In response to last week's eminent domain press conference and rally in East Harlem, the Epoch Times ran an interesting article on the event: "Community members protested a new Harlem development project on Wednesday that is being proposed to City council. The protesters claim that homes and businesses on 126th street and 3rd Avenue, including the NY Dry Cleaning Academy where the protest was held, are subject to threats of forceful eviction by the private development using eminent domain, if owners refuse to sell."
The East Harlem community protest underscores the extent to which the use of eminent domain is uniting small businesses and local communities. As Richard Lipsky told the ET, the East Harlem development on 125th street has no designated developer, and really no development plan: “Unlike other development projects, with a plan and proposed developer, with this East Harlem development project no plan has been made and no developer has been chosen. It could end up being some residential, some retail?” said Lipsky. “But in this current economic climate, one wonders what will come of it.”
In addition, it appears that Vornado Realty and Distrust will be the likely EDC designee for the site-yes, the same developer/landlord that's looking to evict the Key Food from a shopping center that it owns on Bruckner Boulevard. So once again the property of small business owners is being handed over to a multi-billion dollar real estate firm.
Now wouldn't it be poetic justice if a movement was started to condemn the Vornado-owned Bruckner shopping center? After all, since the definition of blight is so vague and the concept of public purpose undefinable, what would Vornado's defense be if condemnation was proposed for its property since the eviction of the Key Food threatens the public health of the Soundview neighborhood? What is more a public purpose than the promotion of public health? And, if an area lacks access to fresh fruits and vegetables, that certainly fits for us as a definition of a public health blight.
The taking away of the property of the little guys needs to cease and desist. In East Harlem it is a hard working Korean dry cleaner, along with nine other small shop owners, in the path of the
condemnation bulldozer: "Damon, a local business owner from NY Dry Cleaners Academy, explained his predicament. His is one of the businesses that will have to sell or be forced out if the plan is approved. “The city told me, ‘We don’t want to use eminent domain. Eminent domain will be used only as a last resort.’ That’s just like me holding a gun to your head telling you, ‘I don’t want to shoot you, don’t make me shoot you, I’ll only shoot you as a last resort if you don’t sell me your house at the price that I dictate.’” Damon continues, “Isn’t that what happens in all those mob movies? Aren’t they in fact just making me an offer I can’t refuse?”
Exactly so. And turning the tables on Vornado would be just the right move to focus attention on the theft of property from small owners-for when was the last time that any taking was done from the mega-rich? Councilman Monseratte gets the last word on this injustice: “Eminent domain, as it is currently practiced in New York State, is a deeply flawed law and must be changed to protect everyone’s home and business,” said Monseratte."
Monday, September 22, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Watch Out for the Undertow
It now appears that the Citizens Union is prepared to lead the charge against the extension of the term limits law. According to Liz: "Citizens Union is gearing up to play an active role in the still-brewing term limits battle and plans to not only voice its opposition to any legislative action but try to prevent it as well."
Hi Ho Silver! This may just be the beginning of a city wide grass roots movement to preserve the will of the people. Cu, along with other good government groups is setting up "citizen hearings: "Dadey also revealed that CU, Common Cause/NY, CU, and NYPIRG are setting up citizen-initiated public hearings on term limits "since there does not seem to be any effort afoot in the Council to hold a public meeting on the matter and take the temperature of New Yorkers." In a brief interview, Dadey said CU's goal is to create a unified yet diverse coalition of people who might not have very much more in common than the fact that happen to be on the same page regarding term limits."
Good for him, and caution for those who are headed forward unmindful of the potential wrath of the voters. Here's a portion of Dadey's Dear Colleagues letter: "As another part of our strategy, Common Cause/NY, CU, and NYPIRG, are in the process of lining up locations to hold citizen initiated town hall public hearings across the city so that New Yorkers can come and publicly declare their positions on the matter to us and their neighbors since there does not seem to be any effort afoot in the Council to hold a public meeting on the matter and take the temperature of New Yorkers."
We can wait to see the response of the Wylders, and those council members that appear to be scornful of the popular will. As Bill Thompson told Liz yesterday, the attempt to try to use the current fiscal mess to overturn the law, the so-called "Rudy defense," just doesn't wash: "I remember the same argument being made by former Mayor Giuliani and New York City appears to have survived and done well after that," Thompson said. "This isn't about an individual. This is about the people of this city, it's about this city. we're stronger than any one person...I think this city will continue to do well in the future, and while I think Mayor Bloomberg has done a good job, I think others could do well for New York City also."
And Thompson sent the following message to the city council: "I think the discussions right now about going to the City Council, and with all due respect to my colleagues on the Council, it's wrong. It's just a mistake. It would be, and I don't care how it would be dressed up, it would be a backroom deal. We can't engage in that. We need to respect what the voters of New York have said in the past, and that's where I stand, and I'm going to continue to stand there."
Can you get better political theater in NYC? Stay tuned; more turmoil and blow back is on the way.
Hi Ho Silver! This may just be the beginning of a city wide grass roots movement to preserve the will of the people. Cu, along with other good government groups is setting up "citizen hearings: "Dadey also revealed that CU, Common Cause/NY, CU, and NYPIRG are setting up citizen-initiated public hearings on term limits "since there does not seem to be any effort afoot in the Council to hold a public meeting on the matter and take the temperature of New Yorkers." In a brief interview, Dadey said CU's goal is to create a unified yet diverse coalition of people who might not have very much more in common than the fact that happen to be on the same page regarding term limits."
Good for him, and caution for those who are headed forward unmindful of the potential wrath of the voters. Here's a portion of Dadey's Dear Colleagues letter: "As another part of our strategy, Common Cause/NY, CU, and NYPIRG, are in the process of lining up locations to hold citizen initiated town hall public hearings across the city so that New Yorkers can come and publicly declare their positions on the matter to us and their neighbors since there does not seem to be any effort afoot in the Council to hold a public meeting on the matter and take the temperature of New Yorkers."
We can wait to see the response of the Wylders, and those council members that appear to be scornful of the popular will. As Bill Thompson told Liz yesterday, the attempt to try to use the current fiscal mess to overturn the law, the so-called "Rudy defense," just doesn't wash: "I remember the same argument being made by former Mayor Giuliani and New York City appears to have survived and done well after that," Thompson said. "This isn't about an individual. This is about the people of this city, it's about this city. we're stronger than any one person...I think this city will continue to do well in the future, and while I think Mayor Bloomberg has done a good job, I think others could do well for New York City also."
And Thompson sent the following message to the city council: "I think the discussions right now about going to the City Council, and with all due respect to my colleagues on the Council, it's wrong. It's just a mistake. It would be, and I don't care how it would be dressed up, it would be a backroom deal. We can't engage in that. We need to respect what the voters of New York have said in the past, and that's where I stand, and I'm going to continue to stand there."
Can you get better political theater in NYC? Stay tuned; more turmoil and blow back is on the way.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Timely Advice?
In what is likely not anything that will surprise anyone, the NY Times today editorializes in favor of raising city property taxes:
"It will be tough to tighten budgets as the region’s economies reel. But regional officials can find a good example to follow in New York City’s response to the combined effects of the bursting of the dot-com bubble, a recession and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It offers hope that the current crisis can be handled without undermining essential government functions.
Federal aid helped, but the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg also raised the property tax rate by 18.5 percent in January 2003. Health and education budgets were protected. Other expenditures, especially on police and other uniformed services were sharply cut."
So, let's get this straight. Health and education budgets were maintained while police and fire were cut, yet we didn't undermine essential government services? And now the Times is saying that, in the middle of what could certainly become a nasty recession, we should raise taxes again: "While the city is likely to have to cut spending again, there are potential sources of additional revenue available. Property tax rates were cut 7 percent in 2007. A property tax rebate was introduced in 2004. Reversing these two measures could raise more than $1.5 billion."
Great advice. And if the city council and the mayor go ahead and do it, while rescinding the referendum on term limits, we'd pay to watch the electoral fall out. Remember where the mayor's approval ratings were in 2002. This double whammy will send them back into the dumpster.
"It will be tough to tighten budgets as the region’s economies reel. But regional officials can find a good example to follow in New York City’s response to the combined effects of the bursting of the dot-com bubble, a recession and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It offers hope that the current crisis can be handled without undermining essential government functions.
Federal aid helped, but the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg also raised the property tax rate by 18.5 percent in January 2003. Health and education budgets were protected. Other expenditures, especially on police and other uniformed services were sharply cut."
So, let's get this straight. Health and education budgets were maintained while police and fire were cut, yet we didn't undermine essential government services? And now the Times is saying that, in the middle of what could certainly become a nasty recession, we should raise taxes again: "While the city is likely to have to cut spending again, there are potential sources of additional revenue available. Property tax rates were cut 7 percent in 2007. A property tax rebate was introduced in 2004. Reversing these two measures could raise more than $1.5 billion."
Great advice. And if the city council and the mayor go ahead and do it, while rescinding the referendum on term limits, we'd pay to watch the electoral fall out. Remember where the mayor's approval ratings were in 2002. This double whammy will send them back into the dumpster.
Coalition Builds Against Eminent Domain
Yesterday's hearing on eminent domain brought together a wide range of opponents concerned with the need to change the current law in order to better protect the property rights of New Yorkers. As the NY Observer reports: "State Senator Bill Perkins, along with Senators Velmanette Montgomery and Efrain Gonzales, held a hearing this morning in Harlem where he said he intends to create a commission to study reform of New York's eminent domain laws. While most states saw a backlash against its use following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. City of New London in 2005, New York's laws went unchanged."
Small business owners and residents from West and East Harlem, as well as Willets Point, went from the state senate hearing and held a street corner press conference in front of Fancy Cleaners on 126th Street and Third Avenue-a business threatened with closure if the East Harlem development is approved by the city council: "Then came a press conference in East Harlem, protesting the planned use of eminent domain at all of the projects around town, but particularly a rezoning of the eastern portions of 125th Street to make way for a large mixed-use project, which potentially needs forced acquisitions. Willets Point business owners, the major landowner in the Columbia footprint, Queens Councilman Hiram Monserrate and other advocates all chimed in."
New York 1's coverage of the press conference highlighted the common concerns: "Dozens gathered in Harlem Wednesday to take a stand against eminent domain. Community activists and city leaders joined community residents in protest of what they called the city's over-reaching use of eminent domain to seize property for private development...City Councilman Hiram Monseratte spoke out in support of the residents who fear the loss of their homes. 'You can't just go around taking people's property to hand it over to rich developers. That's unjust, and it ain't right and it's un-American...'"
And in today's NY Daily News Errol Louis, while overall in support of the use of eminent domain, makes this strong point about the need to change current law:
"In West Harlem, there are a couple of business owners who don't want to sell their property at any price, which Columbia and ESDC say would cripple the planned project. The most prominent holdout, a man named Nick Sprayregen, is a developer in his own right, with a considerable number of business ventures and commercial properties in Harlem, the Bronx and elsewhere.
Sprayregen has hired civil rights attorney and public advocate candidate Norman Siegel to battle ESDC and Columbia and a series of lawsuits have been launched, along with a frontal attack on New York's eminent domain laws. Siegel and Sprayregen are perfectly within their rights to try and rewrite the law, and a re-examination of the 40-year-old rules makes sense. New York, unlike most states, gives broad leeway to agencies like ESDC to define when and how eminent domain may be applied, and only a fleeting window of time for property owners to object.
Sprayregen himself underscores this point in his own Op-ed today in the News: "Sadly for all New Yorkers, our state is the most egregious perpetrator of eminent domain abuse in our country. I should know since for the last four years I have battled the state and Columbia University - a private entity - in their threatened use of eminent domain. Columbia wants my land in West Harlem to assist the school in a planned 17-acre expansion in the Manhattanville neighborhood."
And just what exactly is wrong here? "The game is rigged, in multiple ways. Start with how New York paves the way for private property to be condemned using eminent domain. In order to take a house or a business or a piece of land (and, yes, pay "fair market" value to the owner in return), the state must first make a determination that the area in question is "blighted." But what makes an area blighted? Nothing but the arbitrary determination of the state's Empire State Development Corp."
And from this vague starting point, the process actually gets worse: "And here's the most frustrating part of all. After an area is designated as blighted and condemnation proceedings are announced, the person whose property is being condemned has no power - zero - to challenge the condemnation in a trial court. This makes eminent domain proceedings in New York different from those in every other state that I am aware of. Instead, property owners are required to file the lawsuit at an appellate court - where no witnesses are allowed, there is no cross-examination, there is no opportunity to raise new evidence and there is no right to discovery. Adding insult to injury, one's attorney is allowed, at most, 10 minutes to speak to the judge. This is inherently unfair."
In the case of Columbia's expansion, a bad process was actually further corrupted by backroom collusion: "Indeed, the entire eminent domain process works backward. Instead of a town or city first coming up with a comprehensive plan that involves community input and is shaped and formed through a deliberative and democratic process (with the developer only chosen by competitive bidding at the end), large, politically connected private entities typically go straight to the municipality with a plan that they themselves have hatched. As a result, these plans principally benefit a developer, not the people."
Is it really surprising that the rebuttal to Sprayregen comes from Kathy Wylde, the leader of the group that benefits most from the unfairness of the current law? As she tells the News concerning Columbia's expansion: "And we should applaud the fact that the government does not have to use precious tax dollars to bring this project to fruition, but simply the power the Constitution has created to ensure that individuals cannot defy the public interest."
Only in Kathy in Wonderland's view could a perversion of the Constitution be construed as a defense of this country's basic principles. Wylde outlines the concerns of owners, but never discusses the process itself; and only reminds us that their is always "fair market value" paid for property taken: "Unfortunately, eminent domain is under attack. Property rights advocates believe it is unconstitutional to condemn private property for almost any purpose. Anti-development groups claim that it allows big government to collude with rich developers to override the interests of the little guy. Bills have been proposed in the state Legislature and the City Council that would limit the use of eminent domain and slow down economic development in New York at the worst possible point in the economic cycle."
Of course, there's a big jump from "almost any purpose," to purposes that bear little relationship to the public good-an elastic notion in the case of New York State's ED laws. No one is saying that the device should never be used, but a better law is certainly needed to protect what should be seen as a basic civil liberty-the right to own one's own property unfettered by a rapacious local government.
Small business owners and residents from West and East Harlem, as well as Willets Point, went from the state senate hearing and held a street corner press conference in front of Fancy Cleaners on 126th Street and Third Avenue-a business threatened with closure if the East Harlem development is approved by the city council: "Then came a press conference in East Harlem, protesting the planned use of eminent domain at all of the projects around town, but particularly a rezoning of the eastern portions of 125th Street to make way for a large mixed-use project, which potentially needs forced acquisitions. Willets Point business owners, the major landowner in the Columbia footprint, Queens Councilman Hiram Monserrate and other advocates all chimed in."
New York 1's coverage of the press conference highlighted the common concerns: "Dozens gathered in Harlem Wednesday to take a stand against eminent domain. Community activists and city leaders joined community residents in protest of what they called the city's over-reaching use of eminent domain to seize property for private development...City Councilman Hiram Monseratte spoke out in support of the residents who fear the loss of their homes. 'You can't just go around taking people's property to hand it over to rich developers. That's unjust, and it ain't right and it's un-American...'"
And in today's NY Daily News Errol Louis, while overall in support of the use of eminent domain, makes this strong point about the need to change current law:
"In West Harlem, there are a couple of business owners who don't want to sell their property at any price, which Columbia and ESDC say would cripple the planned project. The most prominent holdout, a man named Nick Sprayregen, is a developer in his own right, with a considerable number of business ventures and commercial properties in Harlem, the Bronx and elsewhere.
Sprayregen has hired civil rights attorney and public advocate candidate Norman Siegel to battle ESDC and Columbia and a series of lawsuits have been launched, along with a frontal attack on New York's eminent domain laws. Siegel and Sprayregen are perfectly within their rights to try and rewrite the law, and a re-examination of the 40-year-old rules makes sense. New York, unlike most states, gives broad leeway to agencies like ESDC to define when and how eminent domain may be applied, and only a fleeting window of time for property owners to object.
Sprayregen himself underscores this point in his own Op-ed today in the News: "Sadly for all New Yorkers, our state is the most egregious perpetrator of eminent domain abuse in our country. I should know since for the last four years I have battled the state and Columbia University - a private entity - in their threatened use of eminent domain. Columbia wants my land in West Harlem to assist the school in a planned 17-acre expansion in the Manhattanville neighborhood."
And just what exactly is wrong here? "The game is rigged, in multiple ways. Start with how New York paves the way for private property to be condemned using eminent domain. In order to take a house or a business or a piece of land (and, yes, pay "fair market" value to the owner in return), the state must first make a determination that the area in question is "blighted." But what makes an area blighted? Nothing but the arbitrary determination of the state's Empire State Development Corp."
And from this vague starting point, the process actually gets worse: "And here's the most frustrating part of all. After an area is designated as blighted and condemnation proceedings are announced, the person whose property is being condemned has no power - zero - to challenge the condemnation in a trial court. This makes eminent domain proceedings in New York different from those in every other state that I am aware of. Instead, property owners are required to file the lawsuit at an appellate court - where no witnesses are allowed, there is no cross-examination, there is no opportunity to raise new evidence and there is no right to discovery. Adding insult to injury, one's attorney is allowed, at most, 10 minutes to speak to the judge. This is inherently unfair."
In the case of Columbia's expansion, a bad process was actually further corrupted by backroom collusion: "Indeed, the entire eminent domain process works backward. Instead of a town or city first coming up with a comprehensive plan that involves community input and is shaped and formed through a deliberative and democratic process (with the developer only chosen by competitive bidding at the end), large, politically connected private entities typically go straight to the municipality with a plan that they themselves have hatched. As a result, these plans principally benefit a developer, not the people."
Is it really surprising that the rebuttal to Sprayregen comes from Kathy Wylde, the leader of the group that benefits most from the unfairness of the current law? As she tells the News concerning Columbia's expansion: "And we should applaud the fact that the government does not have to use precious tax dollars to bring this project to fruition, but simply the power the Constitution has created to ensure that individuals cannot defy the public interest."
Only in Kathy in Wonderland's view could a perversion of the Constitution be construed as a defense of this country's basic principles. Wylde outlines the concerns of owners, but never discusses the process itself; and only reminds us that their is always "fair market value" paid for property taken: "Unfortunately, eminent domain is under attack. Property rights advocates believe it is unconstitutional to condemn private property for almost any purpose. Anti-development groups claim that it allows big government to collude with rich developers to override the interests of the little guy. Bills have been proposed in the state Legislature and the City Council that would limit the use of eminent domain and slow down economic development in New York at the worst possible point in the economic cycle."
Of course, there's a big jump from "almost any purpose," to purposes that bear little relationship to the public good-an elastic notion in the case of New York State's ED laws. No one is saying that the device should never be used, but a better law is certainly needed to protect what should be seen as a basic civil liberty-the right to own one's own property unfettered by a rapacious local government.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. Indispensible
Mayor Mike appears to be milking the current fiscal mess for all it's worth. As the NY Times reports this morning, he's adopting the line of his acolytes that the current crisis needs a continuing firm hand-his:
"The mayor’s high visibility — and the near-collapse of two major New York City financial institutions — have stirred discussions among his advisers and outside analysts about whether the turmoil could strengthen the argument for Mr. Bloomberg to overturn the term limits law and serve four more years.Mr. Bloomberg, asked at a press conference Tuesday whether the Wall Street woes bolstered such a case, said he could see both sides. “There is an argument for experience,” he said. “There is an argument for change, and I think it’s purely a question of what you think the appropriate level of balance is.”
Is there any doubt where Bloomberg sees the balance lying? Councilman John Liu has another perspective: "A third term under those circumstances, they suggest, might be less than appealing — for Mr. Bloomberg and for voters. “As the economy goes south, so will his popularity ratings,” said City Councilman John C. Liu, a Democrat from Queens. “No one, not even this mayor, can control the economy.”
This is starting to shape up as a real political donnybrook; with the usual suspects puckering up in the usual ways: "Still, many of Mr. Bloomberg’s colleagues and associates see an opportunity in the current climate to make a case for a third term. “He is uniquely situated to understand this crisis and to cope with it,” said Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban policy at New York University and a former Bloomberg adviser."
All of which should make the upcoming round table discussion of term limits at Baruch College all the more interesting, with Councilman Koppell headlining: "While we're waiting for the bill to be drafted, Koppell is scheduled to discuss term limits at an event hosted on Oct. 16 by Baruch College. Also scheduled to participate on the panel is Kenneth Moltner of New Yorkers for Term Limits; Richard Niemi, a Rochester University political science professor; and former city Corporation Counsel Frederick A.O. Schwartz. The event will be moderated by former Council Speaker Peter Vallone Sr., who is lobbying in favor of getting term limits extended. (Fittingly, the forum is part of the Peter F. Vallone Sr. Seminars in Government Lecture Series)."
"The mayor’s high visibility — and the near-collapse of two major New York City financial institutions — have stirred discussions among his advisers and outside analysts about whether the turmoil could strengthen the argument for Mr. Bloomberg to overturn the term limits law and serve four more years.Mr. Bloomberg, asked at a press conference Tuesday whether the Wall Street woes bolstered such a case, said he could see both sides. “There is an argument for experience,” he said. “There is an argument for change, and I think it’s purely a question of what you think the appropriate level of balance is.”
Is there any doubt where Bloomberg sees the balance lying? Councilman John Liu has another perspective: "A third term under those circumstances, they suggest, might be less than appealing — for Mr. Bloomberg and for voters. “As the economy goes south, so will his popularity ratings,” said City Councilman John C. Liu, a Democrat from Queens. “No one, not even this mayor, can control the economy.”
This is starting to shape up as a real political donnybrook; with the usual suspects puckering up in the usual ways: "Still, many of Mr. Bloomberg’s colleagues and associates see an opportunity in the current climate to make a case for a third term. “He is uniquely situated to understand this crisis and to cope with it,” said Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban policy at New York University and a former Bloomberg adviser."
All of which should make the upcoming round table discussion of term limits at Baruch College all the more interesting, with Councilman Koppell headlining: "While we're waiting for the bill to be drafted, Koppell is scheduled to discuss term limits at an event hosted on Oct. 16 by Baruch College. Also scheduled to participate on the panel is Kenneth Moltner of New Yorkers for Term Limits; Richard Niemi, a Rochester University political science professor; and former city Corporation Counsel Frederick A.O. Schwartz. The event will be moderated by former Council Speaker Peter Vallone Sr., who is lobbying in favor of getting term limits extended. (Fittingly, the forum is part of the Peter F. Vallone Sr. Seminars in Government Lecture Series)."
Abusing Eminent Domain Protested
A diverse coalition of business owners, community leaders and elected officials will be attending a state senate hearing on the abuse of eminent domain in New York City this morning. The hearing called by State Senator Bill Perkins, will focus on the way in which the current eminent domain law fails to provide due process for those who are threatened with condemnation.
Under the existing statute, there is virtually no due process available since it fails to provide any real adjudicating venue for those threatened: there is no opportunity for a trial on the merits of the condemnation; a trial that would allow those threatened to depose witnesses, subpoena economic development officials, and conduct a discovery to determine whether the taking of property is either legal or necessary.
The foundational weakness of the eminent domain law lies with the fact that it has allowed for the perversion of the constitutional principle that property should only be taken for a public use. Instead, NYS has changed public use into public purpose-without, however, defining just what a public purpose is. Without an adequate definition, the concept is so vague and malleable that virtually any project can be subsumed under its banner.
In addition, in order to be able to condemn some one's property, the state must be able to determine that the area in question is blighted. As with public purpose, however, there is no clear definition in the statute as to what the blight term means-allowing for almost any area to be labeled blighted and, owing to the definitional vagueness, preventing anyone threatened with condemnation from challenging the finding.
Joining together today at the hearing, and a press conference at 1:00PM in front of Fancy Cleaners on the corner of 126th Street and Third Avenue, will be State Senator Carl Kruger from Brooklyn and Council member (and state senator-elect) Hiram Monseratte from Queens. These elected officials will themselves be joined by Nick Spreyregen and Norman Siegel, from the fight against Columbia University's expansion, and business owners and workers from Willets Point.
In addition, Nellie Bailey from the Harlem Tenants will lead a contingent of community leaders and small business folks from East Harlem. This group is fighting the 5 acre development plan for 125th-127th Street at Second Avenue. Thirteen local businesses within the site are being forced out under the threat of eminent domain that would allows New York State under its agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, to seize private businesses & properties for wealthy private developers.Tenants cite inevitable displacement because of spiraling rents as landlords cash in on the mega development that will provide only about 200 units of "affordable" housing, even that is beyond the median income range of East Harlem predominately low income residents.
Small business leaders and labor officials will be joining with the various groups-in solidarity on the issue of how eminent domain is abused on behalf of the wealthy at the expense of workers and small businesses. Expected to attend this morning are Pat Purcell of Local 1500 of the UFCW, Jose Fernadz of the Bodega Association, Alfredo Placeras of the NYS Federation of Hispanc Chambers of Commerce, Stave Barrison of the Small Business Congress, and Louis Nunez of the Latino Restaurant Association.
Under the existing statute, there is virtually no due process available since it fails to provide any real adjudicating venue for those threatened: there is no opportunity for a trial on the merits of the condemnation; a trial that would allow those threatened to depose witnesses, subpoena economic development officials, and conduct a discovery to determine whether the taking of property is either legal or necessary.
The foundational weakness of the eminent domain law lies with the fact that it has allowed for the perversion of the constitutional principle that property should only be taken for a public use. Instead, NYS has changed public use into public purpose-without, however, defining just what a public purpose is. Without an adequate definition, the concept is so vague and malleable that virtually any project can be subsumed under its banner.
In addition, in order to be able to condemn some one's property, the state must be able to determine that the area in question is blighted. As with public purpose, however, there is no clear definition in the statute as to what the blight term means-allowing for almost any area to be labeled blighted and, owing to the definitional vagueness, preventing anyone threatened with condemnation from challenging the finding.
Joining together today at the hearing, and a press conference at 1:00PM in front of Fancy Cleaners on the corner of 126th Street and Third Avenue, will be State Senator Carl Kruger from Brooklyn and Council member (and state senator-elect) Hiram Monseratte from Queens. These elected officials will themselves be joined by Nick Spreyregen and Norman Siegel, from the fight against Columbia University's expansion, and business owners and workers from Willets Point.
In addition, Nellie Bailey from the Harlem Tenants will lead a contingent of community leaders and small business folks from East Harlem. This group is fighting the 5 acre development plan for 125th-127th Street at Second Avenue. Thirteen local businesses within the site are being forced out under the threat of eminent domain that would allows New York State under its agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, to seize private businesses & properties for wealthy private developers.Tenants cite inevitable displacement because of spiraling rents as landlords cash in on the mega development that will provide only about 200 units of "affordable" housing, even that is beyond the median income range of East Harlem predominately low income residents.
Small business leaders and labor officials will be joining with the various groups-in solidarity on the issue of how eminent domain is abused on behalf of the wealthy at the expense of workers and small businesses. Expected to attend this morning are Pat Purcell of Local 1500 of the UFCW, Jose Fernadz of the Bodega Association, Alfredo Placeras of the NYS Federation of Hispanc Chambers of Commerce, Stave Barrison of the Small Business Congress, and Louis Nunez of the Latino Restaurant Association.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Self-Caricature
The following from Azi probably needs no comment: "Oliver Koppell, the City Councilman who is introducing a bill to extend term limits from a maximum of two terms to a maximum of three, said what’s happening on Wall Street helps make his case. “To have a mayor that is knowledgeable about financial matters is good," Koppell said, referring to the very real possibility that Michael Bloomberg would seek a third term if the law were changed. "And we want the financial community to have confidence in the city as they’re making decisions in this very turbulent time.”
But comment we will. Can you imagine all of the discussions down at AIG right about now concerning the issue of term limits? Gee, if we only know that Mayor Mike will be around-more than a year from now-for another four years, we'll definitely be able to navigate this impending disaster so much better. You really can't make this up.
But comment we will. Can you imagine all of the discussions down at AIG right about now concerning the issue of term limits? Gee, if we only know that Mayor Mike will be around-more than a year from now-for another four years, we'll definitely be able to navigate this impending disaster so much better. You really can't make this up.
Peter in Wonderland
Peter Vallone Jr. took to the pages of the NY Post yesterday and argued that the current mayoral control governance system over the city's schools-along with the crack oversight of the city council-was working just great, and he uses the old dysfunctional Board of Ed as a straw man: "When the defunct Board of Education controlled city schools, making a criticism was like throwing sand in the wind. Unaccountable panels of functionaries made decisions in a byzantine process. Everyone was in charge, many were to blame, but no one was accountable. The council can often be a harsh critic of the administration, but this system of oversight works much better than the old contrary relationship between the mayor and the board-appointed chancellor. That system made for high drama and good headlines but little improvement. Students and their problems were ignored."
Now, however, the buck stops at the mayor's feet: "I HAVEN'T always agreed with Mayor Bloomberg on education matters, but it's good to know he's in charge of them - at least I know where the buck stops. As a member of the City Council's Education Committee, which oversees the Department of Education, I can't overstate the importance of this fact. Even when you get stonewalled, the wall lets you know you're facing in the right direction. With work, you can chip away or knock it down."
Of course, Peter doesn't point out how the mayor's lack of transparency, the information hoarding and the no bid contracting, has generally made oversight into a pro forma exercise around a few highly charged but marginal issues such as cell phone use. Much of the end running that goes on seems to be operating efficiently-that is, it's made an end run around Vallone's consciousness.
So we read this morning the following from the NY Sun: "State school officials are asking the city's Department of Education to explain how it failed to reach its own goal of reducing class sizes by using a new influx of state money. State officials said 54% of city schools saw either class sizes or their student-teacher ratios increase in the last school years, despite a $106 million plan the department unveiled last year to reduce class sizes in high-need schools."
And this from the NY Post: "The number of teachers without classroom assignments at the start of the school year - but receiving full pay - jumped by more than 13 percent since last year, according to new data. The pool of teachers known as the Absent Teacher Reserve - which grew from 1,220 teachers last year to 1,395 this year - has grown annually since a 2005 teachers' contract amendment gave principals more say over hiring decisions."
But at least we can hold hearings on this, and get what? Misdirection and obfuscation; but we can feel better knowing exactly where the stonewall lies. Seriously, the current system does offer a number of improvements over the old structure, but we can do without panegyrics from our elected officials=folks who need to exercise better skepticism in these kinds of matters.
Now, however, the buck stops at the mayor's feet: "I HAVEN'T always agreed with Mayor Bloomberg on education matters, but it's good to know he's in charge of them - at least I know where the buck stops. As a member of the City Council's Education Committee, which oversees the Department of Education, I can't overstate the importance of this fact. Even when you get stonewalled, the wall lets you know you're facing in the right direction. With work, you can chip away or knock it down."
Of course, Peter doesn't point out how the mayor's lack of transparency, the information hoarding and the no bid contracting, has generally made oversight into a pro forma exercise around a few highly charged but marginal issues such as cell phone use. Much of the end running that goes on seems to be operating efficiently-that is, it's made an end run around Vallone's consciousness.
So we read this morning the following from the NY Sun: "State school officials are asking the city's Department of Education to explain how it failed to reach its own goal of reducing class sizes by using a new influx of state money. State officials said 54% of city schools saw either class sizes or their student-teacher ratios increase in the last school years, despite a $106 million plan the department unveiled last year to reduce class sizes in high-need schools."
And this from the NY Post: "The number of teachers without classroom assignments at the start of the school year - but receiving full pay - jumped by more than 13 percent since last year, according to new data. The pool of teachers known as the Absent Teacher Reserve - which grew from 1,220 teachers last year to 1,395 this year - has grown annually since a 2005 teachers' contract amendment gave principals more say over hiring decisions."
But at least we can hold hearings on this, and get what? Misdirection and obfuscation; but we can feel better knowing exactly where the stonewall lies. Seriously, the current system does offer a number of improvements over the old structure, but we can do without panegyrics from our elected officials=folks who need to exercise better skepticism in these kinds of matters.
Chicken Little Wylde and Mayor Mike
As Yogi Berra might have said, "It's deja vu all over again." This time it's the fiscal crisis that is leading business leader Kathy Wylde to call for the extension of the mayor's term in office-mirroring the calls after 9/11 for the extension of Rudy's mayoral tenure. Here's how Azi at the Observer reported this quite expected cheer leading: "Turning to politics, Wylde said the financial crisis makes a “powerful argument" against Bloomberg being term-limited out of office.
“I think, and I don’t know this, but my guess is that he could have made up his mind this weekend,” she told me, referring to whether the mayor will decide to seek a change to the term-limits law so he can run for re-election."
Not to be out argued, our old buddy Mark Green rebuts this silliness over at the Daily Politics: "While today's Wall Street crisis is real, it'll significantly play itself out over his next 16 months as Mayor and doesn't come close to The War in Europe and 9/11 as calamities leading chief executives to rethink a third term in 1940, which worked, and a three month extension in 2001, which rightly failed. The 'indispensible man' argument is so Putin-like as to be unAmerican - and remember that it was Mike who earlier observed that he was against an undemocratic term limits extension since I've always said that the next guy can do it better. In a debate with himself, Mike was right last June but wrong today. If Wall Street's gonna be the excuse, why not just cancel the election and hire Buffet?"
Indeed so; in fact, this kind of crisis might only exacerbate all of the mayor's weaknesses, and at the same time encourage his imperiousness. For a full explication of the entire term limits debate take a look at the Gotham Gazette's analysis. The Gazette has a good section that analyzes what it calls, "constituent backlash." Here's a quote from Dean Birdsell over at Baruch: "This is not a good way to be having a debate," said David Birdsell, the dean of the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College. "It should not be a debate about individuals. It should be about structure of choice." For that reason, some members argue any change should be done prospectively for the next class of council members. The council, as a legislative body, could get all the benefits of a longer term (including, the enhanced ability to stand up to the all-powerful executive branch, experience to get larger policy initiatives passed, less reliance on staff members, etc.) without the political ramifications."
Would the backlash throw out the incumbents? "If thy made any change take effect immediately -- benefiting themselves -- political consultants say the council might see a backlash from the electorate, who could vote them out of office anyway. "There is a danger that the voters may revolt and might go in and elect (challengers)," said Shienkopf. On the other hand, the incumbents' popularity, particularly the mayor's, is precisely what's fueling the debate. More than 70 percent of voters approve of Bloomberg, according to a poll this summer by Quinnipiac University, but 56 percent don't want to see a change in term limit law."
Perhaps, but the mayor's popularity might turn out to be a thin reed, as voters see him reneging on an important public promise. And whatever popularity the mayor has, it doesn't extend to the council that would probably be seen as the major culprit in a self serving exercise. It does, however, make for one interesting political debate.
“I think, and I don’t know this, but my guess is that he could have made up his mind this weekend,” she told me, referring to whether the mayor will decide to seek a change to the term-limits law so he can run for re-election."
Not to be out argued, our old buddy Mark Green rebuts this silliness over at the Daily Politics: "While today's Wall Street crisis is real, it'll significantly play itself out over his next 16 months as Mayor and doesn't come close to The War in Europe and 9/11 as calamities leading chief executives to rethink a third term in 1940, which worked, and a three month extension in 2001, which rightly failed. The 'indispensible man' argument is so Putin-like as to be unAmerican - and remember that it was Mike who earlier observed that he was against an undemocratic term limits extension since I've always said that the next guy can do it better. In a debate with himself, Mike was right last June but wrong today. If Wall Street's gonna be the excuse, why not just cancel the election and hire Buffet?"
Indeed so; in fact, this kind of crisis might only exacerbate all of the mayor's weaknesses, and at the same time encourage his imperiousness. For a full explication of the entire term limits debate take a look at the Gotham Gazette's analysis. The Gazette has a good section that analyzes what it calls, "constituent backlash." Here's a quote from Dean Birdsell over at Baruch: "This is not a good way to be having a debate," said David Birdsell, the dean of the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College. "It should not be a debate about individuals. It should be about structure of choice." For that reason, some members argue any change should be done prospectively for the next class of council members. The council, as a legislative body, could get all the benefits of a longer term (including, the enhanced ability to stand up to the all-powerful executive branch, experience to get larger policy initiatives passed, less reliance on staff members, etc.) without the political ramifications."
Would the backlash throw out the incumbents? "If thy made any change take effect immediately -- benefiting themselves -- political consultants say the council might see a backlash from the electorate, who could vote them out of office anyway. "There is a danger that the voters may revolt and might go in and elect (challengers)," said Shienkopf. On the other hand, the incumbents' popularity, particularly the mayor's, is precisely what's fueling the debate. More than 70 percent of voters approve of Bloomberg, according to a poll this summer by Quinnipiac University, but 56 percent don't want to see a change in term limit law."
Perhaps, but the mayor's popularity might turn out to be a thin reed, as voters see him reneging on an important public promise. And whatever popularity the mayor has, it doesn't extend to the council that would probably be seen as the major culprit in a self serving exercise. It does, however, make for one interesting political debate.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Spoiling for a Food Fight
In today's NY post, the paper highlights what is described as a, "Spoiler Alert," an expose of supposed violations of health regs by the city's bodegas and small restaurants: "Many owners of local bodegas, delis and other small food businesses are routinely violating health laws - and imperiling their customers' health - by transporting perishable food in nonrefrigerated vehicles after buying it wholesale, a Post investigation has found."
What's real here, and what's not? What we do know is this. The city's thirteen thousand bodegas and 15,000 or so small restaurants have been using the cash-and-carry methodology for the past four decades-without any kind of health epidemic that would be expected from the allegations that the paper breathlessly writes about today: "By law, such food must be transported at temperatures of less than 45 degrees Fahrenheit to prevent the growth of bacteria such as salmonella and listeria that can sicken or even kill. And meat and poultry, whose drippings can contaminate other food, must be kept segregated."
We're not sure that this is accurate, but we are sure that the city's small food businesses remain competitive and provide local stores and restaurants with healthy and affordable food and meals because of warehouse businesses such as Jetro. We also know that large out of town wholesalers would love to be able to deliver directly to all of these small outlets-at greatly higher costs to the businesses and their customers (most of whom are already paying drastically higher food prices).
And there are ways to keep products cool without using refrigerated trucks: "When told about what The Post reporter witnessed, Joseph Ferrara, director of the state Agriculture Department's division of food safety and inspection, said, "We've found similar problems." He said that in the majority of cases, buyers at wholesale outlets are not using any refrigeration for the food or "they're typically using coolers."
Did the Post examine all of these vehicles? From what we've been told, as long as trips are relatively short and local, there is no law mandated refrigerated conveyance vehicles. As Jetro told the paper: "Stanley Fleishman, CEO of the company that operates 58 Restaurant Depot and Jetro food wholesalers nationwide, said, "We do not believe there is a problem with transporting perishables because we have programs to address the challenge and customers who need to stay in business."
Nor do we think there is a huge health issue here; and in the absence of statistics on food borne illnesses, we really think that the entire article is a hit piece, a scare tactic, instigated by companies that are upset that they aren't able to deliver their goods as economically as the Jetros of the city, in symbiosis with the bodegueros and small restaurants, can manage.
What's real here, and what's not? What we do know is this. The city's thirteen thousand bodegas and 15,000 or so small restaurants have been using the cash-and-carry methodology for the past four decades-without any kind of health epidemic that would be expected from the allegations that the paper breathlessly writes about today: "By law, such food must be transported at temperatures of less than 45 degrees Fahrenheit to prevent the growth of bacteria such as salmonella and listeria that can sicken or even kill. And meat and poultry, whose drippings can contaminate other food, must be kept segregated."
We're not sure that this is accurate, but we are sure that the city's small food businesses remain competitive and provide local stores and restaurants with healthy and affordable food and meals because of warehouse businesses such as Jetro. We also know that large out of town wholesalers would love to be able to deliver directly to all of these small outlets-at greatly higher costs to the businesses and their customers (most of whom are already paying drastically higher food prices).
And there are ways to keep products cool without using refrigerated trucks: "When told about what The Post reporter witnessed, Joseph Ferrara, director of the state Agriculture Department's division of food safety and inspection, said, "We've found similar problems." He said that in the majority of cases, buyers at wholesale outlets are not using any refrigeration for the food or "they're typically using coolers."
Did the Post examine all of these vehicles? From what we've been told, as long as trips are relatively short and local, there is no law mandated refrigerated conveyance vehicles. As Jetro told the paper: "Stanley Fleishman, CEO of the company that operates 58 Restaurant Depot and Jetro food wholesalers nationwide, said, "We do not believe there is a problem with transporting perishables because we have programs to address the challenge and customers who need to stay in business."
Nor do we think there is a huge health issue here; and in the absence of statistics on food borne illnesses, we really think that the entire article is a hit piece, a scare tactic, instigated by companies that are upset that they aren't able to deliver their goods as economically as the Jetros of the city, in symbiosis with the bodegueros and small restaurants, can manage.
Shelly's Shot Across the Bow
In this morning's NY Daily News, Liz Benjamin reports that Shelly Silver is warning Mayor Mike-who curiously never phoned him on his big victory last week-not to override the will of the people on term limits: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has a warning for Mayor Bloomberg: Change term limits at your own risk. "I think people will be angry at him ... and his approval ratings will go down," Silver said. "But he's got to make that determination, not me." "I'm opposed to term limits," he continued. "But the people still voted for them twice."
If the mayor and his band of merry men and women on the other side of city hall ignore Silver it could lead to four years of fierce fighting-beginning with the mayoral control of the schools issue that will come to a head as the current law sunsets in June of 09. Bloomberg can anticipate a fierce grilling and major changes to the current governance system should he go ahead and extend the term limits law in this fashion.
As Liz reminds us: "If the mayor does a deal with the City Council to extend term limits and then runs and wins in 2009, he would be facing four more years of wrangling with Silver - the very man who has stymied high-profile Bloomberg legacy projects like the West Side stadium and congestion pricing."
If the mayor and his band of merry men and women on the other side of city hall ignore Silver it could lead to four years of fierce fighting-beginning with the mayoral control of the schools issue that will come to a head as the current law sunsets in June of 09. Bloomberg can anticipate a fierce grilling and major changes to the current governance system should he go ahead and extend the term limits law in this fashion.
As Liz reminds us: "If the mayor does a deal with the City Council to extend term limits and then runs and wins in 2009, he would be facing four more years of wrangling with Silver - the very man who has stymied high-profile Bloomberg legacy projects like the West Side stadium and congestion pricing."
Science Fare
Just as we continue to see the ramping up of the efforts to regalize Mayor Mike, we find this small, but illuminating story from the NY Post: "The Department of Education's multimillion-dollar science project is falling further behind the curve - and leaving teachers' heads spinning.
A test that was to be a key element in a $60 million science curriculum, which had been unveiled nearly two years ago to improve subpar scores, is now being postponed for the second straight year. A spokesman cited "budget issues."
Another example of the way in which the DOE operates below the radar of an uninquisitive press corp-and if Bloomberg gets his way for a third Quinn-aided term, this failure of oversight will be perpetuated for an additional four years. Money is spent, independent review is absent, and we get the continuing soap opera of term limits instead of diligent governance.
Here's the final Post info on this typical DOE fiasco: "The DOE spent $30 million last year on textbooks and training for 2,700 teachers and plans to spend another $30 million over the next two years. "We really don't know what's going on," said a third-grade teacher from the Upper West Side. "I'm preparing my kids for reading and math tests [and] worrying about teaching science and preparing them for that test but apparently for nothing."
But that's not all. In this morning's Post-and thank you NY Post for tracking all of this- we get the following about the city's T&G program: "The Department of Education is shelling out more than $1 million to defray the costs of empty seats in under-enrolled gifted and talented programs - vacant slots that parents attribute to bureaucratic bungling." Another example of inefficiency-and with greater degree of transparency and oversight what else do you think will float to the surface down at Chambers Street?
A test that was to be a key element in a $60 million science curriculum, which had been unveiled nearly two years ago to improve subpar scores, is now being postponed for the second straight year. A spokesman cited "budget issues."
Another example of the way in which the DOE operates below the radar of an uninquisitive press corp-and if Bloomberg gets his way for a third Quinn-aided term, this failure of oversight will be perpetuated for an additional four years. Money is spent, independent review is absent, and we get the continuing soap opera of term limits instead of diligent governance.
Here's the final Post info on this typical DOE fiasco: "The DOE spent $30 million last year on textbooks and training for 2,700 teachers and plans to spend another $30 million over the next two years. "We really don't know what's going on," said a third-grade teacher from the Upper West Side. "I'm preparing my kids for reading and math tests [and] worrying about teaching science and preparing them for that test but apparently for nothing."
But that's not all. In this morning's Post-and thank you NY Post for tracking all of this- we get the following about the city's T&G program: "The Department of Education is shelling out more than $1 million to defray the costs of empty seats in under-enrolled gifted and talented programs - vacant slots that parents attribute to bureaucratic bungling." Another example of inefficiency-and with greater degree of transparency and oversight what else do you think will float to the surface down at Chambers Street?
Interminable Debate
According to Adam Lisberg at the NY Daily News, city council members are awaiting divine intervention before making any moves to extend term limits: "The natives are restless. But they still fear the king. They want to keep their jobs, their taxpayer-funded offices, their special parking permits - and they're willing to ignore the will of the people to do it, because they think Mayor Bloomberg is on their side..."The members we've spoken to aren't going to go out there and run it up the flagpole unless the mayor runs it up the flagpole first," said one person deeply involved in the discussions. "Nobody wants to go out there and have him veto it and then end up looking foolish."
Carpe Diem-Not! It looks as if no one down at city hall wants to get too far out in front of Mayor Mike on all of this: "The votes are there to pass it," said Lewis Fidler (D-Brooklyn), one of the Council members doing the counting. "Some would only vote 'yes' if the mayor would be willing to sign it - I would guess as many as 10. If the mayor opposed it, I don't know if it would ever come to a vote."
So we guess that,as we have oft stated before, it's up to Bloomberg to come out publicly here if he truly wants to void the will of the people on this issue-and run the risk of tarnishing his legacy, as it were. That is Mark Green's point, expressed well in yesterday's News: "Bloomberg has come to his fork in the road: One route ends with his reputation and legacy intact as an accomplished, nonpartisan mayor. The other leads to a dead end where no one can ever again believe what he says, which convulses ongoing city elections, and that allows him to run and then either lose because of a public backlash or win ugly, by the weight of his wealth." Indeed. And Green is also on point with the following: "It's one thing to change your mind on, say, whether the tax code should impose a 30% or 38% top rate or whether to continue supporting a war after it goes bad. It's quite another thing to do a 180 when you are ignoring voters to benefit yourself. The issue is not so much term limits, as Queens Councilman John Liu said, but who decides. "Is it 52 people - the mayor and 51 council members - or 8 million people?" Reasonable people can differ over whether there should be term limits at all, or if so whether it should be two or three terms. But reasonable people cannot allow ambitious politicians to veto voters."
Perhaps making a bad situation worse is the following tidbit from yesterday's NY Post: "Mayor Bloomberg wants to ensure that Christine Quinn keeps her post as City Council speaker before he decides whether to extend term limits, according to political insiders. "This is a lot more real than people realize," said one insider, speaking of Bloomberg's flirtation with a third term. "What happens to Chris Quinn is a big issue for him."
So Mayor Mike may not only want to give himself a third term, he may also want to insure that his "partner in government" rides along in a self made bicycle built for two: "The insider said the mayor is making calls to line up support for Quinn so he wouldn't have to deal with a new speaker if the term-limits law is revamped. She and Bloomberg have formed an unusually close political alliance over the last three years, a sharp contrast to the mayor's antagonistic dealings with the previous speaker, Gifford Miller."
But there's no guarantee of the speaker's longevity: "Even if Bloomberg decides to support a change in term limits from eight years to 12 - a move that would allow him and Quinn to run again for their current jobs - there's no guarantee she'd retain her powerful leadership position in 2010...Some council members complain that Quinn has been too accommodating to the mayor, especially in the last budget, which required them to slash $129 million in council priorities to restore cuts the administration made to schools."
The one compelling reason, then, for giving the city council three terms-bolstering its institutional power-would then be wiped out in the manner that Austrian independence was wiped out in the Anschluss with Nazi Germany. And in the process, all checks and balances would go out the window and a real coronation would inexorably follow; a real disaster for good government in NYC.
Carpe Diem-Not! It looks as if no one down at city hall wants to get too far out in front of Mayor Mike on all of this: "The votes are there to pass it," said Lewis Fidler (D-Brooklyn), one of the Council members doing the counting. "Some would only vote 'yes' if the mayor would be willing to sign it - I would guess as many as 10. If the mayor opposed it, I don't know if it would ever come to a vote."
So we guess that,as we have oft stated before, it's up to Bloomberg to come out publicly here if he truly wants to void the will of the people on this issue-and run the risk of tarnishing his legacy, as it were. That is Mark Green's point, expressed well in yesterday's News: "Bloomberg has come to his fork in the road: One route ends with his reputation and legacy intact as an accomplished, nonpartisan mayor. The other leads to a dead end where no one can ever again believe what he says, which convulses ongoing city elections, and that allows him to run and then either lose because of a public backlash or win ugly, by the weight of his wealth." Indeed. And Green is also on point with the following: "It's one thing to change your mind on, say, whether the tax code should impose a 30% or 38% top rate or whether to continue supporting a war after it goes bad. It's quite another thing to do a 180 when you are ignoring voters to benefit yourself. The issue is not so much term limits, as Queens Councilman John Liu said, but who decides. "Is it 52 people - the mayor and 51 council members - or 8 million people?" Reasonable people can differ over whether there should be term limits at all, or if so whether it should be two or three terms. But reasonable people cannot allow ambitious politicians to veto voters."
Perhaps making a bad situation worse is the following tidbit from yesterday's NY Post: "Mayor Bloomberg wants to ensure that Christine Quinn keeps her post as City Council speaker before he decides whether to extend term limits, according to political insiders. "This is a lot more real than people realize," said one insider, speaking of Bloomberg's flirtation with a third term. "What happens to Chris Quinn is a big issue for him."
So Mayor Mike may not only want to give himself a third term, he may also want to insure that his "partner in government" rides along in a self made bicycle built for two: "The insider said the mayor is making calls to line up support for Quinn so he wouldn't have to deal with a new speaker if the term-limits law is revamped. She and Bloomberg have formed an unusually close political alliance over the last three years, a sharp contrast to the mayor's antagonistic dealings with the previous speaker, Gifford Miller."
But there's no guarantee of the speaker's longevity: "Even if Bloomberg decides to support a change in term limits from eight years to 12 - a move that would allow him and Quinn to run again for their current jobs - there's no guarantee she'd retain her powerful leadership position in 2010...Some council members complain that Quinn has been too accommodating to the mayor, especially in the last budget, which required them to slash $129 million in council priorities to restore cuts the administration made to schools."
The one compelling reason, then, for giving the city council three terms-bolstering its institutional power-would then be wiped out in the manner that Austrian independence was wiped out in the Anschluss with Nazi Germany. And in the process, all checks and balances would go out the window and a real coronation would inexorably follow; a real disaster for good government in NYC.
Term Limits are Healthy...For Whom?
On Saturday the NY Times outlined just how a term limits extension would aggrandize the health benefits of council members and their staffs: "But should they succeed, many stand to gain a significant financial perk: lifetime retiree health insurance that costs the city up to $12,600 a year. Those benefits could amount to millions of dollars in expenses over the next few decades, especially as health insurance costs surge, according to interviews with city officials."
The Times goes on to point out: "Changing term limits to three consecutive terms instead of two, as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and members of the Council have hinted they might, would allow those officials — and members of their staff — to hit the 10-year mark without having to look for a new job with the city." And just like that, the health insurance crisis that is hitting so many average Americans would be eliminated for the term extenders.
We are eagerly awaiting Ollie Koppell's public defense of the extension; that is, if his colleagues feel that he should continue in his well exercised role as term limits spokesman. Here's the Citizens Union's Take: "But the benefit could still open those who support changing the rule to fresh charges of self-dealing. “It’s great work if you can get it — and if you can keep it, because of the benefits,” said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a nonprofit watchdog group in the city."
Councilman Alan Gerson makes a good point on this concerning perception: "Like many council members, Mr. Gerson said that retiree health insurance is not a motivation for changing term limits because working for the city or state for 10 years is not an especially high hurdle. “Just about any council member who wants to can get a job with the city,” after they leave office, he said. As for the cost of adding council members to the retiree health rolls, he said: “I just don’t see this as a budget issue. It’s a policy issue, and it may be a perception issue — legitimately so.”
We simply can't wait for this to get a full head of steam. The exposure here will do wonders for open government for years to come.
The Times goes on to point out: "Changing term limits to three consecutive terms instead of two, as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and members of the Council have hinted they might, would allow those officials — and members of their staff — to hit the 10-year mark without having to look for a new job with the city." And just like that, the health insurance crisis that is hitting so many average Americans would be eliminated for the term extenders.
We are eagerly awaiting Ollie Koppell's public defense of the extension; that is, if his colleagues feel that he should continue in his well exercised role as term limits spokesman. Here's the Citizens Union's Take: "But the benefit could still open those who support changing the rule to fresh charges of self-dealing. “It’s great work if you can get it — and if you can keep it, because of the benefits,” said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a nonprofit watchdog group in the city."
Councilman Alan Gerson makes a good point on this concerning perception: "Like many council members, Mr. Gerson said that retiree health insurance is not a motivation for changing term limits because working for the city or state for 10 years is not an especially high hurdle. “Just about any council member who wants to can get a job with the city,” after they leave office, he said. As for the cost of adding council members to the retiree health rolls, he said: “I just don’t see this as a budget issue. It’s a policy issue, and it may be a perception issue — legitimately so.”
We simply can't wait for this to get a full head of steam. The exposure here will do wonders for open government for years to come.
Water Boarding Tripp
The NY Post reported on Saturday about the forced resignation of Jim Tripp, the current chair of the city's Water Board: "A respected environmentalist who publicly criticized City Hall's soaking of water ratepayers was forced out by Mayor Bloomberg yesterday as chairman of the Water Board. Jim Tripp, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund and a 16-year member of the Water Board, unexpectedly announced his resignation at a routine meeting of the panel in lower Manhattan."
Tripp is reportedly being replaced by a long time government bureaucrat, someone who know doubt, will be more amenable to the persistent mayoral soaking that we've come to expect from the agency that sets water rates. Here's the Post's take on his replacement: "Moss told The Post he agreed with Tripp that "we don't want the city budget to be balanced on [water] rates." But he parted ways on tactics. Moss, whose government service dates back five decades to the Wagner era, was the only board member who wouldn't sign a letter to City Hall questioning the rental agreement. "You don't do that until you've exhausted everything else," Moss said. "My experience and take on the matter is you fight this out first with various agencies of the city internally."
Translation-"I'm not gonna do anything stupid by rocking the boat and embarrassing the mayor for his inept DEP." This is another example of the imperiousness of the Bloombergistas. As the NY Daily News highlights: "Water Board Chairman James Tripp quit Friday amid speculation that he was forced out after slamming city officials for draining more than $76 million from the system that could be used to hold the line on rate hikes."Jim Tripp spoke out against what the mayor was doing about the diversion of funds and this is what he got for his efforts," said Councilman James Gennaro (D-Queens), who opposed rate hikes and spotlighted a controversial rental compact."
The way in which water rates are miscalculated in this city is an open scandal-even Law and Order did an episode on the issue-and Mayor Mike continues to allow the agency to run rudderless; with the clueless Emily Lloyd at the helm. The only thing absent here is the lack of a crane collapse that would force the mayor to act to insure competency at this poster child for bureaucratic skulduggery.
Tripp is reportedly being replaced by a long time government bureaucrat, someone who know doubt, will be more amenable to the persistent mayoral soaking that we've come to expect from the agency that sets water rates. Here's the Post's take on his replacement: "Moss told The Post he agreed with Tripp that "we don't want the city budget to be balanced on [water] rates." But he parted ways on tactics. Moss, whose government service dates back five decades to the Wagner era, was the only board member who wouldn't sign a letter to City Hall questioning the rental agreement. "You don't do that until you've exhausted everything else," Moss said. "My experience and take on the matter is you fight this out first with various agencies of the city internally."
Translation-"I'm not gonna do anything stupid by rocking the boat and embarrassing the mayor for his inept DEP." This is another example of the imperiousness of the Bloombergistas. As the NY Daily News highlights: "Water Board Chairman James Tripp quit Friday amid speculation that he was forced out after slamming city officials for draining more than $76 million from the system that could be used to hold the line on rate hikes."Jim Tripp spoke out against what the mayor was doing about the diversion of funds and this is what he got for his efforts," said Councilman James Gennaro (D-Queens), who opposed rate hikes and spotlighted a controversial rental compact."
The way in which water rates are miscalculated in this city is an open scandal-even Law and Order did an episode on the issue-and Mayor Mike continues to allow the agency to run rudderless; with the clueless Emily Lloyd at the helm. The only thing absent here is the lack of a crane collapse that would force the mayor to act to insure competency at this poster child for bureaucratic skulduggery.
Friday, September 12, 2008
F Who?
In this morning's City Room Blog, Jennifer Lee reports on the fact that a Brooklyn Heights elementary school, praised by the mayor two years ago, may soon receive an "F" on the DOE's "complicated" grading system: "A respected Brooklyn Heights elementary school, so popular in its gentrifying neighborhood that it has doubled enrollment since 2002, is set to get an F in the second year of the Bloomberg administration’s heavily contested system of grading individual schools, which has renewed questions about the methodology behind the grades."
Questions indeed! Just another example of the smoke, mirrors and methodological miasma that is part and parcel of the DOE's educational governance system. As Lee enlightens us: "The letter grades are based on a complicated formula that gives the most weight to children’s progress from one year to the next and compares the overall number meeting state achievement standards with the number at schools serving demographically similar populations. As a result, the report cards can label even a seemingly successful school as a failure."
Does everyone get that? It reminds us of Tom Lehrer's ditty, "The New Math." "Hooray for New Math, New-hoo-hoo Math, It won't do you a bit of good to review math. It's so simple, So very simple, That only a child can do it!"
Perhaps so, but it may also mean the kind of bureaucratic obfuscation that allows the evaluators to come to any conclusion they want. It would seem that way since, "The school, Public School 8, was once avoided by the well-off residents of neighboring brownstones but has been the paragon of a turnaround tale in recent years, leading Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to declare in 2006 that if the rest of New York’s schools made similar strides, “the future of this city would be assured.”
It's time to set fire to this educational edifice-and bring some needed sunlight into the room. We'll give the last word to Harriet Brown, a Daily News letter writer responding to the paper's panegyric to mayoral control: " I strongly disagree with your editorial "Keep mayoral control" (Sept. 8). The law should at least be modified to add checks and balances. Our mayor believes that education can be measured only by test scores. So, too much class time is spent on test preparation. Then, if scores aren't what he wants them to be, he labels the school as "failing," closes it and replaces it instead of improving the school. Also, he hired highly paid business consultants who came up with hare-brained schemes. And he doesn't understand that sometimes schools have to be closed because of weather. Every child is an individual and learns differently. One size does not fit all. If mayoral control is kept, it should be modified to include more input from parents and teachers."
Questions indeed! Just another example of the smoke, mirrors and methodological miasma that is part and parcel of the DOE's educational governance system. As Lee enlightens us: "The letter grades are based on a complicated formula that gives the most weight to children’s progress from one year to the next and compares the overall number meeting state achievement standards with the number at schools serving demographically similar populations. As a result, the report cards can label even a seemingly successful school as a failure."
Does everyone get that? It reminds us of Tom Lehrer's ditty, "The New Math." "Hooray for New Math, New-hoo-hoo Math, It won't do you a bit of good to review math. It's so simple, So very simple, That only a child can do it!"
Perhaps so, but it may also mean the kind of bureaucratic obfuscation that allows the evaluators to come to any conclusion they want. It would seem that way since, "The school, Public School 8, was once avoided by the well-off residents of neighboring brownstones but has been the paragon of a turnaround tale in recent years, leading Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to declare in 2006 that if the rest of New York’s schools made similar strides, “the future of this city would be assured.”
It's time to set fire to this educational edifice-and bring some needed sunlight into the room. We'll give the last word to Harriet Brown, a Daily News letter writer responding to the paper's panegyric to mayoral control: " I strongly disagree with your editorial "Keep mayoral control" (Sept. 8). The law should at least be modified to add checks and balances. Our mayor believes that education can be measured only by test scores. So, too much class time is spent on test preparation. Then, if scores aren't what he wants them to be, he labels the school as "failing," closes it and replaces it instead of improving the school. Also, he hired highly paid business consultants who came up with hare-brained schemes. And he doesn't understand that sometimes schools have to be closed because of weather. Every child is an individual and learns differently. One size does not fit all. If mayoral control is kept, it should be modified to include more input from parents and teachers."
JackAssessment
In today's NY Daily News, Juan Gonzales examines the crack assessment techniques of the city in regards to the new Yankee Stadium: "In January 2007, the city assessed land under the new Yankee Stadium at 10 times the market value of virtually all other land in the South Bronx neighborhood. The assessment - not including the new ballpark - worked out to a fair market value of $275 per square foot. But a Daily News analysis of city property records shows that city assessors said land on a dozen blocks around the site was worth an average of less than $25 a square foot."
The city responded as follows: "Assistant Finance Commissioner Sam Miller denied that allegation. "Finance estimated the value of the new Yankee Stadium accurately and independently by using a standard cost approach for new construction, and by comparing the costs to other new stadia around the country," Miller said."
Yet, as Gonzales points out: "Among the most astounding disparities:
- The site of a VIP parking garage that will be connected to the new stadium: $20 a square foot.
- Land under the old Yankee Stadium: $16 a square foot.
- Land under the giant Gateway Center mall, currently under construction a few blocks south of the stadium: $9 a square foot."
Last we heard, the Gateway Mall qualifies as new construction, Could its low assessment reflect a further city aggrandizement of its owner Steve Ross (close friend of Deputy Dan)?" In any case, there is a lot of shenanigans here, and if true, would raise asome serious questions about the political integrity of the Imperial Mayor's reign. After all, as Juan says, the assessment of Bronx parks has already been exposed: "This column reported on July 27 that a separate appraisal of the new stadium site done in 2006 - one the city commissioned and submitted to the National Park Service - claimed it was worth $46 a square foot. "Our assessors jacked up the numbers and the comparables...to justify the stadium bonds," a veteran Finance Department official said."
Who knows, if this all turns out to be a fraudulent process, maybe Mayor Mike could say, kinda like Charlie Rangel. that he just got confused because the assessors started to speak Spanish. Que Lastima, indeed.
The city responded as follows: "Assistant Finance Commissioner Sam Miller denied that allegation. "Finance estimated the value of the new Yankee Stadium accurately and independently by using a standard cost approach for new construction, and by comparing the costs to other new stadia around the country," Miller said."
Yet, as Gonzales points out: "Among the most astounding disparities:
- The site of a VIP parking garage that will be connected to the new stadium: $20 a square foot.
- Land under the old Yankee Stadium: $16 a square foot.
- Land under the giant Gateway Center mall, currently under construction a few blocks south of the stadium: $9 a square foot."
Last we heard, the Gateway Mall qualifies as new construction, Could its low assessment reflect a further city aggrandizement of its owner Steve Ross (close friend of Deputy Dan)?" In any case, there is a lot of shenanigans here, and if true, would raise asome serious questions about the political integrity of the Imperial Mayor's reign. After all, as Juan says, the assessment of Bronx parks has already been exposed: "This column reported on July 27 that a separate appraisal of the new stadium site done in 2006 - one the city commissioned and submitted to the National Park Service - claimed it was worth $46 a square foot. "Our assessors jacked up the numbers and the comparables...to justify the stadium bonds," a veteran Finance Department official said."
Who knows, if this all turns out to be a fraudulent process, maybe Mayor Mike could say, kinda like Charlie Rangel. that he just got confused because the assessors started to speak Spanish. Que Lastima, indeed.
Ollie and the Public Pulse
According to the City Room Blog, Councilman Ollie Koppell isn't seeing any strong public response to his term limits extension bill: “I have gotten much, much less commentary than I anticipated,” said Mr. Koppell, a Democrat representing the Riverdale section of the Bronx. “I thought I would get a flood of e-mails. We have gotten, maybe, a few negative phone calls. People that I’ve seen on the street tell me only that they saw an article with my name in the paper. But they don’t say anything else.”
Well, if we were Ollie we wouldn't necessary get comfortable with this view-perhaps most of Riverdale was on summer hiatus and hadn't yet heard that Koppell was leading the charge to over turn the will of the people. We're pretty certain that, once the folks are all back and paying attention, the veteran legislator will be hearing from his constituents. The blow back hasn't even gotten a good head of steam yet.
What's as interesting, and unsurprising coming from a thirty year office holder, is Koppell's negative take on direct democracy: “Personally, I don’t favor legislation by referendum,” Mr. Koppell said in an interview this week. “If you look at California, they have referendums on all kinds of things. And they are not necessarily in the best interest of the public.”
So what we have here is someone who not only believes in legislative longevity-ad nauseum, so to speak-but also the superior wisdom of the legislator: “I served for 23 years in the state Assembly, and I can tell you that some of the most effective people in the Legislature have been there for some time,” he said. “In fact, I always wanted the issue of extending term limits to come up while in office, because I always wanted to have a role in trying to change the laws.”
One could also observe that some of those long standing legislators-stamped with an indelible incumbency-have also been, well, crooks and dolts. Current headlines underscore this point: "Disgraced ex-lawmaker and union boss Brian McLaughlin is a secret witness in an FBI probe that led to Wednesday's arrest of a Queens pol on influence-peddling charges, the Daily News has learned. The ongoing investigation - which featured an undercover FBI agent trolling the Assembly floor for corrupt pols - has snared its first collar: Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio (D-Ozone Park)."
So this is all a fascinating political science debate-except for the inconvenient fact that Ollie's arguments are the most tendentious kind-those uttered with unmistakable self interest. Some of this quality is captured in his following observations: “In New York City, we have made it much easier for insurgents to run and to have a shot at beating an incumbent,” he said. “I haven’t seen a great hue and cry for term limits for State Legislature or for members of Congress. So, I don’t see the rationale for a system where council people should have term limits and no one else. It doesn’t make sense.”
Of course, it is next to impossible for term limits to be extended to the state and federal levels, given the onerous-no, nigh impossible-referendum process in New York State. If we could put term limits for all office holders on a statewide referendum, does Oliver Koppell truly believe that it wouldn't pass overwhelmingly?
Meanwhile, Tony Avella, has a different outlook, as the NY Sun reports today: "Council Member Tony Avella, who represents parts of Queens, said yesterday that he has directed the council's legal division to draft the legislation, which would require that any changes to term limits be enacted through a voter referendum." This, as the NY Daily News points out today, puts Speaker Quinn square in the middle. In our view, Koppell has a better measure of the pulse of his colleagues; Avella, however, better mirrors the depth of popular sentiment on this contentious issue. Where the Speaker stands remains, one might say, fluctuatingly contingent.
Thanks to Liz for the link.
Well, if we were Ollie we wouldn't necessary get comfortable with this view-perhaps most of Riverdale was on summer hiatus and hadn't yet heard that Koppell was leading the charge to over turn the will of the people. We're pretty certain that, once the folks are all back and paying attention, the veteran legislator will be hearing from his constituents. The blow back hasn't even gotten a good head of steam yet.
What's as interesting, and unsurprising coming from a thirty year office holder, is Koppell's negative take on direct democracy: “Personally, I don’t favor legislation by referendum,” Mr. Koppell said in an interview this week. “If you look at California, they have referendums on all kinds of things. And they are not necessarily in the best interest of the public.”
So what we have here is someone who not only believes in legislative longevity-ad nauseum, so to speak-but also the superior wisdom of the legislator: “I served for 23 years in the state Assembly, and I can tell you that some of the most effective people in the Legislature have been there for some time,” he said. “In fact, I always wanted the issue of extending term limits to come up while in office, because I always wanted to have a role in trying to change the laws.”
One could also observe that some of those long standing legislators-stamped with an indelible incumbency-have also been, well, crooks and dolts. Current headlines underscore this point: "Disgraced ex-lawmaker and union boss Brian McLaughlin is a secret witness in an FBI probe that led to Wednesday's arrest of a Queens pol on influence-peddling charges, the Daily News has learned. The ongoing investigation - which featured an undercover FBI agent trolling the Assembly floor for corrupt pols - has snared its first collar: Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio (D-Ozone Park)."
So this is all a fascinating political science debate-except for the inconvenient fact that Ollie's arguments are the most tendentious kind-those uttered with unmistakable self interest. Some of this quality is captured in his following observations: “In New York City, we have made it much easier for insurgents to run and to have a shot at beating an incumbent,” he said. “I haven’t seen a great hue and cry for term limits for State Legislature or for members of Congress. So, I don’t see the rationale for a system where council people should have term limits and no one else. It doesn’t make sense.”
Of course, it is next to impossible for term limits to be extended to the state and federal levels, given the onerous-no, nigh impossible-referendum process in New York State. If we could put term limits for all office holders on a statewide referendum, does Oliver Koppell truly believe that it wouldn't pass overwhelmingly?
Meanwhile, Tony Avella, has a different outlook, as the NY Sun reports today: "Council Member Tony Avella, who represents parts of Queens, said yesterday that he has directed the council's legal division to draft the legislation, which would require that any changes to term limits be enacted through a voter referendum." This, as the NY Daily News points out today, puts Speaker Quinn square in the middle. In our view, Koppell has a better measure of the pulse of his colleagues; Avella, however, better mirrors the depth of popular sentiment on this contentious issue. Where the Speaker stands remains, one might say, fluctuatingly contingent.
Thanks to Liz for the link.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Educating Educators
This just in from the NY Post; the DOE has just devised another management gimmick designed to help city schools become better at educating our kids: "The Department of Education is assembling a million-dollar team charged with getting schools to learn from one another how best to educate their students, The Post has learned. The 10-person team will have a budget of more than $1 million and will be headed by a "director of knowledge management." The initiative will create a computerized "warehouse" that will allow schools to share ideas about organization, scheduling and other aspects of educating kids."
Oh, good grief! Another whiz kid style management approach from an unaccountable agency that hasn't really figured out how to do simple teaching with any degree of efficiency. But the innovations, unexamined by any one without an axe to grind, just keep coming-shining examples no doubt, that will soon be on Power Point display before the bribed and the bought.
And check this management team concept out: "One will help about 20 schools learn how to pinpoint concepts students are struggling with, and the other will show teachers at 25 middle schools how to tailor their lessons for each student." This is simply the marriage of an old educating dowager with a young management stud. More smoke and mirrors from a department whose time may be about to come to a deserved end.
Oh, good grief! Another whiz kid style management approach from an unaccountable agency that hasn't really figured out how to do simple teaching with any degree of efficiency. But the innovations, unexamined by any one without an axe to grind, just keep coming-shining examples no doubt, that will soon be on Power Point display before the bribed and the bought.
And check this management team concept out: "One will help about 20 schools learn how to pinpoint concepts students are struggling with, and the other will show teachers at 25 middle schools how to tailor their lessons for each student." This is simply the marriage of an old educating dowager with a young management stud. More smoke and mirrors from a department whose time may be about to come to a deserved end.
Bloomberg's Dream
In this week's Village Voice, Tom Robbins depicts a poignant dream sequence. After toying with us for the better part of a year on a non run for the presidency, Mayor Mike is now engaged in similar musings over term limits:
"Bloomberg looked at the daylight seeping past the drawn curtains in the shrouded bedroom. He wondered if he should fly the jet down to the Bahamas this weekend or just hang out at the horse farm in North Salem. And then the feeling returned in a rush. His pulse leaped as it hit him: Term limits! He had decided to crush them! At the end of the dinner, Steve Rattner and Jerry Speyer—Bloomberg considered them both solid guys who understood politics the way only successful businessmen can—had taken him aside and pushed him hard about a third term. The city needs him, they insisted. He had plans to finish. Most of all, the wannabe mayors waiting in the wings were second-rate. Nobody can handle this city like you, they said. "Aren't you forgetting a little something?" he said. "Like the two-term limit and the two referendums that approved it?" Not a problem, they responded. What he needed to do was to get Quinn to pass a bill adding one more term."
And now the mayor's dream is threatening to turn into the city's nightmare, as the entire election cycle is being put into disarray because of the mayor's speculations-and the thought that Speaker Quinn, weakened by scandals at the council, would jump at an additional four years: ""Oh, I don't think so," Bloomberg shot back. "I thought the Council Speaker was pretty definite back in December when she announced she wouldn't change the rules. I think she said it was her 'firm and final position."
"Rattner looked at him queerly. "Are you kidding?" he asked. "She'd jump at it. She knows her City Hall hopes went down the drain with that funding probe. She'd love to just get another term as Speaker, maybe give people time to forget her little problem."
And so she may, as long as the mayor publicly signals that he'll support the legislative efforts on this. What Robbins underscores, is the extent to which all of this speculation is undergirded by the city's power elite-and the likely cheer leading from the fourth estate: "Not a problem," said Speyer. "Count on it. Hell, I bet Rupert will put you on the Post's front page every day, like he did for Koch in '82 when he got him to run for governor. And I've spoken to Mort Zuckerman. He loves the idea. He says he'll have his hitmen on the News editorial page rip to shreds anyone who gets in your way. Sulzberger won't say it outright, but talk to him. He's for it."
Now, however, the time for dreaming must end; Mike Bloomberg, avoiding serious scrutiny and bolstered by a rather incurious media, is nowhere near as indispensable as those who have benefited lavishly from his tenure would have you believe. Let's not forget just how laughable the Bloomberg candidacy was in the Spring of 2001. There are capable people waiting in the wings. Bloomberg is one hell of a charitable guy, so we suggest he do the right thing here; New York would receive no better gift than his timely departure.
"Bloomberg looked at the daylight seeping past the drawn curtains in the shrouded bedroom. He wondered if he should fly the jet down to the Bahamas this weekend or just hang out at the horse farm in North Salem. And then the feeling returned in a rush. His pulse leaped as it hit him: Term limits! He had decided to crush them! At the end of the dinner, Steve Rattner and Jerry Speyer—Bloomberg considered them both solid guys who understood politics the way only successful businessmen can—had taken him aside and pushed him hard about a third term. The city needs him, they insisted. He had plans to finish. Most of all, the wannabe mayors waiting in the wings were second-rate. Nobody can handle this city like you, they said. "Aren't you forgetting a little something?" he said. "Like the two-term limit and the two referendums that approved it?" Not a problem, they responded. What he needed to do was to get Quinn to pass a bill adding one more term."
And now the mayor's dream is threatening to turn into the city's nightmare, as the entire election cycle is being put into disarray because of the mayor's speculations-and the thought that Speaker Quinn, weakened by scandals at the council, would jump at an additional four years: ""Oh, I don't think so," Bloomberg shot back. "I thought the Council Speaker was pretty definite back in December when she announced she wouldn't change the rules. I think she said it was her 'firm and final position."
"Rattner looked at him queerly. "Are you kidding?" he asked. "She'd jump at it. She knows her City Hall hopes went down the drain with that funding probe. She'd love to just get another term as Speaker, maybe give people time to forget her little problem."
And so she may, as long as the mayor publicly signals that he'll support the legislative efforts on this. What Robbins underscores, is the extent to which all of this speculation is undergirded by the city's power elite-and the likely cheer leading from the fourth estate: "Not a problem," said Speyer. "Count on it. Hell, I bet Rupert will put you on the Post's front page every day, like he did for Koch in '82 when he got him to run for governor. And I've spoken to Mort Zuckerman. He loves the idea. He says he'll have his hitmen on the News editorial page rip to shreds anyone who gets in your way. Sulzberger won't say it outright, but talk to him. He's for it."
Now, however, the time for dreaming must end; Mike Bloomberg, avoiding serious scrutiny and bolstered by a rather incurious media, is nowhere near as indispensable as those who have benefited lavishly from his tenure would have you believe. Let's not forget just how laughable the Bloomberg candidacy was in the Spring of 2001. There are capable people waiting in the wings. Bloomberg is one hell of a charitable guy, so we suggest he do the right thing here; New York would receive no better gift than his timely departure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
