some basic issues are resolved.
One of these issues is the fate of the renters-and the 1500 workers that would be out of work and out of luck if the plan goes through unimpeded. Many of these folks showed up yesterday with their children to protest the use of ED to extinguish what Monseratte called, "their American Dream" Clearly, this is in itself a great deal of economic development-although it doesn't rise to the level that the mayor and his minions feel is worthy of consideration. In their view 1500 immigrant workers are "blight."
And the potential failure of the Sambucci deal is definitely symbolic of EDC's competence-and doesn't bode well for the agency's willingness and ability to properly resolve the fate of existing Point businesses. As Crain's points out: "The deal hit a snag when Sambucci Bros. learned that the College Point Industrial Park site is located within an Urban Renewal Zone that excludes salvage yards, according to City Councilman Hiram Monserrate, D-Queens...The Sambucci deal—for two parcels totaling more than 52,000 square feet—is by far the largest of four acquisition agreements the EDC has negotiated. It provided a public relations boost for the city in advance of key June community board meetings."
Still, eminent domain use remains the major sticking point: "Eminent domain remains perhaps the largest obstacle to the city gaining approval for the project. A majority of City Council members signed a letter opposing the redevelopment in large part due to the EDC’s insistence on using eminent domain if all other efforts fail. And while the project has successfully passed through the first two steps of the land use review process, it has not done so without criticism. In approving the city’s plan, both Queens Community Board 7 and Queens Borough President Helen Marshall expressed concern over eminent domain."
Which means to us that the plan (although we use that term lightly since there really isn't any true development proposal to be vetted here), can well join with the other Bloomberg mega disasters unless the issues are resolved more favorably to the local firms. It certainly should go down, because shots in the dark like these don't deserve council approval.
How nice! Nothing like proper due diligence. What this means is that the fate of the Willets Point land use application remains problematic-with Council member Monseratte's opposition being supported by 29 signatories to a letter that refuses to support the development until some basic issues are resolved.
One of these issues is the fate of the renters-and the 1500 workers that would be out of work and out of luck if the plan goes through unimpeded. Many of these folks showed up yesterday with their children to protest the use of ED to extinguish what Monseratte called, "their American Dream" Clearly, this is in itself a great deal of economic development-although it doesn't rise to the level that the mayor and his minions feel is worthy of consideration. In their view 1500 immigrant workers are "blight."
And the potential failure of the Sambucci deal is definitely symbolic of EDC's competence-and doesn't bode well for the agency's willingness and ability to properly resolve the fate of existing Point businesses. As Crain's points out: "The deal hit a snag when Sambucci Bros. learned that the College Point Industrial Park site is located within an Urban Renewal Zone that excludes salvage yards, according to City Councilman Hiram Monserrate, D-Queens...The Sambucci deal—for two parcels totaling more than 52,000 square feet—is by far the largest of four acquisition agreements the EDC has negotiated. It provided a public relations boost for the city in advance of key June community board meetings."
Still, eminent domain use remains the major sticking point: "Eminent domain remains perhaps the largest obstacle to the city gaining approval for the project. A majority of City Council members signed a letter opposing the redevelopment in large part due to the EDC’s insistence on using eminent domain if all other efforts fail. And while the project has successfully passed through the first two steps of the land use review process, it has not done so without criticism. In approving the city’s plan, both Queens Community Board 7 and Queens Borough President Helen Marshall expressed concern over eminent domain."
Which means to us that the plan (although we use that term lightly since there really isn't any true development proposal to be vetted here), can well join with the other Bloomberg mega disasters unless the issues are resolved more favorably to the local firms. It certainly should go down, because shots in the dark like these don't deserve council approval.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Calorie Caveats
When the calorie posting regulation was first proposed we outlined how inexact, and ultimately unhelpful, the measure would be. Now that it's in effect, the critics are coming. As the Gotham Gazette points out: "The rule that went into effect on March 31 requires restaurants with 15 or more franchises nation-wide to post calorie data on menus. Concerned about the city's obesity epidemic, the Board of Health reasoned that people might shun some foods in favor of healthier ones if they knew just how many calories lurked beneath a Big Mac's special sauce and sesame seed bun. But while mandating that calorie data be displayed, the law does not address many issues surrounding the accuracy of the counts. Many nutritionists laud the city's efforts to help New Yorkers eat better, but critics say the law was hastily crafted and will be impossible to enforce."
Well, well-just as we had said but no one wanted to listen: "Meanwhile, consumers will need to realize that all calorie counts are not created equal. Calorie data on New York's menus are subject to far less scrutiny than the nutrition labels on products sold in grocery stores." Not only that, but the information itself isn't really that good for folks who want to use it to eat better.
The fact is, all calories aren't created equal; and the accuracy of the counts can lead, as the National Restaurant Association had argued, to all kinds of legal liabilities-including a liability for the city: "The city's new regulation could be food for lawsuits. Consumers who think a misleading calorie count constituted false advertising could take legal action against restaurants and the city. And since the rule does not set accuracy standards, it could feed disputes between restaurant owners and inspectors with differing interpretations of how precise the data must be...But since the New York City health department mandates and regulates the calorie information, the city could be at legal risk as well as its restaurants."
The road to hell, and all that. This fiasco is just starting, and the light at the end of the tunnel is a fast moving legal train.
Well, well-just as we had said but no one wanted to listen: "Meanwhile, consumers will need to realize that all calorie counts are not created equal. Calorie data on New York's menus are subject to far less scrutiny than the nutrition labels on products sold in grocery stores." Not only that, but the information itself isn't really that good for folks who want to use it to eat better.
The fact is, all calories aren't created equal; and the accuracy of the counts can lead, as the National Restaurant Association had argued, to all kinds of legal liabilities-including a liability for the city: "The city's new regulation could be food for lawsuits. Consumers who think a misleading calorie count constituted false advertising could take legal action against restaurants and the city. And since the rule does not set accuracy standards, it could feed disputes between restaurant owners and inspectors with differing interpretations of how precise the data must be...But since the New York City health department mandates and regulates the calorie information, the city could be at legal risk as well as its restaurants."
The road to hell, and all that. This fiasco is just starting, and the light at the end of the tunnel is a fast moving legal train.
Air Lift for New Supermarkets?
In this morning's NY Sun, the paper reports about the potential sale and use of air rights currently under the aegis of NYCHA: "One of the last substantial pools of development rights in Manhattan — the equivalent in size to 11 Empire State Buildings — may find its way onto the open market over the next several years, compliments of the New York City Housing Authority.
The Housing Authority, which manages nearly 200,000 subsidized apartments in New York City, has plans to plug its $195 million budget gap by selling off development rights that are available at dozens of its affordable housing sites all over Manhattan, according to a report released by the office of the Manhattan borough president, Scott Stringer."
BP Stringer is rightly concerned about how these air rights might be used-and potentially misused-since the rights are not subject to the city's ULURP procedures: "These rights could be worth "billions" of dollars, according to Mr. Stringer, who is concerned the vast amount of space will be developed in a fashion that neglects public input. He is seeking increased oversight by elected officials in the approaching sale of the development rights."
Oversight is badly needed; and the use of these development rights to promote the building of new supermarkets needs to be made part of the agenda-particularly since the neighborhoods in question are some of those that the city has identified as being understored for food stores: "According to the report, 85% of the Housing Agency's unused development rights are spread across four districts: East Harlem, the Lower East Side, Central Harlem, and the Upper West Side."
Since the mayor controls the NYCHA board, the Bloomberg administration needs to step up and include the NYCHA development opportunity as part of its supermarket initiative. Action is needed in the short term, particularly in East Harlem where markets are disappearing rapidly. The ball is in the mayor's court here.
The Housing Authority, which manages nearly 200,000 subsidized apartments in New York City, has plans to plug its $195 million budget gap by selling off development rights that are available at dozens of its affordable housing sites all over Manhattan, according to a report released by the office of the Manhattan borough president, Scott Stringer."
BP Stringer is rightly concerned about how these air rights might be used-and potentially misused-since the rights are not subject to the city's ULURP procedures: "These rights could be worth "billions" of dollars, according to Mr. Stringer, who is concerned the vast amount of space will be developed in a fashion that neglects public input. He is seeking increased oversight by elected officials in the approaching sale of the development rights."
Oversight is badly needed; and the use of these development rights to promote the building of new supermarkets needs to be made part of the agenda-particularly since the neighborhoods in question are some of those that the city has identified as being understored for food stores: "According to the report, 85% of the Housing Agency's unused development rights are spread across four districts: East Harlem, the Lower East Side, Central Harlem, and the Upper West Side."
Since the mayor controls the NYCHA board, the Bloomberg administration needs to step up and include the NYCHA development opportunity as part of its supermarket initiative. Action is needed in the short term, particularly in East Harlem where markets are disappearing rapidly. The ball is in the mayor's court here.
Ratcheting Up the Pressure on the Black Market
In the NY Post this morning, Mayor Mike and Congressman Peter King collaborate on an Op-Ed that makes a strong case against Indian tax avoiders. And they do so in the context of the MTA's budget short fall: "We're hopeful that the Ravitch commission will develop ideas for innovative and long-term funding streams. In the meantime, here's one idea we hope that state leaders will consider: Start collecting tobacco taxes on the state's Indian reservations - and dedicate a portion of that revenue to the MTA. For years, the state has refused to collect taxes on cigarettes sold to non-residents of Indian reservations - despite a 1994 US Supreme Court ruling that states have the right to collect these taxes."
Here, here! It's about time that top law makers made this a strong push-but they're gonna need some help since spinelessness still rules the state capitol. And kudos to Bloomberg and King for recognizing how much this evasion hurts small businesses, the public health and home land security: "Failure to collect the tax not only hurts public health, it hurts the rest of the state's small businesses, who must sell cigarettes at far higher prices. Worse, there's reason to believe that tobacco smugglers are funneling profits from Indian reservation sales to terrorist organizations overseas. For all of these reasons - public health, economic fairness and national security - it's time to start collecting the tax, which could total an estimated $800 million or more this year, enough to plug the MTA's current deficit."
It's what we've been saying for years, and its past time for the state to act. The Alliance plans to help jump start the political effort in this important policy area.
Here, here! It's about time that top law makers made this a strong push-but they're gonna need some help since spinelessness still rules the state capitol. And kudos to Bloomberg and King for recognizing how much this evasion hurts small businesses, the public health and home land security: "Failure to collect the tax not only hurts public health, it hurts the rest of the state's small businesses, who must sell cigarettes at far higher prices. Worse, there's reason to believe that tobacco smugglers are funneling profits from Indian reservation sales to terrorist organizations overseas. For all of these reasons - public health, economic fairness and national security - it's time to start collecting the tax, which could total an estimated $800 million or more this year, enough to plug the MTA's current deficit."
It's what we've been saying for years, and its past time for the state to act. The Alliance plans to help jump start the political effort in this important policy area.
Plated Gold Strategy
You know that all of the zoning out of fast food chains may be for nought if the NY Times story from yesterday is on the money. It seems that Americans are getting fat for a pretty good reason: "In 1970, the average American ate about 16.4 pounds of food a week, or 2.3 pounds daily. By 2006, the average intake grew by an additional 1.8 pounds a week."
So we're getting fatter because, well, we're eating more-and moving less as well: "The numbers don't reveal how much grain went into bread versus cookies, or how many chicken breasts became chicken nuggets. But the overall increase in eating does suggest a link with the rise in Americans' weight over the same period."
Which gets us back to the fact that, if we're going to reduce the obesity epidemic, it's gonna have to begin at the level of individual consciousness-along with a good dose of public education. The restrictive policy approach will likely fall flat; hurting only the business that are unfairly blamed for people's bad habits.
So we're getting fatter because, well, we're eating more-and moving less as well: "The numbers don't reveal how much grain went into bread versus cookies, or how many chicken breasts became chicken nuggets. But the overall increase in eating does suggest a link with the rise in Americans' weight over the same period."
Which gets us back to the fact that, if we're going to reduce the obesity epidemic, it's gonna have to begin at the level of individual consciousness-along with a good dose of public education. The restrictive policy approach will likely fall flat; hurting only the business that are unfairly blamed for people's bad habits.
Chain of Fools?
We have already commented on the efforts of the LA City Council to restrict fast food restaurants in some parts of its city. Now, the DMI weigh in with a more detailed look at how zoning is/can be used to create a more desirable retail environment: "Cities have always used regulations and zoning ordinances to control the number and type of businesses in their communities. These laws usually aim to reduce the impact of more “undesirable” establishments on neighborhoods. Cities regularly limit how close liquor stores may be to schools and churches while zoning laws banish adult video stores to the fringes of the city."
Given the fact that, according to numerous press reports, chain stores are squeezing out local businesses, does it make sense to zone them out? Here's the DMI take: "The San Francisco Board of Supervisors thinks so. In 2004, San Francisco passed an ordinance to ban chain stores, or what the law called “formula retail”, from certain neighborhoods. In neighborhoods where chain stores aren’t banned outright, proposed new chain stores must go through a review process with public hearings. The Planning Commission gets the final say, weighing whether a store fits in with a neighborhood’s character. The anti-chain store measures are contentious among San Franciscans, especially those wishing to purchase a can of paint."
And the reason why it might make sense is the fact that, according to Stacy Mitchell and the Institute for Local Self Reliance, local stores contribute more to a city's economy than do chains or box stores. Here's the DMI on this issue: "Studies have found that local businesses contribute more of their profits back into the local economy than national chains. A study of Austin small-businesses found that for every $100 in sales, local businesses pump $30 back into the local economy, whereas national chains only spent $9 locally."
The attempt to limit chain store proliferation will not be easy: "It is true, many people simply prefer chain stores. Prices at large retailers are generally lower (though I can get some good deals at my local 99¢ store). The merchandise is arranged attractively and the aisles are wide. You can purchase all kinds of different goods at large retailers, from milk to DVD’s to a coffee table."
That being said, the diversity and the vibrancy of city neighborhoods can be the ultimate culprit of the proliferation: "The result is the dying-out of small neighborhood businesses, both because they lose sales to price-cutting national retailers, but also because landlords can ask for more rent from large chains. New York Councilmember Gail Brewer commented of the process, “It destroys neighborhoods; it destroys families.” Another result is a bland landscape of endless blocks filled with stores no different than those in any other city, suburb, exurb, or rural town center."
DMI also links to a NY Times story on the metastasizing of bank branches (and just a few short years ago we were all agog over redlining). Between the banks and the drug stores, there's no room for independents; not to mention local supermarkets unable to compete with the ability of the chains to pay higher rents. Clearly, there's a big problem here that needs to be addressed; something that the current mayor is won't to do.
Given the fact that, according to numerous press reports, chain stores are squeezing out local businesses, does it make sense to zone them out? Here's the DMI take: "The San Francisco Board of Supervisors thinks so. In 2004, San Francisco passed an ordinance to ban chain stores, or what the law called “formula retail”, from certain neighborhoods. In neighborhoods where chain stores aren’t banned outright, proposed new chain stores must go through a review process with public hearings. The Planning Commission gets the final say, weighing whether a store fits in with a neighborhood’s character. The anti-chain store measures are contentious among San Franciscans, especially those wishing to purchase a can of paint."
And the reason why it might make sense is the fact that, according to Stacy Mitchell and the Institute for Local Self Reliance, local stores contribute more to a city's economy than do chains or box stores. Here's the DMI on this issue: "Studies have found that local businesses contribute more of their profits back into the local economy than national chains. A study of Austin small-businesses found that for every $100 in sales, local businesses pump $30 back into the local economy, whereas national chains only spent $9 locally."
The attempt to limit chain store proliferation will not be easy: "It is true, many people simply prefer chain stores. Prices at large retailers are generally lower (though I can get some good deals at my local 99¢ store). The merchandise is arranged attractively and the aisles are wide. You can purchase all kinds of different goods at large retailers, from milk to DVD’s to a coffee table."
That being said, the diversity and the vibrancy of city neighborhoods can be the ultimate culprit of the proliferation: "The result is the dying-out of small neighborhood businesses, both because they lose sales to price-cutting national retailers, but also because landlords can ask for more rent from large chains. New York Councilmember Gail Brewer commented of the process, “It destroys neighborhoods; it destroys families.” Another result is a bland landscape of endless blocks filled with stores no different than those in any other city, suburb, exurb, or rural town center."
DMI also links to a NY Times story on the metastasizing of bank branches (and just a few short years ago we were all agog over redlining). Between the banks and the drug stores, there's no room for independents; not to mention local supermarkets unable to compete with the ability of the chains to pay higher rents. Clearly, there's a big problem here that needs to be addressed; something that the current mayor is won't to do.
Obsessive Congestion Disorder
The mayor can't seem to let his pet compulsion go. As Liz reported last week, Bloomberg's apparently looking to resurrect his congestion tax plan: "The Bloomberg administration is continuing its efforts to keep the idea of congestion pricing alive following its defeat in Albany earlier this year."
Just how does he plan doing this? As Liz told us: "I'm told that the mayor won't likely seek to personally bring back his pay-to-drive plan, but believes it will likely be resuscitated by the Ravitch Commission, the 13-member body created by Gov. David Paterson (who did support congestion pricing) to review the MTA's financing and recommend strategies to pay for its operating needs and capital projects over the next decade." That's great, but it still doesn't guarantee legislative approval even if this commission supports the congestion tax concept.
A better idea would be the one we have suggested: use the Indian cigarette tax monies to create a dedicated fund for support of mass transit. The estimates run as high as $600 million a year, and would put the congestion tax revenue to shame; without the cameras and tax impositions of the mayor's silly scheme. In addition, it would be the biggest boost to local convenience stores, bodegas and newsstands, businesses that have been hard hit by the tax avoidance scam of the Indians.
PlaNYC 2030, a slick PR effort to convince the world of Bloomberg's environmental bona fides, is missing a key ingredient when it comes to the neighborhoods of the city. Environmental sustainability needs to be inexorably linked with the preservation of local neighborhood-based shopping. Much of the shopping is not car dependent, and the ecology of local shopping strips should be advanced as part of the mayor's putative environmental agenda-but it is not; and the continued chain store malling of the city threatens all of the vibrancy of the local neighborhood commercial strips.
The supermarket is the linchpin of the local shopping strip-driving traffic into the other stores and building up the strength of the neighborhood economy. For the mayor to support the box stores, is to put him into direct contradiction with his professed environmental principles. These stores suck the business from local supermarkets and erode neighborhood shopping, while insuring that people will have to drive to take care of their shopping needs.
Bloomberg, however, simply can't help himself. When a big business comes to the fore the mayor's right there shilling on its behalf, even if some other desirable goal he has articulated must be jettisoned. In this case, both of his faces need better make up.
Just how does he plan doing this? As Liz told us: "I'm told that the mayor won't likely seek to personally bring back his pay-to-drive plan, but believes it will likely be resuscitated by the Ravitch Commission, the 13-member body created by Gov. David Paterson (who did support congestion pricing) to review the MTA's financing and recommend strategies to pay for its operating needs and capital projects over the next decade." That's great, but it still doesn't guarantee legislative approval even if this commission supports the congestion tax concept.
A better idea would be the one we have suggested: use the Indian cigarette tax monies to create a dedicated fund for support of mass transit. The estimates run as high as $600 million a year, and would put the congestion tax revenue to shame; without the cameras and tax impositions of the mayor's silly scheme. In addition, it would be the biggest boost to local convenience stores, bodegas and newsstands, businesses that have been hard hit by the tax avoidance scam of the Indians.
Still, as the NY Times reported yesterday, the congestion tax has a particular resonance for what Assemblyman Richard Brodsky terms, the"political class:" “Clearly I think that on many levels of the political class, this has support that other taxes, for example, the millionaires’ tax, doesn’t,” said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat who was a leader in opposing the plan. He was referring to a Democratic proposal, opposed by Gov. David A. Paterson, to raise taxes on the wealthy. “It’s an issue of fundamental fairness,” Mr. Brodsky added. “The millionaires’ tax raises more revenue solely from the super rich. Yet the political class in New York City, the mayor’s office being the head of it, comes back with congestion pricing again.”
"The mayor's office being the head of it!" Just so. It's the most obvious manifestation of special interest politics at work-a commission of the swells. Here's the mayor's world view with some clarity: “Unless the commission, which is actually made up of some very smart people, unless they can discover the fountain of youth, I think that that’s exactly what is going to come out of it,” Mr. Bloomberg added." Smart is usually used to connote, in this type of context, folks who see the world the way you do
Which brings us inevitably back to the mayor's support of the proposal to build a Costco store on the West Side (and can his support for two new Brooklyn BJs Warehouse Clubs be far behind?). The idea of allowing for the construction of an auto dependent box store in the CBD is crazy, even if the person cheer leading wasn't busy styling about the evils of congestion. The same holds true for the two Brooklyn stores.PlaNYC 2030, a slick PR effort to convince the world of Bloomberg's environmental bona fides, is missing a key ingredient when it comes to the neighborhoods of the city. Environmental sustainability needs to be inexorably linked with the preservation of local neighborhood-based shopping. Much of the shopping is not car dependent, and the ecology of local shopping strips should be advanced as part of the mayor's putative environmental agenda-but it is not; and the continued chain store malling of the city threatens all of the vibrancy of the local neighborhood commercial strips.
The supermarket is the linchpin of the local shopping strip-driving traffic into the other stores and building up the strength of the neighborhood economy. For the mayor to support the box stores, is to put him into direct contradiction with his professed environmental principles. These stores suck the business from local supermarkets and erode neighborhood shopping, while insuring that people will have to drive to take care of their shopping needs.
Bloomberg, however, simply can't help himself. When a big business comes to the fore the mayor's right there shilling on its behalf, even if some other desirable goal he has articulated must be jettisoned. In this case, both of his faces need better make up.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Deal or No Deal?
Crain's Insider is also reporting that a decision on the developer designation is nearing on the Uptown USA project in East Harlem: "The city Economic Development Corp. is a month away from choosing a developer for six acres in East Harlem. Vornado Realty Trust, Thor Equities and General Growth Properties are said to be the finalists to build 1.7 million square feet of “targeted income” housing, 470,000 square feet of retail, and 300,000 square feet of office space on three parcels running north and west from East 125th Street and Second Avenue. Local Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito supports the development."
The question here is whether the designation of Vornado will change the equation; and whether the developer's decision to evict a local Key Food store in the Bronx will come back to haunt it. The support of the councilwoman may hang in the balance here.
The question here is whether the designation of Vornado will change the equation; and whether the developer's decision to evict a local Key Food store in the Bronx will come back to haunt it. The support of the councilwoman may hang in the balance here.
Stopping BJs
As Crain's Insider is reporting there's a move afoot to stop the proliferation of BJs Warehouse Clubs in Brooklyn. As Crain's points out: "United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 is gearing up to stop two BJ’s Wholesale Club locations from opening in Brooklyn. One project, in Bensonhurst, requires City Council approval. UFCW is counting on Councilman Domenic Recchia to ensure that BJ’s won’t be a tenant. Recchia is a friend of labor but also of developer Joe Sitt. UFCW’s Pat Purcell says BJ’s pays poorly and shuns low-income customers by charging a membership fee and not accepting food stamps. The union is also trying to keep BJ’s out of the Brooklyn Terminal Market in Canarsie. “We will spare no expense,” Purcell vows."
What the UFCW is trying to do is to prevent the further erosion of neighborhood supermarkets. In a two mile radius of the Brooklyn Terminal Market there are 26 local stores that will be put at risk by the box store. At the same time that the mayor, and his able aide Ben Thomasses, are talking about supermarket preservation, there's no effort to curtail the box stores that will put these stores at greater risk. Something needs to be done, and the Alliance will be part of this effort.
What the UFCW is trying to do is to prevent the further erosion of neighborhood supermarkets. In a two mile radius of the Brooklyn Terminal Market there are 26 local stores that will be put at risk by the box store. At the same time that the mayor, and his able aide Ben Thomasses, are talking about supermarket preservation, there's no effort to curtail the box stores that will put these stores at greater risk. Something needs to be done, and the Alliance will be part of this effort.
Not Suitable
Another attempt to shut down the Indian sale of non taxable smokes was shot down by (via Azi) an upstate judge who claimed that the plaintiff lacked standing. The big losers? New York's tax payers: "A State Supreme Court justice has dismissed a state lawmaker’s lawsuit seeking to force the collection of taxes on cigarettes sold by Indian retailers. The legal victory for the retailers, as well as the administration of Gov. David A. Paterson, means the state Department of Taxation and Finance can continue not to enforce the 2005 law, overwhelmingly passed the State Legislature, that required the state to begin collecting the excise taxes on tobacco sales to non-Indians. Lawmakers say the state loses at least $400 million a year by failing to collect the taxes."
All hope is not lost, however. Governor Paterson, faced with a huge fiscal shortfall, actually has a chunk of this tax revenue penciled in for collection: "Paterson’s victory, however, could be mixed. Like Eliot L. Spitzer and George E. Pataki, the state’s two previous governors, Paterson has indicated he wants to collect the taxes but has backed away from any attempt to go after the revenue. Still, the governor has agreed to a budget for the current fiscal year that assumes the state will receive $120 million from such taxes. Just how remains uncertain." (emphasis added)
There's the rub, of course. With the state hemorrhaging money, Paterson's under a great deal of pressure to act in this egregious case of governmental nonfeasance: "The 2005 law, which took effect March 1, 2006, requires collecting the taxes at the wholesale level. It directed the Tax Department to print coupons and distribute them to Indians, who are legally exempted from taxes on cigarettes. But the department never sent out the coupons, thereby rendering the law unenforceable."
Everyone's intimidated here by terrorist threats-the Indians had violently protested the enforcement of the law in the nineties-actually shutting down the Thruway by burning tires. Jim Calvin of NYACS properly blasted the judge's pusillanimous ruling: "The New York State Association of Convenience Stores, which helped finance the legal challenge, blasted the ruling.
“The judicial branch just granted the executive branch the power to disregard an act of the legislative branch after it’s signed into law,” said James Calvin, the group’s president. “This has alarming constitutional implications far beyond this particular case. The message is that if the Legislature passes a law, and the governor signs it but just doesn’t feel like implementing it, no one has legal recourse — not even a legislator who voted to enact the statute on behalf of his or her constituents.”
What's needed here is a state wide coalition of folks-from tax payers to small business owners-to force the governor to grow a spine on this issue. Draconian measures are in the offing to cur costs, while a ready made revenue remedy is left off the table. It makes no sense.
All hope is not lost, however. Governor Paterson, faced with a huge fiscal shortfall, actually has a chunk of this tax revenue penciled in for collection: "Paterson’s victory, however, could be mixed. Like Eliot L. Spitzer and George E. Pataki, the state’s two previous governors, Paterson has indicated he wants to collect the taxes but has backed away from any attempt to go after the revenue. Still, the governor has agreed to a budget for the current fiscal year that assumes the state will receive $120 million from such taxes. Just how remains uncertain." (emphasis added)
There's the rub, of course. With the state hemorrhaging money, Paterson's under a great deal of pressure to act in this egregious case of governmental nonfeasance: "The 2005 law, which took effect March 1, 2006, requires collecting the taxes at the wholesale level. It directed the Tax Department to print coupons and distribute them to Indians, who are legally exempted from taxes on cigarettes. But the department never sent out the coupons, thereby rendering the law unenforceable."
Everyone's intimidated here by terrorist threats-the Indians had violently protested the enforcement of the law in the nineties-actually shutting down the Thruway by burning tires. Jim Calvin of NYACS properly blasted the judge's pusillanimous ruling: "The New York State Association of Convenience Stores, which helped finance the legal challenge, blasted the ruling.
“The judicial branch just granted the executive branch the power to disregard an act of the legislative branch after it’s signed into law,” said James Calvin, the group’s president. “This has alarming constitutional implications far beyond this particular case. The message is that if the Legislature passes a law, and the governor signs it but just doesn’t feel like implementing it, no one has legal recourse — not even a legislator who voted to enact the statute on behalf of his or her constituents.”
What's needed here is a state wide coalition of folks-from tax payers to small business owners-to force the governor to grow a spine on this issue. Draconian measures are in the offing to cur costs, while a ready made revenue remedy is left off the table. It makes no sense.
Market Vendors Triumph
It was an idiotic move to begin with-the EDC attempt to shut down La Marqueta in Brooklyn-and now, according to the NY Times, it appears that the vegetable vendors in the market that was established in the 1930s will be able to stay on: "The inventory at the Moore Street Retail Market is about to be restocked with the one must-have item that was fast running out: time. A year and a half after the city proposed closing this Depression-era public market on the eastern edge of Williamsburg, Brooklyn, to make way for rental housing, the market’s scrappy vendors are on the verge of signing a five-year lease (with an option for five more if things go well)."
The original move made little sense since the city is trying to insure that neighborhoods such as these have good access to the very same healthy fruits and veggies that Moore Street is known for; and kudos the the electeds who stepped up to fight for these small businesses: "...the vendors scrambled to rally friends and neighbors to preserve what they saw as their tropical town square. They gathered 25,000 signatures on a petition and appealed to local politicians like Representative Nydia M. Velázquez and Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez. They are good allies to have: She is the chairwoman of the House Committee on Small Business, and he is the chairman of the State Assembly’s Committee on Housing."
So another example of the Bloombergistas attempt to shut down the little guys is defeated, and we are all counting down the time for when the lame duck quacks will be heard no more. Hats off to Virigilio Rodriguez who led the fight: “I’m happier than a dog with two tails,” said Virgilio Rodriguez, the head of the vendors’ association. “They wanted to throw us out. Now we have a place that will give us life. This is our past, our present and our future.”
The original move made little sense since the city is trying to insure that neighborhoods such as these have good access to the very same healthy fruits and veggies that Moore Street is known for; and kudos the the electeds who stepped up to fight for these small businesses: "...the vendors scrambled to rally friends and neighbors to preserve what they saw as their tropical town square. They gathered 25,000 signatures on a petition and appealed to local politicians like Representative Nydia M. Velázquez and Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez. They are good allies to have: She is the chairwoman of the House Committee on Small Business, and he is the chairman of the State Assembly’s Committee on Housing."
So another example of the Bloombergistas attempt to shut down the little guys is defeated, and we are all counting down the time for when the lame duck quacks will be heard no more. Hats off to Virigilio Rodriguez who led the fight: “I’m happier than a dog with two tails,” said Virgilio Rodriguez, the head of the vendors’ association. “They wanted to throw us out. Now we have a place that will give us life. This is our past, our present and our future.”
Thursday, July 31, 2008
A Stamp of Disapproval
One of the issues that we haven't mentioned concerning our opposition to the proposed Costco on the West Side: food stamps. The store doesn't accept them, effectively redlining the folks that might be most in need of the putative bargains being offered. Here's what our friend Joel Berg, head of NYC Coalition Against Hunger wrote to us: "One other key point about Costco: their stores refuse to accept food stamp benefits. Given that one in eight New Yorkers use such benefits to survive, Costco seems to be excluding a whole lot of people from their stores."
In fact, when we helped to defeat the store in 1999, the food stamp issue helped to galvanize local community opposition. The NY Times captured this at the time: "But John Fisher, president of the Clinton Special District Coalition and one of the leaders in the anti-Costco campaign, said Mr. Brotman was missing the point. ''He didn't understand New York,'' Mr. Fisher said. ''It's not that people don't want lower prices.'' He said opponents were concerned about the traffic the stores would generate, the impact they would have on smaller stores, the $40 membership fee, the policy against accepting food stamps and Costco's nonunion labor force."
Council member Eric Gioia, one of the leaders of the fight to raise the food stamp allotment for the poor, has even petitioned Costco to change its policies. Here's the item from Berg's Hunger Blog: "City Councilman Eric Gioia recently wrote a letter to the president of Costco, the large discount warehouse retailer, asking the company to start accepting food stamps. After taking the Food Stamp Challenge and living on the average weekly allotment of $28, Gioia is even more sensitive to the fact that poor New Yorkers are unable to eat nutritious, balanced meals on such a meager budget. By getting discount retailers, such as Costco, to accept food stamps, poor New Yorkers will have access to healthy food at more affordable prices."
Costco said that it was considering it, but that was almost one year ago. We also need to remember that BJs, with a no food stamp policy, changed it for its Gateway Mall store in the Bronx in order to cobble the support needed to get the store approved.
One last point here. When the food stamp issue was first raised the last time, we highlighted the comments contained in one of Costco financial filings. The company pointed out to its shareholders that the food stamp policy helped it to reduce "slippage,' implying that by keeping the poor out it advanced the company's bottom line. Nice.
In fact, when we helped to defeat the store in 1999, the food stamp issue helped to galvanize local community opposition. The NY Times captured this at the time: "But John Fisher, president of the Clinton Special District Coalition and one of the leaders in the anti-Costco campaign, said Mr. Brotman was missing the point. ''He didn't understand New York,'' Mr. Fisher said. ''It's not that people don't want lower prices.'' He said opponents were concerned about the traffic the stores would generate, the impact they would have on smaller stores, the $40 membership fee, the policy against accepting food stamps and Costco's nonunion labor force."
Council member Eric Gioia, one of the leaders of the fight to raise the food stamp allotment for the poor, has even petitioned Costco to change its policies. Here's the item from Berg's Hunger Blog: "City Councilman Eric Gioia recently wrote a letter to the president of Costco, the large discount warehouse retailer, asking the company to start accepting food stamps. After taking the Food Stamp Challenge and living on the average weekly allotment of $28, Gioia is even more sensitive to the fact that poor New Yorkers are unable to eat nutritious, balanced meals on such a meager budget. By getting discount retailers, such as Costco, to accept food stamps, poor New Yorkers will have access to healthy food at more affordable prices."
Costco said that it was considering it, but that was almost one year ago. We also need to remember that BJs, with a no food stamp policy, changed it for its Gateway Mall store in the Bronx in order to cobble the support needed to get the store approved.
One last point here. When the food stamp issue was first raised the last time, we highlighted the comments contained in one of Costco financial filings. The company pointed out to its shareholders that the food stamp policy helped it to reduce "slippage,' implying that by keeping the poor out it advanced the company's bottom line. Nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
